david@tekig5.UUCP (David Hayes) (09/19/85)
Why is it the most outspoken and prolific writers in the pro-life camp (in this forum) are men. I realize men outnumber women by quite a margin on the net, but where are the female counterparts of the Pauls, Garys, and Mikes?? No personal attack here guys, but an observation on a (supposedly) issue of equal importance to both sexes. dave
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (09/22/85)
In article <239@tekig5.UUCP> david@tekig5Hayes.UUCP (David Hayes) writes: >Why is it the most outspoken and prolific writers in the >pro-life camp (in this forum) are men. I realize men outnumber >women by quite a margin on the net, but where are the female counterparts >of the Pauls, Garys, and Mikes?? They're at home, barefoot and (or course) pregnant. I don't think they'd be allowed to use a computer if they knew how. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "What? With her?" -Adam from _The_Book_of_Genesis_
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/26/85)
>>Why is it the most outspoken and prolific writers in the >>pro-life camp (in this forum) are men. I realize men outnumber >>women by quite a margin on the net, but where are the female counterparts >>of the Pauls, Garys, and Mikes?? [David Hayes] > >They're at home, barefoot and (or course) pregnant. I don't think they'd >be allowed to use a computer if they knew how. [Charles Forsythe] Charles, where's the smiley face? If you were serious (and I hope you weren't), that remark is bigoted and offensive. You owe a lot of women an apology. charli charli
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/27/85)
In article <321@cylixd.UUCP> charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) writes: >>>Why is it the most outspoken and prolific writers in the >>>pro-life camp (in this forum) are men. I realize men outnumber >>>women by quite a margin on the net, but where are the female counterparts >>>of the Pauls, Garys, and Mikes?? [David Hayes] >> >>They're at home, barefoot and (or course) pregnant. I don't think they'd >>be allowed to use a computer if they knew how. [Charles Forsythe] > >Charles, where's the smiley face? > >If you were serious (and I hope you weren't), that remark is bigoted and >offensive. You owe a lot of women an apology. > > charli Not to mention some men (not that we'd expect it to happen). One of the "Pauls", -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
phillips@uscvax.UUCP (Marlene Phillips) (09/30/85)
In article <321@cylixd.UUCP> charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) writes: >>>Why is it the most outspoken and prolific writers in the >>>pro-life camp (in this forum) are men. I realize men outnumber >>>women by quite a margin on the net, but where are the female counterparts >>>of the Pauls, Garys, and Mikes?? [David Hayes] >> >>They're at home, barefoot and (or course) pregnant. I don't think they'd >>be allowed to use a computer if they knew how. [Charles Forsythe] > It's true, I'm neither outspoken nor a prolific writer in this newsgroup, but I am a woman who is definitely pro-life. By the way, I am not at home (although I would like to work at home if the phone hookup charges were not so expensive), I am not currently barefoot, (although I do sometimes take off my shoes), and I am not currently pregnant. As for your final point, I am working on a Ph.D. in Computer Science, which may not necessarily indicate the computer know-how that many of you have, but I think it at least indicates that I am allowed to use a computer, at least occasionally. I am not asking for an apology, I'm just trying to provide some relevant information. Marlene Phillips
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (10/03/85)
>>>where are the female counterparts >>>of the Pauls, Garys, and Mikes?? [David Hayes] >> >>They're at home, barefoot and (or course) pregnant. I don't think they'd >>be allowed to use a computer if they knew how. [Charles Forsythe] > >Charles, where's the smiley face? > >If you were serious (and I hope you weren't), that remark is bigoted and >offensive. You owe a lot of women an apology. [Charli Phillips] Sorry Charli (I've always wanted to use that line on someone else!), no smiley face. Do you think I am saying that there are no intelligent, indepedant pro-life women in the world? I hope you don't think that because I am not that naive or bigoted. Maybe you haven't read anything by the really hard-core pro-life guys on the net. As for me, I am surprised I haven't read the term "little woman" and "housewife" from them. Perhaps you should read Matt Rosenblatt's famous "women have rights because male politicians let them have rights" speech that generated megabytes of flamage about a month ago. Matt's more recent submission is from a feminist who talks about how birth control (and therefore abortion) are mens' way of keeping women sexually submissive. Of course, he misses a more realistic point that our society also makes women slaves to childcare. This summer I helped a friend raise money for a feminist organization called "9 to 5" that fights for the rights of women office workers. One of their main battles is to get companies to provide childcare for working mothers. Perhaps Ken Arndt will reappear to explain how DEC's money is better spent on Usenet connections than childcare services. At any rate, the female counterparts to these attitudes must ALSO believe that a woman ought to be at home with the kids -- so that is where you will find them. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "Ordinary F___ing people -- I hate 'em. Ordinary people spend their lives avoiding tense situations; repo man spends his life getting into tense situations."
phanes@sun.uucp (Pam Hanes) (10/05/85)
> In article <321@cylixd.UUCP> charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) writes: > >>>Why is it the most outspoken and prolific writers in the > >>>pro-life camp (in this forum) are men. I realize men outnumber > >>>women by quite a margin on the net, but where are the female counterparts > >>>of the Pauls, Garys, and Mikes?? [David Hayes] > >> > >>They're at home, barefoot and (or course) pregnant. I don't think they'd > >>be allowed to use a computer if they knew how. [Charles Forsythe] > > > > It's true, I'm neither outspoken nor a prolific writer in this > newsgroup, but I am a woman who is definitely pro-life. By the > way, I am not at home (although I would like to work at home if the > phone hookup charges were not so expensive), I am not currently > barefoot, (although I do sometimes take off my shoes), and I am not > currently pregnant. As for your final point, I am working on a > Ph.D. in Computer Science, which may not necessarily indicate the > computer know-how that many of you have, but I think it at least > indicates that I am allowed to use a computer, at least occasionally. > > I am not asking for an apology, I'm just trying to provide some > relevant information. > > Marlene Phillips I too am a female who is a pro-lifer. I have been reading this particular net discussion for perhaps a month now, but have not been extremely inclined to write in, since I am not as outspoken as others and take flaming a bit too personal. Like Marlene, I am not at home (but bed does sound like a nice ideal about now :>), I am almost always barefoot (by choice), and I am most definately not pregnant. I am not going after a doctorate in anything, but most of my work is done at a workstation and not with a duster. When I say that I am pro-life, I speak not from any type of experience or proven fact belief. I speak from my own personal feelings that can be justified only by saying, "This is what I feel is right." Abortion is a very emotional subject and it is hard to use stone cold fact to prove one's belief. Unlike most pro-lifers on the net, I feel that there are certain circum- stances in which abortion should be allowed; such as in cases of incest (I could never have carried my incestuous step-father's child full term, if he had every impregnanted me), rape, or endangering the mother's life (phys- ically). I do not, however, feel that abortion should be used as a means of birth control. There are too many ways to prevent pregnancy to justify using abortion in this manner (Yes, I am in favor of educating the masses about birth control, including, and especially, teenagers.). And once pregnant, there are too many people willing to adopt and support an "unwanted child" (I hate that term). Well, guys, you asked for female pro-life opinions and you got them. Be gentle with the flames, please. -phanes "...and some people kiss cows..." Disclaimer: These views are strickly those of the author and reflect in no way the opinions of my employer and certainly not my husband.
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (10/08/85)
In article <912@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: >>>>where are the female counterparts >>>>of the Pauls, Garys, and Mikes?? [David Hayes] >>> >>>They're at home, barefoot and (or course) pregnant. I don't think they'd >>>be allowed to use a computer if they knew how. [Charles Forsythe] >> >>Charles, where's the smiley face? >> >>If you were serious (and I hope you weren't), that remark is bigoted and >>offensive. You owe a lot of women an apology. [Charli Phillips] > >Sorry Charli (I've always wanted to use that line on someone else!), no >smiley face. > >Do you think I am saying that there are no intelligent, indepedant >pro-life women in the world? I hope you don't think that because I am >not that naive or bigoted. > That sure is what it sounds like you're saying. >Maybe you haven't read anything by the really hard-core pro-life guys on >the net. I've read it. >[text omitted] >At any rate, the female counterparts to these attitudes must ALSO believe >that a woman ought to be at home with the kids -- so that is where you >will find them. First, not every "hard-core pro-lifer" believes that a woman ought to be at home with the kids. Those are two separate issues. There may be some positive correlation between them, but I'm sure you're aware that a positive correlation is not the same as identity. My husband, for example, is nearly as hard-core as pro-lifers come. He approves only those abortions performed to save the mother's life. Period. (By comparison, my view is quite moderate. But he *doesn't* believe that a woman *ought* to be at home with the kids. He does think staying home with the kids is an option that ought to be available to any parent who wants it - and I think you'd be surprised how many do. Next, even if all women who held the attitudes on abortion you describe also believed they *ought* to stay home with their children, they may not be there. First, they may not *have* children. Or they may have children but be forced by their economic situations to work outside the home. (Not everyone has the luxury of doing what they *want* to do.) I still think you owe pro-life women an apology. charli
myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) (10/31/85)
*munch*
Mr. Rosenblatt, you appear to be about the most level headed hard core
pro-lifer I've ever encountered (I will put aside for a moment my view
of this as an inherent contradiction). Most of your articles that I have
read in the last 3-4 months have been on very peripheral and dilute subjects.
Perhaps you can explain to me why you view the death of a mindless mass of
cells as being of some moral consequence? This seems to me to be the very
root of the controversy, and I must admit to having no empathy at all with
your pssition. This is due either to an intellectual vacuum on your side
of the issue, or my lack of understanding.
--
Myke Reynolds
Office of Telecommunications and Networking
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!myke
"Drawing from my fine command of the english language, I said nothing."matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (11/01/85)
MYKE REYNOLDS writes: > Mr. Rosenblatt, you appear to be about the most level headed hard core > pro-lifer I've ever encountered (I will put aside for a moment my view > of this as an inherent contradiction). Most of your articles that I have > read in the last 3-4 months have been on very peripheral and dilute subjects. > Perhaps you can explain to me why you view the death of a mindless mass of > cells as being of some moral consequence? First, let's look at the term "mass of cells." Every living thing but the very simplest is a "mass of cells." So, to pass over the killing of something just because it is a "mass of cells" would excuse the killing of any living creature. Well, then, let's add "mindless," as Myke Reynolds does. Is there any moral consequence to killing a generalized "mindless mass of cells"? We kill and eat plants and animals, and I know of no moral code practiced by a continuously existing society that forbids the killing of both plants and animals in order to eat them. Still, there are limits. Noah was told not to eat a limb torn from a living animal. It's this particular mindless mass of cells, the embryo or fetus, whose killing is of moral consequence. Myke Reynolds asks why, having read my (and presumably other writers') articles over the past few months. I've written that I believe the fetus is a human being, and that even if we are uncertain whether it is or not, we must give it the benefit of the doubt (--argument taken from Ronald Reagan's book, "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation"). I've agreed with those who write that development of the human, from fertilized egg through embryo through fetus through newborn through infancy through childhood to adulthood, is a continuous process, with no clearcut dividing point. I've agreed with those who say that a woman's carrying a pregnancy to term is a natural process, normally resulting in a baby. I wrote on Monday, August 26 that "I refuse to treat a class of beings that once included myself as we treat germs or bugs or worms." Who am I, who is anyone on this net, to say that such a being deserves death? Maybe the woman would be "better off" in some sense by the death of the fetus (and during most of pregnancy, separating the fetus from its mother means certain death for it). There are many adult people in this world of whom it could be said that the world would be better off by their deaths. Does that mean they deserve death? Aren't there many people in the world who die who deserve life? And can we give it back to them? Then let us not be so quick to say who deserves death (argument from The Lord of the Rings). I've quoted the Reverend Jesse Jackson, writing in 1977 for a pro-life publication, to the effect that he might not have existed had abortion been legal at the time of his birth. I believe that human life is good. I've disagreed with those who say that we are the most dangerous threat to the existence of life on Earth. If it is not killed or left to die uncared-for, a newborn baby will become like me. It is already one of us. If it is not killed, the "mindless mass of cells" that is a blastula or embryo will become like me. It, too, is already one of us. I've agreed with those who talk of the legal rights of the unborn. The law now gives the pregnant woman the privilege of doing to her fetus that which, if done by a third party unauthorized by her, would be an injury ("injury" as a legal term) -- both a civil tort and a crime. If it's of moral consequence when a third party's negligent or intentional act causes miscarriage or fetal injury ("injury" as a medical term), then how can it be of no moral consequence just because the pregnant woman does or authorizes such an act? -- Matt Rosenblatt
kss@gitpyr.UUCP (Kevin Smith) (11/01/85)
Myke, >Perhaps you can explain to me why you view the death of a mindless mass of >cells as being of some moral consequence? This seems to me to be the very >root of the controversy, and I must admit to having no empathy at all with >your pssition.... I think this has been covered quite thoroughly on the net from various points; I agree with you as to this being the root of the controversy. Myke, if you have been following the discussion it is quite clear that pro-lifers do not regard a "foetus" or however you wish to term the unborn as a mindless mass of cells. A severed finger is certainly a mindless mass of cells; however you treat it, incubate or life support or anything it will never be more than a finger; however, no reasonable person can say that this holds true of a foetus clear to the point where "its" head emerges and it apparently magically becomes a "him" or "her". Can you see the difference? If I believe the unborn, at any stage of being, to be in fact a living child, then it is as much my responsibility to try to stop its "termination" as if I saw a child standing in front of a speeding car, don't you agree? This is certainly of moral consequence. Kevin Smith -- Kevin Smith Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!kss
myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) (11/03/85)
(Kevin Smith) writes: >Myke, if you have been following the discussion it is quite clear that >pro-lifers do not regard a "foetus" or however you wish to term the unborn >as a mindless mass of cells. A) I'm not concerned with pro-lifers in general (pmd, Ray, you, and the like) because (I'll try to put this politely) they aren't very dangerous. Matt on the other hand seems to be quite reasoned. B) Matt has touched on nothing but peripheral subjects, and even in general little has been said about why pro-lifers feel this way, just that they do. C) Does "mindless mass of cells with the potential to be intelligent in the future" sound better? >If I believe the unborn, at any stage of being, to be in fact a living child, >then it is as much my responsibility to try to stop its "termination" as if >I saw a child standing in front of a speeding car, don't you agree? This >is certainly of moral consequence. I'm not touching this with a 10 foot pole. If you can't see the difference between a child and a 8 week old fetus then whats the point in arguing.. -- Myke Reynolds Office of Telecommunications and Networking Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!myke "Drawing from my fine command of the english language, I said nothing."
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (11/04/85)
>A) I'm not concerned with pro-lifers in general (pmd, Ray, you, and the like) > because (I'll try to put this politely) they aren't very dangerous. Matt on > the other hand seems to be quite reasoned. [MYKE REYNOLDS] Even so, my reasoning has to be based on assumptions and values. Does this make me "dangerous"? > B) Matt has touched on nothing but peripheral subjects, and even in general > little has been said about why pro-lifers feel this way, just that they do. > [M. REYNOLDS] I got caught up in peripheral subjects in the following way: Some pro- choicers have justified their stand on the basis of values which I consider unfounded. I've tried to show that these values are unfounded, and in fact nothing more than the sentiments of their holders, by discussing other consequences of these values that I have hoped would cause other readers to reconsider them. There was one article that tried to base the right to abort on equal access for men and women to sexual pleasure. I tried to show that this is just one of many logical consequences of the enforcement of absolute sexual equality, in order to reason that if some of the other consequences seem undesirable to the readers, the necessity for this particular consequence (abortion on demand) should be weakened in their minds. As for why I feel the way I do: It's no secret that I believe in my religion, which condemns abortion on demand. But I don't go around trying to outlaw the consumption of pork, or the opening of stores on Saturday, both of which are also condemned by my religion. So religion alone does not account for my desire to outlaw abortion on demand. On purely practical grounds, I believe murder should be outlawed because I don't want people to kill me or those I love. Jesse Jackson's argument was based on, "I could have been killed if abortion had been legal." But Rev. Jackson was not killed, and neither was I. We escaped. Does that mean we should abandon those who are still in the womb, or who will be in the future, who won't escape? Should a refugee who successfully escapes from Bolshevik China (or fascist Guatemala, if you want) lose all concern for those still at risk of death if someone with power decides it's harmful to let them live? Would that be moral? >>If I believe the unborn, at any stage of being, to be in fact a living >>child, then it is as much my responsibility to try to stop its "termination" >>as if I saw a child standing in front of a speeding car, don't you agree? >>This is certainly of moral consequence. [KEVIN SMITH] > I'm not touching this with a 10 foot pole. If you can't see the difference > between a child and a 8 week old fetus then whats the point in arguing.. > [MYKE REYNOLDS] I, Matt Rosenblatt, can see the difference. Of course, I've argued that the difference is not one that entitles anyone to decide that the fetus deserves to die. But I would use Kevin Smith's statement as a spring- board to ask Myke Reynolds to define what is meant by "moral consequence." Isn't that a relative term, depending for its meaning upon the moral system subscribed to by the speaker? -- Matt Rosenblatt
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (11/04/85)
> >Perhaps you can explain to me why you view the death of a mindless mass of > >cells as being of some moral consequence? This seems to me to be the very > >root of the controversy, and I must admit to having no empathy at all with > >your pssition.... > > I think this has been covered quite thoroughly on the net from > various points; I agree with you as to this being the root of the controversy. > Myke, if you have been following the discussion it is quite clear that > pro-lifers do not regard a "foetus" or however you wish to term the unborn > as a mindless mass of cells. It is clear that at some time in the development of a human being, the developing human develops a mind. This does not happen immediately at conception, and quite arguably, not during the first trimester. During that time, the foetus can be accurately described as a mindless mass of cells. I have yet to see a non-religiously-based reason *why* a foetus at this stage of development deserves protection under the law. (and would be interested in hearing *why* various pro-lifers do) > A severed finger is certainly a mindless mass > of cells; however you treat it, incubate or life support or anything it will > never be more than a finger; however, no reasonable person can say that this > holds true of a foetus clear to the point where "its" head emerges and it > apparently magically becomes a "him" or "her". Can you see the difference? Of course, but I'm interested in why pro-lifers are interested in protecting it *before* it has developed a mind, not in the second and third trimesters. I'm aware of the argument that goes: 'Well, since we don't *know* when the foetus develops a mind, we'd better give it the benefit of the doubt as early as reasonably possible.' I agree with this argument, and this is why I support a pro-choice stance only until the end of the first trimester. (or possibly the first four months. It's so hard to draw a line.) I'm also aware that some pro-lifers don't care when the foetus develops a mind, but as far as I've been able to tell, these people are always religiously motivated. > If I believe the unborn, at any stage of being, to be in fact a living child, > then it is as much my responsibility to try to stop its "termination" as if > I saw a child standing in front of a speeding car, don't you agree? Yes. > Kevin Smith > ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!kss -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "What would Captain Kirk say?"
kss@gitpyr.UUCP (Kevin Smith) (11/04/85)
In article <970@gitpyr.UUCP>, myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) writes: > >If I believe the unborn, at any stage of being, to be in fact a living child, > >then it is as much my responsibility to try to stop its "termination" as if > >I saw a child standing in front of a speeding car, don't you agree? This > >is certainly of moral consequence. > > I'm not touching this with a 10 foot pole. If you can't see the difference > between a child and a 8 week old fetus then whats the point in arguing.. Well. Ok, so I jumped into a discussion and got fried. I've read this net for some time, simply because I have questions, and the reason I entered the discussion was perhaps to pose some of them. Let me state my position, not that it's fascinating but so you will know where I write from. A year ago I viewed abortion about the same as a minor amputa- tion; not pleasant, certainly, but not much more significant. I was then and am still relatively ignorant (although at times this net has been enlightening); your 8 week old fetus was about all the thought I had on the matter. I am a "fundamentalist Christian" (to categorize myself for you), but I still don't have a whole lot of feeling for that 8 week old fetus; your description probably fits "it" pretty well. The problem is that "abortion" does not mean just that "8 week old". Myke, you say Matt skirts all the issues, but it seems to me you and many others are skirting a pretty big one when that "8 week old" is allowed to represent the whole range of pregnancy. The question I posed in the article you quoted was perhaps poorly stated, so I will try to do better. Mr. Rosen recently posted an article about a court ruling concerning an unborn child (I don't have the original text). He stated that it supported his position concerning viability of a fetus. The focus of the ruling to me appeared no more or less than equating the status of that child before and after birth. If then the "unborn" is alive at some point before birth, does not the responsibility I mentioned apply? I am not trying to say this ruling extended back to conception (I haven't resolved that question even for myself yet), but it stated there *is a point* of life before delivery. My feeling is this; if I approve abortion up to delivery I am *definitely* permitting some "humans" to be killed, whereas if I disapprove of abortion I am possibly protecting some masses of cells but am *definitely* preventing these "humans" from being killed. So. I have posed my thoughts and am interested in answers. I'm listening, folks. -- Kevin Smith Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!kss
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (11/07/85)
>> >Perhaps you can explain to me why you view the death of a mindless mass of >> >cells as being of some moral consequence? [Myke] >I have yet to see a non-religiously-based reason *why* a foetus at this >stage of development deserves protection under the law. >interested in hearing *why* various pro-lifers do) [Jeff Sontag] I have yet to see a sound, non-religiously-based reason why *your* life deserves protection under the law. I certainly could not provide one. If I were to explain why your death, or mine, would be of "some moral consequence," the explanation would have a religious base. If I were to explain why torture is wrong, or theft, or slander, or any other moral outrage, I would provide an explanation that was, at its core, religious. I know that a religious explanation is not satisfactory to someone who is not religious, but I do not know how to defend a moral position apart from religion. I suppose we could discuss the metaphysical bases of morality at great length, and I would be willing to do so, but *that* discussion belongs in net.philosophy, not net.abortion. charli
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (11/07/85)
> >> >Perhaps you can explain to me why you view the death of a mindless mass of > >> >cells as being of some moral consequence? [Myke] > >I have yet to see a non-religiously-based reason *why* a foetus at this > >stage of development deserves protection under the law. > >interested in hearing *why* various pro-lifers do) [Jeff Sontag] > > I have yet to see a sound, non-religiously-based reason why *your* life > deserves protection under the law. I certainly could not provide one. You mean that if your religion didn't recognize murder as 'wrong', you couldn't think of any reason why it should be illegal? All other considerations aside, surely you recognize the fact that a society in which murder was commonplace and accepted would lack any semblance of stability. I'm sure you'll also concede that most people dislike the prospect of being murdered. What could be more natural for them to get together and agree not to murder each other, and furthermore, to seek out and discourage murderers? > If I were to explain why your death, or mine, would be of "some moral > consequence," the explanation would have a religious base. If I were > to explain why torture is wrong, or theft, or slander, or any other > moral outrage, I would provide an explanation that was, at its core, > religious. I know that a religious explanation is not satisfactory to > someone who is not religious, but I do not know how to defend a moral > position apart from religion. > Well, if you're interested, might I suggest that you go to a library and look up a subject called 'humanism'. > I suppose we could discuss the metaphysical bases of morality at great > length, and I would be willing to do so, but *that* discussion belongs > in net.philosophy, not net.abortion. > That discussion died out in net.philosphy a few weeks ago. > charli -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "What would Captain Kirk say?"