From: wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Rationalization
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:17:21 GMT
Organization: DG, SID, Atlanta, GA

In article <1992Oct6.173733.12454@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
|> 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
    
    I do not claim to be the ultimate decider of morality.  However, I do
    believe in God, who has made his position known.  The problem with most
    people today is that they invent their own morality to suit the 
    occasion - "Rationalizations" - Adolf Eichmann was good at it - like you.

|> 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.
    
    ...in your opinion, which is certainly expected.

|> 
|> >|> >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"?
|>
   The "main" scenario for abortion is for those who have sex outside of
   marriage, because they have a "problem" they need to "fix".  In marriage,
   you don't have the same "problem", which I can detail at another time.
 
|> >|> >   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.

   Wrong.  Besides, morality has nothing to do with my powers of empathy.
   Right is right and wrong is wrong - Except for you: Whatever you
   rationalize to be right is right.  Consider a career in law.

|> 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". 

   Nothing short of a miracle can change the minds of those who
   have talked themselves into believing their own rationalizations.

|> 
|> >|> >   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

   This is not relevant to the morality of taking a life

|> 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
                 ^^^^^^^^ 
                 Sorry, not this one 

|>     rebuttal: "see!  rationalization.."  assertion ]
|> 
|> >            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //
|> 
|>  -robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)

-- 
             ==========================================================
            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //
           //  "My views are my own"                               //
         ==========================================================
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women