Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr
From: peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Laura's system, and back to abortion
Message-ID: <3682@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Apr-84 01:15:05 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3682
Posted: Mon Apr  2 01:15:05 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Apr-84 01:48:38 EST
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 50

Yes, Laura's hierarchy of value of life seems to be a bit ad hoc.  The
more I think about pursuing this argument, say by offering a more difficult
case for her system to handle (e.g. Fred and his mother-in-law locked in
the same room fighting over limited food), the less sanguine I become as
it's a bit of a leap to the abortion issue.

This is because abortion laws can have very wide-ranging secondary effects.
A ban on abortions will have some pregnant women throwing themselves down
stairs in an attempt to bring on a miscarriage.  Or going to backroom
abortionists.  And these are surely grave evils, as both the mother and
fetus may die in these cases.

A ban on abortions is seen as a blow against liberation of women, and it
is, as it limits their freedom considerably.  There is no accepted notion
that it is a woman's duty to have a child.  (Much more on this could be
said).

A ban on abortions is seen by some as an attempt to foist specific
religious values on the general populace.  And the secondary effects of
this are also widespread-- imposing a general principle of conformity
lessens the chance that novel solutions to problems will be found, harming
the potential well-being of all.

Finally, I am dismayed by the lack of specific cases discussed, though
not surprised.  Specific cases of abortion show a range of circumstances
that aren't easily handled by a succinct logical system.

All these factors have to be weighed and I just can't see a simple logical
system doing that well, particularly when so many deal in effects the
magnitudes of which are unknowable.  Logic just isn't set up for that.
Use logic where it applies, to parts of this problem, but don't expect
to be able to deduce an answer (and have everyone accept it-- even if
acting entirely without emotion).

------

It depresses me that all we seem to do is to look at the physical act of
abortion in isolation, declare that there is something "wrong" there, and
try to legislate it away, much as one might legislate away poverty.  or
gravity.  Trained as scientists, we abstract away a lot of detail-- in
this case, social considerations such as those above.  But that detail
CANNOT be tossed away without divorcing the argument from reality.

If all those who want to legislate abortion away would put their efforts
and money into sex education and offering assistance to unwed mothers
to provide them and their children with good homes, I am sure they would
reduce the numbers of abortions far more than they have done to date.
I'd be interested to hear why they don't do this.

p. rowley, U. Toronto