From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Date: 3 Jan 93 18:30:23 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Dec31.191949.27148@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
> In article <1992Dec31.120002.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Dec31.042143.2459@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>>> 	Now please explain why it's morally acceptable for actual, undoubted
>>> human persons to die in the interest of reducing the crime rate, but morally
>>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> unacceptable for zygotes or fetii to die in the interest of reducing the
>>                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> rates of mental and physical distress and/or illness among women.  
>>
>>     "Human persons" should be replaced by "convicted murderers" in your 
>>appeal -- to make it more specific to the thread.
> 	Wrong.  In the portion of the post you deleted, I pointed out that
> supporting a justice system that employs capital punishment inevitably means
> supporting a system in which *some* of those convicted and executed will, in
> fact, be innocent.  Unless you intend to claim that no one ever has or ever
> will be unjustly executed, which is obviously nonsense.

     Obviously some innocent people will be unjustly executed; personally,
this is my only reservation about capital punishment.  However, your 
statement contrasts an "exception" (an innocent person being executed) to a
"rule" (an abortion kills a zygote or fetus).  To be more consistent,
you should either compare two "rules" (of which I gave an example) or
two "exceptions" to rules.

>>Second, your use
>>of "zygotes or fetii" tends to dehumanize the unborn children you're
>>considering (definition of child is an unborn or recently born person).
>
> 	Zygote and fetus are medically correct terms.  I know they don't fit
> your political agenda, but there it is.  One might just as justifiably say
> that you are trying to "humanize" zygotes or embryos.

     Once again, I have no disagreement that zygote and fetus are
medically correct terms.  But, consistency is the key.  It would be
just as disingenuous for me to speak of conservatives as "God-fearing,
traditionalist human beings" and liberals as "left-leaning vertebrates."
Regarding the "humanization" of zygotes and embryos, I think it's pretty
safe to say that they are human.  The question is whether they should 
have any protected rights.
 
>>> Only the Catholic Church seems to be logically consistent on this 
>>> matter, since they are opposed to abortion, capital punishment, 
>>> and a host of other life-affecting issues.
>>
>>  The pro-life/pro-capital punishment position is also
>>logically consistent.  It assumes that there is a right-to-life, but, along
>>with this right, there is a responsibility not to murder (i.e. to unlawfully
>>cease another's right-to-life).  If one acts irresponsibly, then he is 
>>no longer necessarily entitled to his right.
>>
> 	As I pointed out above (for the second time) they are not at all
> consistent.  A justice system employing capital punishment will inevitably
> execute some innocent citizens, no matter how well-designed.  Supporting this
> system is therefore inconsistent with an ethical system that places primacy
> on the sanctity of human life.

     It is only inconsistent with your definition of this ethical system.
The primacy on the sanctity of human life does not mean we should all live
in some kind of protected bubble so that accidental death does not occur.
People die in *accidents* driving automobiles -- however, driving an
automobile is not hypocritical for one who is pro-capital punishment.
Some fetii and zygotes die because of miscarriage -- however, a "pro-life"
woman who conceives is not a hypocrite for introducing this possibility.

     C. Perttunen
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53962 talk.politics.misc:66095 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11329