Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: A simple question Message-ID: <3229@alice.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 11:24:00 EST Article-I.D.: alice.3229 Posted: Fri Jan 4 11:24:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 02:47:20 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 55 > = Gary Samuelson >> = me >> Some people believe abortion is murder. Others do not. >> Some of those that do so think that abortion should >> be illegal, for the same reasons that murder is illegal, >> even though they know many people disagree with them. >> >> Some people believe killing animals for food is murder. >> Others do not. Some of those that do so think that >> killing animals for food should be illegal, for the same >> reasons that murder is illegal, even though they know >> many people disagree with them. >> >> Can someone please explain to me why abortion should >> have a different legal status than killing animals? > >Certainly. The fetus is not an animal. (If you really think >that it is a simple question, that is the simple answer you >deserve.) > >The problem with analogies such as the above is that they >can work both ways. E.g., start out a paragraph with the >above paradigm, "Some people believe killing convicted felons >is murder..." So why should capital punishment have a >different legal status than abortion? Answer: Because they >are different actions. > >Which brings up another problem with analogies. Some people >would say, yes, killing fetuses and killing animals and killing >felons should all have the same legal status; they should all >be illegal. Simple questions are often the hardest to answer, as you have just demonstrated, which is why they are interesting to ask. The trouble with the first paragraph of your answer is that it is merely your own opinion. Just as some people believe there is no real difference between humans before and after birth, others believe there is no real difference between humans and other animals. Your justification for treating abortion and capital punishment differently doesn't mean much unless you tell me just what different legal status should be applied to capital punishment and abortion, and why. In fact, I find your third paragraph the most convincing of all, except for the last five words. In other words, I see no reason for any different legal treatment of killing animals, criminals, or fetuses. But since there is far from universal agreement on any of these issues, I conclude they should all be legal. Since I know several people who think abortion should be illegal yet eat meat, I was wondering how they justified it. I am still wondering.