ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (04/01/84)
-- >> 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. >> 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. >> Having a child is a good. Not having children is a good. One should >> be allowed to choose between these goods. >> 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. And having a child you do not want nor are able to care for IS responsible, I suppose. In the squeaky clean, ivory tower universe you live in, Laura, you are somehow able to distinguish "goods" and "evils" discretely, and even better, select in your life only from a plethora of "goods". Well, good for you! Some of us, who faced being drafted into an army destroying Vietnam, for example, have had to select among options all of which looked pretty bleak. Yes, even we middle-class white people sometimes are confronted with choices all of which are bad. So the Philosophy 101 don't cut it, Laura. Sure, killing a human being is evil, but that doesn't mean there is never a responsible reason for doing so. Well, I like to think I'd have fought in WW II, or Spain, and so did my draft board, which asked me, and used my answer to declare that I could not therefore be classified a conscientious objector. Such is life. Responsibility? To whom? For what? -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 31 Mar 84 [11 Germinal An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/02/84)
Ken, It was irresponsible to become pregnant (unless you were raped, or practicing birth control, in which case it was unfortunate) while unable to provide for a child. However, the irresponsibility lies in the action of sex (which makes both the male and the female irresponsible) not in the condition of being pregnant. Therefore you can't undo it by getting rid of the condition through an abortion. If the fetus is not a human being then there is no problem with abortion. If the fetus is a human being, in having an abortion you have just added murder to your list of actions. In no way do you escape being irresponsible (or unfortunate) unless the fetus is not a human being, in which case an abortion would be a perfectly acceptable method of birth control. The world that I live in is not squeaky clean. But it sure isn't going to get any cleaner while there are people around saying ``look! there is this and that and the other rotten thing! I guess it doesn't matter whether anybody does good or evil at all because since it can't be perfect there is no reason to make it any better.'' This is nonsense. The only way that things are going to get any better is if people decide that they are going to make a concentrated effort to do good rather than evil. If there was any way to get people to do this, there would be immediate and dramatic improvemet, since the only evils being done would be done by people who made mistakes -- and in fact thought that they were doing good. Given their commitment towards doing the good, then, if you could demonstrate to them that what they were doing was not-good they would change their behaviour. The way it stands now it is necessary to deal with people who make mistakes and people who actively go out and do evil things, often on the grounds that ``a little bit more evil won't make any difference''. There is no way that you can really force people to want to be good. All you can do is to try to keep some of the worst injustices from happening very frequently. It is a much more modest goal, but still progress. * * * Somebody talked about ``the right of a child to a happy childhood''. I can't find it in news, so it must be in mail. Last I checked, Thomas Jefferson (who really knew how to right a constitution! check it against the Canadian consitution or the BNA Act in comparison) talked about "life, liberty, and the PERSUIT of happiness." I think that the order is significant and that it is important to remember that these self-evident rights include the right to *work at* being happy, not to have happiness handed to you. It is nicer, of course, if one *has* a happy childhood, but that is nowhere guaranteed. -- 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