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!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: miscellaneous short rebuttals
Message-ID: <2155@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 29-Dec-84 05:15:32 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2155
Posted: Sat Dec 29 05:15:32 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Dec-84 00:14:55 EST
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 39

From: Brian Peterson  {ucbvax, ihnp4, }  !tektronix!shark!brianp
> We don't really want to >increase< the number of persons,
> but, rather, we value those we have.

Speak for yourself.  I want to see the number of persons increase,
if their average level of material welfare stays roughly constant.
Why not?  That someone would be brought into the world for a hopeless
life of physical pain would be a reason against creating that person,
right?  Then why doesn't a happy life count as a reason *for* creating
that person?  In fact, if it didn't, there would be no way to justify
having any children at all, since there is some risk of a miserable
life (terminal birth defect or whatever).

From:	Ron Rizzo
> Morality is a human matter, external to & imposed on nature (& human
> experience which is part of nature), & necessarily somewhat arbitrary
> with respect to it.  Appeals to nature actually corrupt ethics.

I agree that the argument "It's natural, therefore it's right" never
works (is that what you're saying?), but I disagree with the statement
that morality is external to human experience.  Dead wrong.  Experience
has plenty to do with morality.  It has a lot to do with how we learn
morals.

From: Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd
> If you are going to play one concern against another why don't you tell us
> what is *the* most important thing to be concerned with so that we can
> all drop everything else and rush over and solve that problem.

Such sarcasm seems completely out of line to me.  I think it is perfectly
fair to criticize your charitable activities, and it makes perfect sense
to seek a top priority.  I'd say a good criterion for the most important
thing to be concerned with is to work at the most cost-effective way to
save human lives that you can.  I suspect this means addressing problems
of hunger or disease in the third world.  Me?  I'm working on finding the
most cost-effective way.  Seriously.  

				--Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink
	(until 1/11, then back to: wucs!wucec1!pvt1047		)