garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (08/14/85)
Trying to catch up on the news after my vacation (did anyone miss me?), I read several articles containing statements which struck me as ironic. These are excerpted below. Sophie: > > > Come on Rich, admit that you made a mistake. Fetuses are alive. Rich: > > The fact the the fetus requires the environment of a human being's body > > to provide it with support tells me quite clearly that it is not alive. > > If you disagree with that notion, fine. That goes against definitions of > > life as we know it, but that's OK, the net is full of people who make > > up their own definitions at whim. [FLAME OFF] How ironic for Rich Rosen to complain about "people who make up their own definitions at whim." Did Laura Creighton ever convince him that Buddhism is a religion? Not that I want to re-start that argument -- just an example of the pot calling the kettle black. Marie: > This argument is a lot like the argument behind euthanasia (which, > by the way, I am for). Someone who is totally dependent on another > person/machine (i.e. mother or life support machine) for life is > on the borderline of what we would call a living person. (At least > this is true for me.) They're certainly not the same question, > but I think they have something in common. I wonder if there is > any correlation between those in favor of abortion on demand and > those in favor of euthanasia. > (this just occurred to me and I thought I'd let you all share in > the excitement...) More irony. When pro-lifers say that widespread acceptance of abortion will lead to a general cheapening of human life, and so allow acceptance of other killings, such as euthanasia and infanticide, pro-choicers protest about straw man arguments and assert that of course they support the right of those already born to live. I don't mean to pick personally on Marie; Charles Forsythe has already stated that he sees nothing wrong with doing away with unwanted children up to the age of three *years*. And, another example: Brian Peterson writes: > [explanation of two meanings of the word life omitted -- type > one being "similar to 'metabolism'" and type two being a > "continuum of experiences"] > I feel that the second kind of life is not present until the first > weeks or so (not exactly sure) after birth in homo-sapiens. (I also > feel that other species, such as the gorilla and chimpanzee, have > this second kind of life.) Thus, abortion is not very bad, since > there doesn't even exist a life of the second type in the creature > being aborted. Prohibiting abortion is bad, becuase it interferes > with someone's life (second kind). Note that according to Brian, this second type of life, the one which is truly important, does not begin "the first weeks *or so* (?) AFTER birth. Which means that he also supports infanticide. It also means that he is not aware of just how much the unborn can experience. Then there is Sophie Quigley: > ... People who would be better off having abortions > are still deciding to keep the child anyway. Do you think that there > should be laws enforcing abortion for people who obviously can't take > care of their children. I certainly don't believe so. Sophie thinks she can tell who would be better off having an abortion, and who obviously can't take care of their children. Sounds pretty presumptuous. Aren't pro-lifers accused of presumption when they say that a woman should not abort? And it must have been unintentional that Sophie referred to the fetus as a "child." While I'm on the subject of people knowing what would or would not ruin someone else's life: According to the recent People magazine article on abortion in the (in)famous Roe v. Wade, Ms. Roe (a pseudonym) was, a classic hard luck case -- pregnant as a result of rape, unmarried, poor, etc. etc. Having a child would certainly irrevocably ruin her life. Yet she had the child -- it was two years old, and had been adopted by the time the case was decided -- and her life apparently kept right on going. I certainly don't know what her life would have been like if she had had an abortion. But the pro-choice people , somehow "knew" that her life would be ruined if she weren't allowed to have an abortion, and therefore they took the case to court, and, ironically, told her not to have an abortion (since it might hurt the legal case). (Once the Supreme Court ruled in Ms. Roe's favor, wouldn't it have been consistent to kill the child?) Back to Sophie: > PS: laws against public place smoking are not there to protect smokers > against themselves. They are there to protect non-smokers against > smokers. (OK, shoot ahead about laws against abortions being there to > protect fetuses !!!) OK: "Laws against abortion are there to protect fetuses." What did *you* think was the purpose of laws against abortion? Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/20/85)
In article <930@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >Trying to catch up on the news after my vacation (did anyone >miss me?), I read several articles containing statements which >struck me as ironic. These are excerpted below. > >Then there is Sophie Quigley: >> ... People who would be better off having abortions >> are still deciding to keep the child anyway. Do you think that there >> should be laws enforcing abortion for people who obviously can't take >> care of their children. I certainly don't believe so. > >Sophie thinks she can tell who would be better off having an abortion, >and who obviously can't take care of their children. Sounds pretty >presumptuous. Aren't pro-lifers accused of presumption when they >say that a woman should not abort? > >And it must have been unintentional that Sophie referred to the >fetus as a "child." > I guess you are so involved hunting for ironies that you can't even recognise it when he sees it. If you care to reread my paragraph, you might notice that it was a prime example of sarcasm. The point I was trying to make was against the state controlling people's reproductive powers, whether they be positive or negative. I was saying EXACTLY that I or other people am not in a position to decide whether people can take care of their children or not (except for obvious cases of abuse), so that the only people who should decide whether to parent or not are the parents. That's what pro-choice means, having the choice to HAVE children as well as having the choice not to have children. Geez, some people have to have everything explained to them! And yes, people who have children willingly often refer to their fetuses as children. It's an innacurate term, but who cares? would coochi-cooh be better? -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
qv@mot.UUCP (Brad Castalia) (08/22/85)
Because the controversy concerning the legal status of a woman's right to choose abortion currently seems to pit two irasible camps in heated and apparently ireconcilable debate does not mean that some resolution cannot be achieved. Resolution for social issues generally means that the debate has moved on to a higher level of awareness/discussion and left behind matters that have come to be understood/accepted. In this regard, Ms. Quigley's perseverence in the face of the regresionists is very laudatory. However, we must move on! This has been my greatest disappointment with the Right-to-life and, since the demise of the ERA effort, current progressive women's groups. The arguments almost always devolve into meaninglessness: when is an embryo a child?; what is life?; etc. People still argue about what is god, or if such exists, but most progressive people have been able to move on a bit (unless they're 12 years old). Progressives need to focus, in this case, on the next step after Roe vs. Wade and achieve a recognition of human rights for the special case of a pregnant woman instead of the current focus on the viability of an embryo. This could take us forward again to the real need for the ERA! There's more.... Brad Castalia
qv@mot.UUCP (Brad Castalia) (08/23/85)
Saying that resolution (ie. moving to a new level of debate) of the abortion issue (as a particularly instructive case) is possible does not imply that it will happen under existing circumstances. The point is to maintain a focus or direction as to how effort is applied in the struggle of ideas. A constructive perspective would not only recognize that circumstances have changed since Roe vs. Wade, but that they can be changed again. Regresionists currently have the initiative (backwards in the sense of the social evolution of values), and progressives foolishly let the battles be fought on the opposition's ground and by their rules. The recent Right To Choose speak-out campaign, for example, conciously used the opposition's tactics of blind emotionalism as part of their defensive strategy. This does not move us forward, nor strengthen what has been achieved. While it is essential to retain the social awareness of the damage inflicted on people (mostly women) that was lifted by the effects of Roe vs. Wade, RTC could be supporting court cases that argue FOR personal rights of self determination. The issue is not the viability of the fetus (which is what the decision in Roe vs. Wade hinged on). Current scientific developments are quickly making this a moot point, and, if taken to its absurd extreme, would result in male masturbation/ejaculation becoming illegal except for the purpose of conception on the basis that the viable sperm has not been given the opportunity to fertilize an egg. Perhaps I'm being too critical. It may be that RTC members are currently trying to define what "personal rights to self determination" are in practice. Active efforts may be underway to build functional links between the social responsibilities for child wellfare and the humane treatment of people of all ages and circumstances. After a decade of relative complacency progressives may be taking control of institutional administration and wading into the arena of policy making. Even the traditional infatuation with a stance of opposition and indulgence in finger pointing may be fading away! Could it be that I just don't see what's going on ...? Brad Castalia