Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cisden.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!nbires!boulder!cisden!john From: john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: a task for those opposed to abortion Message-ID: <413@cisden.UUCP> Date: Fri, 17-Jan-86 12:10:03 EST Article-I.D.: cisden.413 Posted: Fri Jan 17 12:10:03 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 20-Jan-86 21:40:51 EST References: <1100@oddjob.UUCP> <380@cisden.UUCP> <387@cisden.UUCP> <8328@ucla-cs.ARPA> Reply-To: john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) Distribution: na Organization: ConTel Information Systems, Denver Lines: 81 For the first time ever I've been chided for insufficient sarcasm. My mother, all my friends, everyone who ever knew me, are *all* amazed. In article <8328@ucla-cs.ARPA> cc@ucla-cs.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >In article <387@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes: >>In article <380@cisden.UUCP> salazar@cisden.UUCP (Kathy Salazar) writes: >>>In reversing the abortion issue... >>>you would have abortion forced on people! >>>This obviously is silly and unreasonable since it would be forcing an operation >>>(like removing a kidney) on people who don't want it. >> >>I don't think I understand your point. > >I am not surprized... Logical experiment is beyond you. Sarcasm is foreign to >you. I wonder about you, Fr..... Wow, this is weird. I didn't understand Kathy's point. (She had made an argument -- Oleg leaves it all out of his posting -- which seems to be of the form "It is wrong to force people to do X. Therefore it is wrong to forbid people to do X." This is clearly absurd, as I pointed out. Oleg prudently omitted that, too. [Sarcasm.]) Now I know Kathy a little, and I know she's not a bit dumb, so I assumed I'd misunderstood something, or she'd left something out. I asked for clarification, and Oleg Kiselev accuses me of stupidity and *!*lack of sarcasm*!*. >>>If abortion is illegal... >> >>I don't think *anyone*, *ever*, suggested this. The above three lines are taken verbatim from Oleg's posting. Unless you remember my original, you'd think that I said nobody wanted abortion to be illegal, which is absurd. In fact, he's left out a bunch of stuff, and the juxtaposition of these two lines gives a grossly misleading impression. Careful about included quotes, folks, please. We can't quote everything, but try to be honest. (Or is honesty in debate another of those traditional values I so disingenuously propound? [Sarcasm.]) >So, Fr. Woolley, the incomes the manufacturers of this drug will rack up will >derive from REGULATION of the menstrual periods, NOT abortions wich will be a >side effect. Is THAT type of abortion OK with you, my good Fr.? Of course not, and you know not. If the intention is to abort, and the effect is to abort, it's a little disingenuous (read "dishonest") to pretend you're just "regulating". Killing is killing, even if it's painless and inexpensive. Responding to my paralleling an argument for abortion with a hypothetical Nazi argument for the licity of killing Jews, Oleg writes: >The good Fr. responce was again based on equating abortion to murder and to Nazi >attitude toward Jews. Why, Fr. Woolley? Why do you insist on clouding the issue >with evoking an emotional responce to an unrelated subject? Is it because you >can't think of any REAL argument? (Patiently) No, Oleg. I was, in fact, engaging in "logical experimentation". Didn't you recognize it? [Sarcasm.] Can't you follow a "REAL argument"? [Sarcasm.] I argued thus: 1. Argument A based on logical structure X yields conclusion M. 2. I construct Argument B also based on logical structure X which yields conclusion N. 3. We have reason (from other considerations) to believe that N is false. 4. We therefore conclude (and this is a good conclusion) that logical structure X is flawed. (We *do not* conclude that M is false -- showing the invalidity of an argument for M is not to show that M is false. Kinda tricky, huh, Oleg? [Sarcasm.]) X here is the structure of Kathy's argument (step 1) concluding that abortion should not be illegal (conclusion M). Step 2 is my exactly parallel argument concluding that killing Jews should not be illegal (conclusion N). We all agree that N is false (step 3) -- that's why it's a handy test case. (No emotion needed.) I therefore conclude *not* that abortion should be illegal, but that the argument X is incorrect, and so Kathy hasn't shown that abortion should be legal. That's logic, Oleg. Kind of unfamiliar? [Sarcasm.] -- Peace and Good!, Fr. John Woolley "Compared to what I have seen, all that I have written is straw." -- St. Thomas