brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (09/01/84)
Q Pro-choice <> Pro-abortion?
Q I'm extremely dumb. What's the difference?
Q Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
"Pro-choice" people believe nobody should tell you what to do.
"Pro-abortion" people are in favour of abortion: they think the
advantages of abortion outweigh the disadvantages. The two groups
intersect, but are not identical.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Q From: wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler)
Q Most of the people who use abortion as a birth control method fall into
Q the category of having enough brains and money to not have to use
Q it in the first place.
Q This is one aspect of the pro-choice group that gets me boiling.
Could you please change "aspect" to "subset"? I don't like being
rammed into a pigeonhole with a bunch of smelly birds. Lobbying
for abortion rights is not the same as advocating foolish use OF
those rights.
Q It was full of jars containing both whole and torn apart fetus
Q remains. Nice huh? Is this how it should be? The man broke
Q no laws, but is morality served by this action? Wake up folks.
This is emotionalism. The issue of whether to allow abortions has
nothing to do with improper disposal of the results. Morality doesn't
have anything to do with THIS aspect of abortion, anyway.
(Ex: is morality served by toilet training a child properly or improperly?)
Q Using abortion as a birth control method by those who seem well able
Q to afford other means is criminal and just plain stupid.
Criminal? Legal, but not moral.
Q Abortion has not reduced the birth rate among the poor, but it
Q sure as hell has done a job on the rate for the well off.
(So let 'em keep going, 'til they abort themselves out of existence :-)
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Q This newsgroup's existence at best proves that there is a sizable
Q controversy.
Q Mike Musing
The controversy proves that the issue is not decided one way or
another, and therefore should be left for individual adults to decide.
(Thus "should" be legal. "Is" legal has no bearing on the discussion
ABOUT the discussion.)
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Q From: hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick)
Q The two positions aren't aborting and not aborting. I don't know of any
The issue is one of restricting the actions of others of society.
Some want to restrict actions they don't like. (And they aren't
even being harmed by those actions!)
Others say that the actions under discussion don't harm
society as much as they help society.
Some people believe in freedom: there should be no restrictions
on actions which do not hurt other members of society.
(To those who say that abortion is "hurting another" [or violating
their whatever-given-rights], what about cows? It is alright to
slaughter cows. Why do you have to put an embryo in the same category
as adult, thinking people? Do not base your arguments on the
statement "fetuses have rights, too". People who don't think so
will just say "no they don't", and nothing is accomplished.
Try to base your arguments on what it is that makes you feel that
a fetus should have a right. You might have better luck convincing
others if there is something behind the statements that they
disagree with.)
Q >A fetus before the first trimester (do I have
Q >my laws straight?) is NOT a legal person.
Q No, you don't; there is no such law. The Supreme Court decided
Q that the right
Q of a women to control her body overrode the interests of
Q the state to protect
Q potential citizens for the first two trimesters, but that the state could
Q restrict third trimester abortions. They then through out all existing
Q abortion laws in all 50 states completely.
I didn't say that there was a law saying "a certain age fetus is not
a legal person". What you said will make fetuses not legal people,
in my interpretation. Further discussion should go to net.legal:
"is something legal/illegal if it is not explicitly stated?"
Q These were the laws that society
Q set up, having made its decision on the abortion matter.
Do you have statistics on who actually voted for those laws? It is
possible that legislators and powerful lobbyists wanted the laws,
but not a significant majority of the people. Likewise with the
Supreme Court. "Society" and "legislature" are not quite the same,
unfortunately. (It's a matter of (im:-)practical versus theoretical.)
I know that people aren't all on side of the issue of abortion on the net!
Q The rights of the fetus did not enter into the decision,
Q as whether or not the fetus is a legal person is a grey area.
The decision is WHETHER the fetus should even HAVE rights.
And the Supreme Court ruling doesn't seem grey to me.
Whether a fetus SHOULD have rights is grey.
Q Congress could probably define a legal person,
Q and could probably defend its constitutionality
(Net.abortion is having a hard enough time. Congress now??? :-)
Q Actually, the state legislatures
Q should each produce their own legal definition for their laws.
Q Currently all those born and all corporations are legal persons
Q (just try to abort big blue Q :-)). Please note that fetuses
Q can currently inherit property and have lawsuits filed on their behalf.
Yet you can kill a fetus legally. :-?
It looks like there are many facets to the legal definition of "person".
With different state laws, you could legally murder people, by
crossing state lines and having an abortion.
Q >(That's US. Embryos are OTHERS. They are not us.
Q
Q How about those under age 18? They have no legal voice.
Q Does this mean we can start putting them to sleep just
Q like are dogs once we decide it's OK? This
Q ain't my idea of a solution for problem children.
Do you think it's ok for me to put YOUR dogs to sleep just like
they are dogs, and I decide it's OK? Just because people under 18
are not us doesn't mean that we therefore have decided to show
zippo concern for them.
People under 18 are not members of the lawmaking society.
(I mean those who may participate in making the rules. Not just Congress)
They are of course members of "our society" in other ways.
WE give people under 18 some rights, because WE think it is good
to do so. The special thing about people under 18 is that they BECOME
(complete) members of our society eventually.
I perceive childhood as a time when one goes from zero rights and
zero responsibilities to complete rights and responsibilities.
(arbitrarily pinned down at 18 years, in the US, with ethanol excluded)
I perceive the parents to have the bulk of control over when various
rights and responsibilities are given, but society has decided when
some of the more important rights should be given.
Q >Then the proper course is to allow, but not require abortions.
Q Who ever suggested requiring them?
I was just lumping "requiring" with "forbidding", as both are
restrictions upon other members of society. (Maybe I was hoping to find
an aspect of abortion most of us would agree upon :-)
Q >To require or forbid abortions is to impose the desires of
Q >some members of society upon all the members, as if the decision
Q >really had been made. This is tyranny.
Q
Q 1. The decision had been made. Nine men on the Supreme Court
Q tossed out that
Q which had been decided.
Q
Q 2. Once you write to you legislature demanding the repeal of the
Q 14th and 15th
Q ammendments, demand the repeal of the civil rights act of 1965 and all laws
Q against discrimination in the workplace, I'll take your tyranny argument
Q seriously. Until then, forget it.
Q rick (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC)
I think we're talking numbers here. In my quoted quote, "some" means
less than the number we agree is enough to determine an issue.
"all" means that number. Your point number one has two "unknowns" in it,
the number of people making the laws/constitution upon which the
Supreme Court based their interpretations, and the number of people in
"it has been decided".
Your number two point is silly. Such laws are supported by the
number of people we have decided is enough. (or were when they
got passed, for sure)
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianphawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) (09/12/84)
>Q From: hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) >Q The two positions aren't aborting and not aborting. I don't know of any > >The issue is one of restricting the actions of others of society. >Some want to restrict actions they don't like. (And they aren't >even being harmed by those actions!) I also want to restrict rape, murder, and a handful of other things that aren't harming me. >Q These were the laws that society >Q set up, having made its decision on the abortion matter. >Do you have statistics on who actually voted for those laws? It is >possible that legislators and powerful lobbyists wanted the laws, >but not a significant majority of the people. Likewise with the >Supreme Court. "Society" and "legislature" are not quite the same, >unfortunately. (It's a matter of (im:-)practical versus theoretical.) >I know that people aren't all on side of the issue of abortion on the net! OK. Just what is a legislature for? And how are you proposing that we settle this. What are we paying them (the legislators) for anyway? They are the established way of dealing with these situations, and dealt with the situation in the established way. >>Q The rights of the fetus did not enter into the decision, >>Q as whether or not the fetus is a legal person is a grey area. >>The decision is WHETHER the fetus should even HAVE rights. >>And the Supreme Court ruling doesn't seem grey to me. >>Whether a fetus SHOULD have rights is grey. That's the decision that *should* have been made. The text of Roe v. Wade talks of the mothers right to privacy (yes, that's the right the decision was based on) and the rights of the state. The right to privacy came from a previous court ruling in which it threw out a state's (Mass?) prohibition of birth control, saying (wording not exact) that "In matters as fundamentally personal as whether or not to bear a child the individual must be free from the intervention of the state." >Q Congress could probably define a legal person, >Q and could probably defend its constitutionality > >(Net.abortion is having a hard enough time. Congress now??? :-) Congress is charged with certain duties relating to the people. It's reasonable for congress to define who this means. >Q Actually, the state legislatures >Q should each produce their own legal definition for their laws. >Q Currently all those born and all corporations are legal persons >Q (just try to abort big blue Q :-)). Please note that fetuses >Q can currently inherit property and have lawsuits filed on their behalf. >Yet you can kill a fetus legally. :-? You got it, Batman. >It looks like there are many facets to the legal definition of "person". >With different state laws, you could legally murder people, by >crossing state lines and having an abortion. There are different state laws on most topics right now. Teenagers drive from one state to another to get drunk. Anyway, unless the federal government can demonstrate constitutional grounds for producing a nationwide law, it simply can't. The tenth ammendment to the United States Constitution gives all powers not listed to the states and people. Varying state laws are a consequence of this. (Although perhaps crossing a state line in order to avoid state laws should be a federal offense.) >Q >(That's US. Embryos are OTHERS. They are not us. >Q >Q How about those under age 18? They have no legal voice. >Q Does this mean we can start putting them to sleep just >Q like are dogs once we decide it's OK? This >Q ain't my idea of a solution for problem children. >Do you think it's ok for me to put YOUR dogs to sleep just like >they are dogs, and I decide it's OK? So I can put my children to sleep, but not yours? >Just because people under 18 >are not us doesn't mean that we therefore have decided to show >zippo concern for them. But do show zippo concern for those who haven't been born yet. >Q >To require or forbid abortions is to impose the desires of >Q >some members of society upon all the members, as if the decision >Q >really had been made. This is tyranny. >Q >Q 1. The decision had been made. Nine men on the Supreme Court >Q tossed out that >Q which had been decided. >Q >Q 2. Once you write to you legislature demanding the repeal of the >Q 14th and 15th >Q ammendments, demand the repeal of the civil rights act of 1965 and all laws >Q against discrimination in the workplace, I'll take your tyranny argument >Q seriously. Until then, forget it. >Q rick (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) >I think we're talking numbers here. In my quoted quote, "some" means >less than the number we agree is enough to determine an issue. >"all" means that number. Your point number one has two "unknowns" in it, >the number of people making the laws/constitution upon which the >Supreme Court based their interpretations, and the number of people in >"it has been decided". >Your number two point is silly. Such laws are supported by the >number of people we have decided is enough. (or were when they >got passed, for sure) Silly? The abortion laws that the supreme court through out met your criteria. As for point one, if the established quorum, in this case the state legislatures, is not enough of a "some," then what is? >Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp > -- rick (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk