densinge@stolaf.UUCP (Charles W. Densinger) (10/26/84)
I have a suggestion. I have noticed that the abortion issue is
subject to many heated and varied opinions, and because of this ideas
are slow in getting across. I think that part of the difficulty lies
in the fact that the abortion issue is really a complex mixture of
many related issues or sub-issues. For example, the question of
whether there is moral legitimacy for abortion is different from the
question of legalization. Also related are issues of women's rights,
economic aid, religious beliefs and the mix thereof with politics, the
question of when a fetus becomes a human life (or, rather, perhaps,
when a fetus obtains civil rights and/or moral significance as a human
being), etc., etc., etc...
When I say I am pro-choice (which, indeed, I am), I am speaking
only of my belief about the legalization of abortion. Any of my moral,
spiritual, personal, and even some political (i.e., the politics of
feminism) views are kept separate. The abortion issue, as the
dialogue on this newsgroup demonstrates, is very complicated. In all
of the categories listed above, I find that my views are constantly
challenged, modified, expanded--which is what this group is good for.
I have, however, worked out what I think is a pretty sound defense for
the continued legalization of abortion. What follows is essentially
it:
The central question in this issue is "What role ought
our government to play in moral issues?" I argue none.
The laws of this country are not concerned with morality,
but rather they deal exclusively with the regulation of
commerce, the protection of property, the defense of our
nation, and the protection of the rights of citizens (as
defined by law). If we look to the writings of the
founders of this nation, especially to The Federalist Papers,
we find that the cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution
is the principle of the self-interested individual. An
enduring government, it was conceived, can best be founded by
taking a "least common denominator" of human behavior and
creating a rationally organized political system which is based
upon that trait. This principle is self-interest. Hence the
elaborate system of checks and balances and the distribution of
power incorporated into the fabric of our political structure.
Hence the focus upon the rights of the individual citizen who is
encouraged to vote for leaders who will represent his interests.
In recent decades, we see economic legislation to counter-balance
the inequalities which may arise in a capitalist economy; hence
welfare, social security, medicare, food stamps, etc. The theory
is: keep the individual reasonably happy and with the personal
freedoms necessary to allow him/her to protect his/her own
interests (and those of the family), keep the powerful from
getting too much power, and the system will never fail.
Don't fool yourself if you are thinking that our laws are
based on morality. The chief function of any government is to
preserve itself. Ours is no exception. What makes America so
complicated is that we often get religion and morality
mixed into civic issues. God-Democracy-Capitalism-America
the Beautiful is often one big complicated blur. Just take a look
at the political campaigns going on now. Go to Disneyland and
hear Honest Abe's robot talk. This isn't all bad, but it often
serves to confuse the lines between spheres in which government
is designed to be involved and spheres in which it is not.
It just so happened, fortunately for us, that the founders of our
nation saw a way in which to set up a government which does a
good job of self-preservation by protecting the rights of individuals.
Before going further with this matter, I would like to
add to the above discussion on the legislation of moral issues.
If I were asked what I thought was the most significant element
in moral life, I would say choice. If we *cannot* choose--that
is, if our choice is imposed upon us--we are no longer responsible.
Without responsibility moral choice means nothing because there is
no weight nor accountability. Without *free choice*, morality
looses significance because it is precisely in our freedom to choose
evil which makes our choice of the good significant. The tension
in making moral decisions, the pain and struggle in which we are
engaged, is precisely what makes them valuable to us. The moral
dictates of law do not facilitate spiritual or moral development;
they stifle them. In this sense, I think that even if it were
the object of our government to legislate on moral issues, it
would be required by morality and spirituality not to do so.
(Herein also lies my argument against fundamentalist religious
dogma, but that's a matter for net.religion...)
It is clear to me, then, that the mother is entitled to make her
own choice free of legal intervention, as long as she is not, in so
doing, usurping the rights of others. The sticky part of this issue
for me is whether or not the unborn fetus is entitled to be protected
by law. On the one hand, it is clear to me that an unborn fetus is
a potential human being, one that, if all goes well, will become an
individual citizen under the laws of this nation. On the other hand,
I know that biologically, until birth the child and mother are united
physically and that the fetus truly is a part of the mother's
body. The way that I tend to view the issue now is that after
the first trimester of pregnancy it is probably best not to allow
abortions unless medical complications make it necessary to do so
to protect the life of the mother. During the first trimester there
is really no chance that the fetus could survive outside of the womb,
and it is so premature in its development that it is difficult to
conceive of it as something separate from the mother's body. I am
not entirely comfortable with this rationale, but it is how I
view the issue presently.
If you have comments or insights, either post them publicly
or mail to me directly.
-Chuck Densinger @ St. Olaf College
{decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!densinge
P.S. I must voice my energetic agreement with Don Stryker's posting,
*ad hoc philosopers*. I believe that insofar as abortion is
a civic issue, debate of the sort I have introduced is valuable
and necessary (for that is how our legal system works). But
dry philosophising for the sake of masturbating our egoes--the
sort which [aaack, I cannot hold my tounge] Jeff Sonntag is
engaged in in his *Hypothetical Question* debate--is entirely
useless. Ultimately, abortion is a personal, individual, and
un-universalizable issue, and must therefore be dealt with
anew each time the issue arises. The attempt to come to some
sort of pat philosophical stance is antithetical the processes
of grieving and decision-making which women *and men* confronted
with a situation in which abortion is an option must face.
"Every man [human] who has not tasted the bitterness of
despair has missed the significance of life."
-Soren Kierkegaardjs2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (10/26/84)
**. I believe that insofar as abortion is > a civic issue, debate of the sort I have introduced is valuable > and necessary (for that is how our legal system works). But > dry philosophising for the sake of masturbating our egoes--the > sort which [aaack, I cannot hold my tounge] Jeff Sonntag is > engaged in in his *Hypothetical Question* debate--is entirely > useless. Ultimately, abortion is a personal, individual, and > un-universalizable issue, and must therefore be dealt with > anew each time the issue arises. The attempt to come to some > sort of pat philosophical stance is antithetical the processes > of grieving and decision-making which women *and men* confronted > with a situation in which abortion is an option must face. I must agree with Chuck, in that I too see abortion as a personal issue which must be dealt with anew each time the issue arises. However, in case he has forgotten, there are people out there who wish to settle the issue once and for all, for everyone, with laws. If we are to retain this freedom, we may well need *RATIONAL, OBJECTIVE* arguements. A decision about an individual abortion is un-universalizable, as you say, but the question of whether abortion is to be legal or not, and under what conditions, is, if not universal, at least national. Without rational, objective reasons for supporting the legality of abortion, pro-choicers are left with only "Well, I *FEEL* that people should have a choice.", and are continuously open to the accusation: "You really only think that your convenience is more important than a human life." BTW, "dry philosophizing" = "rational, objective" but one sure sounds a lot better. Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxl!mhuxt!js2j
densinge@stolaf.UUCP (Charles W. Densinger) (11/02/84)
I would like to clarify something that, judging from
some of the responses I've received concerning my first
posting, was not clear enough.
My suggestion was 1) that we be clear in our
discussion about abortion as to whether we're talking
about legalization, morality, women's issues, personal
experiences/beliefs, philosophical implications (usually
related to morality), etc., because 2) by the very nature
of these areas of discussion, *except* legalization,
it is impossible to come to any objective and
universalizable conclusion. I think it is clear why
this is true in the areas of personal experiences/
beliefs and women's issues (I speak here of the personal
side of the latter). The reason this is true in the
areas of morality and philosophy is that reason has
limitations in human beings. We simply CANNOT ever know
moral Truth. This is why making personal moral decisions
is so difficult and why most people, at one time or
another (myself included), get off on the power trip of
making moral judgements of others. As Socrates said,
"God is wise. Men [or humans] know little or nothing]."
I believe legalization is different because it is an
arena in which the presuppositions and rules are known
and defined in an objective and knowable fashion. Laws
are human made--like mathematics--and are therefore
within human ken. They can be changed if we don't like
them and clarified if they are ambiguous. No such luck
with morality. (I will preempt a strike on the point
the philosophy is human made: when philosophy attempts
to know Truth, it surpasses the human and enters into
the eternal. In this sense it attempts to make human
that which is not.)
I was criticized by several people on the point that
we need to employ logical argumentation in order to
formulize arguments in support of or against
legalization. I did not ever suggest anything to the
contrary. In fact, if any of you who criticized me of
this had bothered to notice, my whole article was an
argument based on the political philosophy upon which
our country was founded, and it was, I hope, somewhat
logical.
Finally, I am not against philosophising, and I do,
in fact, think of myself as a philosophical person.
(Again, some of you might take issue...) How can anyone
read my *A Suggestion...* posting and not notice the
philosophical presuppositions--the principle one being
that reason is limited [For those interested, read Kant's
Critique of Pure Reason and Kiekegaard's writings,
particularly the pseudononimous works]. What I am
against and see as a detriment to our discussion is the
use of quasi-philosophy to 1)flaunt egos; 2)pretend to
have a direct link-up with Truth; 3)objectify subjective
opinion into dogma. If you want to examine the
philosophical implications of abortion, please do so
without claiming to illuminate Truth or Morality
therein.
Again, I only advocate that we be more clear about
what we are arguing/discussing for/about. Otherwise, we
only get each other heated up.
-Chuck Densinger @ St. Olaf College
{decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!densingeandrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (11/03/84)
I believe that child-pornography is a matter of choice. And that it is up to the individual to decide whether he wants to participate in it. This is rediculous. The same could be said of murder, rape, incest, etc. As many "pro-choice" people would say, I am personally against rape, but I would not want to impose my views on others. I personally would not rape someone but I can't see passing laws to keep other from making this personal decision. We have legislated morality already. Murder and rape are illegal. Also, in all your arguments, you are ignoring the right of one important person, the child. It is not just a matter between a women and her doctor, the child is always involved, and always on the losing end of the stick if an abortion is performed. Also, on a side note, why do people insist on often copying nearly entire notes in the response right after them? Brad Andrews