wjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard) (10/28/85)
This is still STella, no matter who the header thinks it is. In article <669@ccice2.UUCP> pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) writes: >In article <795@x.UUCP> wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes: >> Where do you draw the line? If I were a slave, would I have the right to kill >> my "owner" if that were the only way I could escape? What makes one form of >> involuntary servitude different from another? > >Nothing that I can see. Are saying that I had the right to kill >my draft board? What about people in our prison systems? Do >they have the right to kill their "owners"? I will not tell you what to do about people who hold _you_ in involuntary servitude -- you must decide that for yourself. But I wouldn't risk my life (or even cross the street) to protect a coercer. And the guards and draftboard members are far more voluntary in their coercion than my hypothetical slaveholding fetus. > Since you are alive you have the freedom to choose theft >as a way of life. Society has the power to punish you for it. NO! I disagree. Since you are alive, you have the right to choose to attempt to steal from me. It might not be good for your life expectancy, but you _can_ choose to attempt it. I will never concede to society any right I will not claim for myself. And I do not have the right to "punish" you. Kill you, or convince you in less final terms that I am not a mark, but I have no right to judge that you should be "punished". >> my right to the life I choose is less than the right >> of my unwanted tenant to enslave me for nine months. >What a poor statement of the pro-life position. Your right to be free >from enslavement by an unwanted tenant for nine months is less then >that tenants right to be free to live 70 years (on the average) of life. I have no rights that depend on compelling you to serve me. I grant no such rights to anyone else. If I choose to serve you, I will. Otherwise, if you attempt to enslave me I will prevent you. If I must kill you to do this, I may or may not regret the necessity, but I will not surrender. >The "unwanted tenant" did not force entry for the purpose of enslaving >you. If they did my position would be different. The "unwanted tenant" >was placed there (by the winds of fortune) and now has no choice but >to stay for nine months or die. If some punk breaks my window and enters my house, I will not blame, or consider, the winds of fortune (whatever they are 8-). If I rob you because my children are hungry, I am still a thief. If Simonetta LeGree was blown into her slaveholding family by the aforementioned winds, she's still a damn slaveholder. I cannot, presently, emancipate myself from a slaveholding fetus without killing it. If ever I can put it in cold storage until I am willing to birth it, I would consider that an acceptable resolution. But if the choice is between my freedom and a slaveholder's life, I will kill. By the way, I don't see in your posting that you support the right to abortion, so all I hear you say is that my statement of the anti-slavery position doesn't convince you. With all _possible_ respect, you are not qualified to judge how my statement is received by pro-choice people. OK? >If society perceives your decisions as being harmful to society as >a whole shouldn't it try to interfere? Society attempts to interfere >with my decision to drive after drinking, when and whether to wear >seatbelts. Is this wrong? What if you decide to kill and steal? >would you be sickened by my willingness to interfere with your >killing and stealing? Society? What actions is it acceptable for a group to do that would be unacceptable if performed by the individual members, and why? I argue that there are no such cases, you -- I don't know -- I don't want to state (8-) your case. And if you (rhetorical you, I'm not accusing any party to this discussion) are stupid enough to drive drunk, or not wear a seatbelt, I don't care. Evolution in action. Some innocent non-drunk drivers will be killed, and if rhetorical you survive this drunken assault on my car, I will seek justice, but on the whole, drunk driving kills more drunks than non-drunk drivers, and I prefer this risk to presuming to coerce you into obedience. (If anyone wants to kick this around, let's move it out of net.abortion -- I can't avoid inserting politics into the discussion, but I think it's time to move if we continue.) > There are some pro-life >people who object to the term pro-choice. Since they believe that >abortion kills a human life, and killing a human life is not valid >choice, they think pro-death is a better term. They do not respect >the opinion that a fetus is not a human life. I don't respect attitudes that lead to coercion, either, but I try to demonstrate their effects, and move on. And to remember that possession of what seems to me to be an idiotic idea does not make the speaker an idiot. (Why, I had an idiotic idea once, it was in 1963, or was it 1964 . . . 8-) Note please, that I have been very careful not to identify for the net which ideas are idiotic -- that's the individual's job, and I will not do it for anyone else. What we need to resolve this terminology debate is a pair of value-neutral terms. I intended, by my use of pro-slavery, to demonstrate why I resent the attempt of "pro-life" people to claim the moral high ground. If you are pro-life, anyone who disagrees with you is a bad guy. Therefore, pro-slavery. The amount of heat this posting generated suggests to me that the "pro-life" people on the net don't like imbedded moral judgements any more than I do. Now, can we look for a pair of neutral terms and cut the king-of-the-hill nonsense. I think I've made my point -- "pro-life" attempts to prejudge an issue that must be resolved in each individual. What can we call ourselves, and even more importantly each other, that avoids this prejudgement? Pro-choice, I concede, may not be neutral enough -- I don't find it offensive to me, but I understand your point. > You say you want to encourage people to respect >other's opinions. How do you intend to do this? By non-example? >By insulting people who disagree with you? Disagree with me, but >respect my opinion enough to call it what it is. Regardless of what >you call my opinion I will not call yours pro-death. As above, by assuming that, having experienced the moral preemption strategy, you are now willing to think with me about neutral terms that do not (as "pro-life" DOES) prejudge the issue. People who call themselves "pro-life" either don't seem to see the insult implicit in their claim that only folks who agree with them are pro-life, or (I hope not, but I've met some that cause me to wonder) consciously intend to prejudge the issue. > (should abortion be made illegal I would >recommend going to Canada above doing a homemade abortion. I have, from time to time, been unable to afford a trip to Canada. I may, someday, be in that position again. But because I know ways of aborting myself, I will remain free until and unless I choose to bear a child, no matter whether I am privileged to fly to Canada or not. I'd prefer a safe clinic abortion here; I'm intelligent enough to avoid some of the risks of home abortion; I may be able to afford a competent illegal abortionist; I would rather fly to Canada than abort myself; but I will not commit an unwanted child. >> Every man and every woman is a star. >I have always thought of myself as a bit player. (A bit player. >get it? I'm a programmer, "bit" player. Oh never mind.) I like the pun, though I hope you don't really see yourself as that insignificant. I can disagree violently (verbally violently, please) with you without losing sight of the fact that you are a star, one of the three billion namers of god. STella Calvert Every man and every woman is a star. Guest on: ...!decvax!frog!wjr Life: Baltimore!AnnArbor!Smyrna!<LotsOfHitchhikingAndShortVisits> !SantaCruz!Berkeley!AnnArbor!Taxachussetts Future: ... (!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)
pwk@ccice2.UUCP (THE PALE AVENGER) (11/05/85)
In article <820@x.UUCP> wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes: >This is still STella, no matter who the header thinks it is. To change the name and organization fields of the header one can set the variables NAME and ORGANIZATION. This works with readnews, vnews, and rn. if you use sh the commands are; $ NAME = "STella Calvert" $ export NAME $ ORGANIZATION = "Milky Way" $ export ORGANIZATION If you use csh; % setenv NAME "STella Calvert" % setenv ORGANIZATION "Milky Way" You have to do this every time you login and before you post news unless you put the commands in your .login file. (All of this assumes you use UNIX) PART 1 : The issue at hand. >In article <669@ccice2.UUCP> pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) writes: >>Your right to be free >>from enslavement by an unwanted tenant for nine months is less then >>that tenants right to be free to live 70 years (on the average) of life. >I have no rights that depend on compelling you to serve me. I grant no such >rights to anyone else. If I choose to serve you, I will. Otherwise, if you >attempt to enslave me I will prevent you. If I must kill you to do this, I >may or may not regret the necessity, but I will not surrender. (text deleted) >I cannot, presently, emancipate myself from a slaveholding fetus >without killing it. If ever I can put it in cold storage until I am willing >to birth it, I would consider that an acceptable resolution. But if the >choice is between my freedom and a slaveholder's life, I will kill. Doesn't a newborn enslave you too? I know that only a fetus is an actual parasite on your body but, in some ways isn't a newborn more enslaving on you as a person then a fetus? (At least fetuses don't cry :-) I mean, what is the difference between killing a fetus and killing a newborn that is so different from the difference between killing a newborn and an adult? (did you get all that? :-) They are all just humans in different stages of development. You once said that once you had "committed an unwanted" that you would be responsible for it. The only difference between that veiwpoint and mine is that I'm not sure that an unwanted is not committed at conception. >By the way, I don't see in your posting that you support the right to >abortion, so all I hear you say is that my statement of the anti-slavery >position doesn't convince you. With all _possible_ respect, you are not >qualified to judge how my statement is received by pro-choice people. OK? Huh? If I judged how your statement is received by pro-choice people I am unaware of it. PART 2 : Our relationship with our society. >> Since you are alive you have the freedom to choose theft >>as a way of life. Society has the power to punish you for it. > >NO! I disagree. Since you are alive, you have the right to choose to attempt >to steal from me.... I will never concede to society any right I >will not claim for myself. And I do not have the right to "punish" you.(,?) >Kill you, or convince you in less final terms that I am not a mark, but I >have no right to judge that you should be "punished". I used the phrase "has the power" instead of "has the right" because I didn't want to discuss what rights a society has. However; >Society? What actions is it acceptable for a group to do that would be >unacceptable if performed by the individual members, and why? I argue that >there are no such cases, you -- I don't know -- I don't want to state (8-) >your case. I think there are such cases, taxation, administration of justice, and law enforcement come to mind. For an example lets use administration of justice. You said that if I made a drunken assault on your auto that you would seek justice. (I assume you mean compensation since you don't believe in punishment) How would you do this? You could ask me to pay the damages, but what if I refuse? You may be able to force me to pay, others may not. What if I claim that there was contributory negligence on your part, or that the stated value for your car is too high? Is it fair for you to force me to pay what you think is fair? We could submit our claims to an independent arbitrator, but what if we can't agree on one? If we do agree on one, and I think his judgment is unfair I would like the right of appeal, as well as review and certification procedures for the arbitrator. Also an arbitrator is of no use if he can't enforce his judgements. I think it is right, proper, and mandatory for a responsible government/society/group to set up a fair and consistent court system that applies to all members. Our relationship with our society really need not concern us here. I believe in a democratic system and am willing to allow it to pass laws. (If we don't have one form of strong central government another will surely come to power and I prefer a democracy.) However, if I believe that the laws it passes are immoral I will go my own way. You have said that making abortion illegal will not stop you from aborting. So as creatures of free will we can let society go its way (maybe try and direct it a little :-) and we can go ours. Anyway, if you want to continue our discussion of what is moral for a society to do to its members I suggest that we move it or take it off line. PART 3 : Terminology >As above, by assuming that, having experienced the moral preemption strategy, >you are now willing to think with me about neutral terms that do not (as >"pro-life" DOES) prejudge the issue. People who call themselves "pro-life" >either don't seem to see the insult implicit in their claim that only folks >who agree with them are pro-life, or (I hope not, but I've met some that cause >me to wonder) consciously intend to prejudge the issue. Yeah, I wonder too. I guess that I am so used to the terms pro-choice and pro-life that I don't consider the implied anti-choice and anti-life connotations. If censors started calling their position pro-justice I would be offended since I don't agree with them and I like to think I am for justice. So, I have no objections to using different terms if you think the current ones are too loaded. How about fetal rights (FR) and parental rights (PR)? Or we could use STella and Paul :-) > STella Calvert > Every man and every woman is a star. -- Of course I could be wrong. siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk (Paul W. Karber)