Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: An abortion story Message-ID: <246@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Wed, 28-Nov-84 10:52:05 EST Article-I.D.: cybvax0.246 Posted: Wed Nov 28 10:52:05 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 1-Dec-84 19:27:12 EST References: <44@tove.UUCP> <11200002@rocksvax.UUCP> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 35 Summary: I'm appalled that Liz copied that shocking abortion narrative in here. This is a classical fallacy of the worst sort: appeal to the prejudices of the audience. I'm sure I could use those same knee-jerk responses to mutillation and the like to turn you all into vegetarians. (And probably also make you reluctant to eat even plants! :-)) And the incredible errors of anthropomorphism committed to shock us also infuriate me. Such fanciful interpretations. I'm sure they'd also interpret the slack-jawed gape of a brain-dead adult as a "silent scream" also, if it suited their purposes. "Retreating to the far end of the womb" my ass. If the fetus had happend to get sucked up immediately it would instead have been "helplessly sucked towards doom and destruction." And let's not forget that there might have been editing: selection from many films of abortions of whichever parts (or whole) made for the most grisly description. I say errors of anthropomorphism because it obviously is erroneous to ascribe adult human feelings and reactions to a fetus, the same way it is erroneous to ascribe lust to that fetus. A fetus at that stage is indistinguishable from a whole range of things we would routinely classify as subhuman: an ape fetus, a fetus without a brain, or a fetus with a defect that will cause it to abort itself spontaneously. Finally, the film doesn't argue against abortions, as it may have been mis-represented to do. It argues against "inhumane abortions". Just as many people consider it inhumane to kill animals in gruesome ways, but humane to kill them with an injection, so that film AT MOST is an argument to abort in a more "humane" manner. I have no objection to that, providing the "humane" method is no more risky to the woman. But anti-abortionists want to misinterpret this: it gives them a feeling that theirs is a righteous cause. They need that feeling to justify oppressing other adults with their beliefs. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh