Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watarts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watarts!dbrown
From: dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Well?!  What did you expect?!
Message-ID: <8264@watarts.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 14:02:48 EST
Article-I.D.: watarts.8264
Posted: Wed Feb 20 14:02:48 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 21:17:47 EST
References: <211@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 78

> THIS IS AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING ARTICLE.  (Should give you an idea about
> everything in general.  No guarantee, of course.)
> 
> ********************************************************************
> 
> FIRST:	What do we use as the foundations for discussion?  Is it
> 	practical considerations?  Is it moral considerations?
> 	Please understand that a compromise is extremely difficult!
> 
> 	If we use practical considerations, the pro-choice side will
> 	easily win since enforcement of an anti-abortion law will
> 	lead to more illegal abortions and further endanger women
> 	who cannot get doctors to say that the fetus threatens their
> 	life or convince judges that they were raped.  (Of course,
> 	this will be even worse should an ABSOLUTE anti-abortion law
> 	be passed.)  Doctors will probably lies significantly more
> 	to help patients get abortions.
> 
> 	If we use moral considerations, the pro-life side will easily
> 	win since the abortion kills a potential human being.  Note
> 	that a child underaged is not a "full" human being.  The law
> 	certainly does not recognize that!  This does NOT prevent the
> 	law from protecting a child!  This should NOT prevent the law
> 	from protecting the fetus!
> 
> 	(I would personally go for the practical choice.)
> 
> SECOND:	Decide which we want to use from "FIRST" before further dis-
> 	cussion on the topic itself!
> 
> ********************************************************************
> 
> Keebler
 

Humm. This seems to be the whole problem of abortion. The two sides,
I call them sides regretably, are arguing from these two
divergent view points. Alas, to decide on arguing from a view point
without taking into account the other is unrealistic and quite
uncomplimentary to either woman or fetus(I use this term to account
for both viewpoints; I happen to be anti-abortion on demand).
It would be nice if society could agree on the viewpoint
being used, but we live in a multi-dimensional world, in which
there are many influences upon any ethical decision.
Let me give you an example of a subject which has many viewpoints:

Subject:  WWII

Viewpoints to evaluate from:

				AMERICAN G.I.
				BRITISH CITIZEN
				GERMAN CITIZEN
				RUSSIAN CITIZEN
Note: these are not
all the view points.
				JAPANESE-CANADIAN (interned)
				SWEDISH DIPLOMAT
				CANADIAN POLITICIAN
				ITALIAN CO-LABORATTOR
				FRENCH RESISTANCE FIGHTER

Which is right? Really none of them, because they all experienced
different situations.
Each of them must be taken into account when writing a history
of the war.
So who is right in the abortion question?
That's what this net is for. Just take in all accounts.


Sincerely yours,


                        DAVE BROWN

==============================================================================
                 	WHO SAID HISTORY IS IRRELEVANT?
==============================================================================