kenn@sdccsu3.UUCP (06/22/84)
[] From: ...mit-eddie!nessus (Doug Alan) Ah! The newsgroup is coming alive again. It's been so long I was worried it was log-jamming up somewhere or slipped to the ol' bit-bucket. Nice to see some news again folks! I'm going to stick this reply into news instead of mail for some more reading material to flourish. I'll start sending replies as usual once business picks up. I don't know if you are a new entree or not, Doug. Most of my comments are the old, standard remarks 'n questions most of us have already seen before. Try to answer them, though, I'd like to hear some different opinions. Anyway, quoting you: > An abortion is either murder or it isn't. Something can't be murder > from only one person's point of view. It depends on what you consider valid points of view. The Nazis and the Americans had different points of view. Pro- and Anti-abortionists have different points of view. Abortion isn't murder from the Pro-abortionists' point of view. So, since something can't be murder from only one person's point of view, does it make abortion not murder? Or does the "can't be murder" phrase mean that the pro-abortionists have an invalid point of view? Or or or? Confusing, huh? I think that second sentence is wrong. The first is subject to opinion. > If abortion is murder then it shouldn't be allowed whether or not the child > will be wanted. Interesting. What do you call the execution of a criminal? Should executions not be allowed whether or not the criminal is wanted? What about the criminal's mother and girlfriend, and the husband of the woman he murdered? > You can't legally murder someone just because no one likes him. On the other > hand, if abortion isn't murder, then the father should have no say in > the matter (legally). It's not his body. Ah yes, the black-and-white opinion. Nope. Wrong. Incorrect. Lack of sufficent information. If you make the abortion decision concernt only the slice of time of the decision, you are forgetting how that baby came to be, and what it will become. The baby couldn't be around without the father. If society demands for to marry the unwed mother, or to pay for (some or all) of the abortion, he should be included into the abortion decision. Perhaps the woman should have veto power, since she'll most likely be stuck with the baby (it's her body), but the man should have some input. What do you mean by "(legally)"? > (By the way, abortion isn't murder for the same reason that eating a > carrot isn't murder -- neither carrots nor fetuses are intelligent.) I do not believe intelligence has anything to do with it. Human vegetables are as intelligent as the Safeway variety, and a 'murder' is legal for just one of them. Kenn the Kenf ...!sdcsvax!kenn ...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192 ...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (06/22/84)
() > From: kenn@sdccsu3.UUCP > Abortion isn't murder from the Pro-abortionists' point of view. > So, since something can't be murder from only one person's point > of view, does it make abortion not murder? Or does the "can't > be murder" phrase mean that the pro-abortionists have an invalid > point of view? Or or or? Confusing, huh? I think that second > sentence is wrong. The first is subject to opinion. I was responding to someone who said that if a fetus he fathered was aborted then it would be murder, but if a fetus someone else fathered was aborted, then it would not be murder. Murder doesn't work like that. Murder is when one person purposely denies another person his right to life. 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 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. In my opinion, what makes something a person is intelligence > What do you call the execution of a criminal? Should executions > not be allowed whether or not the criminal is wanted? What > about the criminal's mother and girlfriend, and the husband of > the woman he murdered? 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. My opinion about criminals: Capital punishment is wrong. All punishment is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. The purpose of the justice system is to protect peoples' rights. If this involves putting a criminal in jail, this should be done to protect society -- not to punish the criminal. > The baby couldn't be around without the father. If society > demands for to marry the unwed mother, or to pay for (some or > all) of the abortion, he should be included into the abortion > decision. Perhaps the woman should have veto power, since > she'll most likely be stuck with the baby (it's her body), but > the man should have some input. What do you mean by > "(legally)"? Practically, the fetus couldn't be around without the father. Theoretically, the fetus could be. The father has only provided information (in the form of DNA) that is used to construct the fetus. This information could theoretically have been generated in any number of ways. Fathers shouldn't be forced to marry an unwed mother. Neither should he be forced to pay for an abortion. The woman made the decision to have sex, and knew the risks and benefits. The responsibilty for the fetus lies with her. On the other hand, it should be soley the woman's decision whether or not to abort the fetus. I'm not saying that the woman shouldn't listen to the father's opinion nor that the father shouldn't feel some responsibility and offer his help and opinion, but that in the eyes of the law the fate of the fetus should be left up to the woman. > I do not believe intelligence has anything to do with it. Human > vegetables are as intelligent as the Safeway variety, and a > 'murder' is legal for just one of them. 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. 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? -- -Doug Alan mit-eddie!nessus Nessus@MIT-MC "What does 'I' mean"?
07077090@sdccsu3.UUCP (06/23/84)
I fail to understand your use of intelligence as the criterion for the right to exist (i.e. not to be deprived of life at another's discretion). Intelligence can be defined as more or less the ability to learn new information or behaviors and is present in varying degrees in both humans and other lifeforms. I'm pretty sure a two-year-old chimpanzee would beat most six-month old babies in an intelligence test, and certainly a newborn child cannot be said to be more "intelligent" than any adult mammal. Are you referring to some quality other than what most people call intelligence, or are you implying that there is a minimum IQ required to merit the status of "sapiens"? Mike Blyth UCSD Med Schl