brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (08/25/84)
Now you'll note I didn't say it proves that abortion is good or bad, simply that it should be legal. The existence of net.abortion proves one thing. That there is a large controversy over the issue. It shows there are two large camps on either side, with some sitting in the middle. It shows plainly that the issues involved are intangible and highly subject to debate. Now the maxim of a free society is to err on the side of freedom in a situation can can't be clearly decided. No matter how much one side may claim it, the issue isn't "obvious." Thus the law is not competent to judge on this issue. Only individuals are. When there is no proof, it is not the province of the law to interfere. The maxim of the law is "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." This rule requires the unanimous decision of 12 peers of the accused. It's clear that this would normally never happen except in a clearly biased jury. So if you believe in the free society legal system, and the maxim stated above, you must conclude that abortion should be legal. You need not state it is moral. You may campaign with vigour against it. You may take steps to ensure public money is not used. But you may not make it illegal -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ontario (519) 884-7473
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/27/84)
>(Brad Templeton) >Now you'll note I didn't say it proves that abortion is good or bad, >simply that it should be legal. But are you then saying that the question of whether something is good or bad is irrelevant to whether or not it should be legal? >The existence of net.abortion proves one thing. That there is a large >controversy over the issue. It shows there are two large camps on either >side, with some sitting in the middle. It shows plainly that the issues >involved are intangible and highly subject to debate. Are the issues really intangible? I think they are so only to those who want them to be. Maybe the existence of net.abortion proves that there are some to those people around too. >Now the maxim of a free society is to err on the side of freedom in a >situation can can't be clearly decided. No matter how much one side may >claim it, the issue isn't "obvious." The assumption here is that both sides of the issue are clearly, and without bias, presented to the public. The issue certainly is not as obvious as night and day. But it doesn't follow that the issue cannot be resolved or that the difficulty is inherent in the issue itself. Whose freedom do we err on the side of? The "reproductive freedom" of certain men and women, or any freedom at all for the unborn? > >Thus the law is not competent to judge on this issue. Only individuals >are. When there is no proof, it is not the province of the law to >interfere. The maxim of the law is "innocent until proven guilty beyond >a reasonable doubt." I disagree that there is no proof. I think there is sufficient evidence to consider the fetus a human being. I would think that the burden of proof to the contrary should rest on those who want to kill it as part of their freedom of choice. Something like "human until proven not a human beyond a reasonable doubt". Have abortion rights been won on the basis of such proof? I think not. The court cases that struck down abortion laws did not even consider the issue, only the rights of the woman. > >This rule requires the unanimous decision of 12 peers of the accused. >It's clear that this would normally never happen except in a clearly >biased jury. What do you mean by "normally never happen"? > >So if you believe in the free society legal system, and the maxim stated >above, you must conclude that abortion should be legal. I believe that freedom carries with it the responsibility to uphold the legitimate rights of others. I don't think your conclusion follows from your premises. >You need not state it is moral. So can we say it is immoral? >You may campaign with vigour against it. You may >take steps to ensure public money is not used. There are some who think that lack of government funds for abortion inhibits the choice of poor women. Although many of them are "personally opposed" to abortion, they are publically in favor of all of us (even others who are personally opposed) personally helping to pay for abortions through our personal income taxes. (Lot of "personal" stuff there.) >But you may not make it illegal If someone thinks they have good reason for thinking that abortion is the killing of humans who have a right to live, I wouldn't blame them in the least for trying to make it illegal. How can you? -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)
simard@loral.UUCP (08/28/84)
>Now you'll note I didn't say it proves that abortion is good or bad, >simply that it should be legal. > >The existence of net.abortion proves one thing. That there is a large >controversy over the issue. It shows there are two large camps on either >side, with some sitting in the middle. It shows plainly that the issues >involved are intangible and highly subject to debate. > >Now the maxim of a free society is to err on the side of freedom in a >situation can can't be clearly decided. No matter how much one side may >claim it, the issue isn't "obvious." If we were talking about something confined to adult human experience, I might agree. But to "err on the side of freedom" in this case is to accept the notion of the freedom to live, to exist. Such a position precludes abortion. It seems to me that the reason a person convicted of a crime and sentenced to death is not led immediately from the courtroom to the execution site (which would be least costly, not doubt) but instead usually lanugishes on Death Row somewhere for a long time is the awesome burden of assuring that the person is not the victim of a mistaken verdict. Time is allowed for evidence of such to surface and be presented. Such is the respect we, as a civilization, afford the idea of human life. Charles Manson, and those of his followers still loyal to him, are not particularly welcome in open society, and they have never contested the accusations against them. Yet they are still alive. If we are willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to such as they to preserve our ideal of respecting life, why do we so casually deny the same "error on the side of freedom" to the unborn, guilty of nothing but that of which we all are: existing? -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard
hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) (08/28/84)
Yeah, and the existence of net.women proves that discrinination against women should be legal, and the need for the fourteenth and fifteenth ammendments proves that racial discrimination should be legal, and the existence of net.motss proves that discrimination against homosexuals should be legal, and . . . -- rick (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk
cher@ihuxi.UUCP (Mike Musing) (08/28/84)
No. There can be net.pot coexisting with laws against marijuana.
Something can be outlawed just on basis of the vague notion of
public interest.
This newsgroup's existence at best proves that there is a sizable
controversy.
Mike Musing
ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (08/29/84)
Mike Musing says: "There can be net.pot coexisting with laws against marijuana." He is right, of course, but that has no bearing on the title of this article. Just because marijuana is illegal doesn't mean it should be. If net.pot existed, it would indeed be a strong argument that marijuana should be legal. --Andrew Koenig PS: I do not want to get into the issue of whether or not marijuana should be legal. People who know my political views can probably predict what I would say about it anyway.