dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/10/84)
> Ken Arndt says: > > Abraham Lincoln: "Personally, I'm opposed to slavery, but I don't > want to impose my views on others." > > I'm a little puzzled. Can you explain for me, please, why you think > this is funny and what it has to do with abortion? Perhaps further examples would provide the necessary clarification. "I'd never rape a woman, but I respect the right of other men to choose." "I'd never call a black man a nigger, but I respect the right of others to choose to do so." "I'd never go queer-bashing, but I respect the right of others to do so." "I'd never abuse a child, but I respect the right of others to do so." "I'd never have an abortion, but I respect the right of others to choose to do so." -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois The Lord bless thee, and keep thee, The Lord make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee, The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. Numbers 6:24-26
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/11/84)
In light of all the "I would never XXXXX, but I respect the rights of others to XXXXX" notes, it seems obvious that is unacceptable as an argument. However, it is a reasonable statement of position. Because it is a statement of position, it is not a case of the fallacy of argument special pleading. Ridicule by paraphrasing is fun, but is only a fallacy of argument itself unless it also exposes special pleading. Mike Huybensz
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (09/13/84)
> > The last quote is not analogous to the first two. The first two > > quotes condone attacks made on people who have done nothing to their > > attackers. The last quote condones the action of a person who chooses > > to recover control of her property (namely her body), which has been > > appropriated by another being for its own purposes. > > -- > > Ken Montgomery > > Ah, yes, quite so. It takes a long time for some to realize > where babies come from, doesn't it? Attempts to assassinate my character do not even address my point, not to mention refuting it. BTW, Otis, I know where babies come from; what does that have to do with my point about property rights? > Exactly what is this "other being" that is spoken of, that takes > over a body of a "person" for "it's own purposes", apparently > trespassing on "her property". What is this "other being" that > it requires that infringed person to abort it, in order to regain > "control." I think it was clear enough that I meant "other being" to mean zygote/embryo/fetus/<whatever you care to call it>. I used the term "other being" to gain a measure of defamiliarization which I thought would help prevent knee-jerk emotional reactions. (Obviously it didn't. :-)) Unfortunately, I used the phrase "recover control" in a rather imprecise manner. Obviously the woman's right to abort the baby derives from her right to control her body. By "recover control", I meant that she should be able, if she so desires, to forbid any particular use of her property, and that she should be able to enforce her choices, even if that means denying aid to another. > I presume it means this-- "Other being:" a growth, that if left > unchecked will become another place-setting; I presume that by "place setting" you mean that the baby will have to be fed. Once again, this is irrelevant to my point. > "Person:" a human > sans umbilical-cord, Why does the distinction between person and non-person matter? Either way, the "other being" has no right to use the woman's body if she doesn't want it to. > that happens to consider itself a female; No, Otis, a person is or is not female; opinions have nothing to do with it. > "Her property:" something that can be bought, sold, transferred, > neglected; The key word here appears to be "neglected"; but I don't believe that I understand the connotation. Are you claiming that it is reasonable for one person to force his/her definition of the right way to handle personal property on another person? > "Control:" something required only in the event of > pregnancy. > -- > ..{ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett This statement is completely out in left field. I guess it means that the human body is just "supposed to know" what to do and when. Is this actually a claim that I don't need to have control of my body in order, for instance, to type this followup? (Or maybe rlgvax!plunkett just likes to twist the meanings of words. :-)) BTW, the mail system claims that someone named "Bob Fay" sent me a letter. Unfortunately, this letter was so badly truncated that it didn't even have a subject line; please re-send your letter (and make sure to protect it from the line-eater). -- Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
hawk@oliven.UUCP (09/15/84)
> Obviously the woman's right to abort the baby >derives from her right to control her body. By "recover control", >I meant that she should be able, if she so desires, to forbid any >particular use of her property, and that she should be able to >enforce her choices, even if that means denying aid to another. She isn't denying aid, she is actively acting against another and his property rights. Destroying the fetus is an even greater violation of its property rights than hanging around for a few months is a violation of the women's rights. -- [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (09/18/84)
[] > She isn't denying aid, she is actively acting against another and his property > rights. Destroying the fetus is an even greater violation of its property > rights than hanging around for a few months is a violation of the women's > rights. > > -- > [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk So if I pitch a tent, without permission, on someone else's property, I have the right to squat there until I decide I don't need to use the land anymore. Got a back yard, hawk? The fetus is within the woman; it is allocating her resources. The woman's property rights take precedence.
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (09/18/84)
[]
Woops, said the wrong thing to the editor....
I remain:
"Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
Ken Montgomery
...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (09/24/84)
>> She isn't denying aid, she is actively acting against another and his >> property rights. Destroying the fetus is an even greater violation of its >> property rights than hanging around for a few months is a violation of the >> women's rights. >> >> -- >> [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk > >So if I pitch a tent, without permission, on someone else's property, I >have the right to squat there until I decide I don't need to use the >land anymore. But if 1) driving you off that land will cost you your life, and 2) you are not responsible for the situation, and 3) I drive you off the land in full knowledge of the fact, I suspect that I would be prosecuted for murder. The fetus did not choose to be created -- it came about because of a deliberate act between two people (or one person, if you argue the unlikely case of pregnancy in the case of true forcible rape) -- an act that is supposed to be and act of love. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (09/27/84)
> But if > 1) driving you off that land will cost you your life, and > 2) you are not responsible for the situation, and > 3) I drive you off the land in full knowledge of the fact, > I suspect that I would be prosecuted for murder. Then you would be prosecuted wrongly. > The fetus did not >choose to be created -- it came about because of a deliberate act between two >people Not necessarily. It is possible to have sex without intending to have children. In that case pregnancy is NOT a deliberate result. > an act that is supposed to be and act of love. Where do you get off telling other people how to handle their sexuality?! >-- > > Mark Terribile -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (10/19/84)
>>> She isn't denying aid, she is actively acting against another and his >>> property rights. Destroying the fetus is an even greater violation of its >>> property rights than hanging around for a few months is a violation of the >>> women's rights. >>> >>> -- >>> [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk >> >>So if I pitch a tent, without permission, on someone else's property, I >>have the right to squat there until I decide I don't need to use the >>land anymore. > > But if > 1) driving you off that land will cost you your life, and > 2) you are not responsible for the situation, and > 3) I drive you off the land in full knowledge of the fact, > I suspect that I would be prosecuted for murder. Humm, so by your definition, countries who refuse to give asylum to political refugees who will be murdered if they go back home (as in the case of quite a few latin american political refugees) should be prosecuted for murder. Funny how I've never heard of this happening. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) (10/31/84)
>>>> She isn't denying aid, she is actively acting against another and his >>>> property rights. Destroying the fetus is an even greater violation of its >>>> property rights than hanging around for a few months is a violation of the >>>> women's rights. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk >>> >>>So if I pitch a tent, without permission, on someone else's property, I >>>have the right to squat there until I decide I don't need to use the >>>land anymore. >> >> But if >> 1) driving you off that land will cost you your life, and >> 2) you are not responsible for the situation, and >> 3) I drive you off the land in full knowledge of the fact, >> I suspect that I would be prosecuted for murder. > >Humm, so by your definition, countries who refuse to give asylum to political >refugees who will be murdered if they go back home (as in the case of quite >a few latin american political refugees) should be prosecuted for murder. >Funny how I've never heard of this happening. 1. Countries can't be prosecuted for criminal offenses (just a technical point) 2. Only if they are in the country refusing aid to start with and are being sent back. American policy is to grant aslyum if the person's life would be in danger, anyway. rick