Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights
Message-ID: <1763@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 5-Oct-85 09:00:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1763
Posted: Sat Oct  5 09:00:38 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 10-Oct-85 05:43:51 EDT
References: <690@ihu1m.UUCP> <1728@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1842@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 44

[Rich, I thought you swore never to reply to me]

In article <1842@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>>>I think you got it right.  The abortion issue is a clash between two sets
>>>of moral values.  However, I think the positions of the pro-lifers and
>>>pro-choicers are asymmetrical.  Whereas the anti-abortionist are trying
>>>to impose their moral code on the pro-choice side, the pro-choice side
>>>does not attempt to coerce the other side to conform to its moral code.
>>> [YOSI]

>> I don't see why this makes any difference.  To make the pro-life analogy
>> for a moment (equating aborting mothers with rapists and fetuses with the
>> victims), we get a situation which is equally assymetrical. [WINGATE]

>Another equally interesting analogy compares anti-abortionists with airplane
>pilots and pro-choice people with hair stylists.

Care to make an argument?  The whole point of the matter is that the analogy
I stated holds in fact if the "pro-life" arguments are correct.  I would
prefer to choose a moral position because it is correct, rather than because
it is less strong.  SUre, minimizing coercion is a valid goal of morality.
But it isn't an all-overriding principle.

>Yosi wasn't making an analogy.  He was stating a fact.  The fact that you
>would make use of a startlingly inappropriate and arbitrary analogy in an
>attempt to rebut Yosi's point, frankly, does not surprise me anymore.  The
>lengths (depths?) to which you go! ...

Well, I have to confess that I chose that particular analogy because I knew
someone would take holy offense against it.  So to carry it through,
transfer Yosi's statement to the question of making rape illegal (with all
the appropriate penalties).  Now Yosi's statement applies just as well
there.  One choice of action is coercive, and the other is not.  But is
anyone seriously going to argue for the less coercive course, especially on
that basis?  Hardly.  The whole question of coercion is driven by the
principle moral dilemma.  We put rapists in jail in spite of the
coerciveness of that action because we would rather discourage rape.  Now,
taking Yosi's statement back to its original setting, I think it should be
clear that the same principle obtains.  Sure, if there are no moral
objections to abortion (or they are sufficiently small) then the
non-coercive position should win.  But there ARE strong moral objections,
and so the question can only be resolved on the grounds of those questions.

Charley Wingate