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