cbostrum (02/07/83)
Re: Pete Wilson's flame on abortion. When an argument starts out "HORSEFEATHERS!" and ends with a request to keep burners on "pilot" its hard to know what to say. For starters, I still think it is clear that we must be searching out a morally relevant criterion for a right to life, and not some obviously arbitrary one which the Moral Majority criterion clearly is. The only possible way to save **it** is to claim that our morals stem from God, so his arbitrary decree goes. I think this is clearly inadequate. Rather than being "absurd at best" I think the criterion I gave is as close to moral relevancy as we have come to date. I realise that there could be some discomfort caused to holy rollers when they are denied arguing simply that their status relevant to god is the big thing, and that there is no need to consider right to life for anyore lowly beings. I was hoping for some considered dicussion on this topic, but so far, no go. Then occurs the traditional "you are just seeing it from your point of view" rebutal. Pete's relative wasnt aware of himself, etc, Pete says, so we deny him the right to life. Pete points out my argument well: we should look at the others point of view. But he just admitted that this fellow DOESNT HAVE A POINT OF VIEW that involves himself and what should/should not be done to him. Who is going to claim this right to life? I think the "then you would have aborted Beethoven" is a better one in this same fallacious genre. The rest of the article is just self-righteous flame. Talk of how "self-serving" and hedonistic we all are. How terrible recreational sex is. How perhaps we shouldnt tamper with Mother Nature. And the dubious assertion that no other mammals have sex for fun, but to procreate. In fact, I bet this is exactly wrong. Ill bet most other mammals havent figured out that sex is for procreation, and really to it to get their thrills. There is evidence even some human tribes hadnt figured it out till white man came along. Dont get "motivations" of natural selection confused with the personal motivations of individuals. Its careless thinking. Re: sex education and birth control education. I dont know where Pete's been, but there has been a great call for the more general availability of birth control information and birth control itself, even as a part of "sex education" It has usually been people, in fact, who complain about out "self centered hedonism" and those who advocate a return to "traditional morality" as Pete seems to, that are in favor of the supression of this knowledge. (As the New Right shows their name to be a slander to true right wingers everywhere)