Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site stolaf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!stolaf!densinge
From: densinge@stolaf.UUCP (Charles W. Densinger)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: A Suggestion... (clarification)
Message-ID: <2088@stolaf.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Nov-84 15:37:24 EST
Article-I.D.: stolaf.2088
Posted: Fri Nov  2 15:37:24 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Nov-84 04:40:44 EST
Organization: St. Olaf College, Northfield MN
Lines: 72



   I would like to clarify something that, judging from
some of the responses I've received concerning my first
posting, was not clear enough.

   My suggestion was 1) that we be clear in our
discussion about abortion as to whether we're talking
about legalization, morality, women's issues, personal
experiences/beliefs, philosophical implications (usually
related to morality), etc., because 2) by the very nature
of these areas of discussion, *except* legalization, 
it is impossible to come to any objective and
universalizable conclusion.  I think it is clear why
this is true in the areas of personal experiences/
beliefs and women's issues (I speak here of the personal
side of the latter).  The reason this is true in the
areas of morality and philosophy is that reason has
limitations in human beings.  We simply CANNOT ever know
moral Truth.  This is why making personal moral decisions
is so difficult and why most people, at one time or
another (myself included), get off on the power trip of
making moral judgements of others.  As Socrates said,
"God is wise.  Men [or humans] know little or nothing]."

   I believe legalization is different because it is an
arena in which the presuppositions and rules are known
and defined in an objective and knowable fashion.  Laws
are human made--like mathematics--and are therefore
within human ken.  They can be changed if we don't like
them and clarified if they are ambiguous.  No such luck
with morality.  (I will preempt a strike on the point
the philosophy is human made: when philosophy attempts
to know Truth, it surpasses the human and enters into
the eternal.  In this sense it attempts to make human
that which is not.)

   I was criticized by several people on the point that
we need to employ logical argumentation in order to
formulize arguments in support of or against
legalization.  I did not ever suggest anything to the
contrary.  In fact, if any of you who criticized me of
this had bothered to notice, my whole article was an
argument based on the political philosophy upon which
our country was founded, and it was, I hope, somewhat
logical.

   Finally, I am not against philosophising, and I do,
in fact, think of myself as a philosophical person.
(Again, some of you might take issue...)  How can anyone
read my *A Suggestion...* posting and not notice the
philosophical presuppositions--the principle one being
that reason is limited [For those interested, read Kant's
Critique of Pure Reason and Kiekegaard's writings,
particularly the pseudononimous works].  What I am
against and see as a detriment to our discussion is the
use of quasi-philosophy to 1)flaunt egos; 2)pretend to
have a direct link-up with Truth; 3)objectify subjective
opinion into dogma.  If you want to examine the
philosophical implications of abortion, please do so
without claiming to illuminate Truth or Morality
therein.

   Again, I only advocate that we be more clear about
what we are arguing/discussing for/about.  Otherwise, we
only get each other heated up.

     -Chuck Densinger @ St. Olaf College
      {decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!densinge