Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Madelyn's question (actually Andrew's question)
Message-ID: <3636@alice.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Apr-85 22:38:13 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.3636
Posted: Tue Apr 23 22:38:13 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Apr-85 04:52:53 EST
References: <58@epsilon.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 29

Ed Shepard says:

> Yes, you're quite right. That argument, as it stands, is bogus (kind
> of nice we can agree about something :-).  The important question is
> "how does one go about evading the responsibility" (i.e. what are the
> implications of fixing things up)? In the auto accident case, there are
> no externalities.  If you terminate a pregnancy, there are.

> To sum up: yeah, we all take risks and make mistakes, but how far
> should you be allowed to go in righting them?

Yes, that is the question.

My point is that some people do not agree that that is the question.
For example, I am certain that there are some people who would
argue that even if it were possible to terminate a pregnancy
with no harm to the fetus (say, for instance, by transplanting
it to a hydroponic embryo farm), that doing so would be immoral
because it would be evading the responsibility that goes along
with sex.  I was addressing that argument and that one only.

Now, back to the main question, which is already in progress.

The main question is:  Is abortion morally permissible, in and
of itself?

I intend eventually to summarize all the arguments I have heard on
that question and post them, but not tonight.  If you have read my
previous postings, you know some of my views already.