stombaug@bgsuvax.UUCP (Wayne Stombaugh) (06/06/85)
Interesting case to "bring to life" - so to speak:
I have a close friend, who has the right to speak up in this area of
understandable naivety. He is the first born of 3 brothers. Under
reverent advice, his mother was advised strongly to "have an abortion",
soon before the date of expectancy. The doctor, in this case, basically
had a genuine concern for his mother, who because of extreem medical
dificulty will allways bear children under life threatening circumstances.
(That is only to her own life unless an abortion is carried out)
Concerned basically for the life inside her body more than her own life,
she went aginst strong "medical advice" (3 times). I know I'm thankfull
she did , I know she is, and without a doubt I'm sure Chris (my friend)
is also! I realize this is one individual case , with it's own unique
set of factors and circumstance, and is diferent from thousands - millions
of abortions in question. But what if in any case you were the life in
question or (1 of the 3 brothers)?
I realize I'm in for interesting and thought provoking replys, but
I welcome them all and am curious as to your thoughts! One objection I
will not even address is " She " or " they cannot handle the
responsibility of raising a child!" Who had the big enough responsibility
to create the child?chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/09/85)
> > Interesting case to "bring to life" - so to speak: > I have a close friend, who has the right to speak up in this area of > understandable naivety. He is the first born of 3 brothers. Under > reverent advice, his mother was advised strongly to "have an abortion", > soon before the date of expectancy. The doctor, in this case, basically > had a genuine concern for his mother, who because of extreem medical > dificulty will allways bear children under life threatening circumstances. > (That is only to her own life unless an abortion is carried out) > Concerned basically for the life inside her body more than her own life, > she went aginst strong "medical advice" (3 times). I know I'm thankfull > she did , I know she is, and without a doubt I'm sure Chris (my friend) > is also! I realize this is one individual case , with it's own unique > set of factors and circumstance, and is diferent from thousands - millions > of abortions in question. But what if in any case you were the life in > question or (1 of the 3 brothers)? First, and most importantly, I wasn't aborted [need I point this out?]. Therefore this question is kind of pointless. Second, if I had been aborted, I wouldn't be around to wonder about whether I should have been aborted or not. So again, the question is kind of pointless. Since I can either be aborted or not aborted, the obvious conclusion is that the question IS pointless. Chris Andersen
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (06/10/85)
[] From: stombaug@bgsuvax.UUCP (Wayne Stombaugh) in <545@bgsuvax.UUCP>: > [...] his mother was advised strongly to "have an abortion", >soon before the date of expectancy. The doctor, in this case, basically >had a genuine concern for his mother, who because of extreem medical >dificulty will allways bear children under life threatening circumstances. >(That is only to her own life unless an abortion is carried out) >Concerned basically for the life inside her body more than her own life, >she went aginst strong "medical advice" (3 times). That was her individual choice and risk. What bearing does this have on women who choose abortion? > [...] But what if in any case you were the life in >question or (1 of the 3 brothers)? And I were aborted? Then I wouldn't be here to worry about not being here, would I? -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (06/10/85)
Chris Andersen, responding to someone else: > First, and most importantly, I wasn't aborted [need I point this out?]. Yes, you do. It isn't altogether obvious these days. > Second, if I had been aborted, I wouldn't be around to wonder about > whether I should have been aborted or not. Not necessarily so. There have been abortions -- perhaps I should say attempted abortions -- in which the fetus survived, and was later adopted. But in any case, the same argument would justify murder -- e.g., I haven't been murdered, and if I had been murdered, I wouldn't be around to wonder whether I should have been murdered. Now, aren't you glad you haven't been murdered? Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/11/85)
>> Interesting case to "bring to life" - so to speak: >> I have a close friend, who has the right to speak up in this area of >> understandable naivety. He is the first born of 3 brothers. Under >> reverent advice, his mother was advised strongly to "have an abortion", >> soon before the date of expectancy. The doctor, in this case, basically >> had a genuine concern for his mother, who because of extreem medical >> dificulty will allways bear children under life threatening circumstances. >> (That is only to her own life unless an abortion is carried out) >> Concerned basically for the life inside her body more than her own life, >> she went aginst strong "medical advice" (3 times). I know I'm thankfull >> she did , I know she is, and without a doubt I'm sure Chris (my friend) >> is also! I realize this is one individual case , with it's own unique >> set of factors and circumstance, and is diferent from thousands - millions >> of abortions in question. But what if in any case you were the life in >> question or (1 of the 3 brothers)? > > First, and most importantly, I wasn't aborted [need I point this out?]. >Therefore this question is kind of pointless. > > Second, if I had been aborted, I wouldn't be around to wonder about >whether I should have been aborted or not. So again, the question is kind of >pointless. > > Since I can either be aborted or not aborted, the obvious conclusion is >that the question IS pointless. > > Chris Andersen Its not pointless for those who have been helped by others who might have been aborted. If you had been aborted, the lives of others you have influenced (or will influence) would be much different. Would you like to think that they would be better off? Whould they think so? I'm glad my wife wasn't aborted. For all I know, I may never have met another like her. There's no way to tell the influence that one person would have on another. I don't think we are justified in considering the "what if so-and-so were aborted" question so lightly by assuming that that person's life would have be detrimental to others or make no difference whatsoever. Is your life pointless now? If not, why is the question of whether or not you had ever lived pointless? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/13/85)
> Its not pointless for those who have been helped by others who might > have been aborted. If you had been aborted, the lives of others you > have influenced (or will influence) would be much different. Would > you like to think that they would be better off? Whould they think so? > I'm glad my wife wasn't aborted. For all I know, I may never have met > another like her. > > There's no way to tell the influence that one person would have on another. > I don't think we are justified in considering the "what if so-and-so were > aborted" question so lightly by assuming that that person's life would have > be detrimental to others or make no difference whatsoever. > > Is your life pointless now? If not, why is the question of whether or > not you had ever lived pointless? > -- > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Yes, but the question of "what if I had been aborted?" is not more meaningful than asking "what if I had died in that last car accident I was in?" or "what if I had different parents?" or "what if I was born in a different country?", and so on.... Basically, the answer is "who knows what might have happened, probably a bunch of good things, and a bunch of bad things, but it didn't happen, so what is the point in wondering about it". Dying is only one type of thing that people do that change the course of history. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/14/85)
> Chris Andersen, responding to someone else: > > > First, and most importantly, I wasn't aborted [need I point this out?]. > > Yes, you do. It isn't altogether obvious these days. > > > Second, if I had been aborted, I wouldn't be around to wonder about > > whether I should have been aborted or not. > > Not necessarily so. There have been abortions -- perhaps I should say > attempted abortions -- in which the fetus survived, and was later adopted. > > But in any case, the same argument would justify murder -- e.g., I > haven't been murdered, and if I had been murdered, I wouldn't be > around to wonder whether I should have been murdered. Now, aren't > you glad you haven't been murdered? Oh but you are forgetting that before I am murdered, I do have the ability to set up defenses (ie laws) to prevent myself from being murdered. I know that I can be murdered, so I can do something to prevent it. However, a fetus does not know that it can be aborted so it can't sit around pondering the possibility of it happening. > > Gary Samuelson > ittvax!bunker!garys Chris Andersen tektronix!azure!chrisa
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/14/85)
> > First, and most importantly, I wasn't aborted [need I point this out?]. > >Therefore this question is kind of pointless. > > > > Second, if I had been aborted, I wouldn't be around to wonder about > >whether I should have been aborted or not. So again, the question is kind of > >pointless. > > > > Since I can either be aborted or not aborted, the obvious conclusion is > >that the question IS pointless. > > > > Chris Andersen > > Its not pointless for those who have been helped by others who might > have been aborted. If you had been aborted, the lives of others you > have influenced (or will influence) would be much different. Would > you like to think that they would be better off? Whould they think so? > I'm glad my wife wasn't aborted. For all I know, I may never have met > another like her. Let us assume that I had been aborted. How can the lives of other people be different from a life in which they never lived (ie the one in which I was not aborted). Since I'm aborted, how can I think about whether they are better of or not. How should I know if they would think so. I'm also glad that your wife wasn't aborted because she seems to make you life better for you (I do not desire a bad time for others just for my sake). However, if she had been, you would never know it because you would never have known her in the first place (this is starting to sound like an alternate history story). > > There's no way to tell the influence that one person would have on another. > I don't think we are justified in considering the "what if so-and-so were > aborted" question so lightly by assuming that that person's life would have > be detrimental to others or make no difference whatsoever. > > Is your life pointless now? If not, why is the question of whether or > not you had ever lived pointless? I fail to see how my saying that the question of my being aborted is pointless implies that my life is pointless now. (aside: frankly I can judge whether my life is pointless since I don't know what the point of life is. Get the point :-) ). > -- > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Chris Andersen tektronix!azure!chrisa
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/14/85)
>Yes, but the question of "what if I had been aborted?" is not more >meaningful than asking "what if I had died in that last car accident I >was in?" or "what if I had different parents?" or "what if I was born >in a different country?", and so on.... >Basically, the answer is "who knows what might have happened, probably a >bunch of good things, and a bunch of bad things, but it didn't happen, >so what is the point in wondering about it". Dying is only one type of >thing that people do that change the course of history. >-- >Sophie Quigley >{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie Dying by whose choice, Sophie? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/17/85)
> >Yes, but the question of "what if I had been aborted?" is not more > >meaningful than asking "what if I had died in that last car accident I > >was in?" or "what if I had different parents?" or "what if I was born > >in a different country?", and so on.... > > >Dying is only one type of > >thing that people do that change the course of history. > >-- > >Sophie Quigley > > Dying by whose choice, Sophie? > -- > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Who cares? dying before I was born, dying after I was born, dying because someone killed me, or I killed myself, or I just died of a disease. Most people don't chose to die or how they die, they just die. And if they die of a car accident they are as dead as if they were muredered, or aborted. I don't understand what point you are trying to make, Paul. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (06/17/85)
(me) > > But in any case, the same argument would justify murder -- e.g., I > > haven't been murdered, and if I had been murdered, I wouldn't be > > around to wonder whether I should have been murdered. Now, aren't > > you glad you haven't been murdered? (Chris Anderson) > Oh but you are forgetting that before I am murdered, I do have the ability > to set up defenses (ie laws) to prevent myself from being murdered. I know > that I can be murdered, so I can do something to prevent it. > However, a fetus does not know that it can be aborted so it can't sit around > pondering the possibility of it happening. So the fact that the fetus can't defend itself justifies killing it? Or, to look at the other side of the same coin, if you were *not* able to pass laws to prevent your own murder (e.g., you live in a totalitarian state where certain classes of individuals may be legally killed), then it would not be wrong to kill you? Does your logic apply to my 2 1/2 year old daughter? I don't think she has ever considered the possibility that someone would try to kill her, and I am sure that she would not be able to defend herself. Does that make it morally acceptable, according to your reasoning, to kill her? Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/20/85)
In article <524@bunkerb.UUCP> garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >(me) >> > But in any case, the same argument would justify murder -- e.g., I >> > haven't been murdered, and if I had been murdered, I wouldn't be >> > around to wonder whether I should have been murdered. Now, aren't >> > you glad you haven't been murdered? > >(Chris Anderson) >> Oh but you are forgetting that before I am murdered, I do have the ability >> to set up defenses (ie laws) to prevent myself from being murdered. I know >> that I can be murdered, so I can do something to prevent it. >> However, a fetus does not know that it can be aborted so it can't sit around >> pondering the possibility of it happening. > >So the fact that the fetus can't defend itself justifies killing it? *SIGH* I wish people would pay attention to the topic being discussed instead of taking a single posting as is. If you had bothered to pay attention you would have seen that we were discussing the relevancy of the question, "What if you had been aborted?". I was trying to point out that the question was pointless for the very reasons I have so far given. They in no way relate to whether it is right to "kill" the fetus but they do refer to what one must consider when deciding on ones position concerning the "killing" of the fetus (ie does the possibility of you being aborted have any relvency to the question at hand or does it just cloud the issue). >Or, to look at the other side of the same coin, if you were *not* >able to pass laws to prevent your own murder (e.g., you live in a >totalitarian state where certain classes of individuals may be legally >killed), then it would not be wrong to kill you? Again, there is a difference. Before I am born not only do I not have the power to hinder or encourage such a law but I would have no way of conceiving of hindering/encouraging this law since the very concept of law is totally foreign to my thought processes (limited though they be (when I'm a fetus, not now :-))). Given that a fetus has a very limited range of sensory inputs (which it might not even notice since it has never been in a situation in which those inputs didn't exist (you never notice something until it's gone)) and assuming that it even has the ability to process that data, the questions of law, morality, etc., are totaly unimportant to it. > >Does your logic apply to my 2 1/2 year old daughter? I don't think >she has ever considered the possibility that someone would try to >kill her, and I am sure that she would not be able to defend herself. >Does that make it morally acceptable, according to your reasoning, >to kill her? > Here we do get into a sticky point. A very young child (1-3 years say) might have as limited a conception of law, morality, death, etc., as the fetus, so by my reasoning it might seem that the life of a child is no different then the "life" of a fetus. And you would probably be right in drawing that conclusion. However, any moral/philosophical principle I follow is never graven in stone. I approach things basically on a case by case basis, using the above mentioned moral principles as guidelines in which to work. I *DO NOT* consider them to be absolute (I have my doubts about whether there is anything that is absolute). >Gary Samuelson Chris Andersen
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (06/21/85)
> In article <524@bunkerb.UUCP> garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: > >(me) > >> > But in any case, the same argument would justify murder -- e.g., I > >> > haven't been murdered, and if I had been murdered, I wouldn't be > >> > around to wonder whether I should have been murdered. Now, aren't > >> > you glad you haven't been murdered? > >(Chris Anderson) > >> Oh but you are forgetting that before I am murdered, I do have the ability > >> to set up defenses (ie laws) to prevent myself from being murdered. I know > >> that I can be murdered, so I can do something to prevent it. > >> However, a fetus does not know that it can be aborted so it can't sit > >> around pondering the possibility of it happening. > >So the fact that the fetus can't defend itself justifies killing it? > *SIGH* I wish people would pay attention to the topic being discussed instead > of taking a single posting as is. If you had bothered to pay attention you > would have seen that we were discussing the relevancy of the question, > "What if you had been aborted?". I don't know about you, but I was discussing the morality of abortion. The question you quote was brought up (not by me, but that's not particularly relevant) by someone to suggest, I think, that our concepts of rights should by symmetrical. "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" is a common, and I think a valid, question to ask in determining the morality of a given action. > I was trying to point out that the question > was pointless for the very reasons I have so far given. They in no way relate > to whether it is right to "kill" the fetus but they do refer to what one > must consider when deciding on ones position concerning the "killing" of > the fetus (ie does the possibility of you being aborted have any relevancy > to the question at hand or does it just cloud the issue). Let me try to understand: Your reasons do not relate to whether abortion is right, but do relate to deciding whether abortion is right. OK, I can accept that. But your reasons are assertions unto themselves, and lead to certain conclusions, which I have shown and you have not denied. I notice that you consistently quote terms such as "life" and "kill" in reference to a fetus. Is this because you don't think that the fetus is really alive, and therefore technically can't be killed? If so, say so openly, and supply some substantiation. If not, leave them out -- they are clouding the issue. > >Or, to look at the other side of the same coin, if you were *not* > >able to pass laws to prevent your own murder (e.g., you live in a > >totalitarian state where certain classes of individuals may be legally > >killed), then it would not be wrong to kill you? > > Again, there is a difference. Before I am born not only do I not have the > power to hinder or encourage such a law but I would have no way of conceiving > of hindering/encouraging this law since the very concept of law is totally > foreign to my thought processes (limited though they be (when I'm a fetus, > not now :-))). :-# <-- someone biting his tongue. So it is morally acceptable to violate the rights of anyone who does not understand his or her rights; indeed, if one does not understand one's rights, those rights do not even exist. It's OK to kill someone who doesn't understand what being killed is. I suppose it is also OK to steal from someone who doesn't understand that he or she is being swindled (and some people think *my* ideas are dangerous). > Given that a fetus has a very limited range of sensory > inputs... Sorry, not given. There's not much for the fetus to see, but the sense of hearing, for example, works just fine. > (which it might not even notice since it has never been in a > situation in which those inputs didn't exist (you never notice something > until it's gone)) One is *apt* not to notice something until it's gone. It is false to say that one *never* notices something until it's gone (I thought you didn't believe in any absolutes :-). To continue the example of hearing, the sounds which the fetus can hear are certainly not constant; you have no basis for claiming that the fetus doesn't notice the sounds. > and assuming that it even has the ability to process > that data, the questions of law, morality, etc., are totally > unimportant to it. > >Does your logic apply to my 2 1/2 year old daughter?... > Here we do get into a sticky point. A very young child (1-3 years say) might > have as limited a conception of law, morality, death, etc., as the fetus, > so by my reasoning it might seem that the life of a child is no different > then the "life" of a fetus. And you would probably be right in drawing that > conclusion. It's only sticky because to be consistent you have to conclude what follows. That conclusion apparently sticks in your craw a little, so to speak, so I am not surprised that you hedged a little in answering the question. (I refer to your use of the words "might" and "probably." What it amounts to is that you don't think a child under 3 has any more right to live than the fetus, whom you don't think has any right to live. > However, any moral/philosophical principle I follow is never graven in stone. That statement is self-contradictory. You have taken as an absolute principle the position that no (other) principle is absolute. > I approach things basically on a case by case basis, using the above mentioned > moral principles as guidelines in which to work. I *DO NOT* consider them > to be absolute (I have my doubts about whether there is anything that is > absolute). OK, let's take a case -- I conclude from your postings that you think it would be morally acceptable to kill my daughter, if it suited you to do so. Perhaps you would not do so, but someone else might be convinced (possibly being predisposed to do so) that you are right and kill my daughter, for whatever reason. You therefore present a real, if not imminent, danger to my daughter, whom I desire to protect. Would it be wrong for me to kill you to remove that danger? If so, why? I realize that we have wandered off the topic of abortion, but I feel that it is important to show the logical consequences of a position. And Chris's reasoning logically leads to the above scenario. Gary Samuelson
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/26/85)
In article <879@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >> >So the fact that the fetus can't defend itself justifies killing it? > >> *SIGH* I wish people would pay attention to the topic being discussed instead >> of taking a single posting as is. If you had bothered to pay attention you >> would have seen that we were discussing the relevancy of the question, >> "What if you had been aborted?". > >I don't know about you, but I was discussing the morality of abortion. >The question you quote was brought up (not by me, but that's not particularly >relevant) by someone to suggest, I think, that our concepts of rights >should by symmetrical. It is difficult to keep track of a discussion on the net, so it is natural for the subject to drift from it's original course. I may have drifted a little in my postings, but I was trying to stop someone else from using my posting in a context for which it was never meant. I can hear the crowd crying now: "But what you say hear does have something to do with your attitudes concerning other matters". WRONG! It is relevant to my personal philosophical beliefs which approach every, EVERY problem on a case by case basis. Just because I say that argument X can be used in situation A, does not mean that it can be used in situation B (even if A and B are closely related). >"How would you like it if someone did that to >you?" is a common, and I think a valid, question to ask in determining >the morality of a given action. There is an important point I think your missing and that I'm striving to get across. You can ask ME that question concerning moral problems BEFORE I ever face them. However, you cannot ask them of a fetus (if you could then a lot of problems associated with abortion could be answered). > >> I was trying to point out that the question >> was pointless for the very reasons I have so far given. They in no way relate >> to whether it is right to "kill" the fetus but they do refer to what one >> must consider when deciding on ones position concerning the "killing" of >> the fetus (ie does the possibility of you being aborted have any relevancy >> to the question at hand or does it just cloud the issue). > >Let me try to understand: Your reasons do not relate to whether >abortion is right, but do relate to deciding whether abortion is >right. OK, I can accept that. But your reasons are assertions >unto themselves, and lead to certain conclusions, which I have >shown and you have not denied. That's because I cannot deny them (please read on before you flame on this point). > >I notice that you consistently quote terms such as "life" and "kill" >in reference to a fetus. Is this because you don't think that the >fetus is really alive, and therefore technically can't be killed? >If so, say so openly, and supply some substantiation. If not, leave >them out -- they are clouding the issue. Fact is, I'm undecided on the matter. Both(all?) sides in my view have equally valid viewpoints which must be taken into consideration. Until I can come to some stand on this, I will continue to use the quoted terms because 1) "kill" takes less typing then "remove that which makes something/someone bioligically/mentally/spiritually alive" and 2) because if I just say "kill" without the quotes, people will assume I am in the anit-abortion camp. > >> >Or, to look at the other side of the same coin, if you were *not* >> >able to pass laws to prevent your own murder (e.g., you live in a >> >totalitarian state where certain classes of individuals may be legally >> >killed), then it would not be wrong to kill you? >> >> Again, there is a difference. Before I am born not only do I not have the >> power to hinder or encourage such a law but I would have no way of conceiving >> of hindering/encouraging this law since the very concept of law is totally >> foreign to my thought processes (limited though they be (when I'm a fetus, >> not now :-))). > >:-# <-- someone biting his tongue. > >So it is morally acceptable to violate the rights of anyone who >does not understand his or her rights; indeed, if one does not >understand one's rights, those rights do not even exist. It's >OK to kill someone who doesn't understand what being killed is. >I suppose it is also OK to steal from someone who doesn't understand >that he or she is being swindled (and some people think *my* ideas >are dangerous). Please, instead of arguing against each individual point I make, look at them in the context of my full argument. Latter on in the quoted article I address this very issue (read on and I will do so again). > >> Given that a fetus has a very limited range of sensory >> inputs... > >Sorry, not given. There's not much for the fetus to see, but >the sense of hearing, for example, works just fine. okay, pardon my use of the "given". By limited I mean not fully up to par with "normal" sensory inputs. > >> (which it might not even notice since it has never been in a >> situation in which those inputs didn't exist (you never notice something >> until it's gone)) > >One is *apt* not to notice something until it's gone. It is false >to say that one *never* notices something until it's gone >(I thought you didn't believe in any absolutes :-). To continue >the example of hearing, the sounds which the fetus can hear are >certainly not constant; you have no basis for claiming that the >fetus doesn't notice the sounds. Maybe the fetus does notice the sounds, but there is a difference between noticing and understanding (a difference I consider important in all matters, not just abortion). But this is quickly dropping into a very deep philosophical discussion into what constitutes life (if you wish it to turn to that, I'm willing). > >> and assuming that it even has the ability to process >> that data, the questions of law, morality, etc., are totally >> unimportant to it. addendum: Please notice that I'm saying that it is unimportant to the fetus. I said nothing about it's importance to others. > >> >Does your logic apply to my 2 1/2 year old daughter?... > >> Here we do get into a sticky point. A very young child (1-3 years say) might >> have as limited a conception of law, morality, death, etc., as the fetus, >> so by my reasoning it might seem that the life of a child is no different >> then the "life" of a fetus. And you would probably be right in drawing that >> conclusion. > >It's only sticky because to be consistent you have to conclude what >follows. That conclusion apparently sticks in your craw a little, >so to speak, so I am not surprised that you hedged a little in >answering the question. (I refer to your use of the words "might" >and "probably." I use "might" and "probably" whenever I try to apply general principles to specific situations. Because, they "might" not always apply and they "probably" need to modified to fit the situation. > >What it amounts to is that you don't think a child under 3 has any >more right to live than the fetus, whom you don't think has any right >to live. Grrrr. Please read my statements in the full context of my argument, not individually. (see below). > >> However, any moral/philosophical principle I follow is never graven in stone. > >That statement is self-contradictory. You have taken as an absolute >principle the position that no (other) principle is absolute. I know it's self-contradictory but so what? It works for me. (Maybe that sounds a little conceited but if I were to follow this point up, I would quickly fill net.abortion with material that has absolutely [:-)] nothing to do with abortion) > >> I approach things basically on a case by case basis, using the above mentioned >> moral principles as guidelines in which to work. I *DO NOT* consider them >> to be absolute (I have my doubts about whether there is anything that is >> absolute). NOTE: THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IN MY PREVIOUS POSTING. IF YOU HAD READ IT CAREFULLY, YOU WOULD SEE THAT MY STATEMENTS DO NOT IMPLY SOME OF THE THINGS YOU SAY THEY DO. > >OK, let's take a case -- I conclude from your postings that you think >it would be morally acceptable to kill my daughter, if it suited you >to do so. I am not saying "if it suites me, then I can do what I feel is morally right". I am saying "weighing each individual case according to it's merits and being guided by flexible moral principles, if the analysis shows that an action is nescessary, then that morally justified." (note that this is a general principle applying to more then just abortion). > Perhaps you would not do so, but someone else might be >convinced (possibly being predisposed to do so) that you are right >and kill my daughter, for whatever reason. You therefore present >a real, if not imminent, danger to my daughter, whom I desire to >protect. Would it be wrong for me to kill you to remove that danger? >If so, why? I cannot answer this question because it is to ambiguous. I would have to know the facts about the situation that might lead up to either me or someone else desiring the death of your daughter. If it was someone else, then I would have to use whatever information I have and then make a decision using my personal, *flexible* moral principles when deciding whether to inhibit his actions. Also, In my eyes (or someone elses) it "might" be wrong for you to protect your daughter, but in yours it "might" be right to do so. Again, it comes down to a situation of two (or more) moral principles colliding on an issue that seems to present no compromise. What to do in this situation? I don't know. We would probably have to wing it. > >I realize that we have wandered off the topic of abortion, but >I feel that it is important to show the logical consequences of >a position. And Chris's reasoning logically leads to the above >scenario. Sorry, it does in certain special case, but not in all cases. > >Gary Samuelson Chris Andersen