home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky misc.legal:23206 talk.abortion:57627 talk.politics.misc:69497 talk.religion.misc:27421 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13662 alt.rush-limbaugh:15005 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:204
- Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!doug.cae.wisc.edu!bodoh
- From: bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh)
- Subject: Re: Still Light On History????
- Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
- Date: 23 Jan 93 20:22:16 CST
- Message-ID: <1993Jan23.202216.10572@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
- References: <1993Jan21.191146.29958@doug.cae.wisc.edu> <1993Jan22.235605.23392@hobbes.kzoo.edu> <1993Jan23.200728.10342@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <1993Jan23.200728.10342@doug.cae.wisc.edu> bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh) writes:
- >The inconsistency is between these two statements:
- >"Abortion should be legal because woman will suffer less from illegal
- >abortions"
- >and
- >"Abortion should be legal because it is fundamental right protected by
- >the 14th Amm"
-
- [See my previous post]
-
- >The first statement can change as circumstances change, since it
- >depends only on the utility. The second statement can never change.
- >There is the inconsistency: relativism vs. absolutes. What happens
- >when the first statmenet changes? Which argument does the pro-choice
- >side believe? (For example, the first statement could change
- >if we gave the equivalent of "clean needles" to those doctors...)
-
- Actually, I just realized that this is very topical: RU486 could
- easily be that clean needle. We don't even have to give it to doctors.
- If you really truly believe in the first statement, isn't it OK if
- abortion is illegal (like drugs) but you provide free RU486 pills?
- And if you really truly believe in the second statement, abortion must
- remain legal, right?
-