From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 01:39:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.235055.18645@mksol.dseg.ti.com> 
noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:

> I'm still trying to get a handle on who the sides are in the abortion
> debate.  The way I see it so far, there are four groups:

It might be helpful to distinguish between moral and legal
positions on abortion.  They don't necessarily have to be
the same.  I'll assume you're talking about moral positions. 

> 2) Those who are against abortion in general, but for it in some cases
>    (rape, incest, probable death to mother).
>
> Why is abortion wrong in only some cases?  

Why is killing a born human being wrong in only some cases?  Because
the immorality of the act depends on the circumstances.  Few people
would claim that killing in self-defense is immoral.  

When a woman faces a life-threatening pregnancy, some people might argue 
that killing the child is a better outcome than having both the child 
and the woman die together.  Given a situation where two people will
die if nothing is done, but one person will live if the other is 
killed, some believe that it's not immoral to kill.  Other people 
might argue that a person is never morally justified in killing an 
innocent person to save their own life. 

> Is the fetus a person?  If
> it is, why is it ok to kill an innocent person to comfort a victim of
> rape or incest.  

I've never heard people argue that abortion should be allowed in
the case of rape to 'comfort' the rape victim.   More often, 
I've heard people argue that the rape victim should not be held 
responsible for the child's welfare, since the victim was not 
responsible for causing the child's situation.  This is a point 
of disagreement among people who are opposed to abortion--some
believe that abortion in the case of rape/incest is still wrong,
and that the child should not be 'punished' for the father's actions. 

> I assume in the case of harm to the mother you treat
> the fetus as an aggressor that can be killed to save the mother's life?

I don't think the term 'aggressor' is accurate, since the child
is innocent.  See my remarks above.  

> 4) Those who hold that abortions are ok for everyone.
>
> This seems logically consistent to me.  If abortions are not wrong at
> all, and you support abortion as a morally proper method of birth
> control to be used when accidents occur with "conception control"
> or when the potential parents change their mind, then whether you are
> right or wrong, you are at least *consistent*.  Why all this fuss
> about a simple medical procedure performed on the mother, right?

These people must also condone infanticide in all cases in order 
to be consistent.  What's the moral difference between killing a 
child one minute before it's about to be born, and one minute 
after?  (Note that I said moral, not legal difference).

> In summary, positions 1 and 4 seem logically consistent to me.

Position 4 is not logically consistent if a person does not
condone infanticide in all cases. 

>Mike Noonan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion