esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (10/30/84)
[replies to Stryker, Peterson, Carnes, Sonntag]
"It is somewhat comical (but also sad) for me to see a bunch of
self righteous" fools trying to settle a complex issue with arguments
that are downright stupid, not to mention harmful to their own case.
"Pro-lifers" should be eager to agree with don@dicomed.UUCP (Don Stryker)
about men trying to decide the abortion issue. Let women decide it --
then Stryker's side ("pro-choice") will have LESS support (as a percentage
of those allowed to vote) than it does among the total population! That's
right folks -- more "pro-lifers" are women than men, and vice-versa for
the "pro-choice" position! (Source: *Public Opinion* magazine)
Another stupid argument runs into a fact, and flops!
From: brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson):
> Of the 19 most recent posters in the group, only 3 were responders.
> Notably absent were some of our most prolific submitters.
Also notably absent were those of us who weren't around when you
submitted the poll questions ...
From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Subject: Question for pro-lifers [them only??? -- pt]
> Let's assume for this discussion that a fetus is a human life. ...
> My question to pro-lifers is this: Why is it morally wrong to kill an
> innocent human being? ... An adequate answer would include an explanation
> of why this moral principle contains the terms "innocent" and "human".
> That is, what do innocence and being human have to do with it? ...
> Finally, for extra credit, please explain what you mean by the terms
> "innocent" and "kill". --Richard Carnes
Actually, these all boil down to one single question. No answer to the
first question (about the justification of the principle) could be given
without specifying the meaning of the terms used in the principle. A
principle must have a known meaning before one can consider whether the
principle is correct.
Since Carnes is asking for an (at least partial) explanation of whom it
is wrong to kill, and why, this question can be turned around: what kinds
of creatures is it *not* wrong to kill, and why? THESE QUESTIONS MUST BE
ANSWERED NO MATTER WHAT SIDE YOU TAKE. As I have said before and will no
doubt have to say again, this question (and a few others) can not be
evaded if either (rather, any) side is to refute the other(s).
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (Jeff Sonntag) (Numbers inserted by me):
Subject: Re: Re: A Hypothetical Question (personhood)
> A structural recap of the arguement:
> W(x) ::= "It's wrong to kill x."
> T(x) ::= "x is a thinking individual."
> [...]
> I argued that {1} T(x) implies W(x), using as example x="a computer
>program with the potential to become a thinking individual."
> I argued that {2} NOT(T(x)) implies NOT(W(x)), with the same x.
But both {1} and {2} are false! T(x) is neither necessary ({2}) nor
sufficient ({1}) for W(x). Sentience (the capacity to feel sensations like
pain or joy or pleasure or ...), either present or future, is more relevant.
--The THIRD side,
Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.
"Do you believe that religion and politics are necessarily related?"
"Yeah. Every time I see Reagan or Mondale, I want to pray."