csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/18/85)
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." Once again, I speak on behalf of my deleted text: some people forfiet their right to life. Others never have it (most of them are not US citizens!). On this specific point, though: where does this paragraph mention embryos, fetuses (feti?) or "the unborn". For that matter, where does it mention women? Also, why did it take over a hundred years for these "inalienable" rights to transcend skin color? More's the pity, Gary. >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. Sorry, that's Matt's theory. I said that the government can revoke a person's "right to life" if it wants to. I didn't say it was right. "All men [people?] are created equal..." what are they before they are created? Nothing. My liver is human tissue -- is it a "man"? No. A fetus is human tissue -- is it a "man"? [To sum up many previous arguments, no `ad hominem' flames, please] No. >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. Oh, go away. Maybe next week you'll call me a Satanist. I suggest you check your facts with Don Black and Ken Arndt: I'm a commie spy. >> 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. I AM right. There is a LOT of injustice in the world. It's all nice and good to cry for the hapless embryos of this world -- but there are a lot of FULL GROWN PEOPLE who would benefit from a little support as well. It's not clear that fetuses are "human" or have any "rights". It IS clear that El Salvadorian civilians have a right to life... what have you done to get our troops (er... `military advisors') out of El Salvador? >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.) A friend of mine told me:"Don't fuck with cops. If they want you, they'll get you." I've found this to be true. I have discovered that anybody, at any time, can have be charged with SOMETHING. The police (read government) can come and get you ANY time. Sure, you may not end up on death row, but they can make your life unpleasant. If you don't believe me, be rude to the next cop who pulls you over for speeding. A friend of mine accidentally set off the sprinkler system in his dorm by burning a test he'd failed. A revengeful MIT administration had him charged with ARSON. A Cambridge court narrowly found him not guilty. Makes you wonder... >What you said is profound, in that it has far reaching implications, >but profundity by itself is not sufficient to recommend a position. What I said is that the government is all (yeah, what Matt said!) We have to fight for our rights. A lot of people lose their rights every day. I have trouble getting overly concerned for "the unborn." "Who Polices the Police?" -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal Have they not suffered enough?" from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (08/20/85)
> 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." > Once again, I speak on behalf of my deleted text: some people forfiet > their right to life. Others never have it (most of them are not US > citizens!). The fact that some people might forfeit their right to life does not mean that they got it from the government in the first place. > On this specific point, though: where does this paragraph mention > embryos, fetuses (feti?) or "the unborn". > For that matter, where does it mention women? The word "man" used to be considered generic, in that in certain contexts it included both males and females. Some people still use the word that way. > Also, why did it take over a hundred years for these > "inalienable" rights to transcend skin color? It didn't take over a hundred years for these rights to transcend skin color; it took that long, and longer, for people to recognize the fact that these rights transcend skin color. > >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. > Sorry, that's Matt's theory. I said that the government can revoke a > person's "right to life" if it wants to. I didn't say it was right. "All > men [people?] are created equal..." what are they before they are > created? Nothing. My liver is human tissue -- is it a "man"? No. A fetus > is human tissue -- is it a "man"? [To sum up many previous arguments, no > `ad hominem' flames, please] No. To sum up many other previous arguments, Yes, it is. > >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. > Oh, go away. Maybe next week you'll call me a Satanist. If you were to espouse the views of Satanists, I might. > I suggest you > check your facts with Don Black and Ken Arndt: I'm a commie spy. If you say so. I was trying to point out the logical conclusion of your statement. If rights exist apart from the government's respect or lack thereof for them, then one can say that what a government is doing is right or wrong. If, on the other hand, rights only exist insofar as a particular government decides to respect them, then there is no basis for saying that what a government does is right or 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. [this statement properly belongs with what followed in the paragraph as I wrote it. Playing with context, indeed.] > I AM right. There is a LOT of injustice in the world. It's all nice and > good to cry for the hapless embryos of this world -- but there are a lot > of FULL GROWN PEOPLE who would benefit from a little support as well. > It's not clear that fetuses are "human" or have any "rights". It is certainly clear that the fetuses we are discussing in this newsgroup are human. What rights they have may not be clear (to you), but that's why this newsgroup exists. > It IS > clear that El Salvadorian civilians have a right to life... Not if their government doesn't grant them that right, by your account. > what have you done to get our troops (er... `military advisors') > out of El Salvador? This red herring is so old it stinks. If I am not spending 24 hours a day on each issue in the world, you don't think I should spend time on the one immediately at hand. In another article you said I should work for Planned Parenthood; anything, as long as I am not expressing my views on abortion, is that it? > >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.) > A friend of mine told me:"Don't .... with cops. If they want you, > they'll get you." > I've found this to be true. I have discovered that anybody, at any time, > can be charged with SOMETHING. The police (read government) can > come and get you ANY time. Sure, you may not end up on death row, but > they can make your life unpleasant. If you don't believe me, be rude to > the next cop who pulls you over for speeding. And you can sue for harassment, etc., and make life for the police unpleasant (not that it's a great deal of fun already). I have no desire to be rude to the next cop who pulls me over for speeding. Yes, there are abuses. And there are remedies. And there are people who abuse the remedies. And so on. > A friend of mine accidentally set off the sprinkler system in his dorm > by burning a test he'd failed. A revengeful MIT administration had him > charged with ARSON. A Cambridge court narrowly found him not guilty. > Makes you wonder... Good for the Cambridge court (assuming the account you give is accurate and complete, of course). Did you ever hear of suing for false arrest? > >What you said is profound, in that it has far reaching implications, > >but profundity by itself is not sufficient to recommend a position. > What I said is that the government is all (yeah, what Matt said!) If government is "all," on what basis do you say that what the government does is wrong? > We have to fight for our rights. No argument there; but I think we should also fight for the rights of those who cannot fight for their own rights. > A lot of people lose their rights every > day. I have trouble getting overly concerned for "the unborn." How about just a little concern? Again, because the rights of group A aren't being respected, you don't think we should be concerned with the rights of group B. > "Who Polices the Police?" Internal Affairs, the courts, the press, the people. Not necessarily in that order. > Charles Forsythe Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys