From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (King of Birds)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:57:31 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Gordon writes:

>Gosh, is this a private conversation, or can anyone join in?  Mind you,
>these are serious observations even though they may appear flippant.

Remember, Gordon, email is private, not the public access boards.

Kevin
>>Knapp
>>>Kevin Welch, Here are some of the things that (I think at least) need to b
>>>ironed out before we can go on.

>>>-What exactly about abortion is "wrong". Is it "immoral","unethical"?


>>It is the purposeless termination of human life.  

>Oops.  Now we have to define "purposeless".  What might be "purposeless"
>to you may well be very "purposeful" to me, and vice-versa.  I see
>religious prayer as "purposeless", does that mean I can outlaw it?

What purpose is there in killing life?  I can see no exceptions to this
"non"-purpose other than war or self-defense.  Without these two incidents,
there should be no reason to take life (human).

Bar the death penalty too.

>>                                                  It denies human beings
>>basic rights.  

>And why do you think that ALL human beings deserve basic rights?  What
>about conflicting human rights?  You know, like *womans's* rights.

I am speaking about BASIC human rights.  BASIC human rights are far more 
important than personal rights.  We override a Jehova's Witness's right to
religion (when he refuses blood) to save his life.  We override an old
lady's wish to die when the doctors think that she can live.  The right
to life far exceeds privacy.  The right of privacy on exists so far as it
does not conflict with public policy or law.  This right of privacy directly
intereferes with the right to life.

>>               It allows society to disrespect the value of life.  

>Society already disrespects human life.  Perhaps you didn't see the
>newscasts of people cheering our side in the Gulf War?  I don't see where
>abortion (something done behind the closed doors of a doctors office)
>effects society more than, say, a Rambo movie, or the reading of the
>bible (one of the bloodiest books).

War is sometimes justified.  I saw near 750,000 people cheer last week about
killing unborn children.

So what's the difference?  I'll tell you the difference.  Abortion takes
no prisoners.  War does.  The unborn child dies.  Iraqis, whoever are taken
prisoner if confronted face to face.

>>                                                                   To
>>use Kate Michelman's (prez of NARAL) logic, who said that the removal of
>>abortion rights will lead to the removal of contraceptives, to censorship,
>>to a point where the government becomes Nazi Germany, the continuance
>>of abortion will lead to the acceptance of active euthanasia to the
>>accpetance of murder to total anarchy in the world.

>I don't agree with the extreme view of the above person from NARAL,
>although I do think that contraceptive removal will be next if abortion is
>outlawed.

Oh come on, Gordon.  This would be a 180 turn for the United States
if this were to happen.  This would cause FAR more outrage.  Why in an age
of sexual awareness and diseases like AIDS would the country forbid
contraceptives if in fact it is the goal to contain diseases?

>We have it on good authority that abortion is just the foot in
>the door.

I disagree.  Abortion is the door.  It stops there.

>However, your claim about abortion is less convincing -
>abortion has been around in some form for countless centuries and it
>hasn't caused the acceptance of murder yet.  Do you accept murder just
>because abortion is legal?  I know I don't?  Does anyone on this net
>accept murder because abortion is legal?  Please speak up now.

Gordon, what about the Abortionist Case and the Twinslayers case.  Old cases
in law where those involved were tried for murder, yet they came out
scott free because of a lack of evidence.  These are murder cases; in not
deciding "guilty" the murder was accepted.  The defendants got off on a 
technical flaw.

If abortion were to remain legal and its domain extended to 9 months (better
technology means 3rd trimester abortions are safer), what would be the
difference Z that and active euthanasia of a sick human being who isn't
qualified as a person either?

I see no difference.

>>>-Where do the ethical or moral standards come from to decide the above?

>>Morals come from society.  What does a people think of a general ideal?

>Given that the abortion turnout always favors the pro-choice crowd in a
>huge way I would think that you would see that abortion _is_ moral - using
>your own logic.

I am not "a people", so I don't have to think abortion is moral--by MY
logic.  I do not represent a nation.  

>>Ethics come from reflection on the limitations and rights of humanity.
>>Can humans play God?  Can humans do this or that?  Are they permitted
>>to do this to others?  What are the natural and philosophical limitations
>>of man?  Those types of goals.  Ethics are set by philosophers and confirmed
>>by law givers.

>And the average person is expected to live by this, huh?  Dictated
>Ethics.

Yes.  What is ethical is defined in the law!  We live by dictated ethics 
already!

>Morality Imposed By Law.

Nope.  Only ethics.

>Unless philosophers are in the numerical 
>majority what right do they have to determine global ethics in a democracy?

They have already.

>>>-What property of the fetus, if abortion is murder, makes it thus? Because
>>> it is "human", a "human being", a "person", has "potential" to be one of these?
>>
>>Well, it's genetic tie to the human race affords it human rights.

>Like a liver cell?

No, not like a liver cell.  The liver cell is a unit of a liver which is a
unit of a human being (this case).  It is the human's genetic tie that
affords it rights.

>>                                                                   Because
>>I believe it to be a Constitutional person, not a phil. person, any
>>violation of its rights in the Const., especially life, makes abortion
>>murder.  

>But abortion is legal, therefore not murder.  I'm glad to see you finally
>labelling your own opinions as such too.

Yes abortion is legal...it is a product of free-hand Constituation making.
There is NO warrant in the Right of Privacy for this matter.

>>         Because it is "human", "a human", a "human being in the genetic sense"
>>and has all the potential in the world to be a "person".

>And the pregnant woman is *already* a person, but anti-abortion
>legislation reduces her to less a person in the legal sense.  Why is this
>alright?

It does not reduce her personhood status.  It reduces her "right" to kill her
unborn child...or permit it at least.

>>>-What are the poperties of the fetus that justify its being termed one of the
>>> above? Fingers, rational thought, language, myelination, potential etc.
>>
>>Human likeness in form and movement.  

>Do you realize that at 8 weeks (the normal or average time of an abortion)
>the fetus still has a tail, it's head is half the size of it's entire
>body, it's eyes are sealed shut (like a kitten's), and it has no
>functioning lungs.

Sure.  It has a beating heart, brain activity, blood flow, growth, it feeds
on energy, it puts it to purpose...it is alive.  It is human.  It is a human.
It is a human being.




>>Resemblence to the human species.  Life.  Potential.

>At the 8 week stage a human fetus resembles just about any other primate
>fetus.  And chimp DNA closely resembles the human species (99% DNA
>match).  Are these worth protection too?  They meet your criteria.

A chimp does not have the potential to be a person.  A human does.  This 1%
accounts for all the things that humans have been able to do over the past
centuries...build, construct, think, etc.  A fetus will do this.


>While your post appears rational on the surface, your statements appear to
>fail close examination.

I don't think so.  There is a conflict in your understanding of ethics
and morals.  There is disagreement on what a human actually is.  I think
that biology is a proper criterion for rights.  I think potential is
enough.

>You also fail to mention once the "other" human
>involved in abortion.

Yeah...good point.  What about the woman and the MAN involved.  The man has
a right to say in abortion.  He has a right to protect her child.

>You know, the woman.

That's not all that's involved, Gordon.

>What about her resemblence to
>the human species?

Hey, she's got human status with me any day.  Her death isn't imminent though.

>And her DNA, and her potential?

Her death isn't imminent, though.

>Why the blind worship
>of the fetus at the cost of a realized person?

The woman has little chance of dying.  The fetus in this current age has
a 53% chance of dying from abortion.  Other percentages from spontaneous
abortion and disease.

>Gordon

kevin


--
                          -*-  Kevin C. Welch -*-
                    -*- kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu -*-
     And all you have to do is catch me, when I'm back on the real scene.
And all the things that I don't do just make me laugh 'cause they irritate you.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity