From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
Date: 25 Dec 92 17:43:51 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec25.033234.4258@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:

>	o  "abortion can be handled as strictly a medical issue"

With respect to government policy, I believe all policy questions that
have broad implications for public health, e.g. abortion, alcoholism,
drug abuse, etc., should be handled first and foremeost as a medical
issue.  Any departures from policies that are medically indicated to
protect the public health should be explicitly justified in terms of
some greater good and be subjected to very serious scrutiny.

>	o  "legislation is distinguishable from morality" / "morality 
>	   should not be legislated"

The correct statement is that legislation is distinguishable from
absolute morality if such a thing exists.  All legislation is socially
constructed; absolute morality, if it exists, is supposedly
independent of social context.  Legislation never is.

>	o  "the collective has no (moral(?)) right to abrogate the legal 
>	   rights of an individual"

This is specious as a general statement.  I try to stick generally to
questioning why the collective would want to engage in this particular
abrogation of individual rights.  My questions focus on how it
allocates rights, why one would give rights to /z/e/f/s that no other
human entity is given, how the danger to the health of women can be
justified, and why one would advocate a policy that had a negative
disparate impact on an already disadvantaged group.

>	o  "a fetus has no value whatsoever"

An overstatement and specious.

>	o  "a fetus is just a parasite"

From the point-of-view of the person who does not want the /z/e/f/ in
her body I do not think a characterization of it as an unwanted
parasite is specious.  In fact, I think there is a high likelihood
that a woman in this situation might actually feel this way.

>	o  "a fetus is just a part of the woman's body"

I understand that a /z/e/f/ has a potential eventually for life apart
from the mother that no other part of a woman's body has.  However, at
a very general level of abstraction, I believe that since the /z/e/f/
is contained wholly within the mother it qualifies as part of the
mother.  The metaphor is not specious.
 
>	o  "a fetus is no different than a cancer"

See discussion of parasite.

>	o  "pro-life is inherently a religious view"

The correct statement: Pro-life is frequently associated with
fundamentalist religious views, Roman Catholic and other.

>	o  "pro-life is inherently misogynistic"

If one accepts the disparate impact of the legislative agenda of the
fetus fanatics as sufficient evidence of misogyny, then this is not at
all specious.

>	o  "restrictive abortion laws violate Equal Protection"

Do you think they enhance equal protection?  In particular I have
raised the issue of equity broadly and equal protection more narrowly,
to question those who advocate the adoption of policies that have a
negative disparate impact on already disadvantaged groups.

>	o  "deadly self-defense is generally permissible against rape"

I can't say I know much about this issue.  Are you saying that a woman
who is being raped cannot use deadly force to stop the attack?

>	o  "abortion is not 'murder' in any sense, because it's currently 
>	   legal"

If murder is a legal term, which it is, then this is factually correct
with respect to that definition.  Maybe you have some other meaning of
murder in mind, but as long as the author of the specious statement
has the right definition in their mind, I think it is you who makes a
specious complaint.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion