Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!ssp
From: ssp@sun.uucp (Stephen Page)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Discussion vs. Convincing
Message-ID: <1947@sun.uucp>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 23:33:43 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.1947
Posted: Mon Jan 14 23:33:43 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jan-85 16:01:39 EST
References: <217@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 41

> 3.	I am sure the loss we, as a society, would have been at a loss had
> 	you been an aborted fetus.  You are obviously intelligent, and a 
> 	contributor, and may someday be responsible for improving the human
> 	condition.  One wonders just how many others, the Bachs, Eiensteins,
> 	etc... have not been allowed the chance to contribute, and how things
> 	would be today if they had

	I haven't been reading this newsgroup for long, and I can't believe
that the point raised hasn't been discussed before.  But, here goes:-

	You can't talk about "What would have happened if..." because it
obviously didn't happen.  You might equally well say "If the fetus had not
been aborted the moon would be made of cheese".  Logically, 
	IF p THEN q
is always true when p is false.  In this case p is "the fetuses weren't
aborted" (false) and q can be anything you want.

	OK, I had trouble with that one in my philosophy course too.  If 
you can ask the question, "What would be the results if (some/many/most) of
the abortions performed each year weren't?" you should be able to answer it.
How can we answer that question with some certainty, if we're talking about 
a state of affairs that doesn't exist?  Well, you could say that state of 
affairs does exist, in countries or times when many abortions were prevented.
You could formulate sociological principles based on scientific study.  The
results of such research would be as controversial as the rest of this
debate.

	Another 'way' to answer the question is religion.  An omnipotent, 
omniscient God can be very specific as to what happens in cases that didn't
happen.

	To sum up, I don't feel you can point the charge of preventing an
Einstein at a couple who decide to terminate pregnancy.  They killed a fetus,
that's all (a bad choice of phrase).  If you believe otherwise then I hope 
you're making babies morning noon and night, in case one of them is the next
Einstein.  But then if you spent less time procreating you could be writing
the next 'Hamlet', ...

Stephen Page
			The opinions expressed are not those of my employer,
			nor are they my own.