Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihopb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!ihopb!spear
From: spear@ihopb.UUCP (Steven Spearman)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: God is Pro-Choice
Message-ID: <632@ihopb.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 16:40:22 EST
Article-I.D.: ihopb.632
Posted: Thu Nov  8 16:40:22 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 07:22:47 EST
References: <209@looking.UUCP>, <629@ihopb.UUCP> <9724@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 44

>Looked at from a modern perspective, the "don't throw stones" directive is
>really a statement about making laws which concern moral issues. "Don't
>be too quick to punish transgressions, for you may be the next on the list"
>is the basic point, I think. Abortion is no different is this respect. The
>argument to legalize abortion (totally free of stupid hassles) is, at bottom,
>the argument that since no one can make the perfect moral decision that
>can be imposed on everyone, INDIVIDUAL moral decisions must be made. This
>is especially true here, since we live in a pluralistic and democratic society.
>
>Laws against things like murder, however, are **NOT LAWS ABOUT MORAL ISSUES**.
>To get Hobbesian for a moment, the state exists to keep people off each 
>others' throats, for without a law against murder, "life would be nasty,
>brutish, and short".  It is perfectly obvious, in this light, why murder is
>illegal. After all, every sane person would agree that murder should be
>illegal. Equating abortion to murder is a totally different matter, however.
>The reason is fairly obvious... no ten people gathered randomly can agree
>on the issue. Net.abortion wouldn't exist if you *could* find agreement.

The argument then being, that laws are simply morals (or perhaps ethics)
held by all or most all?  Seems to me we have a lot of laws that don't
follow from that argument (prostitution, speed limits, dry (alchohol) laws,
etc.)

However, I do agree.  As a society we, IN GENERAL, seek to enforce a
minimum standard of conduct.  Unfortunately, if our belief is strongly
held we are satisfied with simple majority opinion.

So clearly if you think abortion is the same as murder, you would support
a ban on it.  In fact, you would be under a moral obligation to do so.
The bottom line, as the President said (first time I have ever quoted
him!), 'the question is: does human life begin at conception?'
You can either:
 1. take the most conservative view (like the President): we don't
    know and we won't take a chance.  Perhaps it is murder.
 2. take the most loose view: we don't know so we have no laws
    restricting abortion until birth.
 3. tread the fine line and try to come up with a reasonable time.
    Like the supreme court did.

I prefer 3 myself.

Steve Spearman
ihnp4!ihopb!spear