From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:21:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Sep30.174333.22062@netcom.com>, 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.

|> Second, nutrition is not the only requirement as a suitable environment
|> is needed.  Adults need an appropriate environment, as do children,
|> fetuses, embryos, zygotes, and eggs.  (notice any similarities?)
|> 
|> Third (OK, _three_ mistakes).  An egg may also grow into an adult human 
|> being.  Yes, it's an obvious statement, but Mr. Arnold excluded this 
|> possibility.

	I said "if not killed."  Putting a developing human into a deadly
environment amounts to killing it just as much as I would be killing you if I
submerged your head under water for 15 minutes.

|> >I don't why any "level of awareness" which you establish as the "defining
|> >point" of personhood should be accepted as valid while the level which I set
|> >would be rejected.  Why, fundamentally, do you have the right to establish the
|> >appropriate level whereas I do not?
|> 
|> 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?

|> >	As for your last sentence, I have already replied to this.  I do not
|> >believe that we can justifiably set any age limits for the fundamental rights to
|> >life, liberty or property; but I do maintain that to best protect those rights
|> >for the benefit of the child, parents can and must hold those rights in trust for
|> >the child until he or she is able to use them without hurting himself and others.
|> 
|> 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.
	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.
	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.
	If that's doublespeak, I'd like to hear your alternative theory of
children's rights.

|> > A parent cannot kill their child, but they can corporally punish; they cannot
|> >enslave their child, but they can insist that the child learn necessary skills
|> >and generally develop into an adult who can cope in today's society.
|> 
|> Parents can't enslave their children, but they can make the kids do what
|> they want.  My my, Mr. Arnold.  You've been studying "1984", haven't you?

	As a matter of fact, I have been.  Winston would make an argument, and
O'Brien would simply reject it out of hand, just as you're doing.  Is 2+2 always
equal to 4?  Not always.  Sometimes it's 3, sometimes 5...is that your logic?  I
await your rebuttal.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion