From: bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh)
Subject: Re: Still Light On History????
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 23 Jan 93 20:07:28 CST

In article <1993Jan22.235605.23392@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh) writes:
>>k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>>One of
>>the most emotiional is the picture of a woman being mutilated by a doctor
>>performing an illegal abortion.  Abortion should remain legal so it remains
>>safe for all women, say the pro-choice advocates.  However, utilitarian 
>>arguments fail when considering such fundamental rights as the right to
>>life and the right to personal liberty.  Turning this argument around,
>>let's assume that abortion is a fundamental right.  Should the right
>>to choose abortion be usurped if many pro-life activists are injured
>>while chained to abortion doors?
>
>Utilitarian arguments weigh pros and cons.  If x suffering is caused by
>illegal abortions when it's outlawed, and y suffering is caused by
>chained-to-doors injuries when it's not, the utilitarian position is
>that you go with the least suffering.

Exactly.  My point is that the coat-hanger argument is based on utility:
If abortion is illegal, there will be much more woman suffering than
if it is legal.

>Were I looking at this from a utilitarian point of view, I'd compare
>statistics on pro-life martyrs vs. victims of back-alley abortions,
>weigh them all out in my head somehow, and come to a conclusion.  If
>my conclusion is that abortion should be legal, where am I being
>inconsistent?

The inconsistency is in adhering to both this argument of utility and
the argument that abortion is a fundamental right because of the privacy
phrase in the 14th Amendment.

>>The problem with utilitiarian arguments is that a fundamental right
>>(be it choice or life) can never be usurped simply to benefit
>>a large section of society.
>
>Wellll...says you.  Seatbelt laws.

Has the Supreme Court ruled on Seatbelt laws?  I don't know;  if so,
I'd like to see the opinion.  I doubt that the S.C. would say
"Even though we believe wearing a SB is an issue of privacy protected
by the 14th Ammendment, we believe that less people will be killed so
SB laws are Constitutional."

The inconsistency is between these two statements:
"Abortion should be legal because woman will suffer less from illegal
abortions"
and
"Abortion should be legal because it is fundamental right protected by
the 14th Amm"

The first statement comes from the general notion that "If an action
is illegal, and if a large number of people are injured (general use
of this term) by performing this act illegally who wouldn't otherwise
be injured performing this act legally, then the act should be legal."
In other words, no regard should be given to the rightness or wrongness
of the action itself; only the utility should be considered.

The second statement comes from the general notion that "Certain
acts, such as those listed in our Constituttion, are a priori 'good'
acts which must remain legal."  Whether you like it or not, the 
Constitution states Moral Absolutes, and the SC has interpreted the
Const as ssaying that the the ability to choose abortion is an
"absolute" protected by the Const.

The first statement can change as circumstances change, since it
depends only on the utility.  The second statement can never change.
There is the inconsistency: relativism vs. absolutes.  What happens
when the first statmenet changes?  Which argument does the pro-choice
side believe?  (For example, the first statement could change 
if we gave the equivalent of "clean needles" to those doctors...)

>>That concept is at the crux of our
>>Constitution.
>
>Please cite me an article and section on this.  (I've always wondered
>where the crux was...)

Sorry.  It's a bad way of saying that our Constitution protects individual
rights regardless of utility (nowhere in the Bill of Rights will you
see the phrase "unless its proven that more people benefit without this
right").

Dan