From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Reply to steve
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:25:50 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens


Excuse this folks, but the mailer could not sent this reply to steven's
address, hence I am posting it for him to read.  Please forgive the length
and offset subject matter.



From tedr Thu Sep 24 23:20:30 1992
Return-Path: <MAILER-DAEMON>
Received:  by athena.cs.uga.edu (4.1/25-eef)
	id AA01465; Thu, 24 Sep 92 23:20:27 EDT
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 23:20:27 EDT
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON>
Full-Name: Mail Delivery Subsystem
Message-Id: <9209250320.AA01465@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown
To: tedr
Status: OR

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
421 Host jaynes not found for mailer tcp.
550 steven@jaynes... Host unknown

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received:  by athena.cs.uga.edu (4.1/25-eef)
	id AA01463; Thu, 24 Sep 92 23:20:27 EDT
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 23:20:27 EDT
From: Ted Kalivoda <tedr>
Full-Name: Ted Kalivoda
Message-Id: <9209250320.AA01463@athena.cs.uga.edu>
To: steven@jaynes
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Cc: 

>
>OK, OK; I'll further assume you meant any abortion performed.

Any abortion performed is wrenchingly sick since it involves the killing of
a member of the species homo sapiens.  But I did not say that all abortions
are <wrong>. Sometimes it's necessary to make a decision between the life or
death of the fetus and the life and death of the mother.

>Let me ask you something:
>Do you think it's "sick" that many pro-life men believe a woman should
>essentially be forced to give birth, and that one of those deciding is the
>man who impregnated the woman?

Is it sick when a men create laws and force women not to terminate the lives
of their 2 day newborns?  Your presumption is that nothing is wrong with
aborting a healthy  fetus when the life of the mother is in no danger.  Pro
life men and "women" believe that pregnant women ought to  carry the child 
to term because it is wrong to kill a human life.

So, who is right?  The argument must go on to more profound questions, such
as what is a person? (no doubt all intelligent persons will admit the fetus
to be a member of the class of homos sapiens because of genetic factors.)
And, when is something wrong? And eventually, the discussion will have to
encompass metaethical and metaphysical realms.  

I agree my response "that is sick" was quite simplistic, although you would
have to admit that from an existential point of view, ripping a small child
to pieces in the womb is a bit nauseas.  And I understand about early
abortions, where the fetus has barely developed and it is easier for some to
cope with.

>Do you think it's "sick" that some pro-lifers believe aborting a pregnancy
>from rape or incest is "punishing the child" ("i.e., "fetus") for the crime
>and should be ILLEGAL to attain?

It's sick to be raped.  Why add two wrongs to get a right? Although, I must
admit, I am undecided about when exactly human life begins.  It is not that
simple.  Perhaps life does not begin until the fetus develops its own blood?
That would gives us about 14 days. Hence, from a pro-life perspective,
abortions before 14 days would not be morally wrong.
 What are your thoughts on this? 

>Do you think it's "sick" that *1 in 5 girls* and *1 in 7 boys* are abused
>(SEXUALLY; doesn't count physical or mental) before they're adults?
>...Yet most pro-lifers would force woman unconditionally to spew more and
>more unwanted kids into such sick environments.

As mentioned above, this type of argument avoids the central issue--what is
a person...when is it wrong to...are there such things as wrong actions...

>Do you think it's "sick" that mentally deranged fanatics are trying to
>impose what should be *personal* religious beliefs on other Americans by
>_force of law_?

As a teacher in philosophy, I don't say this gain a higher ground than you,
or build myself up, but I think  you should be careful not to use attacks
against people to prove a point.  Those arguments are the  worst type. 
"mentally deranged fanatics" leaves your opponents quite incapable of being
correct from the get go, that is, befor  you logically show their error.

Personal religious beliefs have always been applied to law.  For example,
one of the reasons infanticide is illegal is because the Jewish and Christian
morality won out in large part over the Greeks.  Now, according to your 
premiss, we should allow the killing of infants because the law against it
was motivated by religious belief?

Steve, I know I have much to learn about the complicated issue of abortion. 
However, your  arguments have not established that abortion is right.  I
would be interested to hear your thoughts on why it is right by dealing with
the issues I mentioned above.

Yours,

Ted Kalivoda
University of Georgia
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc