From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:05:25 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <23561@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:
>>In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>In article <23521@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) w
>ri
>>>tes:
>>
>>>>>>$In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>>>>$%In article <23410@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Ben
>se
>>
>>>>>>$%#In talk.abortion, brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
>>>>>>$%#[In <23302@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) write
>s:

[ deletia ]

>To make a point, I'll give all those above points validity.

Thanks.

>You still have not addressed the taking of innocent life without previous
>consent.

Here we go again.

>>>That ought to be banned.
>>
>>All depends on what exactly you're talking about. Some things are banned,
>>and should be. Others are banned that shouldn't be. Right now, I can't
>>think of a single thing in this particular topic that should be banned
>>and isn't at present.

>>You may point out any you think are deserving of banning.

>Simple: the taking of any innocent human life without consent from them.
>Seeing as that some cannot be in the capacity to give consent, well, that's
>too bad for the folks that want to cut their life short...

Here, I assume that you equate fetus with human life, ie fetus == human
life.

>Do you figure that the US will ever adopt these policies?
>Don't answer that. With the Baby Doe case back in Bloomington and the
>current anencephalic infant controversy, who knows? "Life without meaning"
>(which is found in black & white in Roe vs. Wade) could stretch way past
>birth. We can't forget the eternal words of James Watson, who said it
>should be stretched a mere 3 days beyond birth...

Are you arguing here that life has no meaning until three days after
birth? If so, that's mighty gracious of you, but why the discussion???

[...]

Restated for emphasis.
>>First off, I don't care to discuss other posters and problems you may
>>have with them and what you are presently killfiling.

[...]

>>>>Who said I'd fix you anything? Even courtesy does not require that I
>>>>serve a complete buffoon.

[...]

>You missed it. It just went right over your head and it was an extremely
>low-blow at that. Okay, seeing as you seem to be sitting a few levels below
>the punchline, I'll explain it:

>I meant that if you would not serve a complete buffoon, you could not
>possibly serve yourself, and unless you had someone else feeding you, you'd
>starve.

Good try. Too bad it doesn't connect with the origianl statement without
a stretch........ I'll explain: "does not require" means "don't have
to", does this clarify the above statement for you? I could serve you,
but I think I would choose not to. Kapische?

[...](about pro-life and catholicism tied together)

>Largely because of separation of church & state. Pro-lifers could win this
>issue without any intellectual help from any church, and without any need
>to mesh church & state. If every Christian pro-lifer decided to leave
>Christianity forever and become an atheist, they'd still have a logical
>basis to pursue the pro-life cause.

Actually, I've *never* seen a logical reason presented for the pro-life
viewpoint. No one has *ever* logically demonstrated why the fetus is
an exception to the bodily autonomy rules that govern in all other cases.
Not to rehash old cases ad nauseum, but the person wrecklessly causing
an accident, destroying both of the victim's kidneys (for example) and
then not having to donate one of his own, or even a pint of blood. The
fetus, according to the pro-lifers, can require the donation of the
pint of blood *and* many other things. Why? Please demonstrate with
logical reasoning why the fetus should be beyond the rules that govern
in *all* other cases.

>In fact, religion must be distinctly and permanently removed from the legal
>bandwagon of the right to life by the time it reaches the courts or
>legislature. Any trace of it is a violation of the 1st Amendment. The only
>thing that can be sitting on that bandwagon, are principles consistent with
>science, biology, and logic in general.

I'd like to see your logical version of a pro-life stance without *any*
religious overtones. I don't think you can.

>Simply, while pro-lifers can delete out Catholic doctrine and still have a
>basis to pro-choice, pro-choice cannot ignore privacy and still have a
	^^^did you mean to "bury"?

>basis to bury pro-lifers. So all the alleged negatives that come with
>Catholic history, are grossly irrelevant to pro-life, when pro-life follows
>the First Amendment; the negatives that are coming with the current
>interpretation of the right to privacy, however, cannot be shed, and legal
>abortion must live with those negatives if they are to rely on their only
>basis of legal survival.

Those negatives are very appropiate, until a non-religious point of
view can be brought forth for arguing the pro-life side. And what are
the negatives of the pro-choice side? That 15 year olds might be able
to think for themselves? Especially in things that affect their lives
and they'll do anyway?

[...]

>>OK, but you're making the assumption that because Locke said this, and
>>you're assuming that Locke is pro-choice, that pro-choice means this.
>>I'm using similar logic to show that pro-life is even worse, as a *major*
>>group of pro-lifers believed in what I drew up. Have you heard of reductio
>>ad absurdum? I just showed the absurdity of your conclusion through
>>a parallel argument, using similar assumptions.

>Except you missed a few fundamental facts. Your argument fell apart 2 miles
>back down the road.

You wish to clarify this point? I don't see any refuting facts anywhere.
(or refuting statements in general)

[...]

>>>(P->A) -> (P->!S) (!S = false) is illogical. So P must lead to S...
>>>Unless P does also not lead to A.

>>This holds true for those determined to be able to mentally make a decision
>>on whether or not to consent. a twelve year-old can be said to be incapable
>>of making a decision of this sort. This is where your argument, such
>>as it is, drops completely through the floor.

>Can be said to. But suppose they can go to a judge and prove they're
>"capable" of making that decision? Suppose they tell the judge more about
>sex than their parents can tell the judge? In Jerry Lockett's court, he has
>already established, without any of the stated exceptions you are trying to
>imply here, that it would be legal.

If they can, so what? What's your point? Am I supposed to be horrified
at this prospect? That this could be my child in the future? If so,
you've failed miserably. This scenario indicates to things to me, 1)
that I've failed in providing the proper environment for raising my
child, provided I did not want her exposed to any of this (regardless
of time) and 2) that the child is grown-up enough to have her own thoughts,
essentially to be her own person. (No sexist remarks intended, just
that the younger of the two participants was a girl, therefore the daughter
aspect here, it could just as easily be changed to son.)

>I'd be more worried about privacy taking a trip through the floor at
>election time after that, as Americans elect politicians who would be more
>than glad to knock off privacy. My problem is, in whacking away abortion
>and underaged sex, they might damn all logic and cut out not only the bad
>privacy decisions, but the good ones, too.

They're already working on this, you've heard of the PRMS (or what ever
the exact order is) where they're in effect censoring certain records
for explicit records, groups that wish "Huckleberry Finn" banned from
schools, along with other classics such as "Catcher in the Rye", further
banning of certain types of art on display (what in the world is the
difference in the nude painting done by a guy dead for 400 years versus
that of one still living has eluded me), etc.

[...]

>I remove parts that aren't important to save bandwidth. But if I must leave
>an entire article intact to insure people know what I am addressing (to
>prevent pro-choicers from weaseling out as much as I can, and to prevent my
>own weaseling out if that's even possible), damn the bandwidth, I'll run
>the whole thing. For instance, I have deleted many things from here, but
>the critical parts remain. Have I removed the whole post or none of it?
>Your claim about me here is proven erroneous many, many times.

I've stated before that your posting style has changed drasticly in
this thread, versus other threads.  I have noticed the removal of much
garbage from this post, however. Good job.

[...] about ego problems

>You're right. You've never had the gall to tell me to "march my sorry ass
>down there and say --- to your face" as if I wasn't willing to back up what
>I say on USENET. Only Harumphrey could do such a thing.

It doesn't take gall. I just was never that offended.

>Whoops. I'm wrong again. Mark Cough Man does Harumphrey one worse: he
>threatens that if his relatives are prevented from getting an abortion they
>want, he'll make the responsible party wish they were "safe & snug in a
>Turkish prison" after he "gets his hands on them." A threat he made to
>Suzanne Forgach, a woman.

That's debatable. Fertile female is about as far as I'll go descriptively
with that one, as woman has higher connotations. As for Mark, I don't
know, and I don't really care what he has to say at this point, as I
don't read him nor does he consistently intrude on threads I am following.

>So I guess I could correct myself: my alleged ego problem, which comes from
>an ego allegedly big enough to have its own gravity field, is not any worse
>than Pat Harumphrey's or Mark the Irate Cough Man.

A correction, graciously given. Your posting style is defintely improving!

[...]about underage, and going to war

>>Audie Murphy went at 16. And some think he might have been as young
>>as 15. Care to comment?

>A non-repeatable exception to the rule, perhaps.

I don't know about non-repeatable, as there are rumors from military
sources that during WWII, and Korea, and Veitnam that underage hotshots
did manage to get in. Audie Murphy is recognizable because he was the
most decorated soldier in WWII. As an underaged one, at that.

[...]

>>I don't think too many folks are going to be complaining about a case
>>where one party just turned 18 and the other is a little under 18. Sorry.
>>The outcry would be if they tried to legalize 40/10 or some similar
>>type of sex. I don't remember exactly, but I thought there was actually
>>an age difference clause in some statutory rape laws. Some else could
>>fill the gap here.

>The judge did not mention any limits on age differences. He just said the
>adult/child part of statutory rape laws were invalid on the right to
>privacy which also stemmed abortion rights.

I'd like to see what Judge Lockett will say when there is a 9 year-old
in front of him saying " I liked paying mommy and poppy with Georgie,
that what I call him <a 33 year old man>" (Hypothetical situation)
I do think that he might not extrapolate his position in like manner.

>I wouldn't dare want to be like you, so you'll never catch me taking those
>drugs. :)

Then you'll have to start, because I don't do any, and I only drink
a couple of beers a week.(Fosters, Moosehead, Grolsh, or the new Beck's
Light:)

>>Robert Casey, a pariah to his own party from what many consider to be
>>a state almost as backwards as West Virginia.

>With more women appointed in his cabinet than any other Democratic
>executive officer, all of whom claim to be "against discrimination against
>women & minorities," and the best child support system in the country, if
>PA is backward, I'd sure hate to see how budget-less California takes the
>"forward" spot.

Who said anything about California, or any other state? Everyone I know
has extremely negative opinions about Pa, even some of my friends that
were born there. And budget (translate money) never seems to solve anything,
just bring in more consultants.

If they're women like Frau F, then that would be the same as having
an obedient male there, and one that's obedient to the CC at that. Kind
of an abridgement of the 1st amendment, wouldn't you say?

[...]

>If Dan Bredy had used this disclaimer and substituted B.O.S.S. for his own
>name, he'd still be making an ass out of himself on USENET right now.

I wasn't around to see it, so I've no clue. All I know is what I've
read, and I'll refrain from making any further statements on this topic.

>If you wish to speak for your organization, fine. Just let me get in those
>last words before your account gets removed permanently.

Only a completely ignorant brainless waif would assume that an individual
posting from some company's account has any authority to speak for that
organization. I speak only for myself, at the behest of myself, stating
only my own opnions. What the opinions of my organization are, if any,
are both unknown to me and irrelevant to what I say. I would never presume
to speak for my organization, nor, do I think, have I ever presented
myself as speaking for them. (And, conversely, as far as I know, they
have never tried to instill any particular dogma in myself either.)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.