pdobeda@watnot.UUCP (pdobeda) (02/28/86)
Every now and then, an argument springs to light, often presented by
those presenting themselves as "Pro-Choice", to the effect that a
fetus interferes with a woman's right to "Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness". In some way, it is inferred that this justifies the
killing of a fetus, as the fetus is not mentioned in the Constitution
as possessing these three rights, considered basic.
Yet, this bothers me somewhat. Firstly, it seems to me that the
ordering of the rights is well-considered--one's liberty might be
constrained by another's right to life, and similarly, one's pursuit
of happiness might be hampered by another's right to liberty or life.
This, in my opinion, and I don't think that I am alone, should be
applied equally, to all people, and to those which might or might not
be people, until it is demonstrated clearly that such are not people.
In other words, grant the benefit of the doubt to the positive.
I do not necessarily feel that the right to life of a fetus should
supercede the right to life of the mother--they are equals. The
question of what is ethical in the cases where the life of the mother
is threatened is another question entirely. ("One will die--whom
shall it be??")
I do, however, feel that the possibility that a fetus *should* indeed
be granted the right of life (a legal question, now) is sufficient,
especially when considered against the restrictions, to be the
dominant right, when it becomes a question of the liberty of the
mother and her pursuit of happiness.
This, though, assumes that we are working from a 'good' definition of
what constitutes a restriction on the liberty of the mother. Is
marriage to be outlawed, by virtue of the limits it gives to liberty?
If I am not allowed to drive as fast as I want wherever I want, is
this part of what is referred to by 'Liberty'? I suspect that the
intention is for freedom from tyranny and oppression, and that one's
right to liberty is not intended to be licence to interfere negatively
with others.
Further, some rights are present *in time*. A school is not
considered as wrong to require that students pursue their happiness at
a later time. The mother will regain her fullest ability to pursue
her happiness in time--nothing is lost.
In the meantime, who is harmed?
Finally, there is the complex legal question, which we are just
brushing the tip of, as to when one's rights may be superceded for the
greater benefit of mankind. Occasionally, this is cited as relevant
in the abortion issue. Yet, over time, I have seen enought evidence
to convince me that abortions are to the ultimate detriment of
mankind, rather than to his benefit.
Paul D. Obedacs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/02/86)
In article <11560@watnot.UUCP> pdobeda@watnot.UUCP (pdobeda) writes: >I do not necessarily feel that the right to life of a fetus should >supercede the right to life of the mother--they are equals. The THAT is ONE of the points we disagree on, Paul! I beleive the life of the mother is of a far greater import. >question of what is ethical in the cases where the life of the mother >is threatened is another question entirely. ("One will die--whom >shall it be??") Why? Why is it "another question entirely"? I feel the an unwanted child birth DOES threaten the mother's life if not physically, then emotionally and financially. >I do, however, feel that the possibility that a fetus *should* indeed >be granted the right of life (a legal question, now) is sufficient, >especially when considered against the restrictions, to be the >dominant right, when it becomes a question of the liberty of the >mother and her pursuit of happiness. WHY?! Why should you damage the life of one human being to give another one a (quite possibly) equally miserable life?! >This, though, assumes that we are working from a 'good' definition of >what constitutes a restriction on the liberty of the mother. Is >marriage to be outlawed, by virtue of the limits it gives to liberty? Marriage is entered into by MUTUAL CONSCENT and can be annulled when either of the partners is not satisfied by the relationship (or at least it is so in most civilized countries). It is very hard to get out of motherhood for a number of reasons ( mostly emotional ones, but in case of teenage minority girls [black, hispanic] it is also the question of ethnicity and "undesirable ancestry") >Further, some rights are present *in time*. A school is not >considered as wrong to require that students pursue their happiness at >a later time. The mother will regain her fullest ability to pursue >her happiness in time--nothing is lost. Garbage! "In time" in this case is when the kids graduate high school. To effectively parent a child BOTH parents have to spend AS MUCH TIME AS POSSIBLE with the kids. In case of a single mother (or even worse a single teenage underpriveleged mother) she has to work to feed herself and her child. No possibility of getting a good education or gaining a useful set of skills that would allow her to get a decent job. No possibility of spending ENOUGH time with her kid. All her plans ruined. Her life crippled. And most people will never forgive their kids for ruining their lives ("I could have been SOMEBODY!") I don't want to make it a definite statement but the facts I've come accross suggest that a majority of abused kids are unwanted ones, I have no facts regarding teen-age gang violence or teenage crime in general, but I would be surprized if those kids grew up with a lot of parental attention. >In the meantime, who is harmed? Both the mother and the unwanted child will be harmed if the child is born. >Finally, there is the complex legal question, which we are just >brushing the tip of, as to when one's rights may be superceded for the >greater benefit of mankind. Occasionally, this is cited as relevant >in the abortion issue. Yet, over time, I have seen enought evidence >to convince me that abortions are to the ultimate detriment of >mankind, rather than to his benefit. If we put individual's rights and freedoms above all else (as would be rational) and make happines of individuals paramount to all other aspirations we might have (what good is a prosperous nation of perpetually depressed nervous wrecks?) then abortion issue very nicely fits into my definition of basic freedoms. If, on the other hand, we state that the interests of HUMAN RACE (or more likely the current government in a given country) supercede the individual wants, needs and aspirations, then SURE! We can't have abortion on demand! Only when The State tells the woman to have one is it OK. And same with pregnancies : only when The State tells you it's OK. And, as long as we are at it, let's also regulate the WHO WITH you can have your kids. Paul, I *KNOW* you did not mean anything like what I have said in the last paragraph. But we can substitute "The Church" for "The State". Or "The Society", or "The Moral Majority". When is it OK to tell people what to do and limit (deny?) their rights? Who will decide? What will they stop at? Will they? ------------------------ "Ones who live in glass houses shouldn't." Oleg Kiselev ucla-cs!oac6.oleg
thoma@reed.UUCP (Ann Muir Thomas) (03/03/86)
> >Further, some rights are present *in time*. A school is not >considered as wrong to require that students pursue their happiness at >a later time. The mother will regain her fullest ability to pursue >her happiness in time--nothing is lost. Excuse me, but having to raise a child for 18+ years when one doesn't want to severely limits the pursual of happiness. As does losing one's job, having to drop out school, etc. because one is pregnant. (Men who get women pregnant don't have to do this...). Your analogy is somewhat invalid anyway, because most of us who are in school are there _in order_ to pursue happiness, and be better equipped to do so after we get out. A woman does not get pregnant when she doesn't want to have children in order to "pursue happiness." >Finally, there is the complex legal question, which we are just >brushing the tip of, as to when one's rights may be superceded for the >greater benefit of mankind. Occasionally, this is cited as relevant >in the abortion issue. Yet, over time, I have seen enought evidence >to convince me that abortions are to the ultimate detriment of >mankind, rather than to his benefit. What kind of evidence, beyond the obvious fact that you don't like women who want freedom over their bodies? >Paul D. Obeda There is a theory that men do the power-plays, control games, warlike activities &c. that they do because they are jealous of woman's ability to have children (a variation on the "sperm is cheap/ eggs are expensive" argument). I am under the impression that men who don't want women to have abortions, who want women to be mothers regardless of their other plans, &c. are jealous of women and seek to control the exact function that they (the men) are jealous of-- women's reproductive capacities. Ann Muir Thomas
garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (03/04/86)
Pardon me for butting into someone else's argument. In article <9534@ucla-cs.ARPA> cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev (the student incarnation)) writes: >In article <11560@watnot.UUCP> pdobeda@watnot.UUCP (pdobeda) writes: >>I do not necessarily feel that the right to life of a fetus should >>supercede the right to life of the mother--they are equals. The >THAT is ONE of the points we disagree on, Paul! I beleive the life of >the mother is of a far greater import. Why? Proof by vigorous assertion? >>question of what is ethical in the cases where the life of the mother >>is threatened is another question entirely. ("One will die--whom >>shall it be??") >Why? Why is it "another question entirely"? The parenthesized statement answers that question. The question of who shall die, when two lives are threatened, seems pretty distinct from the question of should one die when no one's life is threatened. >I feel the an unwanted child >birth DOES threaten the mother's life if not physically, then emotionally >and financially. All those poor people are threatening my life. If not physically, then emotionally and financially. Does that give me the right to get rid of them to alleviate that threat? (My answer: of course not.) So what's the difference? (Expected answer (yours): the fetus is not yet a person). OK, back to the issue then (is the fetus a "person"?). >>I do, however, feel that the possibility that a fetus *should* indeed >>be granted the right of life (a legal question, now) is sufficient, >>especially when considered against the restrictions, to be the >>dominant right, when it becomes a question of the liberty of the >>mother and her pursuit of happiness. >WHY?! Why should you damage the life of one human being to give another >one a (quite possibly) equally miserable life?! Why do you presume that the "other human being" (did you intend to tacitly admit that the fetus is a human being?) will have a miserable life? Why don't you let that "other human being" make that choice? >>This, though, assumes that we are working from a 'good' definition of >>what constitutes a restriction on the liberty of the mother. Is >>marriage to be outlawed, by virtue of the limits it gives to liberty? >Marriage is entered into by MUTUAL CONSENT and can be annulled when >either of the partners is not satisfied by the relationship (or at >least it is so in most civilized countries). Actually, I think that the above attitude towards marriage is all too casual -- it should be more difficult to get married and to get a divorce than it is. The lack of commitment in such an attitude is not civilized at all (you would have us accept your notion of what is and is not "civilized", of course). >It is very hard to get out >of motherhood for a number of reasons (mostly emotional ones, but in >case of teenage minority girls [black, hispanic] it is also the question >of ethnicity and "undesirable ancestry") I confess I don't understand the above. >>Further, some rights are present *in time*. A school is not >>considered as wrong to require that students pursue their happiness at >>a later time. The mother will regain her fullest ability to pursue >>her happiness in time--nothing is lost. >Garbage! "In time" in this case is when the kids graduate high school. >To effectively parent a child BOTH parents have to spend AS MUCH TIME >AS POSSIBLE with the kids. In case of a single mother (or even worse a >single teenage underpriveleged mother) she has to work to feed herself >and her child. No possibility of getting a good education or gaining >a useful set of skills that would allow her to get a decent job. No >possibility of spending ENOUGH time with her kid. All her plans ruined. >Her life crippled. And most people will never forgive their kids for >ruining their lives ("I could have been SOMEBODY!") Garbage yourself. You have totally ignored the possibility that the child could be placed for adoption. You have ignored the possibility that the mother might decide that she wanted to keep the child. You have implied that being a mother is being a NOBODY. And such appeals to emotion from someone who claims to be strictly rational: "underprivileged...no possibility...to get a decent job... *ALL* her plans ruined...crippled...never forgive...'I could have been SOMEBODY'" (Being a mother is being a NOBODY?) >I don't want to make it a definite statement but the facts I've come >accross suggest that a majority of abused kids are unwanted ones, I'm glad you don't want to make it a definite statement, since statistics show otherwise. (Most abused kids are wanted -- statistics to this effect are posted to this group from time to time (not by me, so I don't have the references, but some one will probably post them again), but this argument gets dredged up from time to time anyway.) Besides, more than a decade after abortion on demand became the law of the land would suggest that there are very few "unwanted" children born any more. So which social problems has abortion on demand alleviated? >I have no facts regarding teen-age gang violence or teenage crime in >general, but I would be surprized if those kids grew up with a lot of >parental attention. Your predisposition to believe something about teenage crime in the admitted absense of facts proves nothing, so why state it? >>In the meantime, who is harmed? >Both the mother and the unwanted child will be harmed if the child is >born. Now you are claiming that abortion is actually doing the aborted child a favor. "You wouldn't have enjoyed life anyway, so I am going to kill you." Perhaps we should try an old shoe on a new foot: If you really are concerned about the child, why don't *you* give him or her a good home? (And yes, my wife and I have talked about this and are willing and able to do so. So are lots of other people -- the waiting list to adopt babies is several years long in many (most?) places in this country. We are also willing to house, if needed, an unmarried pregnant woman, to get her to refrain from getting an abortion.) >>Finally, there is the complex legal question, which we are just >>brushing the tip of, as to when one's rights may be superceded for the >>greater benefit of mankind. Occasionally, this is cited as relevant >>in the abortion issue. Yet, over time, I have seen enough evidence >>to convince me that abortions are to the ultimate detriment of >>mankind, rather than to his benefit. >If we put individual's rights and freedoms above all else (as would be >rational) But allowing abortion on demand denies certain individuals their basic rights (back to the central issue, please: is the unborn human a "person"?) >and make happiness of individuals paramount to all other >aspirations we might have (what good is a prosperous nation of perpetually >depressed nervous wrecks?) then abortion issue very nicely fits into my >definition of basic freedoms. Certainly, let's make happiness of paramount importance. Let's make it more important than life itself. Then, we can kill off all the unhappy people, or the people who might be unhappy if they live long enough, and then everyone will be happy (vacuously). > When is it OK to tell people what to do and limit (deny?) their rights? You know that there is no easy answer to that, but to start with, how about limiting people's ability to take away others' right to live? >Who will decide? In this country, it used to be that duly elected legislators were expected to decide such things, according to the desires of their constituents. Now, however, these decisions are decided by nine judges, who are apparently answerable to no one. >What will they stop at? Will they? Exactly the question that pro-life people ask. If it's okay to kill unwanted children -- quotes have already been posted to this forum extending the reasoning behind abortion to justify infanticide -- then why not unwanted old people? or unwanted handicapped people? Gary Samuelson
pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel) (03/07/86)
> I do not necessarily feel that the right to life of a fetus should > supercede the right to life of the mother--they are equals. The > question of what is ethical in the cases where the life of the mother > is threatened is another question entirely. ("One will die--whom > shall it be??") Equals? Please, someone, tell me how anyone can consider the mother and the fetus to be equals. This just doesn't parse. > Further, some rights are present *in time*. A school is not > considered as wrong to require that students pursue their happiness at > a later time. The mother will regain her fullest ability to pursue > her happiness in time--nothing is lost. > > In the meantime, who is harmed? > > Paul D. Obeda Yes, the mother can start pursuing her own happiness 20 years in the future. That makes perfect sense to me. Or give the child she bore up for adoption. When there didn't have to be a child in the first place. And take the risk of going through a full term pregnancy. What if she KNOWS that she will have to have a C-section to deliver the child, which is even more hazardous than a normal birth? Do you still want to force her to go through the pregnancy? An abortion is still less life-threatening to the mother than a full-term pregnancy. If indeed "1 fetus == 1 mother", there is no problem. It's better for 100 fetuses to become children and for 3 women to die in childbirth. But if they are not equal, where is the proper trade-off point? I submit that it is better for 10,000 fetuses to die in abortions than for 1 woman to die from an unwanted pregnancy. Which of you "pro-lifers" wants to dispute my last statement? -- -Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete)
galenr@shark.UUCP (Galen Redfield) (03/08/86)
[Trim, trim]
>Pardon me for butting into someone else's argument.
Pardon us all, if you would be so kind.
I have deleted some 163 lines of arguments over the personhood of
fetus, the right to live, marriage, your uncle's big toe, and on and
on....where, as usual, neither side convinced the other of anything.
It seems to me that there are two controversies that are being
"discussed" (snicker) in this newsgroup. One controversy involves the
practice of abortion itself (is it moral or immoral, good or bad,
right or wrong, whatever or not whatever). The other controversy (the
only one we should be discussing, in my opinion) is the legality of
the practice. As far as I can figure out, the legality of abortion
is something real and tangible that humans can establish or change
according to the collective opinion, while its morality may be
discussed until doomsday without resolution or consensus. But,
supposing that we must deal with both controversies, let me now
suggest that there are four sides to the two questions (let's get
binary):
1) Those who think abortion should be illegal because it is wrong,
2) Those who think abortion should not be illegal even though it is
wrong,
3) Those who think abortion should not be illegal because it is not
wrong, and
4) Those who think abortion should be illegal even though it is not
wrong.
(I am using the word "wrong" in a broad vague sense to cover all the
objections that people have to the practice of abortion.)
The last group seems nonsensical to me, but I suppose it is possible
that some people may think abortion should be illegal for no reason.
I think we hear most of the argument between groups one and three, and
I guess that is understandable. However, I speculate that most people
belong to the second group, and are largely amused when not distressed
by the arguments of the verbal opponents from the other two groups.
On second thought, I probably just made all this up as a joke.
----------
Warm regards,
Galen.ins_bbdg@jhunix.UUCP (James T. Kirk) (03/10/86)
> An abortion is still less life-threatening to the mother than a full-term > pregnancy. If indeed "1 fetus == 1 mother", there is no problem. > It's better for 100 fetuses to become children and for 3 women to die in > childbirth. But if they are not equal, where is the proper trade-off point? > I submit that it is better for 10,000 fetuses to die in abortions than for 1 > woman to die from an unwanted pregnancy. > > Which of you "pro-lifers" wants to dispute my last statement? > -- > -Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete) I am a "pro-choicer," and I'll dispute it. Granted, statistics show that pregnancy is more life-threatening than an abortion done by a competent physician; I have seen the statistics. You state that "it is *better* for 10,000 fetuses to die in abortions than for 1 woman to die from an unwanted pregnancy." I put it to you: who are you to put values on one person's life? How do you know the value of those 10,000 fetuses? Finally, how can you possibly equate them? Obviously, the value of an individual fetus is different from person to person; that's why we have this net. You seem to assume that your value of the fetus is the same as everybody else's. Each person must decide for himself whether your statement is true or false, or how far it is from accurate. -- Nothing is foolproof, because fools are so ingenious. UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs \ BITNET: INS_BBDG@JHUVMS ihnp4!whuxcc > !jhunix!ins_bbdg P13I2691@JHUVM allegra!hopkins / CSNET: ins_bbdg@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_bbdg%jhunix.BITNET@wiscvm.WISC.EDU
pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel) (03/10/86)
> Perhaps we should try an old shoe on a new foot: If you really > are concerned about the child, why don't *you* give him or her a good > home? (And yes, my wife and I have talked about this and are willing > and able to do so. So are lots of other people -- the waiting list to > adopt babies is several years long in many (most?) places in this country. > We are also willing to house, if needed, an unmarried pregnant woman, > to get her to refrain from getting an abortion.) > > Gary Samuelson The statement about the waiting list for adoption is EXTREMELY misleading. Yes, there are many people looking for a child to adopt. But what KIND of child? A WHITE one. There are many "adoptable" babies, young children, etc., that are NOT white that are begging to get adopted. But the majority of adopting parents are white and want white children. And what about problem children? Rather than being adopted they are usually just shuttled from one foster family to another. Which ends up costing society because problem children become problem adults. -- -Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete)
pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (03/11/86)
In article <179@valid.UUCP> pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel) writes: >The statement about the waiting list for adoption is EXTREMELY misleading. >Yes, there are many people looking for a child to adopt. But what KIND of >child? A WHITE one. > >There are many "adoptable" babies, young children, etc., that are NOT white >that are begging to get adopted. But the majority of adopting parents are >white and want white children. And what about problem children? Rather than >being adopted they are usually just shuttled from one foster family to another. >Which ends up costing society because problem children become problem adults. >-- >-Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete) So what is a consistent answer to the problem with regard to abortion? If the lack of "adoptability" is used a justification for abortion (and it often is) then it is only a justification for those who don't get adopted. The point is that, for any given individual, (we all like to be treated like individulals and not statistics, don't we?) no one really knows whether a child is "adoptable" or not until she has had a chance to be adopted. To tell a Black woman that *her* baby is not adoptable because she is Black is appropriating statistics to determine an individual's fate (a common misuse of statistics). Finding adoptive parents *is* more difficult for minority children in general, but that doesn't say much about any particular minority child. (If pro-choice folks wan't to argue for abortion as an individual choice then they ought to use arguments that make sense on the individual level). This issue is complicated by the fact that often the state will not allow a black child to be adopted by a white couple because there is an impression that this is not the proper setting for the child's upbringing. Another question about these "problem" children is whether or not they "should" be unwanted. Accepting the fact that they are is one thing, but proposing abortion as part of the answer only reinforces the notion that it is OK to "get rid of" "problem" children. With abortion we justify getting rid of those whom we statically predict will fall into the "unwanted" or "problem" category (and tacitly use it to justify the abortion of those that won't--just for equality's sake, I suppose). But the question still remains: Is it acceptable for these "problem" children to be shunned by society? Any solution that makes the child bear all the consequences seems to imply that it is. We might admit that our attitudes toward such children are really predjudice and ought to change. But we are really accomodating those attitudes when we propose solutions that involve getting rid of those who are the object of such attitudes. -- Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd
cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/12/86)
In article <610@bunkerb.UUCP> garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes in answer to my article <9534@ucla-cs.ARPA>: >>I beleive the life of the mother is of a far greater import. >Why? Proof by vigorous assertion? No. Mother is (1) alive, (2) person, (3) human being, (4) protected by the laws of the land which reflect the popular opinion, (5) has some ties with other people. This last one(5) is the most important one ofthem all. As a grown and (hopefuly) mature PERSON, the mother has a societal value in terms of her own productivity and the influence she has on productivity of other PERSONS. Her death (like removal of anything which has non-material value [by non-material I mean emotional,expectational,attachment or aestetic values]) will cause some people grief and will therefore harm them, harming their productivity. That's bad for society, bad for individual. An abortion causes no such commotion in people's lives. If the fetus was wanted (and had that non-material value of people's love and anticipation) it would have never been aborted in the first place! If that was "Proof by vigorous asertion" than be it. Oleg Kiselev
cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/12/86)
In article <610@bunkerb.UUCP> garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >>I feel the an unwanted child >>birth DOES threaten the mother's life if not physically, then emotionally >>and financially. > >All those poor people are threatening my life. If not physically, then >emotionally and financially. Does that give me the right to get rid of >them to alleviate that threat? (My answer: of course not.) So what's the >difference? (Expected answer (yours): the fetus is not yet a person). >OK, back to the issue then (is the fetus a "person"?). No, my answer is "Get rid of poverty by elevating the people out of it." "Poor people are threatening" your life only because you are indirectly responsible for their condition. (This belongs in net.politics!) If you don't see how woman's wellbeing is more important than the wellbeing of a fetus - we might as well stop this discussion now. We obviously have systems of values and understanding of RIGHT and WRONG so vastly different that there is no point to any arguments. What's RIGHT to me is WRONG to you. How can we even hope to reach any understanding???? >>WHY?! Why should you damage the life of one human being to give another >>one a (quite possibly) equally miserable life?! > >Why do you presume that the "other human being" (did you intend >to tacitly admit that the fetus is a human being?) will have a miserable >life? Why don't you let that "other human being" make that choice? FIRST, I doubt I have ever denied a fetus being a HUMAN BEING. SECOND, Fetus is not a PERSON, however, and can NOT make ANY choices. It is not even ALIVE in any real sense!!!! It is a part of it's host's ("mother's") body! Oleg Kiselev "Should the unborn have rights?" "YES. Because they can thank you for it afterwards." "Should the dead have rights?" "NO. Because dead can't speak." Laurie Anderson
cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/12/86)
In article <610@bunkerb.UUCP> garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >>Marriage is entered into by MUTUAL CONSENT and can be annulled when >>either of the partners is not satisfied by the relationship (or at >>least it is so in most civilized countries). > >Actually, I think that the above attitude towards marriage is all too >casual -- it should be more difficult to get married and to get a >divorce than it is. The lack of commitment in such an attitude is >not civilized at all (you would have us accept your notion of what >is and is not "civilized", of course). Oh, REALLY? And why is that? By what law (or, rather, by WHO's law) is it that a bad marriage should be preserved??? "'Til death do us part" or something like that? Aren't you pushing according your personal tastes on us, Gary? >>>Further, some rights are present *in time*. A school is not >>>considered as wrong to require that students pursue their happiness at >>>a later time. The mother will regain her fullest ability to pursue >>>her happiness in time--nothing is lost. > >>Garbage! "In time" in this case is when the kids graduate high school. >>To effectively parent a child BOTH parents have to spend AS MUCH TIME >>AS POSSIBLE with the kids. In case of a single mother (or even worse a >>single teenage underpriveleged mother) she has to work to feed herself >>and her child. No possibility of getting a good education or gaining >>a useful set of skills that would allow her to get a decent job. No >>possibility of spending ENOUGH time with her kid. All her plans ruined. >>Her life crippled. And most people will never forgive their kids for >>ruining their lives ("I could have been SOMEBODY!") > >Garbage yourself. You have totally ignored the possibility that >the child could be placed for adoption. You have ignored the >possibility that the mother might decide that she wanted to keep >the child. You have implied that being a mother is being a NOBODY. > >And such appeals to emotion from someone who claims to be strictly >rational: "underprivileged...no possibility...to get a decent job... >*ALL* her plans ruined...crippled...never forgive...'I could have >been SOMEBODY'" (Being a mother is being a NOBODY?) Garabage back on YOU! An UNWANTED *ANYTHING* is bad!!! Being a highly paid executive AGAINST YOUR WILL AND IN DETRIMENT TO YOU is being a NOBODY, when what YOU want to do is to spend your days meditating and counting beads. Or gardening. Or working iron. Or being a mother. The key here is WANTING to. >Besides, more than a decade after abortion on demand became >the law of the land would suggest that there are very few "unwanted" >children born any more. So which social problems has abortion on >demand alleviated? You are mis-guided. Sure, there are more abortions performed. Not EVERYBODY has them. Not EVERYBODY can AFFORD them. Not EVERYBODY KNOWS better to have them. >>>In the meantime, who is harmed? >>Both the mother and the unwanted child will be harmed if the child is >>born. >Now you are claiming that abortion is actually doing the aborted child a >favor. "You wouldn't have enjoyed life anyway, so I am going to kill >you." Perhaps we should try an old shoe on a new foot: If you really >are concerned about the child, why don't *you* give him or her a good >home? (And yes, my wife and I have talked about this and are willing There IS NO CHILD! There is a FETUS! and I *DON'T* care what happens to an UNBORN FETUS. I *CARE* about the woman who's life is going to be crippled. I am concerned that an unwanted child will not grow up to be beneficial to this society and will be a detrement to me. (Somehow it seems Peter Z. has made a similar statement just recently) >and able to do so. So are lots of other people -- the waiting list to >adopt babies is several years long in many (most?) places in this country. >We are also willing to house, if needed, an unmarried pregnant woman, >to get her to refrain from getting an abortion.) Ah, gee Gary! We have over 50,000 (???) kids here in California who need to be adopted... You want them? Contact the California adoption organizations (your local ones will probably have addressess). Only, you see Gary, most of those kids are ether Hispanic, or Black, or have some mental or physical defects, or are "problem kids"... Want them?! Stop whining about the "waiting lists" and help solve the problem! Oleg Kiselev
cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/12/86)
In article <610@bunkerb.UUCP> garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >But allowing abortion on demand denies certain individuals their basic >rights (back to the central issue, please: is the unborn human a "person"?) Fetuses are NOT "INDIVIDUALS" until they are viable. >>and make happiness of individuals paramount to all other >>aspirations we might have (what good is a prosperous nation of perpetually >>depressed nervous wrecks?) then abortion issue very nicely fits into my >>definition of basic freedoms. > >Certainly, let's make happiness of paramount importance. Let's make >it more important than life itself. Then, we can kill off all the >unhappy people, or the people who might be unhappy if they live long >enough, and then everyone will be happy (vacuously). An UNHAPPY LIFE??? Is is worth living? Is not one of the basic human rights the "pursuit of happiness"??? Or are you saying that it's OK NOT to be happy and suffer?! >> When is it OK to tell people what to do and limit (deny?) their rights? >You know that there is no easy answer to that, but to start with, >how about limiting people's ability to take away others' right to live? Other PERSONS and INDIVIDUALS. Not fetuses, as fetuses don't belong to either group. >>Who will decide? >In this country, it used to be that duly elected legislators were >expected to decide such things, according to the desires of their >constituents. Now, however, these decisions are decided by nine >judges, who are apparently answerable to no one. Nine judges appointed by "duly elected legislators" who are not likely to sacrifice TRUTH to the election polls. >>What will they stop at? Will they? >Exactly the question that pro-life people ask. If it's okay to kill >unwanted children -- quotes have already been posted to this forum >extending the reasoning behind abortion to justify infanticide -- >then why not unwanted old people? or unwanted handicapped people? Extended by people like YOU. NOBODY on pro-choice side would have ever thought to twist a reasonable position into something as ugly as you and others of the so called "pro-life" camp manage to make it. > >Gary Samuelson Gary! I am not planning to respond to you ravings in the future. WE have nothing to debate. You view life from a VERY different perspective. SO DIFFERENT, in fact, that I don't think we are living in the same WORLD. If you fail to see as reasonable points of view I hold as fundamental truths, WHAT CAN WE ACHIEVE BY YELLING AT EACH OTHER? Oleg Kiselev ucla-cs!oac6.oleg
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (03/21/86)
In article <173@valid.UUCP> pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel) writes: >An abortion is still less life-threatening to the mother than a full-term >pregnancy. This is not true; a while back I posted an article quoting statistics to the contrary. If there is any interest (no one responded to it the first time), I will dig them out and post them again. (Or if anyone saved the article and would like to post it, feel free.) In the meantime, I summarize from memory. Abortion is more likely than a normal pregnancy to cause any of several complications: infection, damage to the uterus, etc., leading to an increase in problems with subsequent pregnancies, sometimes miscarriages, sometimes sterility. And some women die from perfectly legal, supposedly safe abortions. Now abortionists are loathe to tell on themselves, and often complications which are probably abortion related are not reported as such. (They have a vested interest in making abortions appear to be safe.) And some women are reluctant to reveal the fact that they have had an abortion, another reason why complications due to abortion are underreported. Gary Samuelson
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (03/21/86)
In article <9790@ucla-cs.ARPA> cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev (the student incarnation)) writes: >In article <610@bunkerb.UUCP> garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes >in answer to my article <9534@ucla-cs.ARPA>: >>>I believe the life of the mother is of a far greater import. >>Why? Proof by vigorous assertion? > >No. Mother is (1) alive, (2) person, (3) human being, (4) protected by >the laws of the land which reflect the popular opinion, (5) has some >ties with other people. (1) (2) (3): So is the fetus. You deny this, at least by implication. This is what I was thinking about when I spoke of proof by vigorous assertion. (4) One of the issues here is whether the laws of the land should be changed to protect the fetus. So you are in effect saying that the the laws should not protect the fetus because they currently do not. And touching popular opinion, before Roe v. Wade, the laws of the land reflected the popular opinion which was that abortions should be, in general, prohibited. In fact, within two or three months before Roe v. Wade, two states had passed by popular referendum anti-abortion legislation. But it only takes five Supreme Court justices to overrule millions of voters. Of course, I think that popular opinion is wrong, so again you are saying that the status quo should be maintained simply because it is the status quo. >This last one(5) is the most important one ofthem all. As a grown and >(hopefuly) mature PERSON, the mother has a societal value in terms of >her own productivity and the influence she has on productivity of other >PERSONS. Her death (like removal of anything which has non-material value >[by non-material I mean emotional,expectational,attachment or aestetic values]) >will cause some people grief and will therefore harm them, harming their >productivity. That's bad for society, bad for individual. Some people grieve because of abortions -- why isn't their grief important? I shudder to think what life would be like in a society where my right to live was contingent on whether that society -- no doubt as embodied by a few bureaucrats -- thought I had value. Are you other pro-choicers listening? This is one of the things that leads pro-lifers to compare pro-choicers to ***** -- the fact that society can decide who has "value" and who does not. If society decides that **** have no value, than society can, and indeed should, get rid of them. (Asterisks used in an effort to make the point without causing to many reflexive flames.) Why is "society" important at all? The only things that really benefit "society" are those which benefit those individuals which are part of "society." >An abortion causes no such commotion in people's lives. If the fetus was >wanted (and had that non-material value of people's love and anticipation) >it would have never been aborted in the first place! Why should "wantedness" be a criterion for the right to life? Alternatively, why would you not apply the same criterion to adult humans? >If that was "Proof by vigorous asertion" than be it. Well, some of it was proof by vigorous assertion, and some was circular. The rest was a confusion of a group with members of the group (I don't remember the technical term). Gary Samuelson
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (03/21/86)
In article <9792@ucla-cs.ARPA> cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev (the student incarnation)) writes: >In article <610@bunkerb.UUCP> garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >>>I feel the an unwanted child >>>birth DOES threaten the mother's life if not physically, then emotionally >>>and financially. >> >>All those poor people are threatening my life. If not physically, then >>emotionally and financially. Does that give me the right to get rid of >>them to alleviate that threat? (My answer: of course not.) So what's the >>difference? (Expected answer (yours): the fetus is not yet a person). >>OK, back to the issue then (is the fetus a "person"?). > >No, my answer is "Get rid of poverty by elevating the people out of it." >"Poor people are threatening" your life only because you are indirectly >responsible for their condition. (This belongs in net.politics!) Fine. Why not apply that solution to the problem of unwanted fetuses? I.e., if elevating people out of poverty is better than getting rid of them, why isn't deciding to care for fetuses better than getting rid of them? >If you don't see how woman's wellbeing is more important than the wellbeing >of a fetus - we might as well stop this discussion now. OK. >We obviously have >systems of values and understanding of RIGHT and WRONG so vastly different >that there is no point to any arguments. What's RIGHT to me is WRONG to you. >How can we even hope to reach any understanding???? Understanding may be possible. Agreement is another problem. ... >FIRST, I doubt I have ever denied a fetus being a HUMAN BEING. >SECOND, Fetus is not a PERSON, however, and can NOT make ANY choices. >It is not even ALIVE in any real sense!!!! It is a part of it's host's >("mother's") body! How can you contradict yourself so blatantly and not notice? It's not alive, but it's a human being? How is that possible? And what's a person other than a human being? What is your definition of "alive"? Gary Samuelson