barry@ames.UUCP (Ken Barry) (08/15/84)
[<+>]
In my reading of articles on the net from those who oppose abortion
I have noticed what appears to me to be an inconsistency in their position.
I would appreciate seeing some comments from anyone who agrees with both
of the following two statements:
1) Abortion is wrong because a fetus is a human being, and aborting
a fetus is therefore murder.
2) Abortion is permissable if the pregnancy was the result of
a rape.
My impression is that there are a number of people out there
who would agree with both these statements, but to me they seem contradictory.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, how is it that rape makes murder
OK? Granted that an abortion may lessen the suffering of the rape victim,
I fail to see how that can be adequate justification for an act of murder.
If killing a fetus is morally equivalent to killing any other human being,
it seems that the matter of rape is irrelevant. The fetus, after all,
was not the guilty party, nor can an abortion erase the fact of the rape.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Since my own position is pro-choice, my concern with this question
is intellectual rather than personal, but I would still appreciate some
enlightenment.
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barrydavew@gymble.UUCP (David Weber) (08/17/84)
You have made a very good point about a common inconsistency in some people's right-to-life position. One thing that pro-lifers are against is the killing of fetus's as a matter of convenience for the mother. Yet many say that abortion is O.K. in the case of rape. Wouldn't a woman who had an abortion because she was raped be just as guilty as a woman who wasn't raped; she again would be thinking of her own convenience. I happen to be against abortion in all cases for the simple fact that I believe it is the murder of an innocent life. If you lower your standard just a little once, you'll probably lower it more later. If abortion is O.K. in the case of rape today, someday it will be O.K. in other cases as well. The bottom line in the abortion issue is "Are you sure that abortion is not murder of an innocent life?" Unless you are sure, why take the risk? Remember, the burden of proof is on the pro-choice, not the the pro-life. Innocent until proven guilty.
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (08/19/84)
93 From: davew@gymble.UUCP (David Weber)
93 I happen to be against abortion in all cases for the simple fact
93 that I believe it is the murder of an innocent life. If you lower
93 your standard just a little once, you'll probably lower it more later.
93 If abortion is O.K. in the case of rape today, someday it will be O.K.
93 in other cases as well.
Have you ever stepped on a bug? I bet you've slaughtered zillions of
innocent microbes. Do you eat totally artificial food? People have to
kill innocent life all the time. This is because they themselves are
alive. "Our" standards have hit real bad lows. People have advocated
the extermination of entire races, and there have been lots of "holy" wars.
But we are not still there, nor are we worse. People bring us back up,
and fight against aberrant people. There is not an absolute "right"
that everyone can see glowing in the sky, and follow to a good and
healthy life where everyone is happy. Everyone does the "right" thing,
and there are problems because there are different standards for everybody.
There is no one "true rightness". If abortion is ok in other cases,
(and it does not necessarily follow from rape abortions), then it is ok.
Ok is ok. Ok? Things change. We shouldn't declare for all eternity
what is proper, because we don't know everything. We DO NOT know
everything. Thus we must allow choices. The pro-choice stand lets many ways
be tried. If there are definitely problems with allowing abortions,
then most everybody will see them, and the situation will (probably)
change. The pro-life stand limits us to one way, even if it is the
most harmful way.
93 The bottom line in the abortion issue is "Are you sure that abortion
93 is not murder of an innocent life?" Unless you are sure, why take
93 the risk? Remember, the burden of proof is on the pro-choice, not
93 the the pro-life. Innocent until proven guilty.
What logic leads you to think that the burden of proof is on the pro-choice?
"Pro-choice" and "pro-life" are just two sides of a debate. The pro-choicers
are innocent until proven guilty, right?
I want to make one bold guess: If adoption becomes trivially easy,
there still will be many more young people than are wanted in the world.
(assuming abortion and birth control and high standards of living don't
suddenly appear in the poorer nations of the world)
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianpcher@ihuxi.UUCP (Mike Musing) (08/21/84)
> The bottom line in the abortion issue is "Are you sure that abortion > is not murder of an innocent life?" Unless you are sure, why take > the risk? Remember, the burden of proof is on the pro-choice, not > the the pro-life. Innocent until proven guilty. When you eat a steak, do you indirectly condone "murder of an innocent life"? Yes. Or, maybe you can prove that humans have soul ans cows/pigs/monkeys do not. Either way, the burden of proof is on you. Don't kill germs "unless you sure". To summarize: the quoted pro-life argument as formulated is at best unfinished. I doubt that it can be pursued successfully at all. Unaborted Mike Musing