rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/16/85)
>>Human beings are alive. Living organisms of OUR species, whose rights we >>respect. Fetuses (funny you forgot to bring them up) are not. > You're claiming that for a person to be a human being, his/her rights must be > respected by the society in which s/he lives? By this definition, blacks in > the Old South, Jews in Nazi Germany, and dissidents in the Soviet Union are > not human beings. No, I'm claiming that ALL human beings have rights, and movements and governments that deny rights to select groups of people are heinous and vile. However... > Fetuses ARE living organisms of our species, i.e. human beings. It is true > that we do not respect their rights, but that does not make them less human. What makes them less than human is the fact that they are not living. Which I already discussed in detail: if they were living, could they exist outside of the parasitic mode in which they occupy a woman's womb? The fact that you ignored and glossed over and forgot that whole portion of the text in favor of manipulative non-analogies about repressive governments that sound real good and persuasive, but in reality have little to do with the argument. (Paging Mr. Samuelson...) > Gee, a perfect justification for every crime! When the police catch up with > a murderer, s/he can claim that the person s/he murdered was not a human > being. > And why was this person not a human being? Because the murderer clearly did > not respect his/her rights!! See any resemblance to "Catch-22"? Fetuses are not human beings because they do not qualify as living, for reasons stated above. Therefore they are not necessarily entitled to human rights. No Cath-22 there at all, no matter how much you want (and pray?) for there to be one. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (07/19/85)
If we take Rich's assertions at face value:
DependsUpon(X, Y) & Living(Y) => not Living(X)
DependsUpon(Fetus, Mother)
Living(Mother)
-----------------------------------------------
not Living(Fetus)
then we must also come to the conclusion:
DependsUpon(X, Y) & Living(Y) => not Living(X)
DependsUpon(Rich_Rosen, Plants)
Living(Plants)
-----------------------------------------------
not Living(Rich_Rosen)
rlr's claim seems to be that DependsUpon(Fetus, Mother) is somehow special,
i.e. that fetuses cannot exist outside of the environment of the womb. But
there are many cases where babies have been born prematurely (i.e. they are in
the same stage of development as fetuses still in the womb), and hospitals have
been able to care for them. As medical technology advances, we have been able
to take care of babies at earlier and earlier stages of development.
An equally valid case can be made that DependsUpon(Rich_Rosen, Plants) is
special. Without the oxygen and complex organic chemicals which he gets from
plants (either directly or indirectly), Rich Rosen would cease to function.
If our medical technology was advanced enough, we might be able to synthesize
the chemicals that he needs. But at the present time, any attempt to remove
Rich Rosen from the support environment provided by plants and animals would
result in his death.
Most people would assert that "not Living(Rich_Rosen)" is FALSE. Thus one of
the assumptions used to prove it must be wrong:
Living(Plants)
Trivially true.
DependsUpon(Rich_Rosen, Plants)
As shown above, Rich Rosen depends on plants for his
continued existence -- in today's world, he wouldn't
survive long without them.
DependsUpon(X, Y) & Living(Y) => not Living(X)
We have no evidence for this other than rlr's assertions.
The evidence against it is that it is the only remaining
suspect in a list of assertions which can be used to prove
a false conclusion.
Thus "DependsUpon(X, Y) & Living(Y) => not Living(X)" is false. But look at
what this does to the first proof:
---------first assertion deleted because it
is false and false => any conclusion----------
DependsUpon(Fetus, Mother)
Living(Mother)
---------------------------
DependsUpon(Fetus, Mother) & Living(Mother)
(this can't be further reduced without extra clauses)
This just says that the fetus depends upon the type of environment that is
provided by the mother, and that the mother is alive. It certainly doesn't
say that the fetus is not alive.
-- Thomas Newton
Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
PS to rlr: Let's see you try to get away with calling this sensationalistic
or saying that plants are not alive.csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/19/85)
In article Thomas Newton writes >been able to care for them. As medical technology advances, we have been able >to take care of babies at earlier and earlier stages of development. Like the first trimester? Maybe in 2010, but not right now. Why don't I just say that "As educational technology advances, we might be able to teach Thomas Newton that a two week old fetus is a blob of tissue that no doctor on this earth could keep alive without it's mother." >If our medical technology was advanced enough, ...and it has... >we might be able to synthesize the chemicals that he needs. ...and we can. So this: >But at the present time, any attempt to remove >Rich Rosen from the support environment provided by plants and animals would >result in his death. is wrong. > DependsUpon(X, Y) & Living(Y) => not Living(X) > We have no evidence for this other than rlr's assertions. No, we have your assertions. I don't remember Rich making any similar claims. >[More of the same] >This just says that the fetus depends upon the type of environment that is >provided by the mother, and that the mother is alive. It certainly doesn't >say that the fetus is not alive. Neither does is say the fetus is alive. >PS to rlr: Let's see you try to get away with calling this sensationalistic >or saying that plants are not alive. I don't think he has to. Your arguments are full of misinterpretations and logical holes. The whole thing is based on the idea that Rich made a certain assertion and you never proved that he did. How's this: Termination(X) X no longer continues to exist Permission(X,Y) X gives permission for Y to live off X Liveoffof(X,Y) Y must live off of X If Liveoffof(X,Y) & (NOT Permission(X,Y)) => Termination(X) So: If Liveoffof(Fetus,Mother) & (NOT Permission(Fetus,Mother) )=>Termination(Fetus) And: If Liveoffof(Rich,Plants) & (NOT Permission(Rich,Plants))=>Termination(Rich) How can I talk about plant GIVING PERMISSION? Easily, many plants produce fruit hoping that animals will eat it and carry the seeds away. We know the apple tree doesn't mind us eating apples because when they are ready to eat, they just drop off; it's as if the tree were saying,"Here, have this." Similarly, if a woman "says" to the fetus,"Here use my body for nine months." that's just fine, but I (and I think Rich) assert that she can always refuse in as much as an apple tree could concevably (with a little imagination) withold it's fruit from hungry animals. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "Don't get bogged down with details, just eat the stupid peice of paper." -Rev. Wang Zeep
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/20/85)
> If we take Rich's assertions at face value: > > DependsUpon(X, Y) & Living(Y) => not Living(X) > DependsUpon(Fetus, Mother) > Living(Mother) > ----------------------------------------------- > not Living(Fetus) > > then we must also come to the conclusion: > > DependsUpon(X, Y) & Living(Y) => not Living(X) > DependsUpon(Rich_Rosen, Plants) > Living(Plants) > ----------------------------------------------- > not Living(Rich_Rosen) Depending on is very different from "feeding off of while inhabiting the inside of a body", a person's body. Plants and other living things are part of a world biosphere. The "biosphere" of the fetus is a human being's body, and if she doesn't want it in there it's her right to have it removed. > rlr's claim seems to be that DependsUpon(Fetus, Mother) is somehow special, > i.e. that fetuses cannot exist outside of the environment of the womb. But > there are many cases where babies have been born prematurely (i.e. they are in > the same stage of development as fetuses still in the womb), and hospitals > have been able to care for them. As medical technology advances, we have been > able to take care of babies at earlier and earlier stages of development. So? If a woman chooses to have that fetus removed, are YOU going to be the one to wean it into humanhood using this technology. This technology is not quite with us yet, but I'd live to see the day when it comes, not just because it will eliminate the need for so-called "unnecessary convenience abortion", but it will also force the anti-abortionists to put their money where their mouths are. Although it always seems they want the woman to "take responsibility" (really to "accept blame" from someone else's impositional religious dogma). > An equally valid case can be made that DependsUpon(Rich_Rosen, Plants) is > special. Without the oxygen and complex organic chemicals which he gets from > plants (either directly or indirectly), Rich Rosen would cease to function. > If our medical technology was advanced enough, we might be able to synthesize > the chemicals that he needs. But at the present time, any attempt to remove > Rich Rosen from the support environment provided by plants and animals would > result in his death. Again, the support environment you speak of is the world biosphere. In the case of a fetus, the entire biosphere is a person's body, which it is using for its own purposes and parasitically drawing sustenance from the woman. If the woman WANTS the fetus to stay there and grow into a child, great! If not, who are you to tell her how her body is to be used? > Most people would assert that "not Living(Rich_Rosen)" is FALSE. Thus one of > the assumptions used to prove it must be wrong: And I showed which one above. > Thus "DependsUpon(X, Y) & Living(Y) => not Living(X)" is false. The way you manipulatively phrased it, sure. > This just says that the fetus depends upon the type of environment that is > provided by the mother, and that the mother is alive. It certainly doesn't > say that the fetus is not alive. Look up parasite. Do some reading. Instead of just asserting. > PS to rlr: Let's see you try to get away with calling this sensationalistic > or saying that plants are not alive. Nyah, nyah to you too. I didn't need to. What a babyish mode of arguing. -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (07/24/85)
> If the woman WANTS the fetus to stay there and grow into a child, great! > If not, who are you to tell her how her body is to be used? -- Rich Rosen Just a minute! Just a minute! Who is SHE to determine how her body is to be used? In all recorded history (pace Bachofen & his "Mutterrecht"), women have had precisely those rights which men have allowed them to have. Listen to feminist Andrea Dworkin: "[Right-wing women] are not dazzled by the promise of abortion as choice, as sexual self-determination, as woman's control of her own body, because they know that the promise is crap: as long as men have power over women, men will not allow abortion or anything else on those terms." -- "Right-wing Women" (New York, Perigee, 1983), p. 103 Women in the USA have the right of legal abortion because they were able to convince six men on the Supreme Court that they deserve it, and because the cops and judges (mostly men) listen to those six men rather than to the fifty State legislatures (also mostly men) who did, and would again, have the cops bust the abortion clinics. When two of those six men are gone from the Court, a President who ran for office and gained overwhelming popular support twice while making no secret of his feelings about abortion is going to nominate, and a Senate (nearly all men) is going to confirm, two replacement Justices (men or women). At that point the Supreme Court (still overwhelmingly male) is going to return control over what a pregnant woman can do with her fetus to those fifty (still mostly male) State legis- latures, most of whom will promptly send the male cops to close down the clinics. If this happens, women will lose the right to abortion on demand, because men will take it away from them, just as they now have that right because men gave it to them. That is reality: the men with the guns enforce what other men establish. If and when men make abortion illegal again, there will be what there was 15 years ago, when "About 1,000,000 abortions [were] probably performed every year in the U.S., although some sa[id] as many as 2,000,000 and others sa[id] as few as 200,000." -- "Sisterhood is Powerful" (New York, Vintage, 1970), p.258 One million abortions a year is pretty awful, but it's still better than the 1.5 million abortions now being performed legally under the 1973 all-male Supreme Court's grant of a woman's right to abort her fetus. Rich Rosen cannot possibly believe that women's right to control their own bodies is one of those "unalienable rights" that the Declaration of Indepen- dence claims "they are endowed by their Creator with," because he cannot prove the existence of any such "Creator." Does he believe that they have this right because they seized it from men by force? Then he has to set forth the history of that seizure. Does he believe that they have that right because of some "natural law"? Then he has to show why his version of such a natural law is correct, rather than versions that would have the woman's right to control her body running a poor third behind the fetus's right to live off that body for nine months, and the father's right to have the children he begot born. The statement "A woman has the right to control her own body" is a fact only so long as the men with the power allow it to be. When they cease to allow it, then the statement reverts to what it was before 1973, merely an opinion. -- Matt Rosenblatt
liz@tove.UUCP (Liz Allen) (07/24/85)
I don't understand why people keep saying that a fetus is "a parasite" and, therefore, is not living. Even granting that a fetus could be loosely viewed as a parasite since it lives off his/her mother, this doesn't show that he/she is not living. My dictionary says that a parasite is: A plant or animal living in or on another organism... Note that plants and animals are normally considered to be living and that even the verb "living" appears in this definition. I realize that most of you probably don't make this mistake, but it has been stated too many times without contradiction to let it pass again... -- 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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/25/85)
> Just a minute! Just a minute! Who is SHE to determine how her body is to > be used? In all recorded history (pace Bachofen & his "Mutterrecht"), > women have had precisely those rights which men have allowed them to have. > Women in the USA have the right of legal abortion because they were able > to convince six men on the Supreme Court that they deserve it, and because > the cops and judges (mostly men) listen to those six men rather than to the > fifty State legislatures (also mostly men) who did, and would again, have > the cops bust the abortion clinics. [MATTHEW ROSENBLATT] One way to look at rights is to claim that they are "granted" to you by people in power. Another way to look at them is to say that there are certain obvious things available to an autonomous life form, and that to form a society you place restrictions on people that limit universal rights. Such as allowing people to do what they will within the limits of not harming other people. If one accepts the power of some people to "grant" and "revoke" your rights, you have essentially become a sheep, a lackey to those people in power. Why isn't the question asked "What RIGHT do those people have to restrain MY rights?" That is what social progress in the twentieth century (or so) has been all about. A realization that no one has the right to restrain ANYBODY'S rights beyond the realm of non-interference, beyond restriction from interfering in other's rights. The reality of the situation may be as described above, but the question to be asked is what basis do they have for restraining my rights? > That is reality: the men with the guns enforce what > other men establish. If and when men make abortion illegal again, there > will be what there was 15 years ago, when > > "About 1,000,000 abortions [were] probably performed every year > in the U.S., although some sa[id] as many as 2,000,000 and others > sa[id] as few as 200,000." > > -- "Sisterhood is Powerful" (New York, Vintage, 1970), p.258 > > One million abortions a year is pretty awful, but it's still better than the > 1.5 million abortions now being performed legally under the 1973 all-male > Supreme Court's grant of a woman's right to abort her fetus. "Pretty awful"? Perhaps you and Newton and Wheeler should get together and form the "We've proved abortion is wrong by assuming it's wrong" League. > Rich Rosen cannot possibly believe that women's right to control their own > bodies is one of those "unalienable rights" that the Declaration of Indepen- > dence claims "they are endowed by their Creator with," because he cannot > prove the existence of any such "Creator." Nor do I care either way about its existence or non-existence relative to such rights. > Does he believe that they have > this right because they seized it from men by force? Then he has to set > forth the history of that seizure. I do? Sez who? The question again is not "do they have this right", but does anyone have the right to take control over themselves away from them? > Does he believe that they have that > right because of some "natural law"? Then he has to show why his version > of such a natural law is correct, rather than versions that would have the > woman's right to control her body running a poor third behind the fetus's > right to live off that body for nine months, and the father's right to have > the children he begot born. Oh, yes, in your world where men give women rights, this would seem logical. Rights aren't things that are "given" to you by anyone. Rights are those things that others would take away from you. The question of rights boils down to "Who's to stop you?" The fight for rights is a fight to squelch those who would. Rights to one's own body go hand in hand with rights to do whatever one wishes that doesn't harm other people, and the fight to prevent others from sitting on those rights begins with dealing with people like you who would proclaim that we need to justify them or base them on something for YOUR edification. The other "versions of natural law" you describe involve others' usupring of personal rights, and thus it is YOU my friend who would have to justify such "other versions". > The statement "A woman has the right to control her own body" is a fact > only so long as the men with the power allow it to be. When they cease > to allow it, then the statement reverts to what it was before 1973, > merely an opinion. So the idea behind fighting for rights is to eliminate the power of any people who would squelch your rights in order to prevent them from doing so. I don't understand what the problem is, except in your own mind. Given your assumption that abortions are horrible as part of your proof that it is, I'd say you don't have much of an idea what rights are about. Nor do you seem to care. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) (07/27/85)
In article <mit-vax.420> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: >In article Thomas Newton writes > >>been able to care for them. As medical technology advances, we have been able >>to take care of babies at earlier and earlier stages of development. > >Like the first trimester? Maybe in 2010, but not right now. > But according to the Supreme Court, the constitution guarantees the right to an abortion during the first trimester. (Not that I've ever seen the right to an abortion at any time in the constitution.) If the abovementioned technology is available in the year 2010, can the same constitution say something different then?? Or is it just barely possible that the Supreme Court erred??? >Charles Forsythe >CSDF@MIT-VAX Cloyd Goodrum University Of North Carolina
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/27/85)
In article <35@unc.UUCP> goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) writes: >In article <mit-vax.420> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: >>In article Thomas Newton writes >>Like the first trimester? Maybe in 2010, but not right now. >> > But according to the Supreme Court, the constitution guarantees >the right to an abortion during the first trimester. (Not that I've ever >seen the right to an abortion at any time in the constitution.) If the >abovementioned technology is available in the year 2010, can the same >constitution say something different then?? Or is it just barely possible >that the Supreme Court erred??? The Constitution doesn't mention anything about abortion. It does mention something about rights. Thus, the Supreme Court decided that it was within the rights of women to remove fetuses from themselves. In the first trimester, this gurantees the termination of development, thus there is no point in being delicate. Do you remember "Separate but Equal?" The Supreme Court reversed that one, too, because they realized they had made some fundemental ERRORS. When this amazing baby-saving technology is invented, perhaps the Supreme Court will reverese this decision too. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX Wang Zeep:"Lord Fred, how can I show them you are the True God?" Lord Fred:"Because I said I am." Wang Zeep:"Seriously." Lord Fred:"Look, it works for every other religion."
powers@noscvax.UUCP (William J. Powers) (07/30/85)
> I don't understand why people keep saying that a fetus is "a > parasite" and, therefore, is not living. Even granting that a > fetus could be loosely viewed as a parasite since it lives off > his/her mother, this doesn't show that he/she is not living. My > dictionary says that a parasite is: > > A plant or animal living in or on another organism... > > Note that plants and animals are normally considered to be living > and that even the verb "living" appears in this definition. > > I realize that most of you probably don't make this mistake, but > it has been stated too many times without contradiction to let it > pass again... > -- > Liz Allen U of Maryland ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz liz@tove.ARPA > I completely agree with this definition of the living; however, I draw a completely different conclusion from it. The fetus is as alive as a carrot. And, what's possibly more interesting, a fetus may be even less important than a carrot. Because we are alive, we must kill. If you want to conclude from that indisbutable (sp?) fact that we are all murders, go ahead. (I will reserve the definition of murder for a smaller set of killing, i.e., that which a society disapproves of.) So, if we are all killers, that does that mean that we have no respect for life and the living? The answer is clearly no. As I have pointed out before, the association between a particular action and attitude is impossible to make even within a given social and cultural context. I won't eat meat, because of what it says to me about my relationship with the living and because of its adverse effects on our global society. The Eskimos live almost entirely upon meat, yet they have a great respect and awe of animals that they eat and depend upon for their very existence (how else to define the sacred and holy). Most Americans consume huge amounts of meat unconsciously. They treat with indifference (mostly due to isolation and ignorance) the killing of countless numbers of living animals. You tell me, who amongst these groups is moral, who is right, who wrong? There is no answer, yet that is exactly what we are discussing on this net. The outlawing of abortion is not (as in NOT) a moral issue, it is a legal-social issue. If you want to convince me that abortion should be illegal, you have to convince me that every fetus should be saved. And if every fetus shlould be saved, why not every gamete? Why should we not simply try to create as much human life as we are capable of? Why should India try to limit her birth rate? Isn't that murder. Why should America be able to grow unfettered and India not? Why is killing of a fetus different from the eating of a bannana which, in its growing, has mamed the pickers and crippled their potential for growth. Why is the killing of a fetus different from the conveyor belt slaughter of beef (born to die). The list is endless. You have to convince me that the killing of this fetus is different from the myriad of killing which, everyday, countless, unconscious times we perform. Our houses are dripping with blood, and yet, we point our fingers accusingly at our neighbors, and, what is worse, those we do not know and do not understand. Somebodies eyes are full of logs. Enuf, Bill Powers.
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (08/01/85)
[] William, your posting to net.abortion (included in it's Reader's Digest version below), is the first reasonable thing I've seen posted to this newsgroup since I decided to dissociate myself from it a year ago. -Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA) P.S. Oh, now I can't help it -- I have to add my own micro-flame: (1) The parasite / Anemic Violinist argument (invented by J.J. Thompson -- whom I actually took a class by) is blatantly wrong because sex is VOLUNTARY. If you purposely CREATE a person and make them dependant on you, and then say "I'm gonna kill you cuz you're a parasite", then that sure seems like murder to me. You shouldn't have created the person and made them dependant on you unless you were willing to take responsibility for them. (2) Fetuses do NOT have the same right to life that people do, for the same reason that cows (and Ken Arndt) don't and technological aliens (from Tau Ceti?) would have. Fetuses and cows aren't intelligent and technological Tau Cetians (if they exist) and people are. > From: powers@noscvax.UUCP (William J. Powers) > And, what's possibly more interesting, a fetus may be even less > important than a carrot. Because we are alive, we must kill.... So, > if we are all killers, that does that mean that we have no respect for > life and the living? The answer is clearly no.... I won't eat meat, > because of what it says to me about my relationship with the living > and because of its adverse effects on our global society.... Most > Americans consume huge amounts of meat unconsciously. They treat with > indifference (mostly due to isolation and ignorance) the killing of > countless numbers of living animals. If you want to convince me that > abortion should be illegal, you have to convince me that every fetus > should be saved. And if every fetus should be saved, why not every > gamete? Why should we not simply try to create as much human life as > we are capable of?.... Why is the killing of a fetus different from > the conveyor belt slaughter of beef (born to die). The list is > endless. You have to convince me that the killing of this fetus is > different from the myriad of killing which, everyday, countless, > unconscious times we perform. Our houses are dripping with blood, and > yet, we point our fingers accusingly at our neighbors, and, what is > worse, those we do not know and do not understand. Somebodies eyes > are full of logs.
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/05/85)
> (2) Fetuses do NOT have the same right to life that people do, for the > same reason that cows (and Ken Arndt) don't and technological aliens > (from Tau Ceti?) would have. Fetuses and cows aren't intelligent and > technological Tau Cetians (if they exist) and people are. Infants are not as intelligent as adults, but this is not a reason for killing infants. Human fetuses, infants, and children become adults in time if they are allowed to live and nothing (such as a terminal disease) intervenes in the meantime. Cows do not become intelligent to anywhere near the degree that humans are intelligent, no matter how long they live. I would argue that young technological Tau Cetians (if they exist) deserve as much protection as adult technological Tau Cetians and possibly more -- note that we don't expect children to take care of themselves and thus we provide someone (natural parents, adoptive parents, foster home) to look out for them until they are old enough to look out for themselves. Thus I would also oppose the Tau Cetian equivalent of abortion (if it exists -- the Tau Cetians might lay eggs and thus not have the biological problems that cause reproduction to be inconvenient for human beings). By the way, we don't need to look as far as Tau Ceti for other intelligent species. Chimps, while not anywhere as smart as humans, have demonstrated the ability to communicate concepts and the ability to feel emotions. To my mind, this means that it is much less acceptable to do nasty things to chimps (or their young) than to other animals -- one of the psychological experiments that involved depriving a young chimpanzee from contact with all other chimpanzees (to see the mental problems that would result) seems particularly barbaric in this light. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA