Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site noscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!noscvax!powers
From: powers@noscvax.UUCP (William J. Powers)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Justification
Message-ID: <1056@noscvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Aug-85 11:49:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: noscvax.1056
Posted: Thu Aug  8 11:49:17 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 06:37:56 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 27

Just a word about the use of the word "justification".

Sentences such as "Can you justify that?" or "Is that justifiable?"
are not complete (not in the grammatical sense) sentences.  More
explicitly, they are not complete thoughts.  These sentences have to
be modified to read  "Can you justify that under the Code of
Hammurabi?" or "Is that justifiable by Islamic law?".
Of course, the people that use this type of reasoning mean something
like "Is that justifiable by the kinds of rules that I, and hopefully
you, use?"

The point is that some system of rules must be specified.  This being
done, if the rules are carefully defined, arguement can begin.
Without a specific set of rules that we all agree upon, we can get no
where.  Every action from the extermination of European Jewry to
the keeping of slaves has been justified.  The interesting point is
that were we Germans living in the 1930's or Southerners living in the
1820's, a vast majority of us would have found these actions
justifiable, whereas today none of us would. 

The question of whether abortion is justifiable has to be examined in
this light.  If we are truely interested in understanding any issue,
we have to be especially sensitive to the prejudices and assumptions
implicit in our use of words.  Words are walls which limit our field
of view.  Ideas are housed in words and are similarly constrained.

That is all, Bill Powers.