From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Rationalization
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:15:16 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1992Oct7.121721.16606@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.173733.12454@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
>|> In article <1992Oct2.211057.28589@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>|> >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.
[stuff]
>|> I see. You're claiming to be the ultimate decider of what is "obviously
>|> immoral" vs. moral.  Sorry, I disagree.  Others have put lots of thought
>    
>    I do not claim to be the ultimate decider of morality.  However, I do
>    believe in God, who has made his position known.  The problem with most
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ *you* believe in YOUR god; others don't and aren't 
 convinced by arguments from your ilk.  Thus it IS your belief vs. theirs. 
 Until *god* speaks directly and clearly to ALL, it will still be just faith.
 God, from my point of view, HASN'T made his position known, Some possibly
 historical incidences have been recorded and rerecorded (and possibly
 even manipulated) and then further "interpreted" by a bunch of *men* who
 have shown a tendency in the past to be as interested in politics and
 power as the "truth".  You pretend not to claim to be the "ultimate
 decider", instead you claim your interpretation of your god is the
 ultimately correct interpretation of morality.  Pretty egotistical looking
 to me.  All I ask is you allow others to choose their own god.
     
>    people today is that they invent their own morality to suit the 
>    occasion - "Rationalizations" - Adolf Eichmann was good at it - like you.

 Ah, resort to comparing the other side to destestable historial figures.
 You still haven't convinced me my arguments are "rationalizations"; I
 still contend they are legitimate choices.  I don't *force* you to accept
 them, I just ask you to allow others their beliefs, especially since they
 do not directly impinge on YOU.  I won't even resort to pointing out
 that power mongers like you are closer to the Nazi ideal then my more
 libertarian views. (okay, so I just did, sue me)

>|> into the issue of abortion and decided that it isn't OBVIOUS.  So stop
>|> taking the attitude of "I'm right and you're obviously mistaken" and
>|> give us some clear persuasive reasons for your position.  You're first
>|> list was a general failure.
>    
>    ...in your opinion, which is certainly expected.

 I see. The first list wasn't posted to "convince" anyone; but just to
 harrass and attempt to intimidate.  A religious jihad?  "God is on my
 side so I'm justified in attacking the heathen" and all that?  You seem
 to be stuck in this rut of considering the issue "obvious"; I claimed it
 wasn't and that *many* others felt similarly.  You gave no rational
 argument for your position; just the usual "I'm right, you're an idiot".

 If it's going to be "my opinion" vs. "your opinion" then I'll just let it
 drop if you'll agree to the same terms I'll give you:  you keep yours and
 I'll keep mine.

>|> >|> >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.
>|> >|> 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.
>|> 
>|> Ah, then why didn't you just say in your first description of the "basic
>|> scenario":  "You have sex."  rather than "You have sex outside of marriage"?
>|>
>   The "main" scenario for abortion is for those who have sex outside of
>   marriage, because they have a "problem" they need to "fix".  In marriage,
>   you don't have the same "problem", which I can detail at another time.

 Hmmm, married woman becomes pregnant and doesn't want to be; she considers
 it a "problem" and it needs to be "fixed".  Sounds exactly the same.  It
 seems to me you put an unjustified emphasis on the marital status of the
 woman.  Abortion is an option there as well; how she deals with coming to
 that decision in relationship her spouse is a good topic for here on
 alt.abortion.inequity and have been discussed.  We can go over that again
 if you'd like.

>|> >|> >   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?
>|> 
>|> I see.  You truely have no concept what being pregnant is all about.
>
>   Wrong.  Besides, morality has nothing to do with my powers of empathy.
    ^^^^^ So you DO indeed claim to "truely" having full and complete
 empathy with *every* woman who becomes pregnant under any circumstance?
 Maybe, you've experienced it?  Hmmm, your name was Bill; I apologize for
 assuming you were male.

>   Right is right and wrong is wrong - Except for you: Whatever you
>   rationalize to be right is right.  Consider a career in law.

 I see.  EVERYONE must accept YOUR version of "morality".  This right is
 right... crap, if it were true, would have long since eliminated the need
 for philosophers, ethicists (sp?), even priests (no need for religious
 leaders if everyone sees the same "truth").  And I hardly think I'm the
 only one in the world you doesn't see eye to eye with you on issues of
 morality.  As for a career in law:  I don't think it's for me.  Morality,
 justice, ethics and such are such a morass of differing viewpoints and
 beliefs, that I'll just stick to an area where there truely is a "truth".
 Physics is great, because there are no sticky judgement calls in the
 end, what you measure IS reality. (okay, okay, for the sticklers out there
 let's just say I'm simplifing for the more narrow minded in this
 discussion).

>|> Here's the quick summary:  You supply nutrients and a suitable enviornment
>|> to a growing organism and you use *your* kidneys (and whatever) to remove
>|> it's waste from *your* blood stream.  Hence the human dialysis machine.
>|> Some women don't agree to others using their bodies for a supply of
>|> nutrients or a dumping ground for wastes.  When you agree to take up
>|> the same commitments then you have a stronger case by arguing from an
>|> equal position; until then you're just a twit with an opinion of what
>|> *others* should do.

 I see you didn't take up my suggestion that you argue from a point of
 equality by connecting yourself up to supply nutrients and a wastestream
 for another organism....You're missing a great opportunity.  Contribute
 to the welfare of another and get that same warm, fuzzy feeling of having
 done a good deed for another.  Doesn't fit into your schedule?  It would
 be inconvient; maybe even threatening to your health or life?  Please
 don't try to pass off your "rationalizations" here.

>|> >|> >   Rationalization 2: It is not really a viable human life, etc...
[deletions]
>   Nothing short of a miracle can change the minds of those who
>   have talked themselves into believing their own rationalizations.

 Yes. Okay, I'll admit it:  I just *might* be swayed by a miracle.  If your
 God will so choose to speak loudly and clearly to all us "non-believers"
 then maybe we'll change our minds.  Until then all you have to show us is
 this intangible thing called "faith"; unfortunately so does the next guy
 and his looks different...how to choose?  How to choose?

>|> >|> >   Rationalization 3: The child will be unwanted and suffer a terrible life.
[deletions]

 Here I don't see you taking up the case of ensuring that every child has
 a warm loving home and that orphanages and the concept of "unwanted"
 children disappear from human experience.  Nor do I see you actually
 adopting those already born children.  Why not?  Don't bother to answer
 I'll just dismiss your "rationalizations".  (Oh, you say those are 
 legitimate choices?  Sorry)

>|> >|> >   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.
>|> 
>|> Reasoning by assertion again?  Tssk, tssk.  Please point out where I was
>|> wrong.  That being male you'll never get pregnant?  Oh, I suppose you
>|> meant the "NO real understanding" part.  Geee, I forgot you're just
>|> such a sensitive and caring guy that you really DO understand what a
>|> woman goes through.  Sorry, but I can't claim I do.  I think I have some
>|> idea but I'm not arrogant enough to claim privy to an experience I will
>|> never have.  I've never been in space but I think I understand the
>
>   This is not relevant to the morality of taking a life

 If it were only true that "morality" were a constant of nature; unaffected
 by circumstance and environment (including time and place in history).
 Sigh.  Life *would* be soooo much simpler.  But alas it isn't.  
 Sort of devistates your nice tidy world view, doesn't it?

>|> >            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //
>|>  -robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
>            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //

Actually I tire of this entire discussion.  I initially responded because
I found you tirade insulting.  Claiming to be the ultimate in what is
right and what is wrong and casting dispersions on others' decisions by
denigrating them as "mere rationalizations" called for a response.
I'm now convinced that I won't change your mind and you won't change mine,
so why don't we just drop this dicussion of "morality" of the base issue
(abortion) and resume the topic of this group alt.abortion.INEQUITY.
I don't bother following (alt.,talk....)abortion in general; but I found
this INEQUITY issue intriging (sp?).  So please take your tired old
"rationalizations" for beating up the beliefs of others somewhere else.
For me I'll try to focus more on the INEQUITY issue in the future.

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion