From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Subject: Re:      Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
Organization: UW Computing
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:12:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.164718.3842@news.nd.edu>, jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec15.223946.24953@u.washington.edu> mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith ) writes:
|
|> >But remember it is only recently that rape laws have been applied to spousal rape or date rape, yet such actions have always been morally wrong.  And why don't our murder/theft/rape laws apply in time of warfare?  My point is neither in favor nor opposed|>  to laws prohibiting abortion, it is that laws do not solve the problem.  Therefore, we need to consciously decide how best to expend our energy towards stopping abortion and changing the law MAY not be the most effective means.
|> [stuff deleted]/john ocallaghan's response
|> 
|> On the side, I have to say that I resent a little bit what seems to be the
|> hidden assumption of a lot of people here that those of us who favor legislationprohibiting abortion do not care to do anything else socially to try to stop
|> the demand.  Maybe were just more energetic than most.  But I am somewhat
|> offended by the constant assumption that because I favor laws outlawing 
|> abortion I do not care about women, I have not and do not intend to do anything
|> to help women who find themselveds in very difficult situations, etc. etc..
|> By saying this I do not mean to be malicious.  I just ask all of you out
|> there who have been writing on this topic whether or not after a while your
|> implicit assumptions might not be somewhat offensive to some of us who
|> favor legislation.
|> 
I RESENT your assumption of a hidden assumption that is untrue.  I have said nothing implying the stance of pro-lifers on the issue of a supportive environment for raising the children - there is a wide range of stances held by prolifers.  However, I was trying to expose the hidden assumption in certain postings that someone opposed to legislation prohibiting abortion was necessarily in favor of abortion.  A number of positions are possible:
1.  anti-abortion, pro-legislation   ("social" conservative)
2.  anti-abortion, anti-legislation (political conservative)
3.  pro-choice, anti-legislation ("liberal")
The labels are not "accurate" but are intended to remind us that a political conservative believes that government should play as limited a role as possible (e.g. Barry Goldwater), while a "social" conservative believes that government should enforce their values (e.g. Ronald Reagan, Moral Majority).

To  put it another way "Render unto Caesar ...", I think we often get in a muddle when we fail to distinguish how people ought to act (morals) from how people ought to be governed (politics).  When we get into such a muddle we often get so caught up in particular means that we don't necessarily keep sight of the most effective way to achieve our means.

Back to the example of civil rights ... it took many years of anti-slavery movements before the moral objections spread far enough in society to generate laws outlawing slavery; it then took a century of civil rights movements before the moral objections to segregation spread far enought to generate laws outlawing discrimination.  It will take still longer for the societal norm/value of non-discrimination to spread to be as "reflexive" as the norm against murder.  One could chart a similar path on selling 


of wives/children; abusive families; date/spousal rape ....  We should therefore anticipate a similar path for abortion and chart our strategy accordingly.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU