Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!woods
From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: net.suicide,net.religion,net.abortion
Subject: Re: A modest proposal
Message-ID: <1868@hao.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Nov-85 16:01:27 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1868
Posted: Wed Nov 20 16:01:27 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Nov-85 08:27:30 EST
References: <925@utcs.uucp> <1117@mtx5a.UUCP> <1863@hao.UUCP> <274@l5.uucp>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 72
Xref: linus net.suicide:740 net.religion:7905 net.abortion:2191

> If you think that a fetus is not a human being, and a fetus is, then you
> are advocating murder. 

  The whole point is, we don't *know* this. The fact that it is a subject
of such extensive debate, with large numbers of people (including some
quite well-respected people on both sides) involved is proof of that.
One is only advocation murder if one is advocating killing something that
one believes is a human being. Otherwise all I'm doing is advocating 
what someone *else* considers to be murder. Talking about "reality" is
meaningless when we don't even know what "reality" is. All I'm saying is that
each person should have the freedom to determine that for themself, without
having someone else's opinion forced upon them.

> That you are doing this in innocence doesn't
> lesson that you are advocating murder (though it will certainly influence
> my opinion of you).

  First of all, I do not "advocate" abortion. I advocate letting each person
determine their own morality on an issue which is *not* clearly defined.
Secondly, even if I were, I would only be advocating what someone ELSE
considers murder.

> So I prefer
> to maintain a position that one should not have an abortion, simply because
> I am not willing to err on the side of murder.  

   That is your choice. I say other people should be free to choose differently
and that your choice should not be forced upon them.

> If it is later determined
> that 3 month old fetuses are human I would find it hard to live with myself
> if I have been advocating murder.

   That is your problem, which you choose to solve for yourself by not
having and recommending against abortions. That is fine. I don't think I
would have such a problem; but then, since it's unlikely I'd ever have to make
the choice, it doesn't really matter. The point is that others might not share
your "dilemma". Secondly, how are we going to "determine" when a fetus becomes
human? Simple. One group's opinion becomes law and is therefore forced on
everyone else. Bogus. This is not a determination, it is merely forcing one
group's moral decision onto everyone.

> The real problem is that there is such a fuss made about having a child
> out of wedlock. If people could just get pregnant by mistake, have a baby,
> hand it over to an adoption agency, and continue on with life without such
> a condemnation being made, there might be no need for abortions except
> where the life of the pregnant woman was in danger. 

  This IS the real issue, isn't it? How does one stop abortions effectively?
How do you keep drunks off the road? Etc.? Simple. Provide a reasonable
alternative. Throwing laws at problems does not solve them. Making abortion
illegal would only force the women who want them into the back alleys again.
This would hardly promote the attitude you are looking for in your above
paragraph, which I think is a very realistic and effective approach for
such a problem.

> But I am not all that
> sanguine about the possibility of getting that much of a public attitude
> change in a big hurry.

  Sadly, this too is realistic. But we CERTAINLY won't get this positive 
attitude change by passing laws against abortions, nor will we get it if
we start out by assuming it isn't possible.

> Laura Creighton

--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo}
       		        !hao!woods

CSNET: woods@NCAR  ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY