flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (07/10/85)
In my view there are two crucial issues in the abortion debate; I intend to discuss one of them. The one I will NOT discuss right now is this "pro-choice" argument as stated by a "pro-life"r: > (a) If I don't want the baby, it must be "trespassing", and > therefore it's OK to kill it (analogue to property rights) I have discussed this before; my view, stated without repeating my argument, is that argument (a) is valid only in rape cases. What I want to do is advocate an answer to the even more controversial question "when, or under what conditions, in the development of an individual of the species Homo sapiens, does it become a proper object of concern or protection (and how much and what sort of concern and protection)?" This question is deliberately phrased to go right to the heart of the issue; questions about what constitutes "humanity" or "life" are avoided AS THEY ARE NOT THE ULTIMATE ISSUES. The question is not meant to exclude the (important) possibility of multi-part answers such as "type of protection 1 becomes appropriate at time a, while type of protection 2 becomes so at time b". Nor is it meant to exclude the (in my view unimportant) possibility of person-relative answers according to which it depends on one's tastes. (For those who insist on such an approach, think of the question as asking about YOUR concern and protection -- AND MINE, if you want to change my mind!) This question is important regardless of whether argument (a) is correct. Some abortions result in a live fetus/infant, which is then allowed to die in some cases when it would be technically possible to maintain it. If fetuses of that stage of development are (generally) proper objects of concern or protection (as I would argue), it may be that doctors or hospitals should save them or even that they should be required by law to do so. Also, even if (as per (a)) one has a *right* to "expel a trespasser", the individual woman might want to consider my question. This is getting long, so I'll give my answer now and save the reasons for later. As far as depriving it of life, an individual H. sapiens merits comparable concern and protection to that given adults, AS SOON AS IT BECOMES SENTIENT (i.e. capable of an experience of any sort (sight, touch, pain, etc.)) if it can be expected to live to be a normal adult. ("Normal" in any sense that is considered ethically relevant to the concern and protection for adults -- an issue I would like to beg by simply assuming that I can here apply whatever the right view is there.) OK netland, you can flame away now. --Paul V Torek
liz@tove.UUCP (Liz Allen) (07/11/85)
In article <789@umcp-cs.UUCP> flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) writes: >As far as depriving it of life, an individual H. sapiens >merits comparable concern and protection to that given adults, AS SOON >AS IT BECOMES SENTIENT (i.e. capable of an experience of any sort (sight, >touch, pain, etc.)) if it can be expected to live to be a normal adult. >("Normal" in any sense that is considered ethically relevant to the >concern and protection for adults -- an issue I would like to beg by >simply assuming that I can here apply whatever the right view is there.) It is quite difficult to determine when a fetus becomes sentient by your definition because of the limits of technology. According to _The Zero People_[1], a 48 day old fetus will twist and turn away when his upper lip is stroked by a fine hair. How long has he been able to do this? The better our technology, the better we can test and the better we can detect such things. Interestingly enough, it was scientific research (not the Catholic Church!) that was behind making abortion illegal. A quote from _Abortion America_[2] tells the story: "... the original nineteeenth-century laws in New York and elsewhere had been placed on the books mostly by doctors when there were few Catholics around." _To Rescue the Future_[3] gives a little more information: "Most state abortion laws stricken by the Roe v. Wade decision date from the latter half of the nineteenth century. Their implemenation was the result of what has been called the Physicians' Crusade, the determination of the leadership of the American Medical Association to protect the life of the unborn from abortion except in those instances where an abortion was needed to preserve the life of the mother. There is no evidence that great controversy surrounded the passage of these laws. At the time there was a general consensus against taking of innocent life, and the laws were sought by a portion of the country's professional elite." I have read elsewhere, though I can't find it here, that the doctors were motivated by the fact that people called the time when the mother could first feel movement, "the age of quickening" under the assumption that the baby could not move until then and, thus, was not yet alive. The doctors were discovering otherwise. [1] Hensley, Jeff Lane (editor), _The Zero People_. Sevant Books, Ann Arbor, 1983, center pages. [2] Nathenson, Bernard, _Aborting America_. Life Cycle Books, Toronto, Canada, 1979, p 52. [3] Andrusko, Dave, (editor), _To Rescue the Future_. Life Cycle Books, Toronto, Canada, 1983, p 69. -- Liz Allen U of Maryland ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz liz@tove.ARPA "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" -- 1 John 1:5
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (07/12/85)
> [Paul Torek] > In my view there are two crucial issues in the abortion debate; I > intend to discuss one of them. The one I will NOT discuss right > now is this "pro-choice" argument as stated by a "pro-life"r: > > > (a) If I don't want the baby, it must be "trespassing", and > > therefore it's OK to kill it (analogue to property rights) > > I have discussed this before; my view, stated without repeating > my argument, is that argument (a) is valid only in rape cases. > What I want to do is advocate an answer to the even more controversial > question > "when, or under what conditions, in the development of > an individual of the species Homo sapiens, does it > become a proper object of concern or protection (and > how much and what sort of concern and protection)?" > > This question is deliberately phrased to go right to the heart of the > issue; questions about what constitutes "humanity" or "life" are > avoided AS THEY ARE NOT THE ULTIMATE ISSUES. Bravo to Paul Torek! I don't agree with his answer, but at least he asks the right question. It is perfectly consistent to define human life to begin at point X in time, and still not advocate full protection of the law for the human organism until some later time. Yet much of the traffic in this newsgroup consists of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" advocates each arguing that his/her definition of human life is the true one. In all seriousness, the question of when life begins should be moved to net.philosophy, net.semantics, or net.religion. Net.abortion posters should address themselves to the real issue, as so succinctly stated by Mr. Torek, and repeated here for emphasis: > "When, or under what conditions, in the development of > an individual of the species Homo sapiens, does it > become a proper object of concern or protection (and > how much and what sort of concern and protection)?" -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
powers@noscvax.UUCP (William J. Powers) (07/15/85)
> This is getting long, so I'll give my answer now and save the reasons > for later. As far as depriving it of life, an individual H. sapiens > merits comparable concern and protection to that given adults, AS SOON > AS IT BECOMES SENTIENT (i.e. capable of an experience of any sort (sight, > touch, pain, etc.)) if it can be expected to live to be a normal adult. > ("Normal" in any sense that is considered ethically relevant to the > concern and protection for adults -- an issue I would like to beg by > simply assuming that I can here apply whatever the right view is there.) > > OK netland, you can flame away now. --Paul V Torek As I've pointed out before, morality has nothing what-so-ever to do with equal protection. I would agree that concern for fetuses (and ALL living forms) is a moral issue. However, there is absolutely nothing intrinsic about fetuses, children, adults, and pets that implies they require equal protection or concern. As long as there are different words for these creatures, they are distinct and subject to different treatment. That doesn`t mean that they have to be treated differently. The moral issue is embedded in the degree of concern. The particular act which ensues is a matter of societal concern, but not of moral concern. If a society decides that all living forms are sacred and not to be destroyed, then abortion or accidently stepping on an ant are outlawed (Clearly, this society sanctions many forms of destruction of living beings.) It is not clear to me whether I would rather have a sixteen year old girl having a child and passing the responsibility of its fruitful life onto another (with all the attitudes which that action implies) or having an abortion. Neither action seems desirable to me. I would rather see her working out the issue for herself and anyone else she chooses. The reason I feel this way is because as a world we don`t need higher birth rates. However, it does seem to me that we need more thoughtfullness. More independence of thought and concern for our relationships with others. This sensitivity cannot be legislated or enforced and it cannot rigidly hold particular positions ( that is the role of governments). Bill Powers
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/17/85)
> It is quite difficult to determine when a fetus becomes sentient by > your definition because of the limits of technology. According to > _The Zero People_[1], a 48 day old fetus will twist and turn away when > his upper lip is stroked by a fine hair. How long has he been able to > do this? The better our technology, the better we can test and the > better we can detect such things. > Just curiosity here: how do you stroke a 48 day old fetus' upper lip with a fine hair? > Interestingly enough, it was scientific research (not the Catholic > Church!) that was behind making abortion illegal. A quote from > _Abortion America_[2] tells the story: > > "... the original nineteeenth-century laws in New York and > elsewhere had been placed on the books mostly by doctors when > there were few Catholics around." > Scientists have never been know to be terribly compassionate or understanding of women's problems. It is interesting to hear that they were responsible for making abortion illegal, but frankly, I don't find that too surprising. "Scientists" are also responsible for nuclear weapons. > _To Rescue the Future_[3] gives a little more information: > > "Most state abortion laws stricken by the Roe v. Wade decision > date from the latter half of the nineteenth century. Their > implemenation was the result of what has been called the > Physicians' Crusade, the determination of the leadership of > the American Medical Association to protect the life of the > unborn from abortion except in those instances where an > abortion was needed to preserve the life of the mother. There > is no evidence that great controversy surrounded the passage > of these laws. At the time there was a general consensus > against taking of innocent life, and the laws were sought by a > portion of the country's professional elite." > Don't forget that at that time, the "country's professional elite" were all men. No surprise there either. How could there have been "great controversy"? women's opinions were never seeked anyway. Actually women usually didn't seek men's opinions to have abortions either. > [1] Hensley, Jeff Lane (editor), _The Zero People_. Sevant Books, Ann > Arbor, 1983, center pages. > > [2] Nathenson, Bernard, _Aborting America_. Life Cycle Books, > Toronto, Canada, 1979, p 52. > > [3] Andrusko, Dave, (editor), _To Rescue the Future_. Life Cycle > Books, Toronto, Canada, 1983, p 69. > -- > Liz Allen U of Maryland ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz liz@tove.ARPA -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (07/20/85)
In article <1012@noscvax.UUCP> powers@noscvax.UUCP (William J. Powers) writes: >As I've pointed out before, morality has nothing what-so-ever to do >with equal protection. My critics are left in the dust again. Who said it did? I'm addressing the equal protection issue directly. >[...] there is absolutely nothing intrinsic about fetuses, children, >adults, and pets that implies they require equal protection or concern. >As long as there are different words for these creatures, they are >distinct and subject to different treatment. I.e., as long as we have the separate words "teenager" and "adult" we can legitimately protect adults' lives and not teenagers', or vice versa? I don't buy it. --Paul V Torek, master icon claster
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/20/85)
In article <915@umcp-cs.UUCP> flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) writes: >>As long as there are different words for these creatures, they are >>distinct and subject to different treatment. > >I.e., as long as we have the separate words "teenager" and "adult" we >can legitimately protect adults' lives and not teenagers', or vice >versa? I don't buy it. That's not what the writer said. He said the could be "treated" differently. That merely implies a different set of rights. Right to life is a specific case. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "I always try to avoid cliche's like the plague!" -Rev. Wang Zeep
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (07/23/85)
In article <427@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: >>>As long as there are different words for these creatures, they are >>>distinct and subject to different treatment. >> >>I.e., as long as we have the separate words "teenager" and "adult" we >>can legitimately protect adults' lives and not teenagers', or vice >>versa? I don't buy it. > >That's not what the writer said. He said the could be "treated" >differently. That merely implies a different set of rights. Right to >life is a specific case. But it's the most interesting case for this newsgroup.
cher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov) (07/23/85)
> > I.e., as long as we have the separate words "teenager" and "adult" we > can legitimately protect adults' lives and not teenagers', or vice > versa? I don't buy it. But of course you do not give equal status even to these two (despite of the fact that "teenager" and "adult" actually overlap a lot more then "fetus" and "person" notions). As for smaller kids, they don't have too many rights - their old folks can do all kinds of nasty things to them: e.g. bring them up as communists or anti-abortionists!! Someone some time ago suggested that for fetuses possibility to hatch (develop) could be seen not as automatic right, but as an option of their parents (mother). I have yet to see a good refutation of that idea... > --Paul V Torek, master icon claster Mike Cherepov "Master Blaster runs the Bartertown"
pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (07/29/85)
>>>As long as there are different words for these creatures, they are >>>distinct and subject to different treatment. >> >>I.e., as long as we have the separate words "teenager" and "adult" we >>can legitimately protect adults' lives and not teenagers', or vice >>versa? I don't buy it. [Torek] >That's not what the writer said. He said the could be "treated" >differently. That merely implies a different set of rights. Right to >life is a specific case. [Charles Forsythe] The right to life is not just a specific case. It underlies all other rights. What other human right means anything without it? Also, the original writer did mean that "treated" differently includes the protection (or lack thereof) of the lives of certain groups of humans (according to how we classify them). What would be the point with regard to abortion otherwise? Torek's point is well taken. If calling a human "fetus" or "infant" means the former has no right to live and the latter does, what logically prevents anyone from from making the same distinction between "teenagers" and "adults"? Paul Dubuc
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/31/85)
In article <1041@cbsck.UUCP> pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: >The right to life is not just a specific case. It underlies all other >rights. What other human right means anything without it? Can you say WAR? Can you say CAPITAL PUNISHMENT? Hmmm, sounds like SOMEBODY is losing their God-given right to life! >If calling a human >"fetus" or "infant" means the former has no right to live and the latter does, >what logically prevents anyone from from making the same distinction between >"teenagers" and "adults"? >Paul Dubuc Nothing really. Remember the draft? 18 years old and *BAM* you have lost your right to live safely! The labels we put on people have a definitive effect on whether or not they are allowed to live. Why do murderers lose their right to live (in some states)? Why does "the enemy" have any less right to live than "the ally"? If a Russian general shoots a nuclear missile at New York, what right do we have to kill millions of innocent civilians in response (after all, it's not their fault The Big Apple got baked!). What if you came home to find somebody raping your wife? I'm sure you would try to stop them and see to it they lost their right to liberty (got locked up). But would you, at all costs, respect their right to life? After all, it underlies all other rights! You wouldn't want to harm the fellow... just to stop him from raping your wife. After all, the worst thing that could happen is that she would get pregnant! (And we wouldn't want to rob him of his right to procreate!!) -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "You are a stupid fool." -Wang Zeep "I'm not a fool!" -The Hated One
wine@homxa.UUCP (J.GORDON) (07/31/85)
Paul Dubuc writes, >If calling a human >"fetus" or "infant" means the former has no right to live and the latter does, >what logically prevents anyone from from making the same distinction between >"teenagers" and "adults"? Come on, who ever said that laws in the US are logically consistant? Anyhow, I don't see the logical connection between the antecedent and the subsquent in Paul's sentence. The laws *do* make a distinction between brain-dead human beings and healthy ones. Jim Gordon, Jr.
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/02/85)
A response to Charles Forsythe: >>The right to life is not just a specific case. It underlies all other >>rights. What other human right means anything without it? > >Can you say WAR? Can you say CAPITAL PUNISHMENT? Hmmm, sounds like >SOMEBODY is losing their God-given right to life! Hmmm, sounds like you haven't answered my question. I'm asking, how can you talk about a human having any other conceivable right if she doesn't have the right to live? >>If calling a human >>"fetus" or "infant" means the former has no right to live and the latter does, >>what logically prevents anyone from from making the same distinction between >>"teenagers" and "adults"? >>Paul Dubuc > >Nothing really. Remember the draft? 18 years old and *BAM* you have lost >your right to live safely! Live *safely* (<-important qualification there), right? Is living safely a right? How safe? Anyway, the draft is not quite the same thing as classing individuals just for the sake of killing them. Is that the intent of the draft? Presumably, war itself is to be avoided and if not it is done for the country's protection from an enemy. Some of us are alive today only because others went to war. Also those being drafted have some voice in the draft policy itself (wasn't always so, but it should have been). Those people helped remove the draft, remember? Lastly, I don't think the draft is a good idea at all. I think it is an infringment on human rights. So, at least with me, it's pointless to defend abortion with the draft. (Defending an bad practice with another bad practice, in my view). Do you support the draft? If not it is no use in defending your own position, let alone attacking mine. >The labels we put on people have a definitive >effect on whether or not they are allowed to live. But they shouldn't. Can you justify the idea? >Why do murderers lose their right to live (in some states)? Because people in some state think that a human who kill another human forfeits that right. "Murderer" isn't just a label. The one being so labeled has presumably committed the crime. What sort of crime does the lable "infant" describe? None. See the difference? >Why does "the enemy" have any >less right to live than "the ally"? If a Russian general shoots a >nuclear missile at New York, what right do we have to kill millions of >innocent civilians in response (after all, it's not their fault The Big >Apple got baked!). What if you came home to find somebody raping your >wife? I'm sure you would try to stop them and see to it they lost their >right to liberty (got locked up). But would you, at all costs, respect >their right to life? After all, it underlies all other rights! You >wouldn't want to harm the fellow... just to stop him from raping your >wife. After all, the worst thing that could happen is that she would get >pregnant! (And we wouldn't want to rob him of his right to procreate!!) All this is similarly missing the point (and is a little "off the wall" to boot). -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/06/85)
In article <5691@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: >Hmmm, sounds like you haven't answered my question. I'm asking, how >can you talk about a human having any other conceivable right if she >doesn't have the right to live? Ok, you can't. Now answer my question: who ever said that having the right to live was guaranteed to anybody? The Constitution? That's not working very well is it? Now why is this relevant? >Anyway, the draft is not quite the same thing as >classing individuals just for the sake of killing them. Did you sleep through the sixties or what? >Those people helped remove the draft, remember? Yes it's funny... sometimes people can fight for their rights and win... like the women who fought to gain the right of having abortions. >>The labels we put on people have a definitive >>effect on whether or not they are allowed to live. > >But they shouldn't. Can you justify the idea? How about "BRAIN DEAD". "Pull the plug Doctor McCoy, this one's BRAIN DEAD." Happens all the time. >Because people in some state think that a human who kill another >human forfeits that right. "Murderer" isn't just a label. The >one being so labeled has presumably committed the crime. What >sort of crime does the label "infant" describe? None. Righto, but it has been successfully argued that a "fetus" can be part of the woman's body (which she owns, therefore she owns the fetus) and can be considered "Tresspassing". I think it's stupid to have to find a lump of tissue guilty of something before it can be removed from it's parent, but there you have it: Tresspassing. >See the difference? Not yet, maybe Ken can clear it up for me. :-) >All this is similarly missing the point (and is a little "off the wall" >to boot). The bottom line is not that I'm missing the point. I believe in that sanctity of HUMAN life that you describe. I have a difficult time extending this to tissue outgrowths. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "You are a stupid fool." -Wang Zeep "I'm not a fool!" -The Hated One
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (08/07/85)
In article <5691@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > >A response to Charles Forsythe: > >>>The right to life is not just a specific case. It underlies all other >>>rights. What other human right means anything without it? >> >>Can you say WAR? Can you say CAPITAL PUNISHMENT? Hmmm, sounds like >>SOMEBODY is losing their God-given right to life! > OK. What are pro-choicers doing? Declaring WAR against the unborn or just executing capital punishment? Dan
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/12/85)
>>>Can you say WAR? Can you say CAPITAL PUNISHMENT? Hmmm, sounds like >>>SOMEBODY is losing their God-given right to life! > OK. What are pro-choicers doing? Declaring WAR against the unborn or > just executing capital punishment? > Dan Neither. They are defending the rights of the post-born. You sound as if you think pro-choicers LIKE abortions. None I've heard from do. If you ever find a pro-deather, flame at him with this rhetoric. The point of the quote (which so cleverly had the context removed), was that nobody has a "right-to-life" necessarily. Nobody. The government gives it to some, and takes it from others. If you are going to wave a white banner in the air and "fight for the cause of human life", you've got a lot of work ahead of you before you even get to the abortion issue. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "I was going to say something really profound, but I forgot what it was." -Rev. Wang Zeep
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (08/14/85)
> ... nobody has a "right-to-life" necessarily. Nobody. The government > gives it to some, and takes it from others. That's not the theory on which our government was founded. (If it's the theory on which our government now operates, more's the pity.) "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; That governments are instituted among men to secure these rights." That's about all I can remember verbatim, but it goes on to say that the people have a right, even a duty, to alter or abolish a government which becomes abusive of these rights. (What do they teach in the schools, these days?) (I can't resist the temptation to see if anyone asks where this is from.) Your theory (not that it is original with you; I mean "yours" in the sense of that which you espouse) says that whatever the government does is justified, simply because the government is doing it. Those calling themselves pro-choice think the government was wrong to prohibit abortion; those calling themselves pro-life think the government wrong to allow it (let alone provide it). But the point I am making now is that THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE WRONG. You, by the single statement above, have condoned South Africa's apartheid, Iran's Khomeini, the USSR's Gulag, and, of course, US involvement in Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, and Central America. When the government decides that you no longer have the right to live, because you are too young, or too old, or the wrong color, or a member of the wrong political party, are you going to quietly acquiesce, or are you going to resist, because, "It's not fair! I didn't do anything wrong!" ? > If you are going to wave a > white banner in the air and "fight for the cause of human life", you've > got a lot of work ahead of you before you even get to the abortion > issue. That sounds like more I-don't-want-to-hear-it. Still, you may be right. Apparently, some people, like yourself, need to learn some basics about rights. (Lesson one: if rights exist at all, in any practical sense, they exist independent of whether any particular government respects them.) On the other hand, no matter what social problem a person addresses himself to, someone who wishes to maintain the status quo will say that he ought to address a different problem. I've already seen articles in this newsgroup telling me that I should work instead on the problem of starvation in Africa, or vivisection of animals in high school laboratories, and leave the abortion issue alone. But I suspect that if I were to involve myself in these other causes (also important issues, to be sure), someone else would tell me I should move on to something else, perhaps even to the abortion issue. The point being that all the issues need to be addressed. No one person can work on all of them, but each has to work on the one(s) which he or she thinks is most important, and/or have the most effect. > Charles Forsythe > CSDF@MIT-VAX > "I was going to say something really profound, but I forgot what it was." > -Rev. Wang Zeep What you said is profound, in that it has far reaching implications, but profundity by itself is not sufficient to recommend a position. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/19/85)
In article <931@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: > > ... nobody has a "right-to-life" necessarily. Nobody. The government > > gives it to some, and takes it from others. > > That's not the theory on which our government was founded. (If it's > the theory on which our government now operates, more's the pity.) > > "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are > created equal; That they are endowed by their Creator with > certain inalienable rights; That among these are life, liberty, > and the pursuit of happiness; That governments are instituted > among men to secure these rights." > > That's about all I can remember verbatim, but it goes on to say that > the people have a right, even a duty, to alter or abolish a government > which becomes abusive of these rights. (What do they teach in the > schools, these days?) (I can't resist the temptation to see if anyone > asks where this is from.) > > Your theory (not that it is original with you; I mean "yours" in the > sense of that which you espouse) says that whatever the government > does is justified, simply because the government is doing it. Those > calling themselves pro-choice think the government was wrong to > prohibit abortion; those calling themselves pro-life think the > government wrong to allow it (let alone provide it). But the point > I am making now is that THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE WRONG. Golly gee! What a novel moral lesson! Why, I'll bet none of us had ever heard that idea before! [Sarcasm off.] Of course though, that leads also to the idea that the Declaration of Independence, being merely a product of a government, can also be wrong. (And, by the way, the Declaration of Independence has zero legal standing in the USA: it was merely an announcement of intentions with no legal force.) The founding fathers may not have been divinely infallable. Thus, the "rights" discussed may not have any real existence, but serve only as guidelines to remedy common abuses of their era. They are not universal remedies: else we wouldn't have capital punishment, imprisonment, the draft, wars, etc. The fact is, that balancing tests are applied to these desirable goals. And always have been, even by the authors of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence itself applies a balancing test for when to overthrow a government. So, the conclusion that: > > ... nobody has a "right-to-life" necessarily. Nobody. The government > > gives it to some, and takes it from others. is correct. The Declaration of Independence (and Constitution and Ammendments) provides no support for or reason to oppose choice of abortion. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (08/20/85)
> ...it has been successfully argued that a "fetus" can be part > of the woman's body (which she owns, therefore she owns the fetus) > >Charles Forsythe< But do we really 'own' our own bodies? If we do, why are there laws against suicide -- as well as against a multitude of other self-harming possibilities -- protecting us from ourselves, as it were? Chew on the ramifications of THAT for a while. Just adding another ember to the fire, ___________________ ______________\ ___________ | ______ / . / / o .ooo. ./ /. . o@ooo0 .ooooo. .ooooo. .oooo Barb oo..oo oo...ooo ooo..ooo \ .oo oo oooooo oooooo ooo ooo
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (08/23/85)
In article <390@oliven.UUCP> barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) writes: > >But do we really 'own' our own bodies? If we do, why are there laws >against suicide -- as well as against a multitude of other self-harming >possibilities -- protecting us from ourselves, as it were? Chew on the >ramifications of THAT for a while. > Could it be that many people like to control other people? richard foy