esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (11/29/84)
[Reply-to: Yosi Hoshen, Thomas Twiss, Charles Densinger] From: jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) > It is probably easier to develop artificial womb than develop > a mobile artificial heart and lung system. If the same amount of effort > was given to the development of artificial womb, as to the space program, > we would have it by now. You may be right, but I'm not convinced. I'm not a biology expert, but I suspect getting to the moon is trivial by comparison. > You are asking, "What should we do in the mean time?" Where have you been > all these years? Why didn't you try to find resources to solve this > problem? I think that there are more worthwhile causes to support. My time/labor/ money will go toward addressing hunger and/or disease first. It is a question of cost-effectiveness. Your suggested program does not seem very promising to me, though I would be glad to see some biological evidence that would indicate the contrary. Having criticized your idea, let me end on a positive note. Your proposal shows an attempt to address all the concerns involved in an innovative way. This shows a level of imagination and caring all too rare on this issue. 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. I detect an attempt to justify a pre- determined conclusion. The straw which you have grasped will not support any weight. 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). 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"... 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? > 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. 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 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.