jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) (07/03/85)
>> Every freedom carries responsibility with it. If you want the freedom, >> you had best be ready for the responsibility. >> >> Jean Marie Diaz > > I've heard this unsupported assertion all over the place, and I have > no idea why people keep on saying it. Please tell me: > > 1) What is your evidence that every freedom possesses a corresponding > responsibility? Spare me. What do you want, a professional study? I won't have the tools for another 4 years or so. > 2) Why should a freedom be so linked? Because otherwise, *my* freedoms collide with the equally valid freedoms of *others*. It's the old "my freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" example. Perhaps we should change it to say "Every freedom carries with it the responsibility not to encroach on the freedoms of others." Can you agree with that? Comments, anyone? > In the case being argued in this newsgroup, people are saying > things like, "Freedom to engage in sexual intercourse carries the > corresponding responsibility to be prepared to use contraceptives > or care for a child." How is this more true than saying, "Freedom ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I haven't ignored the possibility of adoption--why do you? > to engage in sexual intercourse carries the corresponding responsibility > to be prepared to have an abortion." (?) > > Mike Gray -- AMBAR {the known universe}!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand "You shouldn't let people drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance."
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/04/85)
>>>Every freedom carries responsibility with it. If you want the freedom, >>>you had best be ready for the responsibility. >>> Jean Marie Diaz >>I've heard this unsupported assertion all over the place, and I have >>no idea why people keep on saying it. Please tell me: >> >>1) What is your evidence that every freedom possesses a corresponding >>responsibility? > Spare me. What do you want, a professional study? I won't have the > tools for another 4 years or so. Spare *me*. Barring the results of that objective study, do we just take certain people's arbitary word for what responsibilities they associate with given freedoms. >>2) Why should a freedom be so linked? > Because otherwise, *my* freedoms collide with the equally valid > freedoms of *others*. It's the old "my freedom to swing my fist > ends where your nose begins" example. Perhaps we should change > it to say "Every freedom carries with it the responsibility not > to encroach on the freedoms of others." Can you agree with that? > Comments, anyone? Yeah, that seems to go along with what I've been saying in twenty other newsgroups, that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. (I never claimed it was original.) But what you've got me wondering is what that statement has to do with the issue at hand. What was being talked about was the notion that having sex means responsibilities to the fetus that might be created as a result. Which is equivalent to saying "Abortion is wrong because abortion is wrong." Not a very substantive argument. Since that fetus is in fact not a living organism in that it cannot sustain itself outside of the womb, the obligation or responsibility would seem to exist only because you say so. It never ceases to amaze me. The real center of the abortion controversy is "Are the fetuses living things, the termination of which would be 'murder'?" Having lost that central issue, the only real basis for claiming the so-called wrongness of abortion, anti-abortionists bring up the other ridiculous non-issues of "responsibility" (in their eyes), "convenience" (whihc makes it wrong in their eyes), and Samuelson's "Look what they're doing to the 'dead babies'?", as if that central issue's resolution was irrelevant or as if the reverse of the resolution IN THEIR FAVOR was a given! -- Like a vermin (HEY!), shot for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (07/06/85)
> It's only "wrong" (i.e. murder) if the object of the abortion is a living > independent human being, and we know that the objects of abortion, the > fetuses, cannot sustain themselves outside of the environment of the womb, > thus they cannot be "murdered" Are you also suggesting that it is not wrong to kill newly-born babies, since they are not capable of feeding themselves? For that matter, if a human must be "independent" in order to have the right to live, why is it wrong to kill anyone on this planet? The only living things on this planet which can claim to be able to survive without aid from other living things in the environment are plants and a few bacteria which obtain energy from anaerobic chemical reactions. Take away all the plants and the animals (including us) will drop dead very quickly. > The real center of the abortion controversy is "Are the fetuses living > things, the termination of which would be 'murder'?" Having lost that > central issue, . . . A fetus is a living thing. It's need to be provided with warmth, nutrients, oxygen, etc. does not make it any less so. Do you think that you are 'dead' merely because you depend upon oxygen that is produced by plant life? A human fetus has human chromosomes that are different from the ones which belong to its parents. It is not a 'tissue outgrowth' or an 'organ' of the woman's body, but a separate individual. Furthermore, doctors are more and more coming to regard the fetus as a treatable patient in the womb. There was an article in one of the news magazines a while back discussing how this was a potential threat to the pro-choice movement. It seems to me that the pro-choice side has lost this central issue, and the loss is becoming more and more obvious with every medical gain. This is probably why so many pro-choice arguments fall into one of these classes: (a) If I don't want the baby, it must be "trespassing", and therefore it's OK to kill it (analogue to property rights) (b) It may be a living human being (human = Homo sapiens), but it isn't HUMAN (HUMAN = Homo sapiens + certain features that vary with the person posting the argument), and thus it isn't entitled to HUMAN rights, and thus it's OK to kill it. I don't think that either argument is convincing; other people think the opposite. But most of the posts from both sides do implicitly acknowledge the fact that the fetus is a living organism which is different from (even if dependent upon) its parents. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/08/85)
In article <385@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> (Thomas Newton) writes: >> It's only "wrong" (i.e. murder) if the object of the abortion is a living >> independent human being, and we know that the objects of abortion, the >> fetuses, cannot sustain themselves outside of the environment of the womb, >> thus they cannot be "murdered" > >Are you also suggesting that it is not wrong to kill newly-born babies, since >they are not capable of feeding themselves? For that matter, if a human must >be "independent" in order to have the right to live, why is it wrong to kill >anyone on this planet? No, I don't think he is. The question is: can the creature/lump of tissue (not BABY) survive without its mother? A newborn can. >> The real center of the abortion controversy is "Are the fetuses living >> things, the termination of which would be 'murder'?" Having lost that >> central issue, . . . > >A fetus is a living thing. It's need to be provided with warmth, nutrients, >oxygen, etc. does not make it any less so. Do you think that you are 'dead' >merely because you depend upon oxygen that is produced by plant life? > >A human fetus has human chromosomes that are different from the ones which >belong to its parents. It is not a 'tissue outgrowth' or an 'organ' of the >woman's body, but a separate individual. It is too! Your sperm cells contain genetic information different from yourself. I'm sure you don't save them all (if you do, I don't want to know). Is the genetic material so important? Save it, implant it into an egg and put it into some "pro-lifer" woman. Also, I don't think anybody can argue the Earth's (God's?) right to blow us off it's face if it doesn't like us living here. Furthermore, as an individual, who is more important? The woman who has gone through 16+ years of life, experience and (possibly) contribution to society, or a fetus which has done nothing but grow inside her body? Then you list your ideas of pro-choice arguments: > (a) If I don't want the baby, it must be "trespassing", and ^^^^ fetus! you #@%$^&@$ muckraker! > therefore it's OK to kill it (analogue to property rights) > (b) It may be a living human being (human = Homo sapiens), but > it isn't HUMAN (HUMAN = Homo sapiens +certain features that > vary with the person posting the argument), and thus it isn't > entitled to HUMAN rights, and thus it's OK to kill it. > >I don't think that either argument is convincing; other people think the >opposite. But most of the posts from both sides do implicitly acknowledge >the fact that the fetus is a living organism which is different from (even >if dependent upon) its parents. > -- Thomas Newton We kill lots of living organisms. The other day, I saw a car with two bumper stickers: ABORTION IS MURDER and MORE NUKES, LESS KOOKS. I don't know how to take pro-lifers seriously anymore. Such conditional morality is dangerous. Why are fetuses, who's social value is purely sentimental and philisophical, so important when full grow people, who have made their make on life, so expendable? Its scary. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (07/10/85)
Please, Charlie, don't lump everyone who has an aversion to abortion into the same pile. Your bumper sticker story only indicates that the person is nothing more than an individual. I could make the same assumption about someone with bumper stickers that read ABORTION IS THE ANSWER and NO-NUKES IS GOOD NUKES, but I won't. And further, it is still my opinion that abortion for convenience sake is murder. Some of you folk seem to think that anyone who opposes abortion is only naturally a red-necked, bible-thumping, war-mongering, nuke-loving, high school dropout with the intelligence of a boiled snail. Well, your wrong. The world is not that easily defined. The abortion question covers people in all walks of life with diversity of opinion that would challange Solomon. T. C. Wheeler
jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) (07/10/85)
> No, I don't think he is. The question is: can the creature/lump of > tissue (not BABY) survive without its mother? A newborn can. ^^^^^^^^ Why not? > >A human fetus has human chromosomes that are different from the ones which > >belong to its parents. It is not a 'tissue outgrowth' or an 'organ' of the > >woman's body, but a separate individual. > > It is too! Your sperm cells contain genetic information different from > yourself. That's not what I learned in junior high health class. Sperm cells have half of the man's genetic material. Where would it come from otherwise? Come to think of it, I wish we could get off this argument 'sperm (egg) cells have genetic material too, why don't you....etc etc ad nauseam. Sex cells are haploid (no pairs). Every other cell in the body is diploid (full 46.) Therefore, comparing a fetus (or a fertilized egg) with a single sex cell is comparing apples and bananas. Is there a biologist in the house? > Furthermore, as an individual, who is more important? The woman who has > gone through 16+ years of life, experience and (possibly) contribution > to society, or a fetus which has done nothing but grow inside her body? Who gave you the right to decide who is more important? Do we now have to earn the right to life? Boy, have I got some nominations for late- late-late term abortions (say 30 years or so.....) > > (a) If I don't want the baby, it must be "trespassing", and > ^^^^ fetus! you #@%$^&@$ muckraker! ^^^^^ ditto. > We kill lots of living organisms. The other day, I saw a car with two > bumper stickers: ABORTION IS MURDER and MORE NUKES, LESS KOOKS. I don't > know how to take pro-lifers seriously anymore. Such conditional morality > is dangerous. Why are fetuses, who's social value is purely sentimental > and philisophical, so important when full grow people, who have made > their make on life, so expendable? Its scary. So you're going to file all pro-lifers in the same folder as the owner of that car. Why don't I put you in the same drawer as the people who are going on to infanticide (only handicapped infants, of course, the ones who could never enjoy life anyway), euthanasia, and so forth? Answer: you're a human being and I respect you. Though sometimes I wonder why. -- AMBAR {the known universe}!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand "You shouldn't let people drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance."
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/11/85)
> And further, it is still > my opinion that abortion for convenience sake is murder. > Some of you folk seem to think that anyone who opposes abortion > is only naturally a red-necked, bible-thumping, war-mongering, > nuke-loving, high school dropout with the intelligence of a > boiled snail. Well, your wrong. The world is not that easily > defined. [WHEELER] Perhaps we should limit such classifying to those who believe that JUST because an abortion is performed for "convenience" sake, it is "murder". However, since no one has successfully come up with other substantive reasons for calling it murder, it would seem that this reasoning (plus "God says it's wrong", to which this form of reasoning is closely tied) forms the bulk of the anti-abortion argument, and as such it is vacuous. Which is why so many anti-abortion types must resort to the chicanery and the base manipulative propaganda devoid of substance that we have seen so much of. -- Like aversion (HEY!), shocked for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (07/11/85)
> No, I don't think he is. The question is: can the creature/lump of > tissue (not BABY) survive without its mother? A newborn can. As medical technology advances, it's becoming possible to take care of premature babies (i.e. fetuses) outside of their mothers at earlier and earlier stages. The limiting factor is NOT that the fetus is, as you claim, a "lump of tissue", but rather that our medical technology does not provide as good an environment as that provided by the human body. > It is too! Your sperm cells contain genetic information different from > yourself. I'm sure you don't save them all (if you do, I don't want to > know). Is the genetic material so important? Save it, implant it into an > egg and put it into some "pro-lifer" woman. Human sperm and egg cells contain only half the number of chromosomes that the cells in the rest of the human body contain. The information which they do contain is a subset of the information in the other cells of the body. The cells belonging to a fetus have the same number of chromosomes as the cells of any other human being. The chromosomes which the fetus has are not a subset of the chromosomes of the mother or a subset of the chromosomes of the father. They contain information defining an individual who is distinct from both his/her mother and his/her father. > Furthermore, as an individual, who is more important? The woman who has > gone through 16+ years of life, experience, and (possibly) contribution > to society, or a fetus which has done nothing but grow inside her body? In most pregnancies, it's not a matter of choosing the life of the woman or the life of the baby. In the cases where the pregnancy places the life of the woman in immediate danger, most pro-lifers seem to agree that it is OK to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother. This is similar to the case where a hospital can give an organ to one of two patients who need it, and cannot get another organ in time to save the life of the other patient. No matter what the hospital does, at least one of the patients dies. > We kill lots of living organisms. The other day, I saw a car with two > bumper stickers: ABORTION IS MURDER and MORE NUKES, LESS KOOKS. I don't > know how to take pro-lifers seriously anymore. Such conditional morality > dangerous. Why are fetuses, who's social value is purely sentimental > and philisophical, so important when full grow people, who have made > their make on life, so expendable? Its scary. Have you ever heard of the concept of self-defense? It is OK to kill someone if it is necessary to stop them from killing you or some other innocent person. Extended to the national level, it is OK for a nation to maintain armed forces to defend itself and its allies against attacks from other countries. Do you really think that Hitler would have withdrawn German troops to the boundaries of Germany and stopped the Holocaust if we had said 'Please act civilized'?
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/12/85)
In article <802@ihlpg.UUCP> jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) writes: >> tissue (not BABY) survive without its mother? A newborn can. > ^^^^^^^^ Why not? >Who gave you the right to decide who is more important? The same diety that gave you the right to impose your morality on all women. >Answer: you're a human being and I respect you. Though sometimes I >wonder why. Thankyou. I suppose if you didn't, I should make legislation that forces you to. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/12/85)
In article (Thomas Newton) writes: >In most pregnancies, it's not a matter of choosing the life of the woman >or the life of the baby. In the cases where the pregnancy places the life >of the woman in immediate danger, most pro-lifers seem to agree that it is >OK to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother. Wow, you must know some pretty liberal pro-lifers. Maybe they should meet the ones I know. >Have you ever heard of the concept of self-defense? It is OK to kill someone >if it is necessary to stop them from killing you or some other innocent person Not everyone who dies in a war were going to kill somebody. Were the citizens of Hiroshima or Dresden about to kill somebody? Certainly, we had to win WWII, but you make it sound like every enemy casualty was some kind of monster. More on this subject in later flame... -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/12/85)
In article <159@pyuxii.UUCP> tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) writes: >Please, Charlie, don't lump everyone who has an aversion >to abortion into the same pile. >Well, your wrong. The world is not that easily >defined. The abortion question covers people in all walks >of life with diversity of opinion that would challange Solomon. >T. C. Wheeler Thanx T.C., now let's see, where were we... oh yeah we were busy lumping all the women who want abortions into the same pile... -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep