susan@madvax.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) (09/09/86)
That's not the issue. I have never met, nor even heard of anyone
who got pregnant so that she could get an abortion. Once a woman
is pregnant there is *NO* easy way out. Planned or unplanned,
wanted or unwanted, if I am pregnant it's my body
and my choice.
Susan Finkelman
{zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!susanpase@ogcvax.UUCP (Douglas M. Pase) (09/13/86)
In article <madvax.444> susan@madvax.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) writes: > >Once a woman is pregnant there is *NO* easy way out. Planned or unplanned, >wanted or unwanted, if I am pregnant it's my body and my choice. > That's like saying "If I have a child it's my child and my choice..." Seriously though, folks, the fact is, we don't always have total choice over what we do to/with our own bodies. For example, we are not allowed to pump our veins full of controlled substances. (I'm not arguing what we have the ABILITY to do, only our LEGAL/MORAL responsibilities.) We're not allowed to use our bodies for prostitution, or to hurt other people. We are all responsible for our own actions. Everyone has the freedom to choose whether or not to have a child. That freedom is exercised when a couple chooses to have or not have sexual intercourse (birth control aside). Certainly it is your body and your choice, but your choice should be exercised before the child is conceived, not after. We are all able to choose our actions, but not the consequences of our actions. Suppose we say abortions are moral. Suppose we allow abortions for convenience. "It's too inconvenient for me to be pregnant right now, I think I'll have an abortion." I see no vast difference between that and "It's too inconvenient for me to have children right now, I think I'll terminate my 2 year old." You may argue that the 2 year old is a person and the fetus is not (which in my opinion is mere semantic drivel), but certainly they are both alive. The major issue here is "at what stage does a human life aquire the right to remain alive?" Under what conditions does one's right to life supercede the convenience of another? I don't recall the Bill of Rights mentioning anywhere a "right to a convenient life". I do recall a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Immediately following conception, a child is not capable of sustaining its own life independently, but then neither are infants or young children. The difference is only one of degree. -- Doug Pase -- ...ucbvax!tektronix!ogcvax!pase or pase@Oregon-Grad
david@tekig5.UUCP (David Hayes) (09/16/86)
In article <1091@ogcvax.UUCP> pase@ogcvax.UUCP (Douglas M. Pase) writes: >In article <madvax.444> susan@madvax.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) writes: >> >>Once a woman is pregnant there is *NO* easy way out. Planned or unplanned, >>wanted or unwanted, if I am pregnant it's my body and my choice. >> > >That's like saying "If I have a child it's my child and my choice..." No, no, Doug, that is not what she is saying. She is saying no one has the right to control her body, not the fetus, and especially not you. >Seriously though, folks, the fact is, we don't always have total choice >over what we do to/with our own bodies. For example, we are not allowed >to pump our veins full of controlled substances. (I'm not arguing what we >have the ABILITY to do, only our LEGAL/MORAL responsibilities.) We're not >allowed to use our bodies for prostitution, or to hurt other people. I agree about hurting other people, but you can get a real debate on the other two. > >We are all responsible for our own actions. Everyone has the freedom to >choose whether or not to have a child. That freedom is exercised when a couple >chooses to have or not have sexual intercourse (birth control aside). Certainly This assumes all birth control is 100% effective? Geez, another one from the "teach the little bitch a lesson camp". >it is your body and your choice, but your choice should be exercised before the >child is conceived, not after. We are all able to choose our actions, but not >the consequences of our actions. > >Suppose we say abortions are moral. Suppose we allow abortions for convenience. >"It's too inconvenient for me to be pregnant right now, I think I'll have an >abortion." I see no vast difference between that and "It's too inconvenient >for me to have children right now, I think I'll terminate my 2 year old." You >may argue that the 2 year old is a person and the fetus is not (which in my >opinion is mere semantic drivel), but certainly they are both alive. Finally some sense, it is YOUR OPINION. Not semantic drivel, just drivel. I see no vast difference in a fetus or a two year old either. One is inside of, or part of the mother, the other separately viable. One is dependant solely on the mother, the other is not. Concerns affecting the 2 year old do not physically affect the mother. The mother is solely responsible for that fetus for everything, accept, of course, is she doesn't want it. > >The major issue here is "at what stage does a human life aquire the right to >remain alive?" Under what conditions does one's right to life supercede the I would say at the point it can survive on its own. And it is not "ones" right to life, since there are probably not a lot of fetuses reading the net. How about a fetuses right to life. >convenience of another? I don't recall the Bill of Rights mentioning anywhere >a "right to a convenient life". I do recall a right to "life, liberty and the >pursuit of happiness". > >Immediately following conception, a child is not capable of sustaining its own >life independently, but then neither are infants or young children. The >difference is only one of degree. This is also what I have been trying to tell you. The degree you speak of is that following conception only the mother can care for the fetus, after birth, probably 90% of the adults in this world can sustain a childs life. dave >-- >Doug Pase -- ...ucbvax!tektronix!ogcvax!pase or pase@Oregon-Grad
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (09/17/86)
> > In article <madvax.444> susan@madvax.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) writes: > That's like saying "If I have a child it's my child and my choice..." > Seriously though, folks, the fact is, we don't always have total choice > over what we do to/with our own bodies. For example, we are not allowed > to pump our veins full of controlled substances. (I'm not arguing what we > have the ABILITY to do, only our LEGAL/MORAL responsibilities.) We're not > allowed to use our bodies for prostitution, or to hurt other people. Certainly you're correct on these laws, for the most part (prostitution being legal in parts of Nevada still, I believe). And I believe we have a moral responsibility not to go bothering other people. But the laws concerning prostitution and controlled substances are not only an immoral invation of my personal privacy, they're not effective. They only remove the sales of such items from legal business folks to organized crime. > > Doug Pase -- ...ucbvax!tektronix!ogcvax!pase or pase@Oregon-Grad -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh "I gained nothing at all from Supreme Enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called Supreme Enlightenment." -Gotama Buddha These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
susan@madvax.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) (09/18/86)
> > Immediately following conception, a child is not capable of sustaining its own > life independently, but then neither are infants or young children. The > difference is only one of degree. > -- > Doug Pase -- ...ucbvax!tektronix!ogcvax!pase or pase@Oregon-Grad Nope, the difference is where the child lives - inside my body or outside of it. When was the last time someone forced you, by law, to lend one of your organs to someone else? At the risk of your own health? Susan Finkelman {zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!susan
cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) (09/19/86)
In article <1091@ogcvax.UUCP> pase@ogcvax.UUCP (Douglas M. Pase) writes: >We are all responsible for our own actions. Everyone has the freedom to >choose whether or not to have a child. That freedom is exercised when a couple >chooses to have or not have sexual intercourse (birth control aside). Certainly >it is your body and your choice, but your choice should be exercised before the >child is conceived, not after. We are all able to choose our actions, but not >the consequences of our actions. Sorry, you are wrong on several points. Not "EVERYONE" has "the freedom to ... have a child". Men are unable to give birth (take that up with your deities if you are displeased). And women (if the views like yours triumph) will not be able to choose NOT to have a child by methods other than celebacy -- birth control devices fail occasionally, not all pregnancies are results of a planned sexual encounter (you have heard of rape, haven't you?). And if people's bodies are their own property, regardless of anyone's views nobody has a right to LEGISLATE enforcement of childbearing. >Suppose we say abortions are moral. Suppose we allow abortions for convenience. >"It's too inconvenient for me to be pregnant right now, I think I'll have an >abortion." I see no vast difference between that and "It's too inconvenient >for me to have children right now, I think I'll terminate my 2 year old." You >may argue that the 2 year old is a person and the fetus is not (which in my >opinion is mere semantic drivel), but certainly they are both alive. This is nonsense. A fetus (up to 3rd trimester) can not exist without its mother's body. A 2 year old can be cared for by many agencies other than its biological mother. A fetus is very different in that respect -- it has no independent life of its own. Analogies to people on lung/kidney machines are invalid -- ANY such machine can sustain a life, if one machine "refuses" to work, another one can be used. It just does not work that way with fetuses, not at the current level of technology and medical science. Moral and legal implication of "trasvival" (as someone called it here) are a different topic, extensively covered in net.abortion few months ago. >The major issue here is "at what stage does a human life aquire the right to >remain alive?" Under what conditions does one's right to life supercede the >convenience of another? I don't recall the Bill of Rights mentioning anywhere >a "right to a convenient life". I do recall a right to "life, liberty and the >pursuit of happiness". If you look at the statistics and sociological data on teen pregnancies and the fates of the unwanted pregnancy children you will not that your rhetoric sounds like a mockery of human suffering, not a noble defence of Life. Oleg Kiselev, HASA "A" division
marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (09/22/86)
In <1091@ogcvax.UUCP>, pase@ogcvax.UUCP (Douglas M. Pase) wrote: "Suppose we allow abortions for convenience. 'It's too inconvenient for me to be pregnant right now, I think I'll have an abortion.' I see no vast difference between that and 'It's too inconvenient for me to have children right now, I think I'll terminate my 2 year old.' You may argue that the 2 year old is a person and the fetus is not (which in my opinion is mere semantic drivel), but certainly they are both alive. The major issue here is 'at what stage does a human life aquire the right to remain alive?' Under what conditions does one's right to life supercede the convenience of another? I don't recall the Bill of Rights mentioning anywhere a "right to a convenient life". I do recall a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". These are valid questions and they have valid answers. Some answers have already been offered in this newsgroup but I would like to make my own view of them clear. If possible, perfectly clear. There is a "vast" difference between a fetus and a two-year-old. One is a person and the other is not, and the semantics of the distinction is not "drivel." The state, in the exercise of its police powers, can protect a two-year-old without imposing on the pursuit of happiness of any other person. For example, a two-year-old can become a foster child. It can not so protect a fetus. It can not remove a fetus from the body of its natural mother and place it in the body of a foster mother. If it could, abortion would be possible without killing the fetus, and the whole argument about abortion would be different. The state has eminent domain over real estate, but not over persons. It has no right to put a sign on a woman's belly saying "this property is needed for public use." The stage at which a living human thing becomes a person is precisely the stage at which the state can protect it as an individual without demanding the participation of some other unwilling individual. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houem!marty1
pdobeda@watnot.UUCP (09/23/86)
In article <444@madvax.UUCP> susan@madvax.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) writes: >That's not the issue. I have never met, nor even heard of anyone >who got pregnant so that she could get an abortion. Once a woman >is pregnant there is *NO* easy way out. Planned or unplanned, >wanted or unwanted, if I am pregnant it's my body >and my choice. > > Susan Finkelman > {zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!susan What ever happened to Portia's "Quality of Mercy" speech in Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice"? You remember, Shylock wanted his pound of flesh, which was his by right. He had a contract, which had been broken, with the penalty to be the extraction of a pound of flesh. Portia granted that he may exact his penalty, but not an ounce more than a pound, and no blood may be spilled. Shylock owned a pound of flesh only, and rightfully so, but he could not collect without taking more than was his, and so he could not collect anything. Planned or unplanned, wanted or unwanted, one does not get an abortion without destroying more than is hers to begin with. The mother has a *responsibility* toward her unborn child, as well as to her new-born infant, her youngster, her teenager, her grown child. Claiming that death is somehow preferable is a sad statement indeed. Can there be such a thing as a suicide which nobody mourns? Yes, your body is your own. (Well, it's on loan to you ...) But your child's body is NOT. Paul D. Obeda
stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (09/23/86)
In article <1591@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA>, cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) writes: > Not "EVERYONE" has "the freedom to ... have a child". Men are unable to give > birth (take that up with your deities if you are displeased). And women (if > the views like yours triumph) will not be able to choose NOT to have a child > by methods other than celebacy -- birth control devices fail occasionally, ^^^^^^^^ (sp) This is indeed the crux of the matter. Good old fashioned celibacy before marriage seems to have been forgotten. Evolutionists must be right: we are becoming more like animals all the time! I wonder if people realize that there is more to life than copulation. Having been celibate for 27 years so far, I can testify that it won't kill you. In fact, I I don't even think about it all the time! (What? Is there something wrong with me?) (My girlfriend is considering taking the plunge at this moment.) -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>
pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/24/86)
In article <631@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: > >There is a "vast" difference between a fetus and a two-year-old. One >is a person and the other is not, and the semantics of the distinction >is not "drivel." The state, in the exercise of its police powers, can >protect a two-year-old without imposing on the pursuit of happiness >of any other person. It depends on how you define "persuit of happiness" doesn't it? From whose point of view is the "persuit of happiness" taken? The state can protect me from someone who wants to take my life. From the perspective of the one who wants to kill me, doing so may facilitate his persuit of happiness. Of course, we don't consider his perspective because we consider his act to be wrong. Why is it different for the pregnant woman? Why do you apparently give her the blank check of "persuit of happiness", subordinating the life of the fetus to whatever reason she fills in? >For example, a two-year-old can become a foster >child. It can not so protect a fetus. It can not remove a fetus from >the body of its natural mother and place it in the body of a foster >mother. If it could, abortion would be possible without killing the >fetus, and the whole argument about abortion would be different. The state can and has protected the fetus, with laws restricting abortion. Why do you assume that protective measures are only possible if a person is portable? You also seem to imply that portibility makes one a person because the state *may* protect one in that case. But even that is no reason why it *should*. Which brings us to your next point: >The state has eminent domain over real estate, but not over persons. >It has no right to put a sign on a woman's belly saying "this property >is needed for public use." The stage at which a living human thing >becomes a person is precisely the stage at which the state can protect >it as an individual without demanding the participation of some other >unwilling individual. How is whether or not you are a person dependent on what the state *can* do? Where is the connection between *can* and *should*? You can only make that connection if you consider humans for what they *are* as being rightful human beings. If their right to life depends on where they are or their "portability", no such connection exists. If humans merit protection because they are humans, then there is not a "vast" difference between a fetus and a 2-year-old. Not so long ago in our history, some persons were "ruled" to be real estate. (Dred Scott). The state *could* have protected them too. Your logic reveals no reason why it should. -- Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd
cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) (09/25/86)
In article <216@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >This is indeed the crux of the matter. Good old fashioned celibacy before >marriage seems to have been forgotten. Evolutionists must be right: we >are becoming more like animals all the time! I wonder if people realize >that there is more to life than copulation. Having been celibate for >27 years so far, I can testify that it won't kill you. In fact, I >I don't even think about it all the time! (What? Is >there something wrong with me?) (My girlfriend is considering taking >the plunge at this moment.) You may be uninformed, but abortions and unwanted pregnancies do not afflict the unwed women only. According to the statistics I have, 20% of women who seek abortions are married. Even the Catholics do not advocate celibacy in marriage. And many Xtians think that sex is "blessed" between the married spouses. But, to repeat my earlier statement, birth control fails at times and not everyone is willing or able to support a large family. Celibacy and no sex except for procreation only? I would bet such point of view has never been popular, even among the devout Xtians or there would not have been a Western Civilization..... (BTW: Your vicious side remark about evolutionists is slanderous and uncalled for. The thrashing you get in talk.origins and talk.religion.misc for flaunting your ignorance is not a sufficient excuse for making gratuitous, irrelevant and insulting comments about issues not discussed in this forum.) Oleg Kiselev, HASA "A" division, PRO-CHOICE
susan@madvax.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) (09/25/86)
> > Planned or unplanned, wanted or unwanted, one does not get an abortion > without destroying more than is hers to begin with. The mother has > a *responsibility* toward her unborn child, as well as to her new-born > infant, her youngster, her teenager, her grown child. Claiming that > death is somehow preferable is a sad statement indeed. Can there be > such a thing as a suicide which nobody mourns? > > Yes, your body is your own. (Well, it's on loan to you ...) But your > child's body is NOT. > > Paul D. Obeda (I am not a cultural anthropologist) It is my understanding that there are cultures where neither abortion nor suicide are seen with the horror that so many of the men of the net seem to feel. Susan Finkelman {zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!susan
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (09/26/86)
>In <1091@ogcvax.UUCP>, pase@ogcvax.UUCP (Douglas M. Pase) wrote: > I don't recall the Bill > of Rights mentioning anywhere a "right to a convenient life". I do > recall a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Probably beside the point, but the Bill of Rights doesn't mention "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," either. That phrase is found in the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal force. In article <631@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP writes: >The state, in the exercise of its police powers, can >protect a two-year-old without imposing on the pursuit of happiness >of any other person. Really? How? The state, in the exercise of its police powers, can only protect a two-year-old by putting him or her in the custody of someone. This imposes on the pursuit of happiness of everyone who pays taxes to enable the state to pay the cost of its police powers, the cost of the investigation which led to the conclusion that the two-year-old needed protection, the cost of finding a foster home, the cost of followup (to make sure the child doesn't need protecting again), and the cost of paying (some) of the foster family's expenses. In some cases, protecting a two-year-old requires taking him away from his current family, which may be imposing on their pursuit of happiness. >The state has eminent domain over real estate, but not over persons. Why does the state have eminent domain over real estate? >The stage at which a living human thing >becomes a person is precisely the stage at which the state can protect >it as an individual without demanding the participation of some other >unwilling individual. There will be no such stage, until the state is completely funded by revenue from plans in which participation is voluntary -- such as contributions and contracts for services freely agreed to. In the case of a child unable to fend for himself, there are three alternatives: 1. Find someone willing to take care of the child. 2. Find someone to force to take care of the child. 3. Make the child attempt to fend for himself anyway. Alternative 1 says that the child's right to life is contingent on someone else's willingness to honor that right. Alternative 2 says that the state *can* force someone to take care of another person -- the parents are, in general, the most likely candidates. Alternative 3 says that there is no real right to life for those unable to fend for themselves. I see problems with all of these alternatives. Can someone show me why the problems are not really problems, or think up alternative 4? Gary Samuelson
cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) (09/26/86)
In article <1588@cbdkc1.UUCP> pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: >The state can and has protected the fetus, with laws restricting >abortion. Why do you assume that protective measures are only possible >if a person is portable? You also seem to imply that portibility makes >one a person because the state *may* protect one in that case. You are missing the point, Paul. A 2-year old can be cared for by many different agencies, biological parents (mother, in particular) are not essential to the survival of the 2-year old. A 2-year old is a biologically independent entity. None of the above is true about a fetus. Therefore, the State CAN and SHOULD protect a 2-year old, because the child's survival does not need to depend on one, uniques person. A fetus depends on the host (mother) only and in protecting the fetus' right to life against the host's wishes the host's (mother's) rights are bound to be violated. Oleg Kiselev, HASA "A" div.
pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/26/86)
This article is a revised version of an article I posted two days ago, but cancelled yesterday. I apologize for any confusion this may cause. In article <631@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: > >There is a "vast" difference between a fetus and a two-year-old. One >is a person and the other is not, and the semantics of the distinction >is not "drivel." The state, in the exercise of its police powers, can >protect a two-year-old without imposing on the pursuit of happiness >of any other person. It depends on how you define "pursuit of happiness" doesn't it? From whose point of view is the "pursuit of happiness" taken? The state can protect me from someone who wants to take my life. From the perspective of the one who wants to kill me, doing so may facilitate his pursuit of happiness. Of course, we don't consider his perspective because we consider his act to be wrong. Why is it different for the pregnant woman? Why do you apparently give her the blank check of "pursuit of happiness", subordinating the life of the fetus to whatever reason she fills in? >For example, a two-year-old can become a foster >child. It can not so protect a fetus. It can not remove a fetus from >the body of its natural mother and place it in the body of a foster >mother. If it could, abortion would be possible without killing the >fetus, and the whole argument about abortion would be different. The state can, and has, protected the fetus with laws restricting abortion. Why do you assume that protective measures are only possible if a person is portable? Of course the protection is done by different means but that says nothing about why protection is warranted in one case and not the other. If you are concerned with the effectiveness of each method, well, *both* have limits in that regard. A parent may inflict injury on a 2-year-old without physically hurting self. In that case putting the child out of reach is the deterrent. Although we cannot do this with the fetus, there is still a deterrent in that it is harder for the mother to hurt the fetus without also hurting herself. You simply advocate facilitating abortion on demand as the removal of that deterrent. This presupposes that the deterrent should be removed. You evidently think that the state should *provide* a deterrent in the 2-year-old's case. But for what reason? The fact that it *can* is not necessarily a reason. You seem to imply that portability makes one a person because the state *may* protect one in that case. Aside from the fact that this is a false restriction (as I pointed out above), it is still not a reason why it *should*. Which brings us to your next point: >The state has eminent domain over real estate, but not over persons. >It has no right to put a sign on a woman's belly saying "this property >is needed for public use." The stage at which a living human thing >becomes a person is precisely the stage at which the state can protect >it as an individual without demanding the participation of some other >unwilling individual. What if the state is unwilling? Why should it be willing? You exempt individuals from having to support individuals (even temporarily) who depend competely on them for survival. But how do you justify saddling the state with this responsibility? How is whether or not you are a person dependent on what the state *can* do? Where is the connection between *can* and *should*? You can only make that connection if you consider humans for what they *are* as being rightful human beings. If their right to life depends on *where* they are or their "portability", no such connection exists. We need to talk about whether a life *should* be protected before we get to the question of if, or how well, the state *can* protect anyone. If humans merit protection because they are humans (and I think this is the basis on which most people claim their right to live; not because they are portable), then there is not a "vast" difference between a fetus and a 2-year-old. Not so long ago in our history, some persons were "ruled" to be real estate. (Dred Scott). The state *could* have protected them too. Your logic reveals no reason why it should have. -- Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd
rha@bunker.UUCP (Robert H. Averack) (09/26/86)
In article <12020@watnot.UUCP> pdobeda@watnot.UUCP (Paul D. Obeda) writes: > >Planned or unplanned, wanted or unwanted, one does not get an abortion >without destroying more than is hers to begin with. The mother has >a *responsibility* toward her unborn child > >Paul D. Obeda On one hand, you place full culpability on the mother, without any hint of concern about the father's role in all of this (you know, two to tango, birds and bees, etc. etc.). Then, you suggest that the fetus is "more than hers to begin with". A little consistency, please? Furthermore, who are you, or I, or anyone else to demand particular action on the part of the mother in dealing with this situation? You want her to carry out the full term of gestation, you offer no help, you offer no universally applicable solution to the unwanted child (not all orphans are adopted), etc. etc. etc. If you were totally consistent here (with so many of these so-called "right-to-lifers"), you will go on to suggest even further cuts in welfare to feed the child and education to teach the child, then you'll propose the death penalty to eliminate the once abused and unwanted child when he or she goes wrong as an adult. I'm sorry if you or anyone else on the net thinks I'm coming on too strong, but I'm fed-up with the audacity that infects this news group! -- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (Bob Averack @ Bunker Ramo/Olivetti) {decvax!, ittatc!, philabs!} ! ! ! ! ## "Okay, you workstations, start USENET: bunker!rha ! ! #OO# singing....." UUCP: bunker!/usr/spool ! ! ###### /uucppublic/rha ! ! ##\/## "This LAN is your LAN, OFFLINE: 35 Nutmeg Dr. ! ! ###### this LAN is my LAN..." Trumbull, CT 06611 ! ! L L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/30/86)
In article <1758@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> oac6.oleg@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) writes: >In article <1588@cbdkc1.UUCP> pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: >>The state can and has protected the fetus, with laws restricting >>abortion. Why do you assume that protective measures are only possible >>if a person is portable? You also seem to imply that portability makes >>one a person because the state *may* protect one in that case. > >You are missing the point, Paul. No, I don't think I was missing Marty Brilliant's point. That goes with the context of the original article. >A 2-year old can be cared for by many >different agencies, biological parents (mother, in particular) are not >essential to the survival of the 2-year old. A 2-year old is a biologically >independent entity. A fetus is also a biologically independent entity. The only *biological* relationship the fetus has to the mother (or father) is that of being her offspring. This is the same relationship that the 2-year-old has. A 2-year-old is still completely dependent on some adult for all the necessities of life; only the means of providing them changes with the environment that the child lives in. >None of the above is true about a fetus. Therefore, the State CAN and SHOULD >protect a 2-year old, because the child's survival does not need to depend >on one, uniques person. A fetus depends on the host (mother) only and in >protecting the fetus' right to life against the host's wishes the host's >(mother's) rights are bound to be violated. The state
david@tekig5.UUCP (David Hayes) (10/01/86)
In article <1606@cbdkc1.UUCP> pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: > >No, I don't think I was missing Marty Brilliant's point. That goes >with the context of the original article. > >>A 2-year old can be cared for by many >>different agencies, biological parents (mother, in particular) are not >>essential to the survival of the 2-year old. A 2-year old is a biologically >>independent entity. > >A fetus is also a biologically independent entity. The only *biological* >relationship the fetus has to the mother (or father) is that of being >her offspring. This is the same relationship that the 2-year-old has. >A 2-year-old is still completely dependent on some adult for all the >necessities of life; only the means of providing them changes with the >environment that the child lives in. Semantics Paul? How do you define independant? You are correct is saying a 2 year old is dependant on *SOME* adult. And yes, the means of providing this care changes with the *environment*. I just can't equate being partially developed INSIDE a woman with the 2 year olds. > >>None of the above is true about a fetus. Therefore, the State CAN and SHOULD >>protect a 2-year old, because the child's survival does not need to depend >>on one, uniques person. A fetus depends on the host (mother) only and in >>protecting the fetus' right to life against the host's wishes the host's >>(mother's) rights are bound to be violated. > >The state CAN protect the fetus too, as I stated in the first paragraph. >I don't see why the fact that fetal humans need their biological mother's >care for 9 months means that the state can't take protective measures and >say no one should kill the child. This is one of the problems we are trying to resolve. You (and pro lifers) continually downplay 9 months of a womans life and childbirth. Being INSIDE a womans body means that the state cannot legislate anything without undue retriction and intervention in the womans private life. >I also do not see how the fact that >more than one person may care for a born child means that the state SHOULD >protect that child. How about because they can? > >Another implication of your reasoning: If the wishes of the "host" make >all the difference as to whether the child lives or dies in the case of >the mother, does it also make that difference in the case of the state? The state is not an expecting mother, you are being facetious here right? >There are plenty of children who are wards of the state because no one >wants them or can take care of them. The state surely doesn't *want* them >either. We require that the state take care of them because of *who* these >kids are (humans), not *where* they are, how *old* they are, or who *wants* >to take care of them. But, according to your reasoning, if a child is >completely dependent on someone for survival (even temporarily) that someone >has the right to terminate the child's life. No Paul, you know darn well what was meant. We are not talking of SOMEONE, the comments are of pregnant women, so why can't you say pregnant women, instead of your generalized legalize? >So, since the state is >the "host" to these children, can the state kill them, since nobody wants >them? Geez, not this arguement again. You sound like Steve Rice, see below. > >Again, the connection between CAN and SHOULD with regard to the protection >of an individual can only be made on the basis of who that individual *is*, >not on her circumstances. Strickly your statement, I say the connection between CAN and SHOULD with regard to the protection of a fetus can only be made on the basis of where the fetus is. > Because killing by abortion is justified by >the fetus' circumstance, it is inconsistent with the basis for human rights >we claim for humans who have been born. At least you noticed. >It's a double standard that doesn't >hold up. Either we drag the rest of humanity down and say the *every* human's >right to life depends not on the fact that they are human, but on circumstances >dictated by humans with power over them, or we acknowledge that if some >humans have the right to life, all do--equally. >-- Here again we are not talking the whole of humanity, just pregnant women. We are not talking humans with power over humans, it is pregnant women choosing not to continue a pregnancy. Pro lifers ARE NOT advocating legislation for equal rights for all humans, they are pinpointing pregnant women, cut and dried. > >Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd dave
marty1@houem.UUCP (10/02/86)
In <1597@cbdkc1.UUCP>, pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) purports to answer my response to an article of his. He has so misrepresented my position that I cannot answer his article. He says > ... Why do you apparently give her the blank check of "pursuit >of happiness", subordinating the life of the fetus to whatever reason >she fills in? Of course, I did no such thing. I stated certain logical relationships: >> ... The state, in the exercise of its police powers, CAN >>protect a two-year-old WITHOUT imposing on the pursuit of happiness >>of any other person. (caps added). And so on. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houem!marty1
marty1@houem.UUCP (10/02/86)
In <1200@bunker.UUCP>, garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) comments on an article I posted: >In article <631@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP writes: >>The state, in the exercise of its police powers, can >>protect a two-year-old without imposing on the pursuit of happiness >>of any other person. > >Really? How? The state, in the exercise of its police powers, can >only protect a two-year-old by putting him or her in the custody >of someone. This imposes on the pursuit of happiness of everyone >who pays taxes to enable the state to pay the cost of its police powers, >the cost of the investigation which led to the conclusion that the >two-year-old needed protection, the cost of finding a foster home, >the cost of followup (to make sure the child doesn't need protecting >again), and the cost of paying (some) of the foster family's expenses. All these are similar to things we willingly pay government to do. >In some cases, protecting a two-year-old requires taking him away >from his current family, which may be imposing on their pursuit of >happiness. Seldom does the state actually do that, for the reason you cite. >>The state has eminent domain over real estate, but not over persons. > >Why does the state have eminent domain over real estate? The state uses real estate to promote its ends, which include protecting the rights of persons. Real estate does not have rights. >In the case of a child unable to fend for himself, there are three >alternatives: 1. Find someone willing to take care of the child. >2. Find someone to force to take care of the child. 3. Make the >child attempt to fend for himself anyway. > >Alternative 1 says that the child's right to life is contingent on >someone else's willingness to honor that right. > >Alternative 2 says that the state *can* force someone to take care >of another person -- the parents are, in general, the most likely >candidates. > >Alternative 3 says that there is no real right to life for those >unable to fend for themselves. > >I see problems with all of these alternatives. Can someone show >me why the problems are not really problems, or think up alternative >4? Alternative 4 is supporting the child in a state-supported institution. All these are used as and when appropriate, except that I do not believe alternative 2 is constitutionally valid. Actually, foster care at state expense (alternative 1) seems to fill in most of the gaps. Gary has stated the essential problems of the situation. But think of the alternatives if a fetus is to be protected: alternatives 1 (except for the natural mother) and 4 do not exist, and I believe alternative 2 to be unacceptable. Yes, the right of a *fetus* to life is contingent on someone else's willingness to honor that right. Ultimately, the right of any of us to life is contingent on someone else's willingness to honor that right. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houem!marty1
pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (10/02/86)
In article <636@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: >In <1597@cbdkc1.UUCP>, pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) purports to answer >my response to an article of his. He has so misrepresented my position >that I cannot answer his article. He says ... or maybe you didn't represent your own position adaquately enough? I won't press this point. Let any who have read this discussion decide for themselves. >> ... Why do you apparently give her the blank check of "pursuit >>of happiness", subordinating the life of the fetus to whatever reason >>she fills in? > >Of course, I did no such thing. I stated certain logical relationships: > >>> ... The state, in the exercise of its police powers, CAN >>>protect a two-year-old WITHOUT imposing on the pursuit of happiness >>>of any other person. > >(caps added). And so on. I also said that this depends on how you define (or qualify) one's right to the "pursuit of happiness". Of course, you did no such thing. You appently use the term in an unqualified manner where its perception by the pregnant woman and the implicatons of it for the life or death of the fetus is concerned. It seems that we do qualify the concept where its meaning to others might involve the killing of born humans. One logical relationship you failed to state is the one you apparently assume between "CAN protect" and "should protect" on the part of the state. -- Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (10/02/86)
In article <216@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >In article <1591@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA>, cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) writes: >> Not "EVERYONE" has "the freedom to ... have a child". Men are unable to give >> birth (take that up with your deities if you are displeased). And women (if >> the views like yours triumph) will not be able to choose NOT to have a child >> by methods other than celebacy -- birth control devices fail occasionally, > ^^^^^^^^ (sp) > >This is indeed the crux of the matter. Good old fashioned celibacy before >marriage seems to have been forgotten. Evolutionists must be right: we ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >are becoming more like animals all the time! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh,what you wrote! Don't slander and distort evolution theory any more than it already is. This statement shows an ignorant, narrow-minded attitude toward an area of science. I suggest that these kind of misleading and inaccurate statements do nothing to clarify the discussion at hand -- only inflame it! Don't mouth off on what is unknown. > I wonder if people realize >that there is more to life than copulation. Having been celibate for >27 years so far, I can testify that it won't kill you. In fact, I >I don't even think about it all the time! (What? Is >there something wrong with me?) (My girlfriend is considering taking >the plunge at this moment.) > >-- >Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart> Actually people are behaving more like they have been acting until the last 90-80 years or so. The puritanical mores have never been that widespread and aren't really even today. Don't kid yourself. A few forays into the history of man and his habits might prove quite eye-opening. P.M.Pincha-Wagener
marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (10/04/86)
In <1606@cbdkc1.UUCP>, pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) wrote: >In article <1758@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> oac6.oleg@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) writes: > ... >>None of the above is true about a fetus. Therefore, the State CAN and SHOULD >>protect a 2-year old, because the child's survival does not need to depend >>on one, uniques person. A fetus depends on the host (mother) only and in >>protecting the fetus' right to life against the host's wishes the host's >>(mother's) rights are bound to be violated. and pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) answered: >The state CAN protect the fetus too, as I stated in the first paragraph. >I don't see why the fact that fetal humans need their biological mother's >care for 9 months means that the state can't take protective measures and >say no one should kill the child. I also do not see how the fact that >more than one person may care for a born child means that the state SHOULD >protect that child. OK, Paul, if the same protection the state gives 2-year olds will satisfy you as protection of the fetus, I'm satisfied too. If the mother of a 2-year old absolutely refuses to care for a 2-year old, and wants to give the child away, the child is taken away from her. Don't impose on the mother's freedom. Just take the fetus away. We all know that if you do that the fetus will die, unless it's advanced enough to be a premature infant. You conclude that since the fetus will die, we have to impose on the mother's freedom. I say that we shouldn't impose on the mother's freedom, and it's no great loss if a fetus dies. You (or other anti-abortionists) then say they can't tell the difference between a fetus and a child, and if you kill a fetus you'll be killing a child next. I reply that you can tell a fetus from a child if you take it away from its mother, give it to someone who will love it and wants to care for it, and see whether it lives or dies. And round and round we go. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houem!marty1
pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (10/06/86)
In article <648@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: > >>... >>The state CAN protect the fetus too, as I stated in the first paragraph. >>I don't see why the fact that fetal humans need their biological mother's >>care for 9 months means that the state can't take protective measures and >>say no one should kill the child. I also do not see how the fact that >>more than one person may care for a born child means that the state SHOULD >>protect that child. > >OK, Paul, if the same protection the state gives 2-year olds will >satisfy you as protection of the fetus, I'm satisfied too. If the >mother of a 2-year old absolutely refuses to care for a 2-year old, and >wants to give the child away, the child is taken away from her. Don't >impose on the mother's freedom. Just take the fetus away. > >We all know that if you do that the fetus will die, unless it's >advanced enough to be a premature infant. > >You conclude that since the fetus will die, we have to impose on the >mother's freedom. > >I say that we shouldn't impose on the mother's freedom, and it's no great >loss if a fetus dies. No great loss to whom? Is it any great loss if an orphaned 1-year-old dies or one with some birth defect? The problem I see with your position is that you seem to start with the assumption that "It is no great loss if a fetus dies". A lot of people can start with that judgement about anyone, not just a fetus. How do you know that anyone's death will be no great loss? Who makes anyone the judge of this over anyone else? You use "feedom" as an unqualified absolute where the mother's will over the fetus is concerned. In every other relationship, it is qualified to preclude injury and death to another individual. You and others maintian that the difference is that *only* the mother can take care of the fetus before it's born. But why does this difference make a differnce where an individual's life or death is concerned? Why does this difference make *any* desire of the woman a good enough reason to deny the unborn *every* human right? >You (or other anti-abortionists) then say they can't tell the >difference between a fetus and a child, and if you kill a fetus you'll >be killing a child next. I think this criticism stands against inconsistent criteria for "rightful human life" or critiera that allow life-or-death consquences for an individual that are not based on an individual's status as a human being, but on what other, more powerful, humans decide will be the "loss" or gain with that individuals death. Of course, we all believe we have a right to live because we are human beings except when we get to the fetus, whose existence presents a hinderance to our "freedom". To me this has all the characteristics of a powerful group of human beings invoking a double standard against the weak. Case in point: >I reply that you can tell a fetus from a child if you take it away from >its mother, give it to someone who will love it and wants to care for >it, and see whether it lives or dies. Again, wantedness is made the criterion for whether we may kill someone or respect her right to live. What if no one *wants* a child, Marty? Does it therefore have no right to live? Give the fetus a few months and it turns into a child. That makes no difference to you, because you apparently think a woman's choice over that life should be absolute. How long does it take for a child to turn back into a fetus so that we may kill it? If we find no one who wants to love and care for it after a few months is it still a fetus? >And round and round we go. >M. B. Brilliant Marty That's what I say. -- Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd
pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (10/06/86)
Some of the points David raised in his article have already been answered by me in my last response to Tom Repa so I'm not going to resond to them here. In article <1179@tekig5.UUCP> david@tekig5.UUCP (David Hayes) writes: >Semantics Paul? How do you define independant? You are correct is saying >a 2 year old is dependant on *SOME* adult. And yes, the means of providing >this care changes with the *environment*. I just can't equate being partially >developed INSIDE a woman with the 2 year olds. How do you define "partially developed"? You could call a two-year-old partially developed too. >>The state CAN protect the fetus too, as I stated in the first paragraph. >>I don't see why the fact that fetal humans need their biological mother's >>care for 9 months means that the state can't take protective measures and >>say no one should kill the child. > >This is one of the problems we are trying to resolve. You (and pro lifers) >continually downplay 9 months of a womans life and childbirth. Being >INSIDE a womans body means that the state cannot legislate anything without >undue retriction and intervention in the womans private life. What is "undue", restriction? I don't think a violation of privacy is a good cover for restricting the taking of another life. Also, I don't mean to downplay the 9-month pregnancy, I just don't think it gives anyone absolute authority over another human life. I don't think it makes all the difference in that regard. >>I also do not see how the fact that >>more than one person may care for a born child means that the state SHOULD >>protect that child. > >How about because they can? I think maybe you should read the whole of someone's article before you start to respond. ... >>Again, the connection between CAN and SHOULD with regard to the protection >>of an individual can only be made on the basis of who that individual *is*, >>not on her circumstances. > >Strickly your statement, I say the connection between CAN and SHOULD with >regard to the protection of a fetus can only be made on the basis of >where the fetus is. Would you say the same for other humans as well? >>It's a double standard that doesn't >>hold up. Either we drag the rest of humanity down and say the *every* human's >>right to life depends not on the fact that they are human, but on circumstances >>dictated by humans with power over them, or we acknowledge that if some >>humans have the right to life, all do--equally. >>-- >Here again we are not talking the whole of humanity, just pregnant women. >We are not talking humans with power over humans, it is pregnant women >choosing not to continue a pregnancy. Yes, I think it is a matter of humans having power over other humans. What is a pregnancy but a growing human within the womb? What does it mean to "terminate" a pregnancy except that we kill that fetal human? You talk about a pregnancy as if there is no fetus involved; as if it were a simple *condition* like a cold. >Pro lifers ARE NOT advocating >legislation for equal rights for all humans, they are pinpointing >pregnant women, cut and dried. Simply put, the pro-life philosophy maintians that all humans have the right not to be killed for just any reason. Society has violated that right in the case of the fetus. Yes, the fetus implies a pregnant woman. But the child she carries has as much a right to life as she. -- Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd
oleg%OACVAX.BITNET@ucla-cs.UUCP (10/07/86)
Paul! PLEASE, don't make it SO HARD to keep trying to talk to you! I have
stopped replying to all that garbage Gary Samuelson has been posting because
it is impossible to hold a reasonable DISCUSSION with him. Same goes for
Steven Rice, and now Kiki. PLEASE, TRY to not mis-represent your opponents'
statements and views to get cheap applaudisments from your camp. I have seen
you be more attentive and more reasonable....
Paul's article <1606@cbdkc1.UUCP> has been well critiqued by others, but...
I said:
->>A 2-year old can be cared for by many
->>different agencies, biological parents (mother, in particular) are not
->>essential to the survival of the 2-year old. A 2-year old is a biologically
->>independent entity.
To which Paul responds:
->A fetus is also a biologically independent entity. The only *biological*
->relationship the fetus has to the mother (or father) is that of being
->her offspring. This is the same relationship that the 2-year-old has.
->A 2-year-old is still completely dependent on some adult for all the
^^^^^^^^^^
->necessities of life; only the means of providing them changes with the
->environment that the child lives in.
PAUL! JUST READ THE PARAGRAPH YOU HAVE INCLUDED BELOW!
->>A fetus depends on the host (mother) only
^^^^
Which means that a fetus CAN NOT (up to a certain point in time -- 6th month?)
survive WITHOUT A UNIQUE HOST. I am sure you KNOW the difference between
"SOME" and "ONE AND ONLY ONE".
->The state CAN protect the fetus too, as I stated in the first paragraph.
->I don't see why the fact that fetal humans need their biological mother's
->care for 9 months means that the state can't take protective measures and
->say no one should kill the child.
That is not a child you are talking about, but a fetus. Wrong audience
for THAT trick!
If your position is that the State should have the absolude power over its
subjects -- fine! Our argument is resolved. And I can hardly argue with
your position -- absolute power and denial of a right to privacy and ownership
of your own self justify abolishion of abortions and enforsement of gestation.
->I also do not see how the fact that
->more than one person may care for a born child means that the state SHOULD
->protect that child.
State does not "SHOULD", it "DOES" because that is what the Society has been
doing through out history (with a few exceptions). There are some societal
norms that have evolved independent of anyone's wishes; while not unique to
our society alone, compassion with individuals is very strong in Western
culture and often forces our government and society to do things which are
perceived as "humane". I am not about to analyse whether caring for unwanted
2-year olds is necessary or not. I will just point out that caring for a 2-year
old DOES impose on society -- we support orphans via charity and a portion of
our taxes. But the individual burden is slight....
A survival of a fetus depends on contributions and efforts of one and one only
human being in the whole universe -- its mother. And the fetus lives off her
body and her energy, INSIDE her. If a mother does not want to take care of
her 2-year old, others can (and often do) take over that responciblity.
The State can support and care for a 2-year old WITHOUT imposing on privacy
and body of the mother. THAT IS NOT TRUE of the fetus AND YOU KNOW IT! The
State CAN NOT support a 1-2-months old fetus without FORCING the mother to
abandon her privacy and denying her rights to her own body.
I will not discuss the logic of the rest of Paul's article -- it is not
relevant to this news group. I can debate that with him in e-mail iff he
wishes.
Oleg Kiselev, HASAgarys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (10/07/86)
In article <637@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP writes: >In <1200@bunker.UUCP>, garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) comments >on an article I posted: >>In article <631@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP writes: >>>The state, in the exercise of its police powers, can >>>protect a two-year-old without imposing on the pursuit of happiness >>>of any other person. >>Really? How? The state, in the exercise of its police powers, can >>only protect a two-year-old by putting him or her in the custody >>of someone. This imposes on the pursuit of happiness of everyone >>who pays taxes to enable the state to pay the cost of its police powers, >>the cost of the investigation which led to the conclusion that the >>two-year-old needed protection, the cost of finding a foster home, >>the cost of followup (to make sure the child doesn't need protecting >>again), and the cost of paying (some) of the foster family's expenses. >All these are similar to things we willingly pay government to do. Willingly? I don't think I ever willingly paid a tax -- I don't recall ever being asked if I want to pay a tax. Which was precisely my point -- collecting taxes imposes on the pursuit of happiness of everyone who would rather not pay them. Which means that the state cannot protect a two-year-old (or anyone else) without imposing on someone to pay for such protection. >>In some cases, protecting a two-year-old requires taking him away >>from his current family, which may be imposing on their pursuit of >>happiness. >Seldom does the state actually do that, for the reason you cite. "Seldom" is not the same as "never." Thus, protecting a two-year-old sometimes imposes on someone else's pursuit of happiness. >>In the case of a child unable to fend for himself, there are three >>alternatives: 1. Find someone willing to take care of the child. >>2. Find someone to force to take care of the child. 3. Make the >>child attempt to fend for himself anyway. >>Alternative 1 says that the child's right to life is contingent on >>someone else's willingness to honor that right. >>Alternative 2 says that the state *can* force someone to take care >>of another person -- the parents are, in general, the most likely >>candidates. >>Alternative 3 says that there is no real right to life for those >>unable to fend for themselves. >>I see problems with all of these alternatives. Can someone show >>me why the problems are not really problems, or think up alternative >>4? >Alternative 4 is supporting the child in a state-supported >institution. All these are used as and when appropriate, except that >I do not believe alternative 2 is constitutionally valid. Actually, >foster care at state expense (alternative 1) seems to fill in most of >the gaps. Your alternative 4 is the same as my alternative 1 (if taxes are paid willingly) or 2 (if taxes are paid involuntarily). "State expense" hides the fact that the state's only source of income is the citizenry. >Gary has stated the essential problems of the situation. But think of >the alternatives if a fetus is to be protected: alternatives 1 (except >for the natural mother) and 4 do not exist, and I believe alternative 2 >to be unacceptable. But alternative 2 happens all the time. If a child is not given proper, there are several ways in which the state forces someone to take care of it. Collecting taxes to support foster homes is one way. Forcing someone (usually the father) to pay child support is another. Do you object to the enforcement of child support payments, too? >Yes, the right of a *fetus* to life is contingent >on someone else's willingness to honor that right. Ultimately, the >right of any of us to life is contingent on someone else's willingness >to honor that right. I do not understand. First, you emphasize the word fetus, as if to say that only a fetus's right to life is contingent on others, then you go on to say that everyone's right to life is contingent on others. Imagine the following scenario: "The defendant, charged with the murder of a homeless derelict with no known living relatives, challenged the prosecution to find someone who wanted the victim to remain alive. When the prosecution was unable to find anyone who could prove a personal interest in the victim's life, the case was dismissed." If the right to life is contingent on others, what (if anything) is wrong with the above scenario? "Having discovered a truly novel defense to the charge of murder, the defendant then eliminated an entire family whose continued existence interefered with his pursuit of happiness. Actually, only a few members of the family annoyed him, but disposing of the entire family assured that the same defense would again be successful." I don't really think you would say that the above would represent a valid defense, but I see that as the logical conclusion of the statement that a person's right to life is contingent on someone else's willingness to honor that right. Gary Samuelson
stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (10/08/86)
In article <706@bcsaic.UUCP>, pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (wagener) writes: > Actually people are behaving more like they have been acting > until the last 90-80 years or so. The puritanical mores have > never been that widespread and aren't really even today. I am quite well aware that decadence has been the rule rather than the exception. In looking at history, which is better? Hint: When did Rome fall? What was the king of Babylon doing when it fell? Why were the persians pushovers when their empire fell? What will Americans be doing when their nation goes up in smoke? -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>
whitehur@tymix.UUCP (Pamela K. Whitehurst) (10/08/86)
In article <1606@cbdkc1.UUCP> pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: >A fetus is also a biologically independent entity. The only *biological* >relationship the fetus has to the mother (or father) is that of being >her offspring. The fetus is biologically dependent on the mother to provide oxygen and nutrition. >This is the same relationship that the 2-year-old has. >A 2-year-old is still completely dependent on some adult for all the >necessities of life; only the means of providing them changes with the >environment that the child lives in. Wouldn't it be great if we could change the environment of the fetus as easily? (A small point, the 2 year old is not dependent upon another for oxygen, one of the necessities of life) >The state CAN protect the fetus too, as I stated in the first paragraph. >I don't see why the fact that fetal humans need their biological mother's >care for 9 months means that the state can't take protective measures and >say no one should kill the child. The state could, if the people decided it was within the states authority. It would be more difficult, since the state can not remove the fetus from a hostile environment. >I also do not see how the fact that >more than one person may care for a born child means that the state SHOULD >protect that child. > >Another implication of your reasoning: If the wishes of the "host" make >all the difference as to whether the child lives or dies in the case of >the mother, does it also make that difference in the case of the state? >There are plenty of children who are wards of the state because no one >wants them or can take care of them. The state surely doesn't *want* them >either. The state does want them. At least, the state wants them protected and is willing to fund organizations to provide such care. I think most states have programs for supporting pregnant women also, it is not a natter of the state not wanting. >We require that the state take care of them because of *who* these >kids are (humans), not *where* they are, how *old* they are, or who *wants* >to take care of them. But, according to your reasoning, if a child is >completely dependent on someone for survival (even temporarily) that someone >has the right to terminate the child's life. So, since the state is >the "host" to these children, can the state kill them, since nobody wants >them? > >Again, the connection between CAN and SHOULD with regard to the protection >of an individual can only be made on the basis of who that individual *is*, >not on her circumstances. Because killing by abortion is justified by >the fetus' circumstance, it is inconsistent with the basis for human rights >we claim for humans who have been born. It's a double standard that doesn't >hold up. Either we drag the rest of humanity down and say the *every* human's >right to life depends not on the fact that they are human, but on circumstances >dictated by humans with power over them, or we acknowledge that if some >humans have the right to life, all do--equally. >-- > >Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd Well, capital punishment already states that humans with power over others can deny them life. That, however, could be an exception to the rule if we allow that capital punishment is only used on adults who had some contol over getting into the situation to start with. -- Disclaimer: This is just my responding, with an ambiguous language, to what someone else wrote, in an ambiguous language. At no time did I read anyone's mind to find out what they really meant. Pamela K. Whitehurst ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur ...!sun!idi!tymix!whitehur "Yes, it is bread we fight for, but we fight for roses too."
marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (10/09/86)
This is in reply to <1233@bunker.UUCP>, by garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson), which is 109 lines long. I'd won't include and reply to all 109 lines -- who would read all that? I wrote more myself anyway. Most of this is only loosely related to abortion. It bears on the responsibilities of government in protecting the rights of persons, whatever a person is. I wrote: >>>>The state, in the exercise of its police powers, can >>>>protect a two-year-old without imposing on the pursuit of happiness >>>>of any other person. and Gary wrote: >>> .... This imposes on the pursuit of happiness of everyone >>>who pays taxes to enable the state to pay the cost of its police powers, and I replied: >>All these are similar to things we willingly pay government to do. and Gary said: >Willingly? I don't think I ever willingly paid a tax -- I don't >recall ever being asked if I want to pay a tax.... to which I reply: the government whose taxing power Gary objects to is the only power (if any) that can prevent abortion, and is in fact the very government that he relies on to protect the rights of persons -- however he defines persons. If you live under government, you pay it taxes. Gary regards taxation as coercion. Actually, taxation is the price we pay for a guarantee of freedom. Then Gary said: >>>In the case of a child unable to fend for himself, there are three >>>alternatives: 1. Find someone willing to take care of the child. >>>2. Find someone to force to take care of the child. 3. Make the >>>child attempt to fend for himself anyway. >>> ... >>>I see problems with all of these alternatives. Can someone show >>>me why the problems are not really problems, or think up alternative >>>4? and I said: >>Alternative 4 is supporting the child in a state-supported institution. and Gary said: >Your alternative 4 is the same as my alternative 1 (if taxes are paid >willingly) or 2 (if taxes are paid involuntarily). to which I reply: I assume taxes are paid willingly. You can actually refuse to pay taxes, if you are willing to accept the consequences. I would rather pay the consequences, under government, of refusing to pay tax (going to jail, at worst), than live without government. Would Gary? My alternative 4 is similar to alternative 1 in that the state must find employees to execute its responsibility. If you say the state employees are taking care of the child, they do it willingly for their salary. They cannot be forced (alternative 2) to work for the state. Again, taxation is not coercion. For one thing, we all pay taxes equally. If you want to compel a pregnant woman to carry a fetus to term because she had sex, you might justify it by saying it's a tax on sex, and I don't suppose I could argue, provided the tax was imposed impartially. I wouldn't accept a tax on conception, because conception is not voluntary. How about a cash tax on sex, waived if a fetus is carried to term? You might waive the tax if a contraceptive is used, to encourage the use of contraceptives, but then you would have to allow free abortion if the contraceptive fails. The possibilities are intriguing. A little farther on I wrote: >>Yes, the right of a *fetus* to life is contingent >>on someone else's willingness to honor that right. Ultimately, the >>right of any of us to life is contingent on someone else's willingness >>to honor that right. and Gary replied: >I do not understand. First, you emphasize the word fetus, as if to say >that only a fetus's right to life is contingent on others, then you >go on to say that everyone's right to life is contingent on others. I reply: I think this is a vital point. A born person's right to life depends on others collectively, acting as a society under government. If any one person decides to murder you, and grasps the opportunity, you are dead. He may become dead too, but that won't revive you. Only the fetus's right to life depends on one unique person, and if she chooses not to support it the fetus is in deep trouble. Gary (among others) seems to resist the truth about government: that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, in order to preserve their rights, and that without government and its powers, their rights would vanish. He seems to go no further than the assertion they are endowed by their Creator with inherent (Jefferson's word, stricken by the Convention) and inalienable rights. Gary asks us to >Imagine the following scenario: > >"The defendant, charged with the murder of a homeless derelict with no >known living relatives, challenged the prosecution to find someone who >wanted the victim to remain alive. When the prosecution was unable to >find anyone who could prove a personal interest in the victim's life, >the case was dismissed." > >If the right to life is contingent on others, what (if anything) is >wrong with the above scenario? The state undertakes to protect the life, liberty, and property of every person. In fact, the murder trial was entered in the docket as "the state vs. <defendant>." So the defendant is promptly answered with "the state wanted the victim to remain alive." But since the state does not define a fetus as a person, for good practical legal reasons, the state need not say it wants a fetus to remain alive. Marty M. B. Brilliant (201)-949-1858 AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 houem!marty1