Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Morality and Democracy
Message-ID: <423@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Dec-84 16:37:31 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.423
Posted: Wed Dec 19 16:37:31 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Dec-84 04:25:59 EST
References: <540@wucs.UUCP> <223@looking.UUCP> <132@tekchips.UUCP> <10367@watmath.UUCP> <156@tekchips.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 23


Steve Vegdahl writes:
> What I am suggesting to people with pro-choice leanings is that the next
> time you post an argument about abortion, try substituting something like
> "slavery" into your argument in place of "abortion".  If the modified
> argument makes no sense, then consider not posting it.

This is ridiculous.  How can pro-choicers argue that abortion is NOT immoral
if we can only use arguements which still make sense when we substitute
something which we all agree is immoral (slavery) for abortion.  Could you
argue that whistling in public should be allowed if you had to use
arguements which still made sense when they were about mass murder?

The arguement that anti-abortion laws are enforced morality means that
anti-abortionists are attempting to enforce THEIR view of what is moral
on everyone else, NOT that the laws simply enforce some absolute moral
standard.

May I suggest, Steve, that you take the advice you give in the last line
of the above quote.

Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j