NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53618

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 5.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgi!wdl1!bard
From: [e-mail] (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:39:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Lines: 122

[e-mail] (Gregg Skinner) writes:
# Mr. Woodyatt writes (flames deleted):

[Flamage indeed.  I must have mellowed.]

# >Several posters, myself included, have explained why we think the
# >analogy isn't useful for aiding in the development of public policy.
#
# Yes, but each explanation has suffered from one or more of the
# following:
#
#     o It relied on a logical fallacy.

I must have missed the explanations that suffered from logical
fallacy.  Perhaps the authors were in my KILL file.

#     o It relied on an unsupported assertion.

Hee hee.  The presumption that this analogy is useful for developing
public policy relies on assertions that are unsupportable -- so what?

#       o It noted a difference but failed to argue its relevance.

I did see these, and I agree -- they were weak arguments.

# A difference that has been noted by many, including myself, is the
# position of the fetus inside a woman's body.  Simply noting the
# difference is not enough, though.

I haven't dwelled on this difference because I don't think it's as
significant as the primary difference I see that people don't consider
fetuses to be persons, but people did (and still do where slavery is
practiced) consider slaves to be persons -- just persons without
some/any individual rights.  I will continue below.

#                                   The difference must be demonstrated
# relevant to the conclusion drawn by the analogy.  In this case the
# analogy was used to derive the following conclusion:
#
#      If the argument
#
#          "If you don't like abortion, don't have one."
#
#      is a valid one for keeping abortion legal, then
#
#          "If you don't like slavery, don't keep a slave."
#
#      is a valid argument for legalized slavery.

It might seem that way to you, but here's a construction formed using
the same process used to form the one above, but it's more
demonstrably ludicrous:

Begin with the following analogy between eating pork and rape:

    Pork                Rape
    ----                ----
    Eating pork outlawed by some    Rape outlawed by some religions
    religions

    Eating animals considered to    Rape considered to be cruel by
    be cruel by some people        some people

    Animals considered to be    Rape victims considered to be
    property by some people         property by some people who
                    rape

The analogy is clearly flawed, and flawed in the same way your
abortion/slavery analogy is flawed, but more obviously flawed.
Nevertheless, here is the (flawed) conclusion we can draw from this
(flawed) analogy:

    If the argument

        ``If you don't like pork, don't eat it.''

    is a valid argument for keeping pork legal, then

        ``If you don't like rape, don't rape anyone.''

    is a valid argument for legalizing rape.

Allow me to show you why my construction is similar to yours.  Most of
us agree that rape is illegal because people have a right to be free
from sexual assault, and that those found guilty of violating that
right should be punished.  With few exceptions (members of PETA
notable among them), most people do not consider swine to be entities
with a right to be free from being slaughtered and eaten.

The construction is similar to yours in that, like rape, slavery is
seen by most (though not all) people as a violation of a person's
right not to be enslaved (or raped as the case may be) -- and no, I
don't have a lot of sympathy for the minority that is squelched under
the jackboots of the tyrannical majority on this issue.  Likewise,
like swine, human fetuses are seen by most (though not all) people as
entities that do not have a right to be free from being slaughtered.
You might argue that this is an unsupportable assertion, and I would
agree -- but, the available evidence suggests that very few people
would support public policy based around the notion that fetuses are
persons with the right to be free from being aborted.  That evidence
is polling data which would seem to indicate that the number of people
who would support a complete ban on abortion without exception is
remarkably low, and the absence of highly visible organizations
demanding that women who miscarry be considered murder suspects.

Put simply, the difference between slavery and abortion is that slaves
are people and fetuses are not.  The relevance of the difference is
that people have a right to personal autonomy that deserves
protection, thus slavery is a punishable violation of a person's
rights -- whereas abortion is only a violation of a person's rights if
it is performed against a woman's will.  The fetus does not have a
right to be free from abortion.

Be thankful you haven't inspired anyone to take you to task with an
analogy between slavery and forced childbirth.


--
+---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
| J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
| [e-mail] |                           -- Mark Twain
+---------------------------+