Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.religion
Subject: my mail box overfloweth
Message-ID: <3705@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 31-Mar-84 04:01:03 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3705
Posted: Sat Mar 31 04:01:03 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Mar-84 04:01:03 EST
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 104

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