esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor) (01/25/85)
[whose side am I on, anyway?] From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) > 1. A human fetus is of the species homo sapiens. If this is in > dispute, examine the genetic makeup. > 2. [It's] a separate individual. > 3. All human individuals should have, first and foremost, the right > to live. Other rights are subordinate to this one. > 4. Since the fetus is a human individual, it has the right to live, Step 4 does not follow unless "human" in 3 is interpreted as "member of the species homo sapiens." But in that case, 3 is -- to say the least -- not intuitively obvious. (Why should species membership have any bearing on rights?) In fact, it begs the question. From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP ("Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery) > Why is the distinction between doing harm and refusing aid > irrelevant? Why do you think the two are [morally -pvt] the same? Because the results are the same, and they're what count. --the ever-unpopular THIRD side, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 (Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's.)
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (01/27/85)
> [whose side am I on, anyway?] > From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) > > 1. A human fetus is of the species homo sapiens. If this is in > > dispute, examine the genetic makeup. > > 2. [It's] a separate individual. > > 3. All human individuals should have, first and foremost, the right > > to live. Other rights are subordinate to this one. > > 4. Since the fetus is a human individual, it has the right to live, > > Step 4 does not follow unless "human" in 3 is interpreted as "member > of the species homo sapiens." But in that case, 3 is -- to say the > least -- not intuitively obvious. (Why should species membership have > any bearing on rights?) In fact, it begs the question. > > From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP ("Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery) > > Why is the distinction between doing harm and refusing aid > > irrelevant? Why do you think the two are [morally -pvt] the same? > > Because the results are the same, and they're what count. > > --the ever-unpopular THIRD side, > Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 > (Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's.) Paul. This doesn't fool me. Don't think because you are using a different system, I won't be able to sniff out your writing. > Step 4 does not follow unless "human" in 3 is interpreted as "member > of the species homo sapiens." Most humans I know are members of the species Homo sapiens. > But in that case, 3 is -- to say the > least -- not intuitively obvious. > > 3. All human individuals should have, first and foremost, the right > > to live. Other rights are subordinate to this one. That's right, your right of freedom of speech is definitely not subordinate to your right to remain alive. You could continue writing stuff like this after you were dead. > (Why should species membership have > any bearing on rights?) In fact, it begs the question. In your case it should not. -- Peaceful Botanist
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (01/29/85)
> > > 1. A human fetus is of the species homo sapiens. If this is in > > > dispute, examine the genetic makeup. > > > 2. [It's] a separate individual. > > > 3. All human individuals should have, first and foremost, the right > > > to live. Other rights are subordinate to this one. > > > 4. Since the fetus is a human individual, it has the right to live, > > Step 4 does not follow unless "human" in 3 is interpreted as "member > > of the species homo sapiens." > Most humans I know are members of the species Homo sapiens. > > But in that case, 3 is -- to say the > > least -- not intuitively obvious. > That's right, your right of freedom of speech is definitely not > subordinate to your right to remain alive. You could continue writing > stuff like this after you were dead. > > (Why should species membership have > > any bearing on rights?) In fact, it begs the question. > In your case it should not. > -- > Peaceful Botanist Peaceful Botanist. I am afraid you have strayed from known facts. You leap to the illogical conclusion that Paul is alive and able to speak. An analysis of Paul's text reveals it to be totally random as far as meaningful content. -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (02/03/85)
> > > (Why should species membership have > > > any bearing on rights?) In fact, it begs the question. > > > In your case it should not. > > -- > > Peaceful Botanist > > Peaceful Botanist. I am afraid you have strayed from known > facts. You leap to the illogical conclusion that Paul is alive > and able to speak. An analysis of Paul's text reveals it to > be totally random as far as meaningful content. > -- > The Watcher > seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf Watcher. You are doing your job well. Thank you for the correction. -- Wally Ball