bird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells) (10/05/85)
In article <233@3comvax.UUCP> michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes: >[ :=<< ] (<- Shush! Line eater monster lurking!) > >> > So what that the ``genetic entity'' that you possess, Matt -- >> > whether unique or not -- has just come into physical existence. >> > At that moment it is still but a single quantity of the chemical >> > substance deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), located within a single >> > eucaryotic cell similar in all functional respects to an amoeba! >> > . . . >> > Levity aside, the ``pro-life'' movement philosophically >> > maintains -- nay, *demands* -- that this single non-sentient >> > cell's ``human'' rights [outweigh] the rights of an adult human! >> > [MICHAEL McNEIL] >> >> You've got it! ITS right to live outweighs HER right to kill it. >> [MATT ROSENBLATT] > >This is the crux of the matter. Pro-lifers weigh the life of a >single, unfeeling, nearly microscopic *cell* against the life of a >woman, and soberly declare that the scale tips toward the *cell*! Actually we weigh the life of the fetus ( or cell, whatever stage it is in for that matter) against the choice of the woman. The life of the woman is usually not at stake. I believe most of us have said that we would respect the mother's right to life at the expense of the fetus if indeed the situation was that serious. >If the stakes were trivial, since the pro-lifers are raising such >a fuss, I and no doubt many others would be inclined to give them >what they want, just to shut them up. Raising this reaction is >precisely what they are they are trying to accomplish, of course. If the stakes were trivial we would not be speaking out against abortion. >However, the stakes are not small. Thousands of women's lives >depend, emotionally and physically, on the maintenance of their >right to personal privacy. Because of this, we must oppose you. I seriously doubt that losing privacy will cost women their lives. They may have to adjust their lifestyles, but I count that as nothing when weighed against the loss of the fetus' life in an abortion. I think you exaggerated a bit here. > >Michael McNeil Brian Wells James 1:5
wjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard) (10/11/85)
<> Note: This is STella Calvert, aka mrswjr. In article <344@gcc-bill.ARPA> bird@gcc-bill.UUCP (Brian Wells) writes: > Actually we weigh the life of the fetus ( or cell, whatever stage >it is in for that matter) against the choice of the woman. The life of >the woman is usually not at stake. I believe most of us have said that >we would respect the mother's right to life at the expense of the fetus >if indeed the situation was that serious. 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? The stakes are not trivial. On one side, we have the belief that freedom to make choices IS the chief right inherent in being alive; on the other, we have the assertion that my right to the life I choose is less than the right of my unwanted tenant to enslave me for nine months. I'm sure the pro-slavery faction of this discussion will argue that I'm not making any effort to see their point of view. But that line of debate would degenerate into "You're another" if I didn't just unsubscribe. I respect the decision of a woman who feels that her fetus's rights outweigh her freedom to decide when and whether to reproduce. I have no problem with other people making different decisions than mine. But I am sickened by the willingness of others to attempt to interfere with MY decisions. When/if I stand before god, I will thank <insert pronoun of choice here> for the wisdom to make my decisions, and the maturity to allow others to be different. If god didn't want us to use our minds and wills, why were they built in (no, I don't want to debate maltheism, free will, or any of those subjects right now). > If the stakes were trivial we would not be speaking out against >abortion. If the stakes were trivial, I would have unsubscribed months ago. But maybe, just maybe, I can encourage a few people to respect other people's opinions rather than assuming that they have god's unlisted phone number. > I seriously doubt that losing privacy will cost women their >lives. They may have to adjust their lifestyles, but I count that as >nothing when weighed against the loss of the fetus' life in an >abortion. I think you exaggerated a bit here. If I captured you and chained you in my kitchen to wash dishes, you might have to change your lifestyle, but I count that as nothing when weighed against the load of dishwashing I wouldn't have to do. (Do I really _need_ a smiley? Well, maybe, since humorous acceptance of diversity is a scarce commodity in this group, so -- 8-)) Seriously, forcing a woman to bear a child she doesn't want is slavery, and I will die in a homemade abortion before I will be enslaved. >James 1:5 Liber AL I:42 . . . thou hast no right but to do thy will. BTW, if you want people to see your quote, insert it! It's not that hard. STella Calvert (guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr) Every man and every woman is a star.
pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) (10/21/85)
In article <795@x.UUCP> wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes: > Note: This is STella Calvert, aka mrswjr. > In article <344@gcc-bill.ARPA> bird@gcc-bill.UUCP (Brian Wells) writes: >> Actually we weigh the life of the fetus ( or cell, whatever stage >> it is in for that matter) against the choice of the woman. The life of >> the woman is usually not at stake. I believe most of us have said that >> we would respect the mother's right to life at the expense of the fetus >> if indeed the situation was that serious. > 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"? > The stakes are not trivial. On one side, we have the belief that freedom to > make choices IS the chief right inherent in being alive; I would agree with this. But, at the same time I believe that society has the right to outlaw choices it perceives as detrimental to society as a whole. 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. > on the other, we > have the assertion that 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. 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. > I'm sure the pro-slavery faction of this discussion will argue that I'm not ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ > making any effort to see their point of view. But that line of debate would ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > degenerate into "You're another" if I didn't just unsubscribe. Are you saying it is useless to encourage you to respect my opinions? > I respect the > decision of a woman who feels that her fetus's rights outweigh her freedom to > decide when and whether to reproduce. I have no problem with other people > making different decisions than mine. But I am sickened by the willingness of > others to attempt to interfere with MY decisions. When/if I stand before > god, I will thank <insert pronoun of choice here> for the wisdom to make my > decisions, and the maturity to allow others to be different. If god didn't > want us to use our minds and wills, why were they built in (no, I don't want > to debate maltheism, free will, or any of those subjects right now). 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? >> If the stakes were trivial we would not be speaking out against >> abortion. > If the stakes were trivial, I would have unsubscribed months ago. But maybe, > just maybe, I can encourage a few people to respect other people's opinions > rather than assuming that they have god's unlisted phone number. I respect your opinions. Do you respect mine? 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. Others would insist that pro-abortion is the best description. But many pro-choice people are against abortion. They simply want everyone to be able to make their own decision. I am not pro-slavery. If I could spare you nine months of an unwanted pregnancy without killing the fetus I would. (wait until the fetal transplant is perfected. It'll replace adoption :-) I believe that the fetus is a human life. For that reason pro-life best describes my opinion. I am sorry that stopping abortion would enslave parents, and limit their choices. But, I am not pro-slavery. I am not anti-choice. It seems to me that stopping abortion is the lesser of two evils. 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. >> I seriously doubt that losing privacy will cost women their >> lives. They may have to adjust their lifestyles, but I count that as >> nothing when weighed against the loss of the fetus' life in an >> abortion. I think you exaggerated a bit here. > If I captured you and chained you in my kitchen to wash dishes, you might have > to change your lifestyle, but I count that as nothing when weighed against the > load of dishwashing I wouldn't have to do. (Do I really _need_ a smiley? > Well, maybe, since humorous acceptance of diversity is a scarce commodity in > this group, so -- 8-)) Seriously, forcing a woman to bear a child she doesn't > want is slavery, and I will die in a homemade abortion before I will be > enslaved. I know exactly how you feel. During the Vietnam war I would have gone to Canada to avoid the draft. (should abortion be made illegal I would recommend going to Canada above doing a homemade abortion. For an abortion it would be a short stay.) Being forced to go to a strange land and kill people for a cause I didn't believe in was unacceptable to me. I would rather go to jail. But, I respect the right of society to say "We believe this is worth fighting for, and you people (young men) should make a sacrifice for the rest of us." That did not stop me from following my conscience and voicing my opinions. So by all means follow your conscience, but realize that society has a duty to itself to weigh the life the fetus (which is one of it's members (if you believe it's alive)) against all other considerations and make a legal decision. Currently society (represented by the courts) has decided that abortion on demand is legal in the first trimester. I respect that decision. I will prevent no one from getting an abortion. I will call no one "baby killer". I will follow my conscience, express my opinions, and hope society will "see the light" as I have done before. >> James 1:5 > Liber AL I:42 . . . thou hast no right but to do thy will. > STella Calvert > (guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr) > 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.) -- Of course I could be wrong. siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk
bird@gcc-milo.ARPA (Brian Wells) (10/23/85)
In article <795@x.UUCP> wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes: ><> > >Note: This is STella Calvert, aka mrswjr. > >In article <344@gcc-bill.ARPA> bird@gcc-bill.UUCP (Brian Wells) writes: >> Actually we weigh the life of the fetus ( or cell, whatever stage >>it is in for that matter) against the choice of the woman. The life of >>the woman is usually not at stake. I believe most of us have said that >>we would respect the mother's right to life at the expense of the fetus >>if indeed the situation was that serious. > >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? > >The stakes are not trivial. On one side, we have the belief that freedom to >make choices IS the chief right inherent in being alive; on the other, we >have the assertion that my right to the life I choose is less than the right >of my unwanted tenant to enslave me for nine months. > I have problems with any argument that compares pregnancy and slavery. If a man and woman exercise their sexual freedom and there is a resulting pregnancy, it is not the fetus' fault. The difference between the involuntary servitude of slavery and that of pregnancy is that in pregnancy, you brought it on yourself, in slavery, someone captured or in some way forced their control over you. >I'm sure the pro-slavery faction of this discussion will argue that I'm not >making any effort to see their point of view. But that line of debate would >degenerate into "You're another" if I didn't just unsubscribe. I respect the >decision of a woman who feels that her fetus's rights outweigh her freedom to >decide when and whether to reproduce. I have no problem with other people >making different decisions than mine. But I am sickened by the willingness of >others to attempt to interfere with MY decisions. When/if I stand before >god, I will thank <insert pronoun of choice here> for the wisdom to make my >decisions, and the maturity to allow others to be different. If god didn't >want us to use our minds and wills, why were they built in (no, I don't want >to debate maltheism, free will, or any of those subjects right now). > >> If the stakes were trivial we would not be speaking out against >>abortion. > >If the stakes were trivial, I would have unsubscribed months ago. But maybe, >just maybe, I can encourage a few people to respect other people's opinions >rather than assuming that they have god's unlisted phone number. > >> I seriously doubt that losing privacy will cost women their >>lives. They may have to adjust their lifestyles, but I count that as >>nothing when weighed against the loss of the fetus' life in an >>abortion. I think you exaggerated a bit here. > >If I captured you and chained you in my kitchen to wash dishes, you might have >to change your lifestyle, but I count that as nothing when weighed against the >load of dishwashing I wouldn't have to do. (Do I really _need_ a smiley? >Well, maybe, since humorous acceptance of diversity is a scarce commodity in >this group, so -- 8-)) Seriously, forcing a woman to bear a child she doesn't >want is slavery, and I will die in a homemade abortion before I will be >enslaved. If you captured me and chained me in your kitchen to wash dishes, that would be slavery. If I came into your house and allowed you to chain me in your kitchen knowing that the only way I may ever survive or get out is to wash your dishes, then it would not be slavery, just a risky move on my part. >>James 1:5 > >Liber AL I:42 . . . thou hast no right but to do thy will. > >BTW, if you want people to see your quote, insert it! It's not that hard. I would rather all interested parties look it up. That is not very hard either. > STella Calvert > (guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr) > > Every man and every woman is a star. Brian Wells James 1:5
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (11/01/85)
> I have problems with any argument that compares pregnancy and > slavery. If a man and woman exercise their sexual freedom and there is > a resulting pregnancy, it is not the fetus' fault. The difference > between the involuntary servitude of slavery and that of pregnancy is that > in pregnancy, you brought it on yourself, in slavery, someone captured > or in some way forced their control over you. [BRIAN WELLS] If Mr. Wells has problems with any argument that compares pregnancy and slavery, he is not alone. To me, "slavery" means "work without pay that you can't quit when you want to." And so, I have some questions for STella Calvert, too: 1. Is the responsibility of parents to take care of already-born children also slavery? If it is, would she want to live in a society where this kind of "slavery" does not exist? 2. Is the responsibility of a divorced father to pay child support also slavery? The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has ruled that to force an ex-husband to support his ex-wife who is able to work would violate his Constitutional rights. So isn't it slavery also to make him support his children? After all, he can't quit; he can't even get a discharge in Bankruptcy. Again, does she want to live in a society where the concept of child support is repudiated as slavery? -- Matt Rosenblatt