From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Pregnancy and Parenthood 2
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:14:16 GMT

In <1992Jul23.150016.3608@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu 
   (M. Price) writes: >
In <1992Jul22.184355.3034@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Jul21.184701.13427@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu    (M. Price) writes: >>>

>>>Look, why don't you just stop this silly analogy. It is insulting
>>>and demeaning to insinuate that women who choose or have chosen to 
>>>have an abortion would just as readily euthanize their parents or 
>>>children. I know of no pro-choice woman who believes that involun-
>>>tary euthanasia is a logical consequence or extension of abortion. 
>>>The analogy is pointless and offensive (unless offensiveness is your 
>>>point). Any further use of this sort of analogy is a fruitless waste 
>>>of bandwidth.
>
>>It's a slippery slope argument of the same variety as "if we allow
>>the government to restrict abortion, what liberty will they rescind
>>next?".  Such trends are difficult to predict (on either side of the
>>inferred slope) but I was interested to hear that Dr. Jack Kevorkian
>>has explicitly expressed a desire to align himself with the pro-choice 
>>movement, claiming that the same ethic applies to both issues.  Of
>>course, involuntary euthanasia is a bit further down the slope than
>>the voluntary type, but the analogy is no more pointless or offen-
>>sive than the oft-heard "taking away the right to abortion is just
>>the beginning..." argument.
>
> I disagree. First of all, involuntary euthanasia is a hell of a lot
> further down the slope than assisted suicide. 
>As the first involves choice, while the second does not, it is not hard 
>to see a similar ethic (to that of the pro-choicer movement) involved. 
>And secondly, DOD was not making a slippery slope argument
>when he said he hoped that women who have abortions don't have parents
>in nursing homes--he was saying that abortion and involuntary euthanasia
>involve the same kind of moral decision. 

I would say it a bit differently (just to be clear).  The ethic that
is often used to justify the choice to abort involves a "quality of 
life" (for both woman and potential person) premise.  That same ethic
*could* be used to justify the arbitrary termination of other classes 
of people for whom "quality of life" has no meaning e.g., the senile
elderly, the chronically mentally ill, the permanently comatose, the
profoundly retarded, handicapped neonates, etc. 

Please note:  I *know* you're not advocating anything like this, so 
please don't think I'm suggesting that you would endorse these acts.
The ethics do seem to apply, though (last year, someone from Sweden
posted that, while abortion is commonplace and accepted there, now
there are ongoing discussions in government about the appropriate-
ness of involuntary euthanasia). 

Also, the slippery slope inference involves a social/political process 
that may or man not ever happen.

>And that, IMNSHO, is offensive
>to any woman who has agomized over her decision to abort.

It should be offensive to us all.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion