From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:14:39 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <23561@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>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) wri
>>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 Bense
>
>>>>>$%#In talk.abortion, brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
>>>>>$%#[In <23302@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

[ deletia ]

>>>>I said, they can't take away your rights (one of which is life) unless
>>>>you committed murder. That ain't so before birth, for some reason.
>
>>>You did??? Where? Actually, even if you meant this, you're still wrong.
>>>Remeber the cases where they disconnect lifesupport from accident/ill
>>>patients? I'd call that taking away rights, except for the fact that
>>>there really isn't a person to take away rights from, IMO.
>
>>Doesn't make it exactly right. And I may be wrong come 10 years from
>>now, but presently, no one can take a life away from an innocent human
>>being who'd otherwise have lived. What's worse is that _some_ folks
>>want to make it so that hospitals can disconnect you whether or not
>>you ask for it, and even if you're not in PVS.
>
>Yes, that's true and correct. Someone else can ask for you, if you are
>in a coma or seriously hurt and the future looks particularly bleak.
>It does not require that you are in PVS, and, horror of horrors, you
>can even fill out a "living will" which prevents them from even beginning
>to help you, effectively taking an innocent life.

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

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

>>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...

>Note where I say "in some cultures" meaning most likely other cultures
>than we are presently in, namely the one here in the US, which is decidedly
>different than the culture in any other country that I know of, and
>is a mixture of cultures for all that. As for being stupid, please try
>not to be, it facilitates the debate.

Gee, that's funny bro, har hardy har har.

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...

>>Translation: When "Borgie Boy" does post a rational and understandable
>>post, I ignore it.
>
>Actually, you seem somewhat more rational in this post than the last
>few weeks, so I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and revise it
>to 99.8% of the time.



>>BUT, if you want to go on talking about the birds, I don't care. I
>>only wish the pro-lifers would just let you go on and on about it, and
>>join the rest of us in the discussions pertinent to this newsgroup.
>
>First off, I don't care to discuss other posters and problems you may
>have with them and what you are presently killfiling. Second off, that
>was part of another discussion (birds/instinct) relating instinct and
>reactions. That you think this is off the mark is your opinion. You
>don't like it, remove it and don't comment on it. Is that so hard for
>you to accomplish?

It didn't automatically seem worthy of KILLfiling. Some things I pass over
because they're irrelevant, but I don't KILLfile because perhaps I may be
posting on that thread somewhere, debating someone else, or I may have been
put there both by someone making a comment regarding me, and my responding.

Like, for instance, when I KILLfile'd the "some gods aren't necessarily..."
thread, I missed the challenges to my pro-choice = adult/child sex .sig,
because it was put there while it was on my KILLfile.

The rule is, when it jumps over to religion discussions, I dump it.

But I'll always have to see it sometimes, because in picking up Kaufman's
articles again, I always see him yapping over religious facts on one hand,
and then ranting and screaming at fire hydrants about freedom of religion
and imaginary religious tyrants, on the other hand.

>>>Who said I'd fix you anything? Even courtesy does not require that I
>>>serve a complete buffoon.
>
>>Then that means you'll starve to death unless someone else feeds you.
>
>I don't see how refusing to serve you indicates that I'd starve. You
>would, provided you hung around long enough, but I get around gourmet
>cuisine quite well, although it might be a bit spicy for you, were you
>fortunate enough to be graced with a sample.

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.

>>>I don't see how it could ever mean that. It has nothing to do with the
>>>tenants of pro-choice. ALthough I don't believe consensual sex between
>>>a 15 year old and an 18 year old to be something that should be illegal.
>>>After all, the CC *required* sex between 12 year old girls and old men
>>>(as in men in their 50s) not that long ago, when marriages were fixed
>>>for power purposes. So I guess the CC is pro-child/adult sex *without*
>>>the little girl's consent. And they are one of the prime pro-life groups.
>>>Please explain yourself. How can you be pro-life, since this is what
>>>pro-life stands for.
>
>>But I never claimed to be loyal to the CC where I knew there were
>
>I didn't say you were. I said the CC is pro-life, and they supported
>this, so pro-life must stand for this. Then asked how you could be pro-life.

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.

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.


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
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.

>>logical wrongs being committed. And even if I did agree, there's this
>>tiny provision called the First Amendment, that prevents me from
>>wanting to support a church meshing with the State. (Not that I don't
>>like it, I respect the First Amendment like anyone else.)
>
>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 don't see how it could ever mean that? Well, put on glasses. The
>>judge obviously saw it. Let me illustrate:
>
>[bunch of logic garbage deleted, as it is posted elsewhere...]
>
>>(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.

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.

>>I know this will mean a big discussion over logic, but it takes your
>>flamewar-time away. Perhaps, then, this might not be responded to in
>>great fashion. Perhaps._
>
>I'm not engaged in any flame-wars, at the moment anyway. The last one
>was with Brawley, who appears to have tucked tail and ran.

The exact reason why, as you or someone else said before, I post so much in
flamewar articles, is because I never, ever, tuck tail and run. I may pull
back and let the other fool flame himself into everyone's dev/null, or I
may drag myself into dev/null right with them, but I never go and hide
there to avoid trouble.

>>I ignored it because it was too trivial to bother with.
>
>Then I'll remove it since you seem to know only how to remove the entire
>post, or none of it at all. Amazing though, you always flame patrick
>Humphrey for saying stuff like this. Hmmmm........

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 don't have any worse ego problems than you or Patrick Humphrey, who
>>thinks that just because he's in Texas and older than whatever, he's
>>hot stuff on USENET.
>
>That would make sense if I had an ego problem. since I don't, the satement
>is effectively invalid. Kind of like saying Salt lake is not any more
>salty than the river running through the center of the Sahara. (Clue-there
>is none)

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.

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.

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.

>>>>It's a principle involved: legal adults don't go messing around with
>>>>underaged kids.
>
>>>Yes, but on one hand, an 18 y-o could be considered a kid (he can't
>>>drink, you know, and is considered a minor) and a 15 y-o can be considered
>>>an adult, as they can get married. I'd call this a grey area, at the
>>>least.
>
>>Uh, but they can go to war @ 18. 15 year old's can't.
>
>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.

>>And we'll see how grey this gets when they try legalizing the stuff
>>that is now legal in Florida, in other states in this country. Any
>>fool who's fool enough to support adult/child sex... with consent, to
>>avoid rubbing your nerves raw... as being legal, will need the ACLU to
>>protect them from a mob hanging, much less a devastating defeat at
>>election time.
>
>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.

>>Actually, after reading yours and Pat Roby/Humphrey's posts, it seems
>>that someone, between you two, is shooting Formaldehyde up the arm.
>
>You're hallucinating again. Time to stop doing those drugs, borgie,
>before they make you stupid. :)

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

>>                        Robert Casey for President '96!
>>                         This Casey never strikes out.
>
>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.

>>               The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
>
>This, in my opinion, is a good thing.

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.

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

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion