regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (02/22/85)
From ttidca!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!egs Tue Feb 19 11:19:14 1985 Subject: Re: Gosh, I hope this doesn't bury me From: egs@epsilon.UUCP (Ed Sheppard) Path: ttidca!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!egs Organization: BELLCORE, Livingston, NJ Newsgroups: net.abortion Date: Tue, 19-Feb-85 11:19:14 PST >What do you (both pro-choice and pro-life) believe motivates the >opposition. Do you consider them to be heartless, unconcerned, etc. >pursuing a (primarily) politically motivated campaign, determined to shove >their ideology/moral standards down other people's throats? Or are they >honest in their convictions but simply misguided? Consider this a poll: >respond to me and I'll summarize to the net in a while. > Ed Sheppard > Bellcore I think that most persons on each side of the abortion issue are honest in their convictions, and most truly have deeply considered the aspects they consider germaine to the argument. However, on the Pro-life side, I think they are determined to shove their ideology/moral standards down other people's throats (which is what anti-abortion legislation would do) where as the Pro-choice side is willing to leave things up to the individual (which is what pro-abortion legislation would do). If the issue were left up to the individual, then s/he is free to choose on the basis of his/er own beliefs. However, those who believe it is murder cannot square their belief with the current laws of the land. The belief itself requires enactment of anti-abortion laws and penalty for the choice. Feel free to summarize as need be for your followup. Thanks, A. Regard
johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston) (02/28/85)
> I think that most persons on each side of the abortion issue are honest in > their convictions, and most truly have deeply considered the aspects they > consider germaine to the argument. However, on the Pro-life side, I think > they are determined to shove their ideology/moral standards down other > people's throats (which is what anti-abortion legislation would do) where > as the Pro-choice side is willing to leave things up to the individual > (which is what pro-abortion legislation would do). If the issue were left > up to the individual, then s/he is free to choose on the basis of his/er > own beliefs. However, those who believe it is murder cannot square their > belief with the current laws of the land. The belief itself requires > enactment of anti-abortion laws and penalty for the choice. > > Feel free to summarize as need be for your followup. Thanks, A. Regard Take any law that states that a particular action is unlawful and you'll find a case of a moral standard being "shoved" down the throats of all that don't consider that action to be immoral. But that's what the law books are full of. I can't think of an action that's as divisive as abortion for analogy. Most laws forbidding a particular action deal with an action almost universally considered immoral. But's let's take murder as an example anyway (performed on one already born). Lets's say murder is unlawful but not everybody considers it immoral. And then one day the supreme court decides that states can't make laws proscribing murder and now murder can be performed with no legal consequences. But you think murder is immoral and should be outlawed. Would you consider action by you and others who felt like you to legislate against murder to be "shoving" morality down other people's throats? Would this stop you from attempting to right what you consider to be wrong? Mike Johnston
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (03/01/85)
> > Lets's say murder is unlawful but not everybody considers it immoral. And > then one day the supreme court decides that states can't make laws > proscribing murder and now murder can be performed with no legal > consequences. But you think murder is immoral and should be outlawed. > Would you consider action by you and others who felt like you to legislate > against murder to be "shoving" morality down other people's throats? > Would this stop you from attempting to right what you consider to be wrong? > You are making the unsupportable assumption that laws stop people from doing things. Laws provide a means of getting even in a systematic way. It is abusurd to think that the only reason that people don't kill each other is because it is against the law. There are many societies that have no legal code at all and people kill each other LESS. I imagine that it would have a devestating effect on my relationships if I were to start killing people! What a terrible thing to do. If I take a pro-choice stand, then I have to live with the consequences. I will not be able to have close personal relationships with people who get angry or outraged at this position. Why am I not crying? -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 ihnp4!pesnta -\ 109 Torrey Pine Terr. ucbvax!twg --> scc!steiny Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 fortune!idsvax -/