esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor) (09/28/84)
[] I'm absent a few weeks, and look what stupidity pours forth. First let's tackle the question-beggers. I lost the original article to the first one, but someone was saying (to paraphrase) "a woman has to take responsibility for her actions". But this proves nothing -- it leaves open the possibility that "taking responsibility" means getting an abortion. Of course, the person writing what I'm criticizing evidently thought she has a responsibility (i.e. *obligation*) not to "take responsibility" THAT way. But that's one of the points at issue. And then there's this one: > Rape and murder harm members of society. Abortion does not. > Actions that do not harm society should not be restricted. > [and in a different article he says] > Almost everyone (I think) is for laws that say "don't do it because it > harms someone". There is a difference in those types of laws. > --Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp WOW does that beg the question! Shame on you! You can reason better than that. Whether someone is harmed is PRECISELY the point at issue. Now we turn from question-begging arguments to absurdities. Here we have someone defending the liberal dogma "Thou shalt not impose morality". (They might as well tell us, "Thou shalt not ever say, 'Thou shalt not ever say'."!) > Gee, Rick. What about laws that give you the freedom of expression and > freedom of worship? In what way are you imposed by having the freedom to > choose your own religion? > Secondly, in cases where there is a consensus, then you can't really say > it is an imposition, for you can't impose morals on people who > already accept them [...]. > Thirdly, do you consider rules set up to maintain some system "moral > imposition"?(e.g driving rules)? > Finally, even if some (or many) laws are passed on moral grounds, that > does not mean we can passed some laws just because some people can > find moral grounds for them. --kin wong (..ihnp4!iwlc8!klw) FIRST: To mandate freedom of religion is to impose on those who would inter- fere with that freedom; to impose the moral belief that people should be allowed freedom of religion. Similarly for free expression. SECOND: There has never been complete consensus on anything, and even if there were, the fact remains that people sometimes do violate their moral beliefs, consciously or not. THIRD: Rules to maintain a system impose the moral belief that *there should be* a system, even though the *particular* rules used may be morally irrelevant (e.g. driving on the right or the left). FINALLY: See above on "actions that harm someone". Morality includes issues of justice and rights and is (contrary to popular opinion) essentially INTERpersonal. Having totally demolished the "imposing morality" argument several times before, I'm getting rather bored of this. Don't you folks have any OTHER stupid arguments? [Chief: Max, I'm warning you, this is a dangerous mission. You'll be writing to net.abortion, where you'll be surrounded by illogic, ignorance, dogmatic unwillingness to examine ideas ... [Smart (played by Paul Torek): AND -- loving it! ] --The aspiring iconoclast, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to my address, not to the sender's. Thanks.
cher@ihuxi.UUCP (Mike Musing) (09/28/84)
!! []
!!
!! I'm absent a few weeks, and look what stupidity pours forth.
!!
!! First let's tackle the question-beggers. I lost the original article
!!
!! And then there's this one:
!! > Rape and murder harm members of society. Abortion does not.
!! > Actions that do not harm society should not be restricted.
!! > [and in a different article he says]
!! > --Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp
!!
!! WOW does that beg the question! Shame on you! You can reason better
!! than that. Whether someone is harmed is PRECISELY the point at issue.
!!
!! --The aspiring iconoclast,
!! Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
The aspiring iconoclast just made it in a very big way, implying
that fetus is a member of society. That would require some
changes to our notions about what "member of society" is.
Any reasoning, maybe, to prove the necessity of such
adjustments?
All together now:
Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is living
In my neighborhood.
Mike Musingesk@wucs.UUCP (10/03/84)
This is a reposting.... I screwed up the earlier one and tried to cancel it. My apologies if this is a repeat. EK >>> Rape and murder harm members of society. Abortion does not. >>> Actions that do not harm society should not be restricted. >>> [and in a different article he says] >>> Almost everyone (I think) is for laws that say "don't do it because it >>> harms someone". There is a difference in those types of laws. >>> --Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp > >!! WOW does that beg the question! Shame on you! You can reason better >!! than that. Whether someone is harmed is PRECISELY the point at issue. > >The aspiring iconoclast just made it in a very big way, implying >that fetus is a member of society. That would require some >changes to our notions about what "member of society" is. >Any reasoning, maybe, to prove the necessity of such adjustments? > --Mike Musing GRRRRR! Are you naturally stupid, or do you take lessons? I most certainly did *not* imply that. I implied that Brian Peterson had *assumed* the opposite. I pointed out that his *assumption* was question- begging. SO: ANY REASONING, MAYBE, TO PROVE THE ASSUMPTION? If not, the argument I was criticizing is a complete flop. I WAS NOT TRYING TO PROVE ANYTHING -- I WAS SHOWING THAT SOMETHING HAD NOT BEEN PROVEN. THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE. --The undaunted iconoclast, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks. p.s. Will Paul Dubuc please send me his net-address? He sent mail to me in reply to something I wrote here, but I accidentally lost his address.
cher@ihuxj.UUCP (Mike Musing) (10/05/84)
>>The aspiring iconoclast just made it in a very big way, implying >>that fetus is a member of society. That would require some >>changes to our notions about what "member of society" is. >>Any reasoning, maybe, to prove the necessity of such adjustments? > >GRRRRR! Are you naturally stupid, or do you take lessons? > >I most certainly did *not* imply that. I implied that Brian Peterson had >*assumed* the opposite. I pointed out that his *assumption* was question- >begging. SO: ANY REASONING, MAYBE, TO PROVE THE ASSUMPTION? If not, the >argument I was criticizing is a complete flop. I WAS NOT TRYING TO PROVE >ANYTHING -- I WAS SHOWING THAT SOMETHING HAD NOT BEEN PROVEN. THERE IS A >WORLD OF DIFFERENCE. > --The undaunted iconoclast, > Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 What the hell, I can keep it up. UFFFF! Are you feeble-minded due to birth defects or malnutrition? Brian Peterson said that abortion does not harm members of society. You called that question-begging. So you seem to be in doubt about that. WHO ARE THE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY THAT ARE HARMED? WHAT'S THE HARM? If you did not mean fetuses what else did you mean? Just in case you ment mothers, doctors, fathers: ASK THEM IF THEY ARE HARMED. If they do not think so, the assumption is much more credible then your "prove that you not a camel" type objection. The only good reason for rejecting the "assumption" in question is classification of fetuses as members of society. My only mistake was assuming that you wee capable of figuring out that much. Sorry. Mike Musing P.S. How about "Paul V Torek - the medieval apologist"
z@rocksvax.UUCP (Jim Ziobro) (10/09/84)
I would urge people to refrain from name-calling it casts more
dispersion on the caller than anything else.
Long ago Brad Templeton set the stakes in the abortion debate.
One of the issues was whether or not the fetus was 'human'. The term 'human'
has since been separated more finely into being a member of a set
known as 'society'. Am I to assume that to argue that a fetus is not
a 'member of society' is to grant that it is 'human'? If so the question seems
to have become whether this certain class of humans has a right to life.
This is not a legal or medical question it is purely a moral question.
The answer cannot be assumed without regard to a moral system.
--
//Z\\
James M. Ziobro
Ziobro.Henr@Xerox.ARPA
{rochester,amd,sunybcs,allegra}!rocksvax!z