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: Response to Gary's response to ...
Message-ID: <3300@alice.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Jan-85 11:02:23 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.3300
Posted: Thu Jan 17 11:02:23 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 02:39:14 EST
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 50

Gary, you are trying to suck me into an argument that I have neither
the time nor the inclination to enter.  I am just trying to get you
to answer one simple question:  why should the legal status of abortion
be any different from the legal status of killing animals for food?

The only thing in your last response that seems to be an attempt
at answering my question is this:

> No.  I am saying that some things (for example, murder) should be
> illegal no matter how many people think otherwise.  Since popular
> opinion does have an effect on what laws are passed (and even
> more on what laws are enforced), it may never occur that everything
> which should be legal is, and vice versa, but I think we should
> try to make the laws what they should be, not necessarily what
> some people may or may not want.

I suppose you are leaving it for me to draw the conclusion that
abortion is one of those things that "should be illegal no matter
how many people think otherwise."  Well, I know that a lot of people
feel that way.  But what argument are you going to give me to support
your position that cannot also be used to support the position that
killing animals should be illegal no matter how many people think
otherwise?

The only answer you have given to that one is that members of our
species deserve legal protection and members of other species do not.

In response to that, I asked what difference there was between
an argument based on species and an argument based on race?
So far, you haven't answered that one.

Please, before you give me any other arguments based on species,
substitute "race" for "species" and see how they sound.

Incidentally, although I said I don't want to get into this,
I will answer your question:

> And do you mean that you would support a law forbidding third
> trimester abortions?  (Definitely not a rhetorical question).

My answer to that is "maybe."  Such a law would have to be based
on medical evidence that a third-trimester fetus is (probably)
capable of thought, and that there are no other overriding philosophical
arguments.  For example, one might argue that if it's inside
your body, you have a right to get rid of it whether it's
capable of thought or not.  This is a complex issue, which is
why I don't have the time to get into details.  Suffice it
to say that I would not consider a law prohibiting third-
trimester abortions to be an atrocity, and that I would consider
a law prohibiting FIRST-trimester abortions to be totally immoral.