Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: consistency (a foolish one) Message-ID: <1340@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 17:39:11 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1340 Posted: Thu Aug 22 17:39:11 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 01:31:29 EDT References: <4158@alice.UUCP> Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 24 Summary: Koenig errs In article <4158@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >If a fetus has rights, then abortion is murder. >There are other, more subtle implications. For example, >smoking or drinking during pregnancy is clearly child abuse. >So is failure to eat a balanced diet. This is a straw man. Most people's moral intuitions would say that if you worsen someone's environment severely (e.g., polluting the air he breathes) you are harming him in a morally unacceptable way. But if you simply REFRAIN FROM *IMPROVING* his circumstances (e.g., not buying him a water purifier when he lives by a naturally polluted stream), you may be considered insensitive, but most people would not count this as abuse. (Note: I am giving you what I think most people would say, not necessarily what I agree with: I am interested in what a CONSISTENT "pro-lifer" MUST say.) The analogy is: if a woman drinks poison in order to worsen conditions for a fetus, this would be "child abuse"; but if she continues her habits of poor diet, smoking, etc., she is not *harming* the fetus but merely (merely?) *refusing to improve* its environment. In conclusion: Koenig's argument is a non-starter. --Paul V Torek, Iconbuster-In-Chief