sas@lanl.ARPA (09/05/85)
Rich Rosen generates a very large amount of text in this newsgroup. I am not always clear on what he is saying because I don't take the time to carefully reread the volumes he puts out. A good deal of the volume is spent on personal squabbles over terminology and methodology of debate that is only of marginal interest to me. I don't know if anyone else has this problem but I would like to ask him for some short answers to some questions: 1) Does a fetus become a human being at the moment of birth? 1a) What is involved in this change, is it a sharp transition? 1b) Is this intended to be a legal, moral, or practical definition of "becoming human"? 2) Is there anything wrong with abortion? 2a) On moral grounds? 2b) On practical grounds? 3) Does the fact that some (many?) people find abortion offensive have any effect in this issue? 3a) If not, it does seem to mean a lot in other issues such as pornography and prostitution. Is this wrong? 4) How do you measure the value of something? 4a) Is it the sum of happiness over the entire population? 4b) Is there some absolute yardstick? 4c) Is it immeasureable? 4d) Is it completely relative? I don't know if it is my place to ask such all encompassing questions but I expect Rich will rise to the challenge. The postings I have seen of Rich's up to no lead me to believe that he has a different world-view than I do. This is my attempt to get a handle on it. I hope it helps others. I am singling Rich out here because he writes so much and has such strong opinions, anyone is welcome to join in. We have had a few private correspondences but I felt that this might be of interest to all. Steve
myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) (09/07/85)
In article <30603@lanl.ARPA>, sas@lanl.ARPA writes: > > 3) Does the fact that some (many?) people find abortion > offensive have any effect in this issue? > 3a) If not, it does seem to mean a lot in other issues such > as pornography and prostitution. Is this wrong? Are you suggesting you've never read Playboy?... I remember an episode of _Maud_ where Maud gets pregnant and her daughter convinces her to get an abortion. I've never seen a comedy/drama that tackled the morality of prostitution.. There are much more offensive problems in life that aren't going away.. (but even at that, prostitution is legal in some places in this country, Nevada for one...) You would make an analogy between the cattle industry and mass murder if it helped your point.. I feel a distrinct moral twinge when I think of cattle being slaughtered, and it is a most offensive subject. That is because we have been protected from those realities of life.. I think those are very poor analogies (especially considering the fact that both are to some degree accepted in this country, and you obviously think abortion shouldn't be...) > 2) Is there anything wrong with abortion? Is this a for real question?! Your opinions are obvious in the way you ask leading questions.. Leading questions will be attacked in of themselves.. Objective questions will not. You help neither this discussion nor your point by asking them.. -- 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 <insert obligitory silly little piece of wit here>
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/08/85)
> Rich Rosen generates a very large amount of text in this newsgroup. I > am not always clear on what he is saying because I don't take the time > to carefully reread the volumes he puts out. A good deal of the volume > is spent on personal squabbles over terminology and methodology of > debate that is only of marginal interest to me. [STEVE SMITH] In many cases, the terminology is central to the issue, because misuse of terminology can result in an abuse of language resulting in bogus manipulation of opinion. I know the bickering with Newton has been overly long (in overall time and in length of individual articles), but the only way to learn what a person is saying is to read it. > 1) Does a fetus become a human being at the moment of birth? > 1a) What is involved in this change, is it a sharp transition? > 1b) Is this intended to be a legal, moral, or practical definition > of "becoming human"? By "proving" certain things, human beings gain certain rights. By passing a test, they become licensed drivers. By completing a curriculum, they gain a diploma and/or a degree. To gain the right to be called a human being in the first place, a physically autonomous entity and not an entity which must live of off the body of another human being, it must be separated from the body it has inhabited. This is not MY definition, but a consequence of what the biological definition of life is. I hope this answers the questions. Asking these questions sounds like "Does being 18/19/20/21/30 make you an adult? Is there a sharp transition?" The difference in the fetus between the moment before birth and the moment after birth is probably minimal, as is the difference between the moments before contractions and the moments when birth takes place. Very few changes in the course of fetal development are sudden. But the difference that makes the difference is that last one, the last step. > 2) Is there anything wrong with abortion? > 2a) On moral grounds? > 2b) On practical grounds? I may not like abortion, but I see no reason to call it "wrong". On any grounds. > 3) Does the fact that some (many?) people find abortion > offensive have any effect in this issue? > 3a) If not, it does seem to mean a lot in other issues such > as pornography and prostitution. Is this wrong? What if I and a lot of other non-religious people found Christianity offensive? We certainly have lots of reasons to do so. If it does not harm me, if it does not involve interference in my life, I might be disgusted by it (or not), but that's just my opinion. And the opinions of anyone else who agrees with me. It is ridiculous to legislate tastes. > 4) How do you measure the value of something? > 4a) Is it the sum of happiness over the entire population? > 4b) Is there some absolute yardstick? > 4c) Is it immeasureable? > 4d) Is it completely relative? I assume this is a leading question about "the value of human beings". Clearly we value human beings because WE are human beings, and because anything we allow to be done to human beings could eventually be done to us. That's how I measure that value. Is there an absolute yardstick? Of course not. How much do animals value humans? (For example.) -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr