donald@utcsrgv.UUCP (Don Chan) (07/09/83)
I told myself I wouldn't get involved, but when people start making stupid
statements (e.g. floyd!dyl: "Pregnancies do not come about by accidents"),
it's time to violate the Prime Directive.
I think the question (as raised by Calvin Ostrum originally) is, "should
we the rights usually associated with a human being be given to the unborn?
In particular, do the unborn have the right to not be aborted? If yes,
to what extent does this apply, and justify your answer logically."
Abortion debates are laced with more emotion than rationality, especially
on the side of the anti-abortionists.
People who argue vehemently against abortion seem to have already made up
their minds on emotional grounds and then try to rationalize their belief.
There's nothing wrong with believing on emotional grounds, BUT then they
try to impose their views on other people by trying to prevent all abortions!
If you think abortions are wrong, fine, don't have 'em. But if a woman
doesn't think it's wrong, why should you impede her?
I guess the reason is that anti-abortionists think that a fetus has some
sort of rights that should prevent the mother from having it aborted.
Now here's where it gets hard. The anti-abortionists have to show that
the fetus ought to be given these rights.
If they can't show that, then all they can say is that having an abortion
before a certain stage of pregnancy is more of a matter of good/bad taste
than right/wrong.
I say that the anti-abortionists have to do the showing because they want
to draw the line. Only a madman or Catholic would claim that a newly-
fertilized zygote has human rights. But then nobody wants to go around
killing newborn babies either. (interesting question: why is infantcide
wrong? Is it any worse than putting your dog to sleep?)
Some FALLACIOUS arguments against abortion I don't want to hear
any more:
"Aborting a fetus is murder (or killing)"
Begs the question. Not all killing is murder. Murder is the killing of
a human being in violation of his rights. We have not determined that
the fetus is a human being in that sense.
"The fetus is human"
The fetus is an immature organism which may develop into a human being.
Many things look human but are not (e.g. a man with most of his brain
removed, kept alive by artificial means).
"The fetus is alive and has a will to survive"
So do dogs and cats.
"The Bible is against abortion"
The Bible is ambiguous on the whole matter. Either side can interpret it
to support their own views (I've seen it done). In any case, many people
don't take the Bible as a source of moral authority. Indeed, it would
be highly presumptuous and arrogant of anybody to argue abortion is immoral
on religious grounds.
It goes on and on. I await some semblance of reason instead of emotional
flaming.
Don Chankwmc@hou5d.UUCP (07/11/83)
On the subject of abortion it was said in one article that "People who argue vehemently against abortion seem to have already made up their minds" ... and that only people who had had abortions were qualified to speak on the subject. RUBBISH ! ..... do I need to kill someone before I can argue that murder is wrong. Also is it not possible that people who have had abortions are more interested in justifying their guilty consciences than people who have taken a responsible attitude to sexual activity ? One last point, I would think that most abortions are the result of people voluntarily having sex without making proper preparation. The rape/failed contraceptive abortion I would think accounts for a very small proportion of all abortions. Does anybody have actual statistics for this ? Ken Cochran hou5d!kwmc