On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> > A venerable feminist slogan is useful here, "If you're against
> > abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE."
> But we would have considered obvious
Obvious?
> but inadequate
>
> --"If you're against slavery, DON'T OWN ONE;" or
>
> --"If you're against the war on the Vietnamese, DON'T KILL ONE."
Yes, and you know why we would have considered them inadequate? Because slavery was wholly wrong and the Vietnam war was wholly unjustified.
So what makes this rhetorical form inadequate to slavery and war is exactly what makes it la phrase juste for abortion: because abortion isn't wholly wrong and isn't always unjustified. There is thus always a question to be settled. And after the larger trimestral limits have been set, those of us who favor this slogan feel the question involved should be settled privately rather than by the state. And that in the case of dispute, the deciding vote should be that of the woman involved. All of that is expressed quite concisely in that slogan.
I assume that those of you who think it's like the Vietnam war think abortion is always and everywhere wrong and unjustified; and that the deciding vote should be that of the state enforcing a criminal law. I assume you can see where we differ.
Michael