Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-spice!tdn
From: tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Back to you, Ken
Message-ID: <313@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 05:10:08 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-s.313
Posted: Tue Mar 19 05:10:08 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Mar-85 03:21:36 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 42


    > Why not drop the dogma and start facing the reality that abortion
    > WILL happen no matter how much you don't like it.

This argument is basically a cop-out.  The idea that there shouldn't be laws
against an activity because some people will engage in it anyway only has any
relevance when talking about "victimless" activities.  When deciding whether
or not to make laws about situations involving victims, this argument quickly
becomes absurd:

      Why not drop the dogma and start facing the reality that MURDER
      (of born humans) WILL happen no matter how much you don't like it.

      Why not drop the dogma and start facing the reality that RAPE
      WILL happen no matter how much you don't like it.

      Why not drop the dogma and start facing the reality that MUGGINGS
      WILL happen no matter how much you don't like it.

We have laws against murder, rape, and mugging, even though there are many
people who don't obey these laws.  If I'm remembering Criminal Justice class
correctly, only a very small percentage of the crimes that are committed lead
to a conviction.  If someone really wants to go out and commit a crime, there
is a good chance that they will never be caught.  However, this does not make
the crime "OK" or mean that we shouldn't try to enforce the laws against it.

(Yes, and I'm aware that whether or not the fetus is a person is one of the
issues under debate.  However, this doesn't affect my point above -- once we
even start to consider the @i(possibility) of victims, we need to use better
criteria than "some people will do it anyway".)

    > Or, work on making sure the pregnant woman is presented with ALL
    > alternatives, INCLUDING abortion by an unbiased third party?  (By
    > definition, pro-lifers are not unbiased)

By definition, pro-choicers are not unbiased, since they make the assumption
that it is OK to kill the baby.  You can't be just "a little pregnant", and
a baby can't be just "a little dead."  For the sake of fairness, can we make
the assumption that it is OK to kill the woman for the baby's convenience?
You did say ALL alternatives.  :-<

                                        Thomas Newton