Intention (was Re: Unhooking famous violinist)

Ian Murray seamus2001 at attbi.com
Wed Feb 5 08:47:19 PST 2003


----- Original Message ----- From: "martin" <mschiller at pobox.com>


> a msg onMon, 3 Feb 2003 21:21:57 -0800fromIan Murraycontained-
>
> >Seems to me the practice should include forcing the opposition to meet the
> >impossible demand of providing a non-circular explanation/justification
> >as to why abortion should be criminable at all, ...
>
> The complementary argument might be requested from the choice advocates.

==================

Unlike them, we do not want to imprison our adversaries for doing something -not having an abortion- even as we would call on the law to protect women and men threatened by their version of CD. In a sense, we're running a variation of the innocent until proven guilty principle. Since, there are few, if any, "knock-down" arguments in ethics, the very interminableness of philosophical debate on the topic does not bode well for advocates of criminalization.


> Analogies to hangnails and tumors aside...if you had an experimental
> environment with laboratory animals and the animals began eating their
> young you would want to know what it was in the environment that caused
> the behavior. You would know that disciplining the animals to try to halt
> the behavior would interfere with any environmental adjustments to the
> experiment to adjust the behavior. This is very much common sense and I
> see no reason why it is not applicable to the phenomenon in a human
> population.
>
> Martin

====================

Women want abortions due to the unintended consequences of consensual or coerced sex. That's a far cry from animals eating their young. The law is always already interfering with society; shifting the directions-dimensions of it's interference to afford greater scope for women's life choices will leave the overwhelming majority of citizens far better off than they are now.

Ian



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list