From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:59:47 GMT

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
>|> >	A member of the human species, if not killed and if given basic
>|> >nutrition, will develop into an adult human being.  Nothing else will.  Not a
>|> >sperm.  Not an egg.
>|> 
>|> Two mistakes.  First, an embryo _may_ grow into an adult human being.  Many
>|> don't.  Many children don't.  Many zygotes don't.  Many eggs don't.  (notice
>|> any similarities?)
>
>	I said "if not killed."  Even if eggs don't die, they will NEVER develop
>into adult human beings unless fertilized.

Yup, eggs won't develop into adults unless they first get fertilized,
and zygotes won't develop into adults unless they first implant.
Again, notice any similarities here?

Any many zygotes (on the order of half) fail to implant.  Not because
they were killed or because of some outside intervention, just because
they didn't.

>|>The term is pro-CHOICE, git. That means you get the choice to CHOOSE your
>|>own course of action. Why should you get the option of forcing other people's
>|> behavior while I do not?
>	THAT ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK.  YOU MUST SET SOME UNIVERSAL POINT FOR
>PERSONHOOD SOMEWHERE OR I CAN CHOOSE TO DEFINE YOU AS A NON-PERSON AND KILL YOU.
>	Understand?

Yup.  Now then, why do _you_ get to choose the point?  I like birth as
a legal point of personhood (my personal point is much earlier) for
various reasons.  Conception is still absurdly impractical.

>|> What, you think that everyone is entitled to the same rights, but children
>|> can't exercise their rights?  Doublespeak at its finest.
>
>	I believe every living human being has the rights to life, liberty and
>property, but because of the special circumstances and relationships involved in
>parenting, parents hold the rights of their children IN TRUST until those
>children are able to exercize them for their own benefit without violating the
>rights of others.

The rights of children don't exist until majority.  Children may not
vote, own property, or have the freedom do to as they wish.  Their
parent's do not get these rights either.

Further, it is clear that every human being does NOT have the right to
life, liberty and property as each of these can and is taken from
people on a regular basis, and with the support of society at large.

>    If you say children don't have a right to life, it follows that there is
>no fundamental moral reason why parents cannot kill their children.  If you 
>say that children do not have a right to liberty, there is no fundamental 
>moral reason why parents cannot enslave their children and make them do 
>anything.  If you say that children do not have a right to property, then 
>you effectively take away their right to life as well, for the reason they 
>have a right to life is because they own their own bodies.

1) I never said children don't have a right to life.  I will say that
a zygote/embryo doesn't.
2) Nobody who has ever dealt with children can honestly say that they
have any right to liberty.  How many 8 year olds do you see flying to
Cancun for the weekend?
3) Children are very much de-facto slaves.  If you think otherwise, I
would like to hear what differences you think there are between
slavery and the situation of the aforementioned 8 year old.
4) The right of children to own property tends to be very limited, if
it exists at all.  A parent may take away a young child's toy (aka,
property) at any time for any reason.  The child does not have any
right to that property.

>	On the other hand, if you say that children should have unrestricted run
>of those rights, then you sentence them to death, since few children, left to
>themselves, will know not to walk when cars are coming, etc.  If you say that
>children should be able to do anything adults can do, they will likely hurt
>themselves and others in the process.
>	I maintain that children DO have rights -- the same rights as anyone --
>not as gifts or privileges from the government or from their parents, but as
>fundamental, inalienable rights.  I balance that position by maintaining that
>circumstances demand that parents hold their childrens' rights in trust.

So you think children have the right to life, liberty, and property,
but are not permitted to exercise those rights?!?  Do you have any
notion just how ridiculous that is?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion