Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: The Koenig Maneuver
Message-ID: <818@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Apr-85 11:43:46 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.818
Posted: Fri Apr 26 11:43:46 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 06:12:57 EST
References: <815@bunker.UUCP> <3645@alice.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 86

(This reply is divided into two parts, one being posted to
net.abortion and the other to net.flame.)

>>> Paul Dubuc says:

>>>> Of course I believe in free will and freedom to choose; and that includes
>>>> sexual behaviour.  You seem to treat sex as an activity that it beyond
>>>> the realm of individual choice.  I believe that people generally *choose*
>>>> of have sex.  If they will not accept the possibility of pregnancy that
>>>> goes along with their choice, I think they are being irresponsible.

Andrew Koenig:
>>> Whenever I travel somewhere by car, I take on the risk that I
>>> might be involved in an automobile accident.  Are you seriously
>>> suggesting that if I am injured in a crash, it would be evading
>>> my responsibilities if I were to seek medical treatment?

Me (paraphrasing myself; hoping for greater clarity and brevity
 -- changes are in brackets, and are not intended to change the meaning):
>> [Paul is talking about accepting responsibility for one's actions.]
>> [Andrew is talking about] medical treatment of an injury.
>> [Apparently, Andrew equates] abortion, a medical
>> procedure (according to some) which terminates a life, with the
>> treatment of injury, for the purpose of saving a life (depending,
>> of course, on the severity of the injury).

Andrew replies (again, note brackets):
> [I am talking about] whether it is appropriate to try, after the
> fact, to minimize the bad effects of losing a gamble. [...]
> A person who drives a car runs the risk of an accident, and does
> so by choice.  If that choice to take that risk results in an injury,
> almost everyone would agree that the driver has the right to seek
> medical treatment to minimize the effects of the injury.

But not everyone would agree that that has any bearing on the
abortion issue.  (That's a generic problem with analogies.)

I suggest the analogy be modified as follows:
You are driving your car, and you have an accident in which
you are not injured, but someone else is.  Is it not evading
your responsibility to refuse aid to that injured person?
Your action has resulted in a situation in which someone
else's life depends on what you do.  (Now, who caused the
accident may be a factor in determining whose is the 
responsibility, but not in the analogy I draw below.)

> A woman who engages in sex runs the risk of becoming pregnant.
> I was pointing out here that responsibility really isn't an
> issue, any more than it is an issue about treatments for auto
> accidents.  Granted, there are some people who believe that
> abortion is morally impermissible, because the fetus is a human
> being who has the right to live.  But that argument has nothing
> to do with the one I was trying to rebut here.

Now the connection between the analogy as I have modified it,
and the abortion issue is this:  In the case of pregnancy,
two people have taken action resulting in a situation in
which someone else's life depends on what at least one of
them decides to do next.  (Maybe both are involved in that
decision, and maybe not.)  Note that it is clear (I hope)
that the fetus is certainly not responsible for being there.

You might conclude (correctly) that I think that the man
should also be held responsible for the newly created life.

> Gary, there's only one thing I can't figure out about your article:
> did you post it because you really didn't understand my arguments,
> or did you actually understand them but posted it anyway to try
> to get others to misunderstand them?

			--Andrew Koenig

You are, of course, free to believe what you like about my
reasons for posting, as I am free to doubt the sincerity of
the question.  In case those doubts are unfounded, I will answer
it:  I posted it because I really saw little connection between
the statements you responded to and the response you made.  More
precisely, in my opinion your responses had little bearing on the
issue being discussed.  In the first two cases, I still feel that
way.  In the third, your explanation helped some, and so I
have attempted to explain why I think your analogy is not
valid by modifying the analogy to make it resemble the issue
at hand more closely.

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys