twiss@stolaf.UUCP (Thomas S. Twiss) (11/30/84)
First I want to apologize for the length, and secondly that the political/philosophical discussion that follows DOES have relevance to abortion. We are attempting to discover whether the US has the right/obligation to legislate morality. >From: twiss@stolaf.UUCP (Thomas S. Twiss) >> Now of course some of you may argue that an infant is also >> dependent and not autonomous. Well, dependent on others for physical needs >> (food, protection, shelter, etc.) but it is not BIOLOGICALLY dependent on >> another's body for existence as a zygote is. >A distinction without a difference. Oh? You mean you don't see the difference in the kind of dependence a newborn baby has and that of a 1 week old embryo?! That's strange. The distinction seems quite clear to me. >I detect an attempt to justify a pre-determined conclusion. How so? I've stated the conclusion, I've given the supporting evidence. You have attempted to refute neither. >The straw which you have grasped will not support any weight. Cute analogy, but once again void of any argument. >Now to address a different article. Wouldn't you know it, the *one* time >I express my opinion (that laws against murder are laws on moral issues) >without supporting it, I get jumped on. Well, Mr. Twiss, mercifully for >you I do not have software copies of my several hundred lines of previous >articles that include backing for my statement. I will have to be content >with referring you to my recent reply to kin wong in this newsgroup. It >is particularly relevant to your (choke! cough!) "argument" below. > >> The truth of the matter is, that if you ever read any Locke, >> Jefferson, Hamilton, etc., you will find that US law is based on >> rational self interest, all morality aside!!! > >It's statements like that that make the net hilarious. If *YOU* will >take a look at Locke, you will find his political philosophy to be very >much based on moral considerations. Locke is well known for his "natural >rights" position -- he talked a lot about moral rights ("natural" rights >are distinct from legal rights). Aha! Look at his previous sentence! He says that Locke said that moral rights (natural rights) are distinct from legal rights!!!! Bingo, Torek!!! You proved yourself the very claim I was making. You see! Legality and morality ARE distinct! It is reasoning like yours that makes the net hilarious. >As for Jefferson et. al., it's been a >long time since I read them, but I seem to recall a certain document >mentioning certain "inalienable rights"... Yeah, so what. You haven't said a word about morality. Inalienalble rights do not necessarily imply morality as you have so adeptly proven above. >And of course, isn't the >point not what the motivations behind our laws are, but whether they >interfere with the ("private") moral decisionmaking of citizens? The single most important issue that US courts must face today is that of determining the intent of the law. Why did you equate private with moral in the previous sentence? How can you possibly posit the connection between them? Let's see some evidence, then we can argue intelligently. >> I know that's tough to >> swallow, but if you don't beleive me, I refer you to Chuck Densinger's >> article. Speaking of whom: you have badly misinterpreted his arguments >> and have taken them out of context. > >Oh gee, Tweedle Dee refers me to Tweedle Dum. Is this kind of comment really necessary? Well, that's ok, you can just refer to me as Tweedle Dee from now on. I kinda like it! >Speaking of whom: I've >taken him to mean exactly what he said (probably a mistake!). > >From: densinge@stolaf.UUCP (Charles W. Densinger) >> This also brings up another matter which I've thought of >> in conjunction with the "life begins at conception" argument. >> It seems to me that one doesn't have to go far from this >> argument to get to "birth control is wrong." > >And it seems to "pro-lifers" that "one doesn't have to go far" from saying >abortion is OK to saying infanticide, etc. is OK. Which of these slippery >slope arguments is valid? (Hint: neither!) > --The THIRD side, > Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Well, once again you have taken Chuck out of context. You seem to have a real propensity for that! This wasn't even the same article! Fortunatly for you, Mr. Torek, I don't have the previous articles on sofware so you'll have t refer to other articles for the proof. (Does that sound familliar?) In any case, the above counter-argument has nothing to with Chuck's statement! It is mere contradiction. ("Contradicting IS arguing!" "No it isn't" "Yes it is!" "No it isn't" "Yes it is!" etc.) You have merely presented the opposite without dealing with the original. The point is, we're trying to establish the difference between abortion and infanticide and that's what my entire article to which you refer dealt with. It isn't easy, I'm not sure if there is an answer. But at least some are willing to try and deal with the issues instead of trying to make their opponents look like boneheads and then ignore the issues themselves. -- Tom Twiss @ St. Olaf College {decvax,ihnp4}!stolaf!twiss "If the Paradox and the Reason come together in a mutual understanding of their unlikeliness their encounter will be happy..." -Soren Kierkegaard