laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/31/84)
So far I have received 30 messages which say "Why don't you keep your Christian nonsense to yourself." Clearly the people who are sending this are not reading net.religion, or they would have long since discovered that I am not a Christian. On the other hand, I do not think that they have read anything that I have posted hear very well, because in no way did I make a claim for Christianity. I am getting sick of answering such mail, so I am going to post a composite answer on why I am opposed to abortion on grounds which are independent of any religion. Listen up, people, 'cause I am getting tired of having people assume that becaue I have belief X which is associated with group Y I must be a memeber of group Y. <Note: I am finally getting to see where Gary Samuelson thought that atheists could not be moral in net.religion a while back. I am getting told that my being moral can only be because I am a Christian by these letter posters. I didn't know that this belief was so widespread, and I apologise to Gary for some of the things which I said to him at the time this belief came up. At the time I thought that Gary was arguing without taking reference to reality by observing atheists, from the position that a) all good comes from God b) atheists have nothing to do with God therefore atheists are immoral. It may be that Gary is associating with atheists like those who are sending me mail. If so, then I must agree that his conclusion is at least based in observed reality. But I believe that most atheists are not immoral, and that in any case there is no causal connection between non-Christianity and immorality.> back from the diversion... Okay. First basic postulate: LIFE IS GOOD This is fundamental truth, and self-evident. Second basic postulate: HUMAN LIFE IS GOOD This follows from the first. Third basic postulate: THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REALITY Unless you wnat to delve into British Empiricism or certain forms of Cartesian rationalism or certain religions, you had better take this one as self evident as well. Okay. That is all that I need. Those things which enhance human life are goods. Examples are: knowledge, friendship, food, and productive work. Those things which degredate human life are evils. Examples are: famines, wars, income tax and toothaches. Now it is a known fact that I can not do all my goods at the same time. This is where the most important matter of human freedom of choice comes in. I am free to choose which goods I will actualise. I live here and not somewhere else, not because living here is a good and living somewhere else ios not, but because I have chosen this particular good. Now, human freedom is very interesting. I am free to choose to do evil as well as good. What I am not free to do is choose whether the evil action will be evil or not. If an action is evil then it is evil independently of my choosing it. (for those of you who do not like ontological evils, you can define evil as ``absence of good'' and get along quite nicely. I do.) the next thing is that one cannot escape the consequences of one's decisions. they are not subject to my choice; they are part of the objective reality I was talking about. * * * * Okay. Now what about the consequences of sex? Well, one of the consequences is that you could engender a fetus. If you practice birth control then you can lessen the likelihood of this happening. What we need is 100% effective birth control so that we can totally eliminate this consequence if this is our desire. Having a child is a good. Not having children is a good. One should be allowed to choose between these goods. If a fetus is a human being then killing it is no good. The rights of a human being to choose are rights to choose from *which* of the possible goods they will actualise. They are not the ability to make something which is not-good good by the virtue of their choice. That which is good or evil is objectively good or evil entirely independent of human choice. Therefore, it is morally wrong to have an abortion if the fetus is a human being. Moreover it is irresponsible, since it is a denial that pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex (the way things are now at any rate.) Evading reality will not work. Pregnancy is one of the possible consequences of sex. Until perfect birth control, this is part of reality. Clearly, one can also choose to have an abortion. One can choose to take as little responsibility as one can for ones actions. This is not impossible, just bad. -- Laura Creighton utzoo!laura "Capitalism is a lot of fun. If you aren't having fun, then you're not doing it right." -- toad terrific
jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (Jens Bernhard Fiederer) (04/04/84)
Such and such is GOOD, such and such is BAD....yuch. As Oscar Wilde wrote, and I paraphrase, "There is no good and no evil -- there is only the interesting and the dull." Therefore, my first postulate: 1) My life is interesting. otherwise I probably wouldn't put up with it. others might, anyway. from which does not follow the second postulate (otherwise I would have made it a theorem) 2) Human life may be either interesting or dull. induction from experience. Actually, the law of the excluded middle could be used here with equal effect. Obviously, the deaths of those who are dull are of no consequence (and therefore hardly worth bringing about, or trying very hard to prevent). The deaths of those who are interesting are more consequential: either devoutly to be hoped for, or a terrifying possibility. Personally, I think fetuses and infants are rather dull (at least as long as they are not mine -- I might even feign some interest for the sake of some proud new mother). If those in closer association find them interesting in the negative sense, I will hardly exert myself to save the brats. Yes, fetuses are human. Yes, killing them is "murder", though not in the legal sense. But who cares? Gus Fink-Nottle -- Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf
amigo@iwlc6.UUCP (John Hobson) (04/05/84)
Gus Fink-Nottle (sic) (aka ccieng5!jbf) bases his pro-abortion argument on the words of that most distinguished English philosopher, Oscar Wilde (a perfect spokesman for the "Me Generation"): "There is no good and no evil--there is only the interesting and the dull." He goes on to state that "the deaths of those who are dull are of no consequence." He asserts that fetuses are ipso facto dull, and ends with "Yes, fetuses are human. Yes, killing them is `murder', though not in the legal sense. But who cares?" This is the sort of intellectual claptrap that makes me want to throw up. I have several questions for Mr. Fink-Nottle: 1. How do you get to the a priori opinion that fetuses are dull? 2. Who is to decide whether or not a given person is dull? I say that Walter Mondale is dull, therefore I hereby dispatch you to kill him. 3. Granting, for the sake of argument, that fetuses are dull; how can you tell if they might not become interesting when they grow? After all, Oscar Wilde himself was a fetus once. Who cares? Most of the people who contribute to net.abortion do. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL ihnp4!iwlc6!amigo
jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (Jens Bernhard Fiederer) (04/07/84)
>1. How do you get to the a priori opinion that fetuses are dull? This is one opinion I don't have to defend. I simply have never met a fetus that dazzled me with wit. Neither have I met a fetus that inspired compassion. >2. Who is to decide whether or not a given person is dull? I say >that Walter Mondale is dull, therefore I hereby dispatch you to >kill him. Everybody makes that decision. Notice that I never said all dull people should be killed. I said their deaths would be of no consequence. If Mondale is dull, it seems more convenient to ignore him than to kill him, especially with all those Secret Service men around. On the other hand, if he interests you enough to seem worth killing(despite all the risks), you can do your own "dirty work". Why mix me up in it. >3. Granting, for the sake of argument, that fetuses are dull; how >can you tell if they might not become interesting when they grow? >After all, Oscar Wilde himself was a fetus once. They may very well become interesting later. Oscar Wilde, after all, did. If the only interested person (e.g., the mother), is interested in killing the fetus, we uninterested people will choose not to stand in her way. If, because of her interest in the fetus, or her interest in the potential of the fetus (it might grow to be another Oscar Wilde!), she is interested enough to keep it, I would not argue with that decision, either. Please note that I am not flawing you for any interest you might have in feti. That is a matter between you and your conscience. As for me, I am interested in discussions. That explains my submissions to this newsgroup. -- Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf
jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (Jens Bernhard Fiederer) (04/12/84)
>Is the fetus a human being? I agree, a lot hinges on that. I'd say we >should wait until the evidence is in, but I think it already is right >there in plain sight. The fetus is not human until it can live on its >own. This also justifies infanticide, as most infants cannot live "on their own", particularily when the surrounding adults want them to die. If you favor infanticide (I have no particular objections to it), your attitude is reasonable. If not, think about it a little more.... Azhrarn -- Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf
ajs@hpfcla.UUCP (04/16/84)
Laura, having an abortion is not evading responsibility. It can, in fact, be the achieving of a "good" (as you explained them). Is the fetus a human being? I agree, a lot hinges on that. I'd say we should wait until the evidence is in, but I think it already is right there in plain sight. The fetus is not human until it can live on its own. If that means with the help of medical technology, fine. Woman have the right to hand over the fetus to that technology, with no punishment if it does not survive, and no obligations to the fetus if it does. If you want to do away with abortion, work towards better medical wizardry, and be willing to adopt the children that result. Alan Silverstein PS: Sorry for the number of followups today. I'm trying to be pithy but I feel the urgent need to counter some of the statements made here.
liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (04/16/84)
Quoting from Alan Silverstein: Is the fetus a human being? I agree, a lot hinges on that. I'd say we should wait until the evidence is in, but I think it already is right there in plain sight. The fetus is not human until it can live on its own. If that means with the help of medical technology, fine. Woman have the right to hand over the fetus to that technology, with no punishment if it does not survive, and no obligations to the fetus if it does. What does living on its own have to do with the fetus being human??? Every year babies survive at smaller and smaller birth weights. It's a very movable line. Is a fetus carried by a woman in a rural area away from modern medical facilities less human than one carried by a woman in a large urban area simply because it has a worse chance of survival if it were born prematurely. That makes no sense at all. Also, even a normal baby can't really "live on its own" -- it needs a lot of care. In practice, abortion is frequently performed on women carrying babies older than babies that have been born and have survived. Babies who have survived a saline abortion have been known to live for hours afterwards *without* any help. (Saline abortions are particularly bad for the woman since they usually feel the fetus kicking and struggling inside of them for more than an hour until the fetus dies.) Viability is simply not a concern in the day to day practice of abortion. -Liz Allen -- Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay