Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!matt
From: matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt )
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: why is it?
Message-ID: <2781@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 10:21:33 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2781
Posted: Mon Nov  4 10:21:33 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 21:39:53 EST
References: <970@gitpyr.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 58

>A) I'm not concerned with pro-lifers in general (pmd, Ray, you, and the like)
> because (I'll try to put this politely) they aren't very dangerous. Matt on
> the other hand seems to be quite reasoned.  [MYKE REYNOLDS]

Even so, my reasoning has to be based on assumptions and values.  Does this
make me "dangerous"?

> B) Matt has touched on nothing but peripheral subjects, and even in general
>  little has been said about why pro-lifers feel this way, just that they do.
>  [M. REYNOLDS]

I got caught up in peripheral subjects in the following way:  Some pro-
choicers have justified their stand on the basis of values which I consider
unfounded.  I've tried to show that these values are unfounded, and in fact
nothing more than the sentiments of their holders, by discussing other
consequences of these values that I have hoped would cause other readers
to reconsider them.  There was one article that tried to base the right to
abort on equal access for men and women to sexual pleasure.  I tried to 
show that this is just one of many logical consequences of the enforcement
of absolute sexual equality, in order to reason that if some of the other
consequences seem undesirable to the readers, the necessity for this
particular consequence (abortion on demand) should be weakened in their
minds.

As for why I feel the way I do:  It's no secret that I believe in my
religion, which condemns abortion on demand.  But I don't go around
trying to outlaw the consumption of pork, or the opening of stores
on Saturday, both of which are also condemned by my religion.  So
religion alone does not account for my desire to outlaw abortion on
demand.

On purely practical grounds, I believe murder should be outlawed
because I don't want people to kill me or those I love.  Jesse Jackson's
argument was based on, "I could have been killed if abortion had been
legal."  But Rev. Jackson was not killed, and neither was I.  We escaped.
Does that mean we should abandon those who are still in the womb, or who
will be in the future, who won't escape?  Should a refugee who successfully
escapes from Bolshevik China (or fascist Guatemala, if you want) lose all
concern for those still at risk of death if someone with power decides
it's harmful to let them live?  Would that be moral?

>>If I believe the unborn, at any stage of being, to be in fact a living
>>child, then it is as much my responsibility to try to stop its "termination"
>>as if I saw a child standing in front of a speeding car, don't you agree?
>>This is certainly of moral consequence. [KEVIN SMITH]

> I'm not touching this with a 10 foot pole. If you can't see the difference
> between a child and a 8 week old fetus then whats the point in arguing..
> [MYKE REYNOLDS]

I, Matt Rosenblatt, can see the difference.  Of course, I've argued that
the difference is not one that entitles anyone to decide that the fetus
deserves to die.  But I would use Kevin Smith's statement as a spring-
board to ask Myke Reynolds to define what is meant by "moral consequence."
Isn't that a relative term, depending for its meaning upon the moral system
subscribed to by the speaker?

						-- Matt Rosenblatt