NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/misc/legal/23462

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 4.8 KB

Xref: sparky misc.legal:23462 talk.abortion:58371 talk.politics.misc:70248 talk.religion.misc:27740
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!dtix.dt.navy.mil!uranus!tecsun1!descartes.tec.army.mil!riggs
From: [e-mail] (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Still Light On History????
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:44:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD
Lines: 84
Nntp-Posting-Host: descartes.tec.army.mil

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel Bohoh) writes:

>>Many arguments made for pro-choice are utilitarian arguments.  One of
>>the most emotiional is the picture of a woman being mutilated by a doctor
>>performing an illegal abortion.  Abortion should remain legal so it remains
>>safe for all women, say the pro-choice advocates.  However, utilitarian
>>arguments fail when considering such fundamental rights as the right to
>>life and the right to personal liberty.  Turning this argument around,
>>let's assume that abortion is a fundamental right.  Should the right
>>to choose abortion be usurped if many pro-life activists are injured
>>while chained to abortion doors?
>
>First, we need to weigh the social costs of those few pro-life activists
>who are injured while chained to abortion doors against the massive
>economic benefits of not having to support 1.6 million unwanted children
>a year, AS WELL AS the benefits of not having back-alley butchering,
>AS WELL AS the benefits of not having lots of pro-choice activists
>get hurt in _their_ political protests, should abortion be outlawed.
>
>I think it's pretty obvious in which direction the scales of Utilitarian
>justice tip...
>
>>The problem with utilitiarian arguments is that a fundamental right
>>(be it choice or life) can never be usurped simply to benefit
>>a large section of society.  That concept is at the crux of our
>>Constitution.
>
>Correct. But think of Utilitarianism as a tie-breaker. We have a stand-off
>between the fetus'es "fundamental" right to life and the woman's "fundamental"
>right to bodily autonomy. We can't decide whether the fetus is a "person" or
>not, based on anything but an arbitrary legal fiat. So, how do we decide?
>That's when the Utilitarian formula comes in. And clearly, from a Utilitarian
>point of view, pro-choice makes more sense than pro-life.
>
>>Any time an utilitarian argument is used to take
>>a right from one group and give it to another, a similar argument can
>>be found to do the reverse.
>
>Huh? Can you give an example of this?
>
>                                - Kevin

    Well, IMHO, that is what this argument is all about.

    Look, medical science is more advanced than it was in 1972,
and if nothing else, the abortion debate has heightened the public's
awareness of how the fetus develops - that is, what features develop
when. So you can make the argument that not only is the fetus nonviable
(that is, unable to sustain itself outside the mother's body), but that
the fetus does not have enough "human" characteristics to have human
rights. Such a claim is just plain false by the 5th month of pregnancy,
and the closer you get to the 5th month, the more "human" the fetus
becomes. I do not know of a single "pro-choice" individual or group that
is seriously dealing with this issue. Instead, they mindlessly babble on
about the rights of women, the constitutional "right to privacy", and
other such abstractions which serve no other purpose than to obscure
the reality of abortion.

    I am not too swift where utilitarianism is concerned, but I had
the impression that the utilitarians were empiricists who concerned
themselves with moral problems (leading primarily to situational ethics),
rather than bald-faced Machiavels who argued that the ends justify the
means. Is this a LIBERAL point of view ?


Bill R.

--

"When up a dangerous faction starts,         "My opinions do not represent
With wrath and vengeance in their hearts;     those of my employer or
By solemn League and Cov'nant bound,          any government agency."
To ruin, slaughter, and confound;             - Bill Riggs (1992)
To turn religion to a fable,
And turn the Government to a Babel;
Pervert the law, disgrace the gown,
Corrupt the senate, rob the crown;
To sacrifice old England's glory,
And make her infamous in story.
When such a tempest shook the land,
How could unguarded virtue stand ?"
- Jonathan Swift (1732)