From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:27:43 GMT

parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>>parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>>>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>>>>parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>>>>>
>[deletions, of parts that were not responded to]

>>>>You must learn to differentiate between moral choices and immoral choices.

>>>On the other hand, you could stop shovelling and listen to *why* we don't
>>>consider it to be immoral.

>>Believe me, I have listened.  This doesn't mean, however, that I agree.
>>Many arguments you use are often tangential and do not specifically apply.

>>>>Do you read anything in this newsgroup?  This has already been addressed.

>>>It has?  Which part was addressed:  that suffering is worse than non-creation,
>>>or that you don't have a *right* to be *created*.

>>>What newsgroup are you refering to?  I'm reading on talk.abortion, but I
>>>noticed that a few other groups were added (which I don't read).

>>Yep.  I'm on alt.fan.r-l... I never understood how I ended up on t.a. in
>>the first place but now I do.  

>I don't know who Rush Limbaugh is, but I gather it has something to do with
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You've GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!  You wouldn't happen to live in Washington D.C.
would you?  That would explain alot.  

>fanatic pro-life "wisdom"???  (I really hate cross-posts; they cause so much
>confusion.)

Rush rarely addresses abortion.  

>Perhaps you disagree with my statemtent that "you don't have a *right* to be
>*created*"?  If so, perhaps you could explain *why* someone (not yet created)
>has a *right* to *be* created.

By definition, there is no such thing as someone having a right to be created.
ie. If you are not yet created, how can you have any rights?  Are you 
trying to make a point or just sound clever?  

>>>>>The mother is in the best position to make that decision.  How can the rest
>>>>>of society know her situation.

>>>>Are you telling me there are situations in which premeditated homicide of
>>>>a helpless, innocent human being can be judged acceptable by a woman who
>>>>doesn't want that human being around?

>>>Yes, it's called "abortion".  (particularly early in development, when even
>>>Stephen Matheson would have to admit that it can not be sentient--that's
>>>pretty early)  A very large number of people (the majority I think) would
>>>accept first-month abortions.  (Of course, it is virtually impossible to
>>>find out you are pregnant early enough to get an abortion in the first month.)

>Just to clear up something in case you aren't clear on it:  The situation you
>described is no less true immediately after conception than it is at around
>5 months.  The unborn is technically a human being, is "innocent", and the
>hypothetical abortion is no more or less "premeditated" in one than the other.
>It may also technically be "homicide", and presumably the hypothetical reason
>for abortion is that she "doesn't want that human being around".  They are
>also both technically "abortion".
>You asked if there was a situation in which it would be "judged acceptable"
>(I assume you did not mean "judged by the woman" but rather that it was *done*
>"by a woman who...".)  My response was meant to indicate that yes, indeed,
>there are situations like what you described where it could be judged
>acceptable (by most people--you'll never get *everyone* to accept something).

No.  I meant JUDGED BY THE WOMAN.  Fathers have no legal right to get their
kid aborted.  

>>Come on now!  The sentience argument is a dead end!  If ANYTHING it supports
>>my position far more than it supports yours! 

>How is it dead?  Are you claiming that sentience happens at conception?  Or
>are you claiming that sentience has nothing to do with "morality"?

If I was claiming these things, I would have stated them.

There are numerous examples of non-sentient citizens and "persons" who
are guaranteed the right not to be hacked into little pieces and dumped
in a garbage can.  

>If you believe that a "soul" gives an embryo sentience, then I challenge you
>to find repeatable evidence of "souls" or find repeatable evidence of
>sentience in embryos.  (Repeatable means that I or anyone could do the same
>sort of experiment and obtain the same results.)

Did I mention "souls"?  Oh.. I didn't?  

Oh.. I was educated before the liberals got a hold of the schools, so 
I know what "repeatable" means. 

>As for morality, if you feel that a "soul" is that highest moral existance
>which must be protected at all costs, I ask you why.  Isn't it because we,
>as a species, have a level of thought and awareness beyond other animals we
>have encountered?  Isn't that sentience why a "soul" is so important?
>If "souls" cause sentience, how would you detect a "soul"?  Wouldn't it be
>by detecting the behavioral traits of sentience?  Thus if something is not
>sentient, it must not have a "soul".  On the other hand, if "souls" do not
>cause sentience, then why are "souls" important?  Is it because of the
>believed immortality of the "soul"?  If that is true then destroying it is
>not possible, so why worry so much?  (Also, try to *prove* that "souls" exist
>and are "immortal".)

>If you make your position without resorting to the supernatural concept of
>"souls", then perhaps you could explain what it is that you feel must be
>protected at all costs.  Life?  (That includes a hell of a lot, you know,
>and generally makes *your* life impossible.)  Animal life? (why?)  Human
>life? (why?)  whatever...*why*?  *Why* is that so important that it must
>be protected at all costs?  (no proof needed here, just some reasoning)

Drop the "soul" thing already... you seem obsessed with this non-issue.

I want to protect innocent HUMAN life.  Why should life be protected?
Well, gee... isn't there some really important document or something
which sort of establishes our government and our rights which says
we all have a right to "life"?  Hmm.. what's that called again?
Umm... begins with a "C", and the other part has a "B" in front.

>>>>You have only demonstrated that abortion is not legally considered murder.
>>>>This is a far cry from demonstrating it shouldn't be considered as such.

>>>*I* haven't had anything to do with explaining the current legal situation.
>>>I said "we"; that includes the banter above (legal definitions) and my own
>>>postings to the effect that murder is the destruction of a *person* (which
>>>implies sentience), and that the unborn is not a *person*.  (I also gave a
>>>lengthy posting as to why it should be considered that way, but I bet you
>>>missed it.  Maybe you read a different group than where I post?)

>>Person does not imply sentience.  There are many non-sentient persons,
>>and this has been demonstrated already.  

>Non-sentient person, what a concept.  From "person" we get "personality".
>"personality" implies sentient awareness.  How can something that is not
>sentient have a "personality" (anthropomorphism aside)?  (First you must
>disregard your conditioning to think that "human" and "person" mean exactly
>the same thing.)  This is the sort of thing *I* mean by "person".  *You*
>might use the word interchangable with "human being", but why waste a
>perfectly good term (person) to refer to exactly the same thing as is
>refered to by another perfectly good term (human being)?

Ahh.. personality, I see.  Well... I would propose to you that there are
many "persons" who lack personalities.  For example: newborn babies 
do not exhibit any personality traits that differentiate them from any
other newborn babies until they are approximately 9 months old.  Can we
kill them too?

Oh.. human and person ARE the same thing.  Ever heard of synonyms?  

With the awareness that people who quote the dictionary to prove
a point are "net.clueless":

person- 1. a human being 

Whereas sentience by DEFINITION means: having the power of perception
				       by the SENSES

I'm sure you ARE aware that unborn babies have "senses" from VERY early
in their prenatal development.   Nor does "sentience" seem to have
ANYTHING to do with "personality".  Hmmmm....

Hey, you started arguing semantics... not me.


>>>>Edward Simmonds- back from vacation, standard disclaimers  

>>>{All flee in panic}
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^==>  You flatter me.

>Well, I have to do *something* nice.  ;)

>>>-Rob

>>E.S.

>-Rob

Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh