From: JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett)
Newsgroups: houston.general,tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:10:06 GMT
Organization: Rice University

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....
 
>>(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?  That's a cop-out argument -- the point here
is to prevent that misery, not to fix the blame (more 'pro-life' cant?).
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.
 
(More Moore vs. Taylor)
>>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.
 
Yeah, abortion is a bad thing.  I'll agree with you on that.  Where we
differ is in what we find worse.  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.
 
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?
 
The ONLY sensible solution is to allow the woman to choose.  Wash your
hands of it.  The array of situations you have to provide for is too
complex -- who is going to make consistent and fair decisions?  No one
can.  Leave the decision to the woman who's going to be affected.
 
>>That is your
>>choice and you can practice your beliefs all you want.  My beliefs,
>>which are supposedly protected in this country, consider it an
>>abomination against my higher power to not have an abortion if the
>>pregnancy is not planned on and desired.
>
>Whatever.
 
Whatever?!  This is an argument?  Don't tell me we're playing 'higher
powers' off against one another.
 
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?]
 
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.
Newsgroups: houston.general,tx.general,tx.politics,rice.galor,rice.general,rice.comp,general