Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Ethics vs. the Natural Order
Message-ID: <685@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 24-Apr-84 19:29:33 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.685
Posted: Tue Apr 24 19:29:33 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Apr-84 00:44:43 EST
References: <393@ccieng5.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 38


	>I hate to disillusion you, but most modern women are not urban
	>middle-class working women.  There is a world outside the condos.

My parenthetical expression "modern (middle-class, urban, working) women"
was misunderstood.  Delete the parentheses, replace then with commas.  I
think then you should understand my point, which was to deflate the previously
stated argument that upper and middle-class Americans are getting abortions
because of reasons of overpopulation.  Let's be honest--they're getting
abortions because they don't want the kid (for whatever personal reasons
they might have--population pressures aren't one of them.)

	>A system of ethics not conforming to the Natural Order would seem
	>artificial and self-defeating.  Try a system of ethics BASED on
	>the natural order.

I wonder if we both are using the same definitions of words here.  I don't
wish to get into an argument because of a misunderstanding.  Let's me
restate it without using such a red herring phrase as "Natural Order."
Evolutionary theory, natural selection, and "survival of the fittest" are
wonderful scientific models which explain how species evolve and change
form.  Anthropological studies of primate societies and human cultures tell
us a lot about their behavior.  What science CANNOT do is to tell us how
we should act towards each other.  Recently, we've seen several articles
attempting to invent a new ethical system based on the "evidence" supplied
by these, and other, sciences.  I would not have thought it possible that
people would ever argue that infanticide should be OK because primates
do it or the ancient Greeks did it.  Who would have thought that an phrase
like "survival of the fittest" would be misused today, much as it was
in the 19th century, as a justification for the mistreatment of those weaker
than ourselves?  Me, I'm just flabbergasted--I must be naive.

This is, of course, a bit off the topic of abortion, but it reflects where
the discussion has wandered.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA