From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 1992 08:19:22 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <65927@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <16efd4INNkes@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>|In article <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>|>In article <16drfkINNbst@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>|>>OK, Tim:
>|>>So, *if* the woman has rights that can be violated, what happens to those
>|>>rights if we decide a fetus has individual rights?
>|>
>|>Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that the fetus
>|>is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
>|>precedence over other rights.              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^             
>|Who says?  Why?  In fact, this isn't how the world works today, Tim, so you
>|are suggesting a change that has more than trivial implications for ALL PEOPLE
>|on this planet
>
>Maybe if Tim had said ALL other rights, you'd have something here, but
>I believe some of these rights would have to be individually weighed 
>against the right to life.

Scuse me, but which rights do you figure he was excluding from his statement?
If the woman *doesn't* have the right to abort, which rights that she retains
do you figure 'makes up for' having to bear a child against her will?

Tim would place potential life on the pinacle of the rights pyramid, with
the woman's rights subservient to the fetus's 'right' to life.  And then im-
plies that this somehow makes sense in our current social system.

Frankly, it doesn't.  We don't place ANYBODY'S right to life on the pinaccle
of rights pyramid with OTHER PEOPLE's rights subservient to them.  We don't 
force anybody to give up portions of their being to preserve the LIFE of
someone else.  Which is what his argument would imply.  IF there is a right
to life (arguable itself) and IF there is a heirarchy of rights (again,
arguable) then we'd have to conclude that in our current implementation of
these rights, there are individual pyramids, but that a given pyramid doesn't
overlap someone *else's* pyramid.  We don't force other people to give life-
saving elements to other people against their will.

>MAYBE JUST MAYBE the pregnant womem is IN A PLACE DIFFERENT THAN ANYONE ELSE.

What place?  The "unluckier" place?  You could make this same statement about
blacks, chinese, women in general, etc.  Would it hold any more water than
a sieve?  I don't think so.  A woman's 'rights' don't mean diddly if they can
be revoked at the will of a morally righteous subset of the population.

>The conviction that the unborn is a being of worth is enough to make 
>argue for different guidelines for a pregnant woman.  One's attitude
>about the 'human-being-ness' of the unborn, as you state below, shows
>the opposite stance.  This doesn't make either side right, but at 
>least you should be able to understand the Pro-Life position.

What, that they think this different form of rape is OK?  You figure I should
'understand' that?  That they think women can be 'demoted' in terms of their
own humanity because of an accident of nature that they don't control?  That
pro-life fetus worship should be served at a high cost to someone *else*? 

I understand this is how they think.  I do.  I think it's senseless, costly,
abhorrent and stupid, so I argue against it.

>|>The argument for women's reproductive right are based on the assumption
>|>that the fetus is NOT a human being.
>|
>|Not necessarily.  There are some, me among 'em, who don't give a damn about
>|the human-being-ness of the fetus.  We are capable of recognising that fetus
>
>Your response/attitude seems to imply that you don't care or believe the
>unborn is a human - it appears to be don't believe, which is it?

Note the phrase "human-being-ness".  What is the middle word?  What is the
difference between 'human' and 'human being' in the common use of the terms?
In the discussion at hand?

Are you being disingenuous here?

>The United Nations and States are considering risking lives by giving
>armed support for the relief efforts in Yugoslovia(sp?) - these people
>seem to have some special right.  In fact, doesn't the world often go out of
>its way to help some oppressed/tortured group or individual, when they
>are helpless?  How much more helpless can you be than the state of being
>unborn and at the free will of a woman who wants to get ride of you?

Ah.  Armed conflict is the analogy-of-the-week to pregnancy.  Does it escape
your notice that we do not have a draft?  Does it escape your notice that
even in times of a draft we have the status of 'concientious objector'?
Does it also escape your notice that the United Nations is *not* walking in
to YOUR kitchen and demanding you 'give' food?  Or into your home demanding
you give blood?

Do you understand the difference between things that go on inside your body
and things that go on outside of your body?

>Many people see something right with helping those who can't help themselves.

Against their will?

>In fact, some religous groups (maybe most) are challenged to do so.

Against their will?  

Adrienne Regard
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40830 alt.politics.bush:2261 alt.politics.clinton:2328 alt.rush-limbaugh:3770 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4684