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