rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/08/85)
> Mr. Newton and Mr. Rosen: > > Enough already! Isn't 900 lines of "who-shot-John?" enough? How much > longer do we have to wade through it? [ROSENBLATT] To which Rosenblatt felt somehow obliged to add the following: >>If you really believe this to be true, then why force women to endure >>nine months of pregnancy? Obviously you have scientific proof that the >>fetus can be removed at seven months and be a full fledged autonomous >>human being, so let's remove ALL the fetuses at seven months and save >>the women the problems of an additional two months with a fetus inside her. >>Ante up. [R. ROSEN] > Mr. Rosen seems to think it's better to risk the death of the seven-month > fetus (or to ensure its quick death with an abortion, if unwanted) > than to burden the pregnant woman with an additional two months > of pregnancy. Mr. Newton does not, and neither do I. First of all, I never said that I held this position, which you tar me with in a most malicious manner. What I *did* say is that if YOU truly believe this position, then you should carry it through to its logical conclusion. It's amazing how many people, when pressed, are unwilling to do so, citing arbitrary "special cases" and such. >>Nonsense. Rights are things "granted" by governments, basically meaning >>that the government will not allow interference with your native abilities >>(natural rights?) to do these particular things. [R. ROSEN] > R. Rosen??? Asserting that rights are things granted by governments? > I thought that's Matt Rosenblatt's kind of talk!!! Make sure you specify > whether you're talking about legal rights or moral rights, or we'll see > another 500 lines of argument over where rights come from. I'm talking about rights in terms of rights specified by a government. As I said in very long and often boring discourse with you, the rights available to any person (or organism) are limited only by abilities. You have the "right" to do whatver you can do. A government is a means of forming an interactive society among many people, and as such it has laws. The rights "granted" by the government are simply an assertion (and promise) by the government that no laws of the government will interfere with those rights. > The nice thing about rights being "granted by governments" is that > governments do not have to follow Mr. Rosen's or anyone else's rules > in granting rights. They can grant rights to the fetus even if it is > not human. No, they could grant no rights at all. That would be just as reasonable according to Rosenblatt's logic. Minimal morality (or whatever we're calling it this week) still seems to be most reasonable basis of all for rights and such. Unless you can show otherwise. (But that particular discussion is going on in, of all places, net.philosophy, if you wish to continue there.) -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (09/11/85)
> . . . the rights available to any person (or organism) are limited only by > abilities. You have the "right" to do whatver you can do. . . [R. ROSEN] If a person's rights are identical to their abilities, then child molestation, rape, murder, robbery, etc. are all perfectly OK -- if the attack succeeds, the attacker had the ability (and thus the right) to carry it out, while the victim did not have the ability (and thus did not have the right) to avoid the attack. I suspect that most of the people on the net (whether pro-life or pro-choice) would disagree with this definition of rights. I certainly do. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/14/85)
>> . . . the rights available to any person (or organism) are limited only by >> abilities. You have the "right" to do whatver you can do. . . [R. ROSEN] > If a person's rights are identical to their abilities, then child molestation, > rape, murder, robbery, etc. are all perfectly OK--if the attack succeeds, the > attacker had the ability (and thus the right) to carry it out, while the > victim did not have the ability (and thus did not have the right) to avoid the > attack. [NEWTON] Well, Thomas, that's the whole point. Any restrictions on those "rights" are part of what human-defined morality is all about. I quoted the word "right" above for a reason. Because the conversation had drifted into areas like the "rights" of animals. Clearly, rights are things "granted" by a society, meaning things that the society agrees NOT to restrict you from engaging in your ability to do them. We were speaking, for example, of the "right" of an animal to kill you. It is for this reason that rights from the perspective of a society/government/morality are really things that the powers that be agree not to restrict you from doing. Do you have a right to be in two places at the same time? Should I defend to the death your right to be in two places at the same time? Should we add an amendment to the Constitution for this purpose? Or does the fact that you can't do this make the question of a right to do it moot? -- "I was walking down the street. A man came up to me and asked me what was the capital of Bolivia. I hesitated. Three sailors jumped me. The next thing I knew I was making chicken salad." "I don't believe that for a minute. Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is La Paz." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr