From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: next
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:37:13 GMT

In article <73992@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch) writes:
>David
>>Kevin W.
>
>>>There is no such thing as an accident.  There is at least one party
>>>involved who is at fault.  Accident is oxymoronic in itself.  When
>>>you crash into another car, someone did something wrong.
>
>>>When you get pregnant, that's not an accident.  Something or somebody
>>>faulted in decision making.
>
>>But would'nt you say practically *all* "accidents", car or otherwise, are due to
>>a fault in decision making?
>
>
>I say that there is no such thing as an accident.
>
Ac.ci.dent, n. 1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening, unintentionally
caused and usually resulting in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty;
mishap *automobile accidents* (dictionary has this in italics). 

2. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.

Taken from the Random House Dictionary (big thick one; must be good ;-)

I have been using the above definition. That is what I condider to be an
'accident'.  I would say that ther *is* such a thing as an accident by
the above definition. You are clearly in the minority in thinking there is
no such thing as an accident, just judging by this morning's paper.

I would also say that an unwanted pregnancy fits this description very well
also. It was unexpected. If it was expected I would think it would have been
planned for. The above definition fits things that *aren't* planned for. WIth
contraception, people can have sex and *plan* to *not* be pregnant.

The harm is probably thought to be the pain and expense of child birth and 
the ensuing 18 years of raising a child.


>>>There are crucial differences in car wreck and the result of pregnancy.

>>>When we are in a wreck, we can receive treatment because we do so to save 
>>>life/lives.  Aboriton is done so to end a life.  Big difference.
>
>
>>No, you are using kwc logic. The women I know who got abortions did so to end
>>a pregnancy.
>
>Round and round.  Where it ends, nobody knows.  I answered this long ago,
>David.  Purpose for and purpose of are two different things.

No, you asserted something long ago.  Round and round is right.

The purpose for an abortion is to end a pregnancy. The purpose of an abortion
is to end a pregnancy. Nobody I have spoken to about your differentiationj
can make sense of it. Even the pro-lifers I discuss your posts with. They 
are in fact quite angry with you for, in their words, "making us look bad."



>
>Bottom line:  moral to get aid if in wreck.
>	       immoral (my view) and unethical to get abortion...not aid.
>
>
Both, by above definition, accidents.


You are correct, however. It does appear that, in your view, it is immoral
and unethical to get an abortion, even if it aids the ending of an unwanted
pregnancy.

>>>It would not be irresponsible to seek attention.  It would uphold all ethics,
>>>rules of self-preservation, fulfill the State's interest in preserving life,
>>>get your money's worth in all the premiums you've payed, benefit from that
>>>insurace you've been receiving, blah blah blah.  THere are many ethical and
>>>moral reasons to get treatment from a wreck.
>
>
>>>On the other hand, receiving an abortion is not ethical:  it destroys life
>>>and does not fall in line with self-preservation, and all the rest I stated.
>
>>Again, destroying life is not the issue. If it is, everytime you eat, you are
>>acting unethically.
>
>Again, the pro-choice side likes to deal with semantics to get a short lived
>victory. 


I am not concerned with 'victory'. My only concern here is, and has been, to
see if the pro-life people have any substance in their arguments.



> Of course we are all talking about human abortions here.  I
>have never seen a bunch of rhinos prop a female rhino up and rip out a
>rhino fetus in a clinic...gimmie a break.
>

I am not picking on semantics to be irritating, I am making sure we are talking
about the same things.


>We're talking about human life here.
>
>

ok.

>>>>You've just got to
>>>>accept the consequences of your behavior, and live with
>>>>the broken bones, the mangled flesh, the burns.  You should
>>>>have thought about accidents before you got into the car.
>>>>Use your brain.
>
>>>How ironic coming from you, CJ.  "Use your brain."  Use your brain and fathom
>>>the differnces between morals and ethics.  Use your brain to realize
>>>the inequties in the car-fetus analogy that you have so piss poorly laid
>>>out.
>>>
>>>Use YOUR brain.
>>>
>>
>>Why don't you  both get off the cheap shots?
>
>Why don't you get off the semantics run?
>

Because it is very important to make sure we are discussing the right things.
You have often accused me, and others, of misinterpreting your words. It is
clearly dangerous to assume what you are intending to say. I am required,
then, to take your words at face value.


>

-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity