garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (03/22/84)
Round 2, re Sophie Quiqley's open letter to pro-lifers: Incidentally, I use the terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' reluctantly; does anyone have a better idea? > I was mainly replying to the argument: "abortion will cause all > sorts of atrocities to happen" by saying that these atrocities > do happen anyway, so if it is these atrocities that people want > to avoid by making abortion illegal, they are off the mark and > should probably concentrate their efforts on the already existing > atrocities. It is true that eliminating abortion will not eliminate other atrocities. So, I suppose I agree that anyone who is concerned about abortion because of a belief that other atrocities will result should deal with the other atrocities more directly. > I next replied to the "abortion will desensitise us to the value > of life" argument by pointing out that this desensitisation does > occur much earlier and is learned on animals rather than on fetuses. Yes, but it is valid to say that abortion will increase, not decrease, the general disregard for the value of life. > I was just trying to point out that the arguments saying that abortion > will be the source of all evil are off the mark and people who are > worried about evil or its source should probably concentrate their > efforts on the source or on the existing evil. We all know that the love of money is the source of all evil ( :-) ). > Now abortion can be considered evil in itself without looking at the > alleged "consequences". If people are against abortion in itself > because it is evil and not because it will "cause" more evil then I > was merely pointing out that it might be a better idea for them to > work on reducing the need for abortion rather than outlaw it. If something being evil is not adequate grounds for outlawing it, then what is? Perhaps more to the point, it is all very well to talk about dealing with causes rather than symptoms. But should we not deal with both? If I may extend an analogy, suppose you have tonsilitis, and your physician determines that a tonsilectomy is in order. He will remove your tonsils (thus dealing with the problem) as soon as it is practical to do so, but in the meantime he gives you something to ease your sore throat (dealing with the symptoms). And before all of that, he has to convince you that you do indeed have tonsilitis. (note generic use of 'he' in this paragraph) Now the human race has a problem: a general disregard for the value of life, even human life. This problem results in everything from driving dangerously to occassional attempts to conquer the world. Present company excepted, there seems to be difficulty in convincing humanity that it even has a problem, never mind that it needs help. So, let us proclaim the value of life. But if we proclaim the value of life, we must practice what we proclaim, and try to prevent the unnecessary destruction of life. Now, I find it difficult to believe that most abortions are matters of necessity. Am I wrong? > Does that make more sense? Yes, actually. Am I also making any sense? Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!bunkerb!garys
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/23/84)
Gary, I am glad we clarified these issues and we now agree, except of course
on whether abortion is evil or not, but my original intent was not to debate
this, but rather to debate the other stuff: that abortion is the cause of
other evils.
Good.
Sophie Quigley
...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleyrcd@opus.UUCP (03/24/84)
<> > Yes, but it is valid to say that abortion will increase, not decrease, > the general disregard for the value of life. No, it is not valid to say that, if by "valid" you mean that people will generally agree with the statement. It is particularly wide of the mark if in "value of life" you include more than a simple count of how many independent living entities exist. > If something being evil is not adequate grounds for outlawing it, > then what is? Evil, by itself, is a moral judgment which need have nothing to do with law. In order to outlaw an action, it ought not to be just "evil", but actually regarded so by a large proportion of society, demonstrably harmful to the general welfare, and reasonably curable by laws proscribing it. Abortion does not satisfy any of the last three criteria. > Now the human race has a problem: a general disregard for the value > of life, even human life... I can see that there are ways in which we have a disregard for the value of life - e.g., the arms race - but I think a generalization is rash here. In particular, in my own mind the human race that I encounter has a problem of at least as great proportions: an inordinate, almost paranoid fear of death, coupled with an inability to deal with it when it occurs. -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd
rcd@opus.UUCP (03/24/84)
<> > Yes, but it is valid to say that abortion will increase, not decrease, > the general disregard for the value of life. No, it is not valid to say that, if by "valid" you mean that people will generally agree with the statement. It is particularly wide of the mark if you are willing to consider more than just a count of how many living beings exist. > If something being evil is not adequate grounds for outlawing it, > then what is? Evil, by itself, is a moral judgment which need have nothing to do with law. In order to outlaw an action, it ought not to be just "evil", but actually regarded so by a large proportion of society, demonstrably harmful to the general welfare, and reasonably curable by laws proscribing it. Abortion does not satisfy any of the last three criteria. > Now the human race has a problem: a general disregard for the value > of life, even human life... I can see that there are ways in which we have a disregard for the value of life - e.g., the arms race - but I think a generalization is rash here. In particular, in my own mind the human race that I encounter has a problem of at least as great proportions: an inordinate, almost paranoid fear of death, coupled with an inability to deal with it when it occurs. -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd
ix192@sdccs6.UUCP (03/26/84)
[] > Gary, I am glad we clarified these issues and we now agree, except of course > on whether abortion is evil or not, but my original intent was not to debate > this, but rather to debate the other stuff: that abortion is the cause of > other evils. > Good. > Sophie Quigley Does anyone have any idea what this is about?!?! Sophie and Gary, personal mail usually is send with /usr/ucb/mail or usr/ucb/msg (or comp and repl, if you're into mh!). As for if abortion is evil or not, evil and good are such abstract concepts I wouldn't think it would be too useful to everyone else to define abortion as one or the other. What's evil? Killing in cold blood? (First strike, cut-throat business competition) What's good? Charity? Helping those less fortunate than you? Even that cannot be labeled as 'pure good', because giving help encourages (breeds?) permenent dependence, and dependence is not being able to help oneself; leeching in some cases, helpless in others. So do the opposite and not help? Callous, unkind, ...evil? Abstract concepts such as good and evil have no real application in a real world. Perhaps it would be better if you discussed if abortion DOES or DID good or evil. Doing an abstract is a little easier to accept than something being the abstract. Kenn the Kenf ...!sdcsvax!kenn ...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192 ...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn
neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (03/26/84)
************************************************************************** >Incidentally, I use the terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' >reluctantly; does anyone have a better idea? I rather like those terms. They seem to represent each group's view of themselves. Neither side agrees with the name the other has picked for itself but at least each seems relatively satisfied with its own. >Now the human race has a problem: a general disregard for the value >of life, even human life. This problem results in everything from >driving dangerously to occassional attempts to conquer the world. >Present company excepted, there seems to be difficulty in convincing >humanity that it even has a problem, never mind that it needs help. I suppose that this will classify me as one of the ones that you need to convince but I would like to point out that our current society has a much higher regard for life, human and otherwise, than nearly any other in history. It seems axiomatic that animal life at least can only exist by consuming other living or once-living things--usually at the expense of the thing being consumed. There are a few exceptions of course: milk, eggs (provided you're sure they're unfertilized), fruit (provided you plant the seeds and somehow make up the energy source that the seeds were counting on that you consumed instead). I sometimes wonder if our high regard for life isn't in fact a cause of some of the other problems we experience--overpopulation to name one. This is an idea I am still working on and I don't even understand all of the questions much less do I have any great insight into the answers. Still, how much life can one small planet support? >So, let us proclaim the value of life. But if we proclaim the >value of life, we must practice what we proclaim, and try to >prevent the unnecessary destruction of life. Now, I find it >difficult to believe that most abortions are matters of necessity. >Am I wrong? That depends on your standards of "necessary". How bad do the consequences have to be for the pregnancy to continue before you will grant the abortion was necessary? Does it actually have to threaten the mother's life? How about her health? Mental health? General well-being? >Yes, actually. Am I also making any sense? Actually I was impressed by the reasonable tone of what you had to say. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer Denelcor, Inc. <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
rcd@opus.UUCP (03/26/84)
<> > I sometimes wonder if our high regard for life isn't in fact a cause of > some of the other problems we experience--overpopulation to name one. > This is an idea I am still working on and I don't even understand all of > the questions much less do I have any great insight into the answers. I, too, wonder about our "high regard for life." I like to make a distinction between "(really) living" and "just being alive." I hate to get drawn into the questions of "quality of life" - but I fear that we give too much importance to maintaining protoplasm and not enough to maintaining (deep breath, looking for the right phrase but not finding it) "meaningful existence." It's interesting to notice that, in mammals in general, a mother is quite likely to abandon offspring if they don't have a good chance of surviving. The young animal may be malformed, seriously ill, or whatever - but if the mother seems to sense a serious problem, she will give up on the infant. I don't think that this behavior is in any way irrational, and I do think we can learn from it. It's adaptive behavior; its intent is (apparently) to maximize the chance of survival of the mother (to reproduce again) and of the healthy offspring. But how do we factor this into our own behavior? We have to deal with the silly human traits of intelligence and compassion, which sometimes prevent us from acting on instinct alone. Nor do I want to suggest that we embark on eugenics in any serious way. -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd