kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (06/10/85)
[] >From: mn@dscvax2.UUCP (Matt Noah) >Subject: Overpopulation, Babies and Rationalization >Message-ID: <2@dscvax2.UUCP> > >Overpopulation means to me to mean having too many mouths to feed >with the food we have. What about a situation in which there is plenty of food for everyone, but people are literally packed together like sardines? Is that not overpopulation? > I certainly feel that all people should >have adequate shelter, nutrition and medical attention as well. >I also think we - all members of this planet - need to become >better neighbors to one another; more loving and more giving. Why are we obligated to give away our property to others? >[...] >An abortion is an expensive medical procedure. Compared to what? An abortion costs about $250. A hospital birth costs > $1000. Not to mention the subsequent costs associated with food, clothing, etc. >[...] >Fifteen years ago abortion was illegal. You could still have an >abortion. Making something legal does not make it right Making something illegal does not make it morally wrong. > and my >observations of the adult population in this country indicates >a great deal of rationalization. Really? Try getting through a month without making a rationalization. They aren't unique to the abortion debate. > Alot of us have disdained the >notion of right and wrong in favor of personal liberty without >personal responsibility. Why is abortion irresponsible? > What are the right vs. wrong issues >in the abortion controversy? When do you feel a person's rights >come into existence? This question is irrelevant. Neither the fetus nor any other entity has the right to appropriate resources. It is also nonsensical. Rights do not "come into existence". They exist axiomatically. > If you wanted the child you or your spouse >were bearing, Why do you assume only married people have sex and children? More ominously, why should a man be able to control the body of a woman, just because she is married to him? > would the child's rights - something society gives >us because of our personhood - come into being [...] Once again, rights do not "come into being". Nor are they given by society. (Funny, this person seems to think that a figment of the imagination can give things.) Rights exist axiomatically, not by gift. >[...] >Our legal system is based on justice; a concept of right and >wrong, of morality. The legal system is based on the encrusted accumulation of legislative whim. > All laws are legislated morality. The laws requiring one to obey traffic signs and signals are "legislated morality"? > If it >were not for the fact that a human being were involved, abortion >might just be a woman's issue, a woman's choice. It's still just a woman's choice. Morally, if not always legally, the woman's body is her own property, in which the fetus has no right to be without her consent. >From: mn@dscvax2.UUCP (Matt Noah) >Subject: Late term abortions >Message-ID: <3@dscvax2.UUCP> > >[...] >Viability is not the issue here. If it were, then Sophie would be pushing >for laws to protect 8 month old pre-born babies. I don't believe she is. "Pre-born baby" == obfuscation for "fetus"? Why should Sophie [Quigley] push for laws that would potentially be used to "justify" violating her rights, anyway? >By the way, approximately 41 abortions are performed daily in this country >AFTER the 20th week! Since approximately 97% of abortions in this country >are done for reasons other than rape, incest or to save the life of the >mother, about 40 fully-formed human fetuses are being murdered daily. Why is abortion murder except in the above-mentioned exceptional cases? Why is the degree of formation relevant? Do you think that the person is identical to the body? > If >you don't know what a 20-week-old fetus looks like, look it up. This >being is not a blob of tissue; it is easily recognizable as a human being. It easily recognizable as a human *body*. A *person* (which I take you to mean by "human being" -- I refuse to be so centered on the species of which I happen to be a member) is the mind contained in the brain in the body; the person is not the body itself. >It can feel and responds to pain. So can and do mice. Should we outlaw mouse-traps? > The horrors imposed by a late abortion >would sicken the unknowledgeable. Dismemberment and saline solutions are >common abortion methods for late abortions. If you're grossed out by medical procedures, don't watch them. > Would even the cruelest among >us advocate these methods for the execution of death-row prisoners? I advocate putting prisoners to work making restitution for their crimes, even those who would otherwise be on death row. (But that's another newsgroup...) > Pro- >choicers like to talk alot about incest, rape, the plight or poor women, etc. >but somehow forget to talk about the people who use abortion to cover up >extramarital sex and as birth control. What is wrong with extramarital sex? What is wrong with using abortion as a birth control method of last resort? > We can't define life based on >a perverted notion of convenience and freedom. How does this debate "define life" at all? (You say elsewhere that you don't even know what life is.) > We have to protect everyone's >rights if we are to protect our own. Empirically false. Counter-example: South African apartheid, in which the rights of the white minority who control the government are protected but those of the black majority are trampled daily. The white minority there does not have to protect everyone's rights to protect their own. >From: mn@dscvax2.UUCP (Matt Noah) >Subject: emotion >Message-ID: <4@dscvax2.UUCP> > >[...] > I cannot understand the upbringing of someone >who argues about human life from a mainly economic point of view. Rasing a child requires enough of the correct resources; these cost money. Now do you understand why economic considerations can predominate? >[...] >The truth is that life is a >mystery; we know its vital signs but we cannot give it. Then why do some anti-choice people talk about conception as the "creation of new life"? If this happens at conception, your claim is false; if not, where's the beef? > I don't presume to >define it but I do voice an opinion as to when society should protect it. >I also believe it is important enough to legislate it so that we may stem >the tide of death and reverse an attitude that human life is not sacred. "Stem the tide of death" by enslaving women? How is that moral? To whom is human life sacred? -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]