From: samus@next12epsl.wam.umd.edu (Samuel A. Gray III)
Subject: taking a stab at it ...
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:36:18 GMT

Reading this forum continually reminds me of Alexander Hamilton's  
viewpoint that the populace is not capable of making intelligent  
decisions. 

O.K. I start from the assumption that people who fart on a regular basis  
must have some of that gas floating around in their heads. 

What I find MOST annoying is that omnipresent attitude in people,  that  
they can construct a rational, logical arguement. Most people are NOT  
capable of doing that. Great start-now let's start talking about something  
as imprecise as religious morality...next, assume we are authorities on  
the concept of human existence...next, assume we speak the final words on  
the topic of human morality. 

I'm glad that so many people have 'morals' out there, that they have  
standards by which they live by, and by which they judge others. 
There are probably as many different versions of morality as there are  
people on this earth. 

Also, I'd like to refute the concept put forth here and in other places, 
that a person's opinion deserves respect or that they have a right to  
their opinions, and thus they must be respected-that is something I don't  
agree with at all; we all constantly judge the opinions of others, and  
while they may have the right to have their opinions, they are not  
necessarily opinions which can be respected. 

I categoricaly reject the notion that any person who believes in the  
existence of God can hold a rational arguement.(Ask yourself-what do I  
think God is?). Any person who looks upon the Bible, or any other  
religious text,  in support of their arguements has at that point lost  
their credibility on any topic except recorded religious events. For those  
of you out there who have a strong religious faith, I'm glad for you, if  
it helps you get through your day (please don't mail me telling me of your  
faith in God or Christ or whatever) but such faith cannot be credibly used  
to support one's position-it can only be a basis for it. 

So, with that said, it may come as no suprise that I support the concept  
that a woman should have the ability to choose whether or not to carry her  
pregnancy to term. Call me cold-blooded, ruthless, amoral, or whatever you  
want-that's the only attack you could have for that position,
and note please that it does not make me any of the above, it's just your  
opinion based on this letter, you don't know me.  
One could say that people who support abortion are without morals, and  
thus their actions need to be regulated by those who supposedly have  
morals-but again, it would be very difficult to prove this true, and it  
remains in the domain of opinion.

At this point, I am of the opinion that the lack of objectivity or logic  
present in the moral foundation of the religious people of this world has  
led to much grief, suffering, and hatred-but it could be said of those who  
have committed many henious acts, that they lack morals themselves, if  
they were not simply ignorant of the facts of the situation...

The problem is that objectivity and logic do not correlate well with  
religion, and the result is that one begins to evaluate human actions by  
two sets of standards, which are often contradictory. Then add the effect  
of human emotions to the process. Then add the reality that there are many  
different religions, each, in addition to the effects of personal  
experience and trauma, leading to the development of different moral  
standards. But a lot of people don't seem to be aware of that, then they  
try to rationally analyze everything coming their way (OF COURSE I suffer  
from the same disease, I just try to keep the source of confusion in mind,  
and I've been judged fairly competent at logical analysis.) Is there any  
wonder why in contemporary society, the question is not whether its right  
or wrong, but whether you can be convicted for it? Hell, sometimes not  
even that-all of us believe in a 'higher law'... 

So there. Now you know where I'm coming from. 
So now I ask...

Of you pro-lifers:
	Analyze the notion of allowing abortions in the case of rape,  
incest or life-threatining pregnancies, and square that with your idea  
that life begins at conception and the innocence of the 'unborn' must be  
protected. 
It seems that if one believes that life is sacred, it must follow that all  
forms of human life must be protected, even the popular exceptions such as 
conception as a result of rape, ect. as above, and that by extension one  
cannot support the death penalty (the killing of an incarcerated person as  
'punishment') or war or killing in self-defense, since those boil down to  
consciously taking the life of another to defend your own life.
Remember-only God has the right to make decisions regarding the lives of  
human beings, as it is one of his commandments that humans shall not  
commit murder. And what is murder, if not taking the life of another human  
being? 

	Secondly, if you've made it this far, where, oh where is it  
written that a woman has the RESPONSIBILITY to bear a child if she  
concieves it, as a result of casual sexual activity or otherwise? 
Where do YOU get off getting involved in the life of someone you don't  
even know, in a situation that doesn't even concern you, trying to make  
them live by your standards? Oh wait-there's gonna be a lot of people  
justifying it by defending government involvement in other aspects of a  
person's private life...but if you do that, you're making the assumption  
that having an abortion is bad for you, like taking heroin, right? 
You have to do that, to justify the involvement, you know. Or that it's  
bad for society as a whole, if the activity is wide-spread, like speeding.
Then you are defining the act and outcome of abortion in terms of the act  
and outcome of taking heroin, say. Don't work-the act of having an  
abortion is not the act of taking heroin. Not to mention you're risking   
accusations of political correctness...in which case, even if you're  
right, you'd be wrong, for trying to institutionalize your morality!

That's probably as much as you can handle rationally, so I won't ask the  
others of you,
 
I'll save them for the pro-choicers: 
	Do you have notions of human existence, life, death, or the soul, 
	that you can rationally support? 
	Are they anything more than your concepts? 

If the pro-lifers have a leg to stand on, it's that they might be right.

And last, this one being for those guys out there who are upset with the  
notion that the woman can decide if she wants to have your baby or not,  
and you don't have any say in it:
Did you ever? When did you? So what makes you think you do now, after  
she's pregnant? Sounds good to me, as long as you know. 

It seems to me that people have a lot of ideas about what their rights and  
responsibilities are in a marriage or relationship, and I'd be treading on  
a lot of toes to deny them, but you still have to admit that the only  
reason your partner will do something that you want her to do is that she  
feels like it. A lot of divorced guys have learned that the hard way. 



BOY, WOULDN'T IT BE NICE IF WE COULD ALL PASS LAWS MAKING OTHER PEOPLE DO  
WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO? 


Gosh, that's pretty much all I want to say. Maybe I shouldn't have done it  
all at once? Oh well, sorry. 
samus@wam.umd.edu