From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Moral Absolutes
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:47:30 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<72080@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin) said:
>John
>>>Kevin
>>>>David Knapp
>>>>>Kevin
...
>>>I am not a woman.  If I wanted reconstructive surgery, I wouldn't perform it
>>>on myself.  The issue has not been over simplified.  I still think performing
>>>surgery on ones self is rash ans stupid.
>
>>	I agree. But a woman who is pregnant and does not want to be can
>>become desperate. However she became pregnant.
>
>A woman, or for that matter any PERSON, who becomes desparate is not a rational
>thinker.  The fact the she is desparate alone means that she will do anything
>to get out of the situation; she is desparate for a way out.  Irrational
>thinkers make bad decisions; 

Not always.  Decisions arrived at through desperation are not *always*
good, but they are not *always* bad either.

>                             they are determined to be incompetent to make
>rational decisions for themselves.  If a woman becomes desparate for
>a solution, she will try everything to get rid of the pregnancy, sometimes
>making a decision she is not competent to make.

Really, what it sound like you are saying, is that if she arrives at
abortion as her decision she is being irrational.

...

>>	It may come to the point where a woman would rather die than continue
>>with a pregnancy.
>
>If this is so, she must be willing to accept any consequences that come
>from illegal abortions, ie jail, whatever...

Yeah, we'll just appropriate more tax money from education, pre-natal
care, and welfare to build more jails to hold victimless "criminals".
Let's see, if anti-abortion laws cut abortion by 50% that would be 600,000
women + their doctors every year added to our jail system.  I'm sure it
would level off at a certain point though.

...

>>>The majority does not seem to be opposed to killing cows, therefore, it is
>>>moral for society to kill cows for food.
>
>>	It is moral for a majority in a society to impose their morality
>>on the minority? I don't think it's a clear issue. On the one hand, you
>>have a theocracy, on the other a country filled with Jeff Dahmers. The
>>question in my mind is "which morals can be imposed by a society upon an
>>individual?"
>
>The majority of Americans feel that abortion in it's state of permissibility
>is not moral now.  They feel that it should be reduced to only certain
>terms: rape, health, incest.

Really?  Have you spoken personally to 51% of all Americans?  That would
be about 130 million people.  I'm sure you meant that "*some* polls
indicate that most Americans are morally opposed to abortion."

>When a majority holds a moral opinion, they have a right to impose their
>morals on the minority.  I won't say that is correct, but that is how
>democracy works.  What is proper, though, is to enforce ethical standards.

Good thing we don't live in a pure democracy.  Good thing that we have a
Constitution that limits the ability of the majority to oppress the
minority.

...

>>	Comatose victims who register brain activity have the CAPACITY to
>>be persons. Infants have the CAPACITY to be self-aware. A fetus has no
>>capacity for thought whatsoever (at least before the last few months).
>
>True, comatose victims have that capacity, yet they do not think.  They do not
>communicate in language.  They are NOT persons.  Infants do not have
>a capacity to be self-aware.  Their brains are not that developed.  A fetus
>has not these capcities either.  Yet all three are recipients of rights.

The first two are also not inhabiting the body of a woman against her
will.  Somewhat of an important point, wouldn't you say?

>>>A ununified sperm has NO POTENTIAL WHATSOEVER OF EVER BECOMING A PERSON.
>
>>	Ah, but it has the potential to be unified with an egg, and then
>>has the potential to become a person. That's one of the reasons potential
>>is such an ambiguous term. You can play too many word games with it.
>
>It has *does* have a potential to be unified.  But until the egg meets the
>sperm, each of them has no potential to be a person.  With this reasoning,
>we have a potential to be a potential person.  Too mnay potentials, and it
>is stretching the meaning of potential.

Right, without an abortion the fetus has the potential of developing and
eventually being born.  Too many potentials.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion