NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/talk/abortion/34713

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-31 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34713 alt.abortion.inequity:3444
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!castor.cs.psu.edu!beaver
From: [e-mail] (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:06:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet)
Distribution: usa
Lines: 74
Nntp-Posting-Host: castor.cs.psu.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In  <[e-mail]>  [e-mail] (Don Beaver) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes
>> >In  <[e-mail]>  [e-mail] (Don Beaver) writes:
>> >> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] wri
>> >>
>> >> >And it's not enforcing beliefs, any more than the killing of cattle
>> >> >being legal enforcing beliefs on those believe cattle to be holy.
>> >> >They are still free to believe any way they like; what they are not free
>> >> >to do is act on those beliefs in such a way as to violate the rights
>> >> >of other people.
>> >>
>> >> Interesting.  So human fetuses are roughly equivalent to cattle.
>> >
>> >Perhaps you should have someone explain the concept of an analogy to you.
>>
>>  1: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some
>>  respects they will prob. agree in others
>
>analogy (n)
>DEFINITIONS:
>1   inference that if two or more things
>    agree with one another in some respects
>    they will prob. agree in others
>2   resemblance in some particulars between
>    things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY
>3   correspondence between the members of
>    pairs or sets of linguistic forms that
>    serves as a basis for the creation of
>    another form
>4   correspondence in function between
>    anatomical parts of different structure
>    and origin
>(c) G. & C. Merriam
>
>Note "otherwise unlike" in definition 2; you probably saw this in your
>dictionary as well.



If I may summarize my opinions, of which only the first has been
our topic for debate:

1.  Your choice to compare specific relationships regarding
cattle and fetuses suggests an analogy (Webster (1)) relating
cattle and fetuses, one which I found objectionable.

2.  "(for all X) enforce(belief(immoral(kill(X))))" does not hold
in our society, if Webster(def 3) [COMPEL] is used, since our society
does not compel persons to hold particular beliefs.  This supports
your original conclusion in a strictly logical sense.  Thus, if
you're ready to take a pound of flesh and hold to COMPEL as the definition
of enforce, then the statement that a law enforces a belief cannot be true.

3.  However, if you accept Webster(def 1) of "enforce," namely
"to give force to: STRENGTHEN," or Webster(def 2), "to urge with energy,"
then then the statement that a law enforces a belief can be taken to mean
that a law supports, permits the practice of, STRENGTHENS, or is motivated
by a particular belief that may greatly offend or contradict persons
who hold a different belief.

In which case, it is natural to conclude that a law permitting abortion
"enforces" the belief that fetuses are not persons/children/human-lives.

And such a law "enforces" the belief that killing fetuses is not murder,
because it strengthens that belief by making it true.  This belief
need not be true (ie. its negation can be true under different laws).

And yes, our laws do "enforce" (to a much lesser extent) the belief
that killing cattle is not wrong.

Don
--
[e-mail]                       Opinions from the PC-challenged