From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: I rant a bit  (was Re: Abortion providers who oppose sterile conditions (was Re: Things)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:35:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.034152.7955@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
}In article <1992Jul21.121547.27369@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}>In article <1992Jul21.041427.5214@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
}>(Kevin Darcy) writes:

}>}This little semantic detour from common sense also seems to jar pretty 
}>}badly against some other statements you've made too:

}>}[re: laws prohibiting murder]

}>}"Folks who see in binary and feel that you are either 'fer it 
}>} or again' it' are doubtless perplexed by such a feeling.  I 
}>} confess to being somewhat apathetic about it, being neither 
}>}                                                     ^^^^^^^
}>} for or against.  I just don't much care." 
}>} ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	
}>}			<1992Jul13.025936.21993@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

}>}So apathy is okay when we're talking about murder laws, but not when we're
}>}on the subject of abortion legislation, eh?

}>In a word, yes.  Laws against murder don't have near the implications about
}>personal freedom and government control that proposed abortion laws do.

}That's true, they just deal in trivial little matters like the arbitrary
}termination of BORN PEOPLE'S LIVES. Nothing worth legislating about, of 
}course...

I've stated before, and I will state again that I don't think murder laws
do much to determine whether or not you or I are killed.  You seem to feel
somewhat different.  Knock your socks off.  Legislate about murder all you
want.  It doesn't seem to upset many people if murder is illegal and most
of the laws I have seen don't affect how  the majority of people conduct 
their lives.  This is hardly true of proposed abortion legislation.  Not
only is there a vast difference in perception of what "abortion" constitutes,
such proposed legislation would have a very direct impact upon how
BORN PEOPLE (as you put it) live their lives.  I would rather not see
such legislation.  I argue that such legislation not be proposed.  I
do not support such legislation.  I am against such legislation.
Two reasons pop into my mind:  I have seen no evidence (figures or examples,
for those who would say "what kind of evidence?") that such legislation
is either necessary or effective.  The other reason is that every
such proposal entails either a real or perceived effect on the quality
of life unrelated to the issue the legislation is supposed to address.
The two reasons are not in order of importance, either one is sufficient
to question the advisability of such legislation.  The mere fact that 
there are at least two reasons to not enact legislation makes it highly
doubtful (at least to me) that it is at all wise to try to use this 
method to address the issue at all.

If legislation is passed which doesn't do much, it is at worst a waste
of time and dollars.  If legislation is proposed which not only is 
a waste of time but also raises significant objection there is a good 
chance it might also be misdirected and unfair.  Waste is something I can 
abide.  When folks want to waste their time and (some of it is my tax) dollars 
legislating unfairness and injustice, no matter how good their intentions, 
I sometimes object.  Not in all cases, mind you, but in some.  Mostly those 
in which I can see a real threat to myself and others.

}>Folks who see the world in "for or against" terms are no doubt puzzled 
}>by statements made by those who do not.  

}Your definition of "against" left no room between "against" and "for", 
}Galen. I think you should either correct that definition, or admit that
}these mythical "folks" you keep talking about include YOURSELF... 

I was asked to explain how I could be "against" abortion legislation
in general and also state that I would support, even vote in favor of,
the FOCA.  I didn't attempt to provide a universal definition of 
"against" to satisfy either common usage or the Queen's English.  
Perhaps you should contact Wes Orr if that is what you want.  From 
what I gather he has a dictionary and can probably look it up for 
you.  More correct than saying that my definition of "against" leaves
no room between "against" and "for" would be the allegation that they
overlap.  I freely admit that.  As for mythical characters, I assure you 
that people who see the world in binary terms are quite real and hardly 
mythical.  I have actually met them.  They are fairly common.  As I
perceive myself to be real also, I see no sense in "admitting" that I 
am mythical nor do I see any point in including myself amongst those
who I feel don't see shades of grey.  However, I rather suspect that I have
"corrected" my definition of "against," so I imagine that even you would
admit that in so doing I need not include myself...

}>By the way, Kevin, I suppose I am one of your "extremists" regarding
}>abortion, or at least the pro-choice position.  In that I have said that
}>I prefer no (NO, or NADA, ZILCH, etc.) legislation regarding abortion yet 
}>am willing to vote for the FOCA, how would you define me now?

}Confused. 

I am hardly confused.  Maybe you find it dificult to understand me,
but that hardly makes me confused.  Confusing, perhaps, but not 
confused.

}Inconsistent. 

You might have something there.  Is "inconsistent" the same as "seemingly
contradictory"?  I freely admit that some of my ideas appear to be in
conflict with others.  I constantly re-examine my beliefs, probably
more often than you suspect.  That the beliefs appear to be sometimes
in conflict does not outweigh the impression I get that I can consistantly 
derive each one rather logically from a basic set of principles.  

}Irrational.

What you find difficult to comprehend is not necessarily irrational.  It is 
somewhat telling that you choose to characterize it as such.


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29515 alt.flame:11506