From: pww9211@zeus.tamu.edu (WINFREY, PHILIP WAYNE)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: This whole abortion thing.
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:08:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <009618BB.1EFDD120@Msu.oscs.montana.edu>, gcv2010@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes...
>In article <1OCT199209385238@rigel.tamu.edu>, pww9211@rigel.tamu.edu (WINFREY, PHILIP WAYNE) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.170222.812@news.eng.convex.com>, cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes...
>>>In article <NX5TRB2w164w@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us> heather@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us (Heather Freeman) writes:
>>>>Could someone please come up with a good argument against the following:
>>> 
>>>>        Complete access to abortion should be maintained because if it
>>>>        is restriction or eliminated the chances of women going to back
>>>>        alley abortionists would be greatly increased. Thus, more likely 
>>>>        that not, both the woman and the unborn child would die.  It is a 
>>>>        choice between two evils- one life or two, and the logical answer
>>>>        is one. Maintain the status of unlimited abortion
>>
>>
>>    The argument seems to rest on this assumption:  It's a bad idea
>>    to outlaw something if a lot of people are going to break the
>>    new law.
> 
>How do you explain Prohibition?  Or is that where we learned this assumption?

     Are you suggesting that because prohibition was repealed, that
     we should refrain, as a maxim, from prohibiting any activity
     which will continue to be engaged in even after it is outlawed?
     Number one, the repeal of prohibition had as much to do with
     the realization that the govt. was out of line in the first place
     as it did with any feeling of 'helplessness' on the govt.'s part.
     Number two, this is walking the fine line of a false analogy.


>  If you assume here that abortion is an evil, and should
>>    be outlawed, arguing that people may as a result endanger their
>>    lives by breaking the law is beyond the responsibility of the
>>    conscientious lawmaker.
>>
>>    The woman who seeks an illegal abortion would be a criminal and
>>    responsible for any injury to her or her unborn child.
>>
>I thought the doctor who performed the procedure was the criminal, not the
>woman.

     I argued that the woman was "a" criminal, not "the" criminal.
     Obviously the doctor would be guilty of breaking the law, but
     it would surely have to be against the law to solicit an
     abortion, as well as to perform one.  Basically, I'm just arguing,
     as the Devil's Advocate, that if abortion were illegal, any
     injury incurred by a woman and inflicted on an unborn child
     during the process of an illegal abortion would be the sole
     responsibility (fault) of the mother, as it was her decision to
     violate the law and endanger herself.  In this perspective, her
     decision to imperil herself  cannot reasonably be used as a
     justification for keeping abortion legal (assuming it needs to
     be outlawed, with which I disagree).  Every new law creates new
     criminals.  To argue that in addition to creating new criminals,
     the new criminals will be endangering themselves almost tries to
     place the burden (responsibility) of these injuries on the back
     of the lawmaker, a location in which it is grossly out of place.

Chip
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc