From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Rationalization
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:37:33 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1992Oct2.211057.28589@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.042518.4317@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
>|> In article <1992Sep30.162310.20463@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>|> 
>|> >It is interesting how people will get into deep rationalizations to
>|> >try to justify abortion.
>|> 
>|> Oh, another deep thinking male who quickly dismisses a woman's 
>|> choice as MERE rationalization (imbibing it with all the "bad" 
>|> conotations he can generate, so bad that they remain unstated).
>|> So, [sarcasm] please, pleaaase, do tell us all here what distinquishes
>|> between rationalization and a legitimate choice?  Be clear and
>|> concise enough to convince us all.
>    
>    I use rationalization in the context of trying to justify an
>    obviously immoral act as moral.  After a while you actually believe
>    your rationalization.  You say, "What!! This is not obviously immoral!"
>    because you have talked yourself into it.
>    Adolf Eichmann went to his death justifying his murder of the Jews.

I see. You're claiming to be the ultimate decider of what is "obviously
immoral" vs. moral.  Sorry, I disagree.  Others have put lots of thought
into the issue of abortion and decided that it isn't OBVIOUS.  So stop
taking the attitude of "I'm right and you're obviously mistaken" and
give us some clear persuasive reasons for your position.  You're first
list was a general failure.

>|> >Here's the basic scenario: You have sex outside of marriage, you get
>|> >pregnant, and now you have a "problem".  So to eliminate the problem,
>|> >you destroy the unborn child.
>|> And since I see you only have a problem with pregnancies outside
>|> of marriage I guess you'll allow abortions due to pregnancies resulting 
>|> within a marriage.  How generous.
>   I have made no such statement.

Ah, then why didn't you just say in your first description of the "basic
scenario":  "You have sex."  rather than "You have sex outside of marriage"?

>|> >   Rationalization 1: It is part of my body - I can do what I want.
>|>  When you sign up to be the first full-time (male) human dialysis machine
>|>  I might not consider this a "rationalization"; but then again it is
>|>  your choice ... I guess I'll remain pro-choice.  Now if you give me
>|>  the right to force you into that situation...
>    What?

I see.  You truely have no concept what being pregnant is all about.
Here's the quick summary:  You supply nutrients and a suitable enviornment
to a growing organism and you use *your* kidneys (and whatever) to remove
it's waste from *your* blood stream.  Hence the human dialysis machine.
Some women don't agree to others using their bodies for a supply of
nutrients or a dumping ground for wastes.  When you agree to take up
the same commitments then you have a stronger case by arguing from an
equal position; until then you're just a twit with an opinion of what
*others* should do.

>|> >   Rationalization 2: It is not really a viable human life, etc...
>|>  Hey, this is no *rationalization* it's a fact.  The mole on the
>|>  side of my neck is not really a viable human life either, so someday
>|>  I plan on having it removed as well.
>     You prove my point about rationalization.

No.  You prove my point. :-)
Oh.  we're not arguing by assertion?  I haven't seen any reasons given here
that would cause me to change my mind and consider my statement a
"rationalization".  

>|> >   Rationalization 3: The child will be unwanted and suffer a terrible life.
>|>  And what are *YOU* doing to relieve this situation for all those
>|>  *already* born children?  Nothing?  Gee, sounds to me like you
>|>  just want to increase the world's suffering.  Maybe you should
>|>  rethink your religion:  Satanism is often just a means of rebellion
>|>  in youngsters, you'll probably grow out of it.
>     You know someone who wants to bring a child to term, but is afraid
>     of adoption?  Give me an e-mail.  Got a good home ready.

Ah.  Let me check the newspaper and the local adoption agency....hmmm.
there seem to be children available already.  No need for more.

>|> >   Rationalization N: etc.
>|> >Let's face it, why not just say: "I killed the unborn child because I
>|> >wanted to."  
>|> Besides, you being a male, DON'T ever have to face "it".  Until
>|> you can get pregnant (and do) you have NO real understanding of
>|> the conflicts involved.  
>   Wrong.

Reasoning by assertion again?  Tssk, tssk.  Please point out where I was
wrong.  That being male you'll never get pregnant?  Oh, I suppose you
meant the "NO real understanding" part.  Geee, I forgot you're just
such a sensitive and caring guy that you really DO understand what a
woman goes through.  Sorry, but I can't claim I do.  I think I have some
idea but I'm not arrogant enough to claim privy to an experience I will
never have.  I've never been in space but I think I understand the
experience; astronauts have thought the same thing but have come back
claiming that it really IS differnt from whatever you can imagine.  Guess
they were wrong as well since you, the almighty, can imagine everything.

[remove stuff, because I tire of responding to Bill Rawlins' overwhelming
 (sarcasm) reasoning:
    original: your arguments are rationalizations
    response: reasoned argument
    rebuttal: "see!  rationalization.."  assertion ]

>            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //

 -robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity