From: wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins)
Subject: Re: Rationalization
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 21:10:57 GMT
Organization: DG. SID, Atlanta, GA

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.

|> 
|> >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.
|> 
|> Don't be a twit ... we've already gone over the definitions here.
|> Born==child; unborn==zygote/embryo/fetus.
|> (okay, I'll admit: post-viablility *may* have a questionable status)
|> 
|> 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.

|> 
|> >   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?
|> 
|> >   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.
|> 
|> >   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.
|> 
|> >   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.
|> 
|> So what's wrong with my removing my mole because I *wanted to* anyway?

   Sad - You cannot tell the difference between a mole and another human life.
|> 
|> > The reason you rationalize is because you are trying to 
|> >avoid the guilt that you feel.  After a while in rationalization,
|> >you actually begin to believe in it and the guilt is gone.  But there
|> >comes a day of reckoning.
|> 
|> Ooooh, [sarcasm] please do tell us about this "day of reckoning".  Cite
|> reliable sources for your information.  You've never rationalized
|> away the guilt of eating a second scoop of ice cream?  You did?
|> Await the day of reckoning!!!

   Not for this reply... perhaps another time.

|> 
|> >   I outlined the "basic" scenario.  I will address the others in another post. 
|> 
|> Please don't bother, we've heard you silly handwaving arguements before.
|> Now, if you can *think* up some real points of discussion, lets talk.
|> 
|> >On the interesting rationalization:
|> >   "I don't want to bring the baby to term and have it adopted because it will
|> >have a terrible life."  - So kill it instead ?????
|> 
|> It's not human until it's at term (viable for the sticklers) and possibly
|> has fewer cells than my mole.  So should I have qualms about removing
|> the mole?

    Again - you sadly prove my point about rationalization.
|> 
|> >            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //
|> >           //   "My views are my own"                              //
|>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ luckily .....
|> Unfortunately you wish to push YOUR views on others by force of law.
   
   All law is legislated morality unless you believe in no law.

|> 
|> -robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)

-- 
             ==========================================================
            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //
           //       "My views are my own"                          //
          ==========================================================