From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: houston.general,tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:49:10 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1684AFF82.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett) writes:
>From: JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett)
>Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
>Date: 21 Aug 92 23:10:06 GMT

>In article <exuptr.375.714354030@exu.ericsson.se>
>exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
> 
>>As long as we're on the subject of experience, when's the last time you
>>were ripped apart with surgical instruments?
> 
>What evidence do you have that an aborted fetus would feel it the same
>way as I?  Over-anthropomorphism seems a common fallacy here....

I have no more evidence than you.  Which was exactly my point.  We are 
subjecting a fetus to something we have not ourselves experienced.  If you 
read the thred, Lorra had made a similar point just before.

>>>(from a post of Ms. Moore's): In my
>>>belief, allowing an unwanted child to be born is damning that soul to a
>>>lifetime of misery, unnecessary misery.
>>
>>Attributable mostly to those who "unwanted" the child.  Certainly it was not
>>the child's decision.
> 

>Does this make it any better?  

No, it makes it worse, actually.

>That's a cop-out argument -- the point here
>is to prevent that misery, not to fix the blame (more 'pro-life' cant?).

Bull.  My point was clear in the context.  We are quite capable of providing 
for children as a society.

I will agree that the point is to prevent the misery, but not by committing 
what may very well be another misery.

>And as has been abundantly made clear, there aren't enough adoption
>opportunities to remove the children from unwanted situations -- except,
>perhaps, in a fool's paradise.

Disagree.  But even if you are right, that can and will be fixed.

>(More Moore vs. Taylor)
I prefer to think of it as an exchange of philosophies.  I can't speak
for Lorra, though.

>>>So, it really comes down to this, if you believe that you are damning a
>>>soul to eternal nothingness, then don't have an abortion.
>>
>>This is not what it's about.  Inform yourself about the other side before
>>you presuppose or prejudge (or guess?) the motives.
> 
>Sigh....  Yes, it would be nice to paint the whole abortion issue as a
>concrete, black-and-white right-vs.-wrong Star-Wars-like moral argument.
>BUT IT DOESN'T WORK.

Agreed.

>Yeah, abortion is a bad thing.  I'll agree with you on that.  Where we
>differ is in what we find worse.  

No, we don't.  I don't think it has to get that bad.  It really doesn't you 
know.

>I would hope you're not like the radical
>anti-abortion faction that wants to ban ALL abortions, regardless of little
>matters like rape, incest, etc.  That would be the result of a rigorous
>analysis of the sort you seem to want to make.

I want to ban them BY CHOICE, not by law.  How about obsolete?  I like that 
word.

>How about a woman with glaucoma?  (I know of at least one in this sort
>of situation).  Were she to become pregnant, bringing the child to term
>would have a good chance of causing permanent damage to her vision.  
>Now,
>of course, it might not.  It's a fuzzy issue.  Are you going to decide
>whether or not she can have an abortion?  On what grounds?

That should probably be between the woman, her husband (if applicable), her 
doctor(s), and God (again, if applicable, although God may have a different 
point of view than the woman on whether he was applicable :-).

>The ONLY sensible solution is to allow the woman to choose.  Wash your
>hands of it.  

Ahh, I see.  The old, "I don't want any part of that bird's nest" view.
Can't say I don't understand that.

>The array of situations you have to provide for is too
>complex -- who is going to make consistent and fair decisions?  

Guess :-)

>No one
>can.  Leave the decision to the woman who's going to be affected.

And the child.  Who will speak for the effects on her/him?

>Whatever?!  This is an argument?  Don't tell me we're playing 'higher
>powers' off against one another.

No.  I just disagreed and didn't have a comeback.  It happens.

>The Old Testament prohibits wearing clothing of more than one fabric.
>Off with that cotton-poly blend, brother. :-)  [Idle levity to show
>the ridiculous nature of using religion here.  Let's just try philosophy
>and good sense, shall we?]

I don't think religion is ridiculous anywhere.  But then again, you do have 
to APPLY it with common sense, and a little inspiration :-)

> 
>Joseph L. Lockett
>jlock00@ricevm1.rice.edu
> 
>I apologize for the misattribution I made in a previous post.  I've
>endeavored to be more careful this time around, though this is getting
>to be a densely-nested argument!  Kudos to all.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                          - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se             "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
Xref: sparky houston.general:941 tx.politics:4500