kenn@sdccsu3.UUCP (06/30/84)
From: ...mit-eddie!nessus (Doug Alan) > I was responding to someone who said ... If you respond to something, please include it in as basenotes!!! I thought you went off on an idle tangent to talk about your definitions of the world. Also, > Murder is when one person purposely denies another person his right to life. Please keep in mind who you are talking for. The above is your opinion, not everyone's definition. There is none that is everyone's. I could argue with that. I won't, though, it'll just be an endless circle. Keep in mind that any arguements you base solely on your own opinion are just as valid or invalid as what the world thinks of your opinion. And if you're trying to argue with some of us... At least, start out with something that we would agree with! > Denying a fetus its right to life would be murder, even if the parents > don't want it. On the other hand, if a fetus is a not person, then > killing it is not murder, even if the father wants it to be born. The > strongest argument that can be made in this case is perhaps that the > father is being denied something that belongs partially to him. But > this isn't murder. You are trying to argue two points as once here, both confusing. What does the father's opinion of the abortion have to do with the abortion being or not being murder? You started out arguing that abortion may be murder and ended up that it wasn't murder to ignore the father's opinion. Consistent, really consistent. Can I suggest you re-read your entire article throughly before you post it? Sometimes you can catch paragraphs like the above. > In my opinion, what makes something a person is intelligence This is a fresh opinion, however. Go into it a little more, will you? Sounds interesting, if not scheduled for immediate acceptance by the net.. > Some people will claim that a criminal has given up his right to life by > committing a crime and therefore killing him isn't murder. But a fetus > has never done anything, and therefore can't have given up its right to > life. There is a thing in our list of punishable crimes that is called something like "Planned Murder"; something that allows a police officer to arrest someone who is suspected of scheming to murder a person. Maybe not suspected, maybe not scheming, but along those lines -- a murder in the future. Presently you've just talking about the fetus, what is being done to it, it's right to life, etc. Let's talk about the parents if/when the child arrives: Money -- has to pay for hospital fees, child-rearing, school, food, etc. Time -- someone has to take care of the child, do things with him/her/them, etc. Change in status -- if it's their first kid. They are 'Parents' now. There are more, less suble and somewhat less drastic, but the above are enough for my example. What happens if the parents cannot afford one of the above? Cutting back on expenses, one or both of the working parent(s) cannot work as much anymore, social pressures and obligations for the child, etc. Not quite death, but depending on the circumstances it could ruin a life or two. Not quite murder, but enough of a potential damage that it should be considered. I consider it enough cause to let the parents decide if they want to go through all this. How about you? > My opinion about criminals: ... This is net.abortion. If you want to argue on everything you can include in one article go to net.flame, or send me mail. > The woman made the decision to have sex, and knew the risks and benefits. > The responsibilty for the fetus lies with her. You can take this opinion, FUCK OFF, AND DIE. When you finally have sex, maybe you'll learn it takes two to decide. Most normal men won't drop their pants as soon as someone whispers "I want it" in their ear. > ... but that in the eyes of the law the fate of the fetus should be left up > to the woman. Let's have some consistency in your arguements!! So what happens if the mother decides to have the abortion? Is that murder? You just said above it will be legal -- is it legal murder? > In my opinion, it isn't murder to kill a human vegetable. In fact, > someone who pulls the plug on a human who has suffered brain death and > is costing millions in life support gets my vote as doing a great favor > to society. In someone's else opinion, he felt he was doing the world a favor killing off an entire race. You two have picked different targets but have both decided that what you did was a favor. > If intelligence has nothing to do with it, then is puposely and unfairly > killing an intelligent Martian (let's assume for the moment that they > exist) murder? I think so. If it's not, why not? If it is murder, > then why is it? I didn't say intelligence has nothing to do with it. I said it wasn't all that had to do with it. Just because something isn't intelligent as we are, it's not our open license to kill it. There are many, many reasons not to kill something, and perhaps almost as many lying around to kill it. Take all the protected species's, for example. It's not legal to kill the Bald Eagle. Yet it is nowhere as intelligent as the Ok-to-kill chimpanzee. Perhaps there is another factor involved? >>>-FLAMES-<<< In another of your replies, you berated someone to stooping to personal attack. Yet you later said, "At least I don't come from a computer call smurf!" You insulted his employment opportunities, called him irrational. Practice what you preach, Dougie-poo. You have an incredible lack of flowing logic in your arguements, you state your opinions without *ANY* mentioning of their basis or explanations, you stick in tangent topics into your arguements and end up arguing for both at the same time, perhaps hoping that if we will agree to one we'll concede on the other. You may or may not be a Freshman, but you've definetly got the mentality. >>>-DEFLAMES-<<< If you want to argue successfully here, Doug, you're going to have to realize you are arguing with people. People that have to be convinced through some means, and I personally doubt any brute-force method with your opinions are going to work. Maybe it will. But I doubt it. Try logic. Cool, slow, referenced and well-explained logic. I won't argue with it. Not too many people do. We'll point out where you may have take a wrong turn here and there and you can try again, but just saying "it is so" ain't going to do too much. You have argued with some logic, but not too well, and, in some cases, completely missing what the logic was called for! My suggestion: Re-read your postings before posting them. Check your logic and thinking and try to think from a stranger's point of view. From the good ol' abstract "average person"'s point of view. Not point of opinion, but point of view. Try to argue your topics in ways we can understand them. Good Luck. Kenn the Kenf ...!sdcsvax!kenn ...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192 ...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (07/07/84)
From: kenn@sdccsu3.UUCP > From: ...mit-eddie!nessus (Doug Alan) >> Murder is when one person purposely denies another >> person his right to life. > Please keep in mind who you are talking for. The above is your > opinion, not everyone's definition. There is none that is > everyone's. I could argue with that. I won't, though, it'll > just be an endless circle. Keep in mind that any arguements you > base solely on your own opinion are just as valid or invalid as > what the world thinks of your opinion. And if you're trying to > argue with some of us... At least, start out with something > that we would agree with! For someone who critcizes my logic so much, you seem to have a very poor understanding of logic! A false axiom does not make an argument "invalid", it merely means the conclusion might be false. This of course, might be just as fatal to a proof, but please get your terminology straight. Also, I'm not trying to prove anything. You can't do that with ethics. In any case, I doubt that there's anything that everybody would agree with. I thought that that my definition of murder would be fairly uncontrovertial. If you have what you think is a better one, please tell us, rather than just waffling. >> Denying a fetus its right to life would be murder, even >> if the parents don't want it. On the other hand, if a >> fetus is not a person, then killing it is not murder, >> even if the father wants it to be born. The strongest >> argument that can be made in this case is perhaps that >> the father is being denied something that belongs >> partially to him. But this isn't murder. You have left off an important sentence of what I said. Have you taken any training at the National Enquirer School of Journalism? This is how my quote should read: "If a fetus is a person, then it has a right to life. Denying a fetus its right to life would be murder, even if the parents don't want it. On the other hand, if a fetus is not a person, then killing it is not murder, even if the father wants it to be born. The strongest argument that can be made in this case is perhaps that the father is being denied something that belongs partially to him. But this isn't murder." > You are trying to argue two points as once here, both confusing. I think what I said is perfectly clear. > What does the father's opinion of the abortion have to do with > the abortion being or not being murder? Absolutley nothing! > You started out arguing that abortion may be murder and ended up > that it wasn't murder to ignore the father's opinion. I did not. > Consistent, really consistent. Of course. I'm always consistent! Or at least usually. I think. > Can I suggest you re-read your entire article throughly before > you post it? Sometimes you can catch paragraphs like the above. Can I suggest that you re-read my entire article thoroughly (not "throughly") before you reply to it. Sometimes you can make sense out of something if you use your brain. I'll tell you what -- I'll give you the condensed, simplified, baby-food version of what I said: If a fetus is a person then it can be murdered. If a fetus is not a person then it cannot be murdered. Whether or not a parent wants the fetus to be born has no bearing on whether killing the fetus is murder. >> In my opinion, what makes something a person is >> intelligence > This is a fresh opinion, however. Go into it a little more, > will you? Sounds interesting, if not scheduled for immediate > acceptance by the net.. The way I have come to this conclusion is through intuition and analogy. What things should we consider persons? Well, we might at first think that a person is anything that is of the species Homo Sapiens. Our laws deal with the rights of these things called "persons". Things that aren't persons, such as animals, plants, and inanimate objects, don't have these rights. You can kill an animal or a plant, but you can't murder one. Maybe a person then is anything that has these rights. But is it merely because we are members of the species Homo Sapiens that we have these rights? What is it about members of the species Homo Sapiens that give them these rights, while members of other species don't have these rights? What if we discovered another species that was intelligent? What if we found another species that had developed a technically advanced society somewhere else in the universe. Would members of this species have the same rights? I think so -- I would say a member of such a species is a person. What about someone who has been decapitated in an accident and has no head, but whose body (minus a head) is being kept alive by some sophisticated equipment? Does this headless Homo Sapiens have the same rights as other members of Homo Sapiens? I think not. The person is dead. The body may still be alive, but the person isn't. So what factor do things that have rights all have in common this is missing from all things that don't have rights? What do most members of Homo Sapiens and intelligent aliens have in common that is missing from animals, plants, inanimate objects, headless members of Homo Sapiens? Intelligence. With intelligence comes rights. With intelligence comes personhood. > Presently you've just talking about the fetus, what is being > done to it, it's right to life, etc. Let's talk about the > parents if/when the child arrives: > Money -- has to pay for hospital fees, child-rearing, school, > food, etc. > Time -- someone has to take care of the child, do things with > him/her/them, etc. > Change in status -- if it's their first kid. They are 'Parents' > now. > There are more, less suble and somewhat less drastic, but the > above are enough for my example. What happens if the parents > cannot afford one of the above? Cutting back on expenses, one > or both of the working parent(s) cannot work as much anymore, > social pressures and obligations for the child, etc. Not quite > death, but depending on the circumstances it could ruin a life > or two. Not quite murder, but enough of a potential damage that > it should be considered. > I consider it enough cause to let the parents decide if they > want to go through all this. How about you? I believe that a pregnant woman should be able to decide whether or not she wants an abortion because I believe that a fetus does not have a right to life because it is not a person because it is not intelligent. If I believed that a fetus were a person and had the same rights, then I would believe that abortion should not be allowed in any case where the mother had sex voluntarily. Let's try out an analogy using a hypothetical example in a hypothetical world where all colleges are expensive and one cannot get a good job without a college degree. It's time for Sam to go to college, but Sam's parents can't afford to send Sam to college. Moreover thay have come upon bad times and can't afford to support Sam any more. They know that if they just send Sam out into the world that Sam will live a poor, miserable life. They decide that the best thing for Sam is to put Sam out of his misery so that Sam's and their lives won't be ruined. If a fetus is a person, then aborting a fetus is as bad as killing Sam. >> My opinion about criminals: ... > This is net.abortion. If you want to argue on everything you > can include in one article go to net.flame, or send me mail. Cut it with the crap! You asked me a question, so I answered it. Don't ask questions if you are going to complain when they are answered! >> The woman made the decision to have sex, and knew the >> risks and benefits. The responsibilty for the fetus >> lies with her. > You can take this opinion, FUCK OFF, AND DIE. You can take this opinion, FUCK OFF, AND DIE. > When you finally have sex, maybe you'll learn it takes two to > decide. Most normal men won't drop their pants as soon as > someone whispers "I want it" in their ear. Could you please refrain from telling me what I have done and what I will do, when you haven't really the slightest idea. Sex is a voluntary activity. No one has to have sex. As with any voluntary activity, each individual should be willing to take full responsibility for what happens to him or her. I would not have sex with a woman without using some sort of birth control, unless she wanted to become pregnant. I would worry about birth control not because I feel that I would have a responsibility in the matter, but because I would CARE about what happens to any woman that I would care enough about to have sex with. But there is a difference between caring about what happens and being responsible for what happens. If a woman I were to have sex with were to get pregnant (despite birth control), I wouldn't try to force her into any decision, though I would tell her my opinion if she asked. If she wanted an abortion, I would help her through it and help pay for it, not because I felt responsible, but because I would care about her. If she decided to have the baby, I would not feel that I had the responsibility to marry her and help raise the child. I would only do either if I wanted to and she wanted me to. >> ... but that in the eyes of the law the fate of the fetus should be >> left up to the woman. > Let's have some consistency in your arguements!! So what > happens if the mother decides to have the abortion? Is that > murder? You just said above it will be legal -- is it legal > murder? I'm being perfectly consistent. Abortion isn't murder because a fetus isn't a person. If a fetus were a person then it should be illegal to abort a fetus. Since a fetus is not a person, the fate of the fetus should be decided by the mother. >> In my opinion, it isn't murder to kill a human >> vegetable. In fact, someone who pulls the plug on a >> human who has suffered brain death and is costing >> millions in life support gets my vote as doing a great >> favor to society. > In someone's else opinion, he felt he was doing the world a > favor killing off an entire race. You two have picked different > targets but have both decided that what you did was a favor. Here, here for a well thought out, rational, logical, reasonable argument! For someone who criticizes my logic so much, pray tell me where the flowing logic and well substantiated argument for this association is. >> If intelligence has nothing to do with it, then is >> puposely and unfairly killing an intelligent Martian >> (let's assume for the moment that they exist) murder? I >> think so. If it's not, why not? If it is murder, then >> why is it? > I didn't say intelligence has nothing to do with it. I said it > wasn't all that had to do with it. Just because something isn't > intelligent as we are, it's not our open license to kill it. > There are many, many reasons not to kill something, and perhaps > almost as many lying around to kill it. Take all the protected > species's, for example. It's not legal to kill the Bald Eagle. > Yet it is nowhere as intelligent as the Ok-to-kill chimpanzee. > Perhaps there is another factor involved? I didn't say you have liscence to kill something just because it isn't intelligent. It just isn't "murder" to kill something that isn't intelligent. It isn't murder to kill a dog. It isn't murder to kill a bald eagle. It isn't murder to kill a fetus. That doesn't mean you should go around killing dogs, bald eagles, and fetuses for the fun of it. But if killing one of these things will prevent someone's life from being ruined, then it should be done. On the other hand, murder should never be committed to prevent someone's life from being ruined. > In another of your replies, you berated someone to stooping to > personal attack. No I didn't. I berated him for resorting to personal attack rather than addressing the issue. I never said that it wan't okay to use personal attacks as long as the issue is also addressed, which is what I did. Again you show that you read what you want me to say rather than what I have said. > Yet you later said, "At least I don't come from a computer call > smurf!" You insulted his employment opportunities, called him > irrational. Practice what you preach, Dougie-poo. Once again you show your lack of reading abilities. I insulted him before berating him, not afterwards. I see nothing wrong with insulting someone, especially if it is just giving them a taste of their own medicine. I rarely insult someone, though, unless they have insulted me first. > You have an incredible lack of flowing logic in your > arguements.... So do you! Practice what you preach, Kennie-poo. Besides, there a lot more than just logic to philosophy. Logic only deals with a very limited domain. It is a useful tool, but you can't do much with logic alone. You certainly can't deal with ethics with logic alone. There are many other types of reasoning that can and should be used: mathematics, scientific induction, analogy, legal reasoning, intuition, etc. > You may or may not be a Freshman, but you've definetly got the > mentality. Gee, I've got a minor in philosophy, and only once got less than an A on a philosophy paper. How come none of the philosophy professors told me this? Actually I think it is you with the Freshman mantality. It is you who have insulted me without provocation. > If you want to argue successfully here, Doug, you're going to > have to realize you are arguing with people. I have my doubts about that sometimes. > People that have to be convinced through some means, and I > personally doubt any brute-force method with your opinions are > going to work. Maybe it will. But I doubt it. Try logic. > Cool, slow, referenced and well-explained logic. I won't argue > with it. Not too many people do. We'll point out where you may > have take a wrong turn here and there and you can try again, but > just saying "it is so" ain't going to do too much. You have > argued with some logic, but not too well, and, in some cases, > completely missing what the logic was called for! Books could be written about this subject without dealing with it completely. This is an interactive medium. If I threw a Mathematica Principia at you about abortion would you read it? Of course not? So I give you an outline. That way you can decide what parts look interesting and ask me more about that part if you don't understand it completely. I assume some intelligence on the part of the reader to think for themself, rather than spood feeding them everything. I have presented a very good reason for why a person is anything that is intelligent. It is based on intuition, analogy, logic, and legal reasoning (which is reasoning by generalizing from examples). If you don't accept these forms of reasoning then ~(x)~(~(y)~ (Dead(x) & Goat(x) & Sdcvax!kenn(y) -> Blows(y,x)))! > My suggestion: Re-read your postings before posting them. > Check your logic and thinking and try to think from a stranger's > point of view. From the good ol' abstract "average person"'s > point of view. Not point of opinion, but point of view. Try to > argue your topics in ways we can understand them. My suggestion: Re-read someone's postings before replying to them. Think about what they are saying. Use your brain to help you figure out concepts that are sometimes difficult. Don't let the fact that the average person doesn't have the capability nor the desire to understand these concepts discourage you. Try to open your mind to new concepts so that you can understand them. Good luck. -- -Doug Alan mit-eddie!nessus Nessus@MIT-MC "What does 'I' mean"?