Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wucs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!wucs!esk From: esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: More Stupid Arguments Message-ID: <377@wucs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 27-Sep-84 20:19:21 EDT Article-I.D.: wucs.377 Posted: Thu Sep 27 20:19:21 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 28-Sep-84 07:16:08 EDT Distribution: net Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept. Lines: 64 [] I'm absent a few weeks, and look what stupidity pours forth. First let's tackle the question-beggers. I lost the original article to the first one, but someone was saying (to paraphrase) "a woman has to take responsibility for her actions". But this proves nothing -- it leaves open the possibility that "taking responsibility" means getting an abortion. Of course, the person writing what I'm criticizing evidently thought she has a responsibility (i.e. *obligation*) not to "take responsibility" THAT way. But that's one of the points at issue. And then there's this one: > Rape and murder harm members of society. Abortion does not. > Actions that do not harm society should not be restricted. > [and in a different article he says] > Almost everyone (I think) is for laws that say "don't do it because it > harms someone". There is a difference in those types of laws. > --Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp WOW does that beg the question! Shame on you! You can reason better than that. Whether someone is harmed is PRECISELY the point at issue. Now we turn from question-begging arguments to absurdities. Here we have someone defending the liberal dogma "Thou shalt not impose morality". (They might as well tell us, "Thou shalt not ever say, 'Thou shalt not ever say'."!) > Gee, Rick. What about laws that give you the freedom of expression and > freedom of worship? In what way are you imposed by having the freedom to > choose your own religion? > Secondly, in cases where there is a consensus, then you can't really say > it is an imposition, for you can't impose morals on people who > already accept them [...]. > Thirdly, do you consider rules set up to maintain some system "moral > imposition"?(e.g driving rules)? > Finally, even if some (or many) laws are passed on moral grounds, that > does not mean we can passed some laws just because some people can > find moral grounds for them. --kin wong (..ihnp4!iwlc8!klw) FIRST: To mandate freedom of religion is to impose on those who would inter- fere with that freedom; to impose the moral belief that people should be allowed freedom of religion. Similarly for free expression. SECOND: There has never been complete consensus on anything, and even if there were, the fact remains that people sometimes do violate their moral beliefs, consciously or not. THIRD: Rules to maintain a system impose the moral belief that *there should be* a system, even though the *particular* rules used may be morally irrelevant (e.g. driving on the right or the left). FINALLY: See above on "actions that harm someone". Morality includes issues of justice and rights and is (contrary to popular opinion) essentially INTERpersonal. Having totally demolished the "imposing morality" argument several times before, I'm getting rather bored of this. Don't you folks have any OTHER stupid arguments? [Chief: Max, I'm warning you, this is a dangerous mission. You'll be writing to net.abortion, where you'll be surrounded by illogic, ignorance, dogmatic unwillingness to examine ideas ... [Smart (played by Paul Torek): AND -- loving it! ] --The aspiring iconoclast, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to my address, not to the sender's. Thanks.