From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:10:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct3.021200.5507@coopsol.com>, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> <Sep29.232904.29538@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) said:
|> >Sorry for the lateness of this reply....
|> 
|> Me too.
|> 
|> ><x=7nmyj.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> >|> <Sep19.235331.40287@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> >|> ><1992Sep17.214822.708@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil>, perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
|> >|> >|> In article <Sep14.172042.44575@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> >|> >|> ><kzwnk!r.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) :
|> >|> >	Sperm and ova are not living member of the human species.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Could you please tell us of what species they are living members?  Or are
|> >|> you claiming they aren't alive?
|> >
|> >	They are living organisms and they are produced by human DNA.  That does
|> >not make them members of the species homo sapiens any more than one of my skin
|> >cells, also alive and produced by human DNA would be a member of said species.
|> 
|> Perhaps you could tell us of what species they are living members?  I'm
|> serious.  You say they are produce by humans but are not members of the
|> human species.  I could easily say the same thing about fetuses.

	I don't know if they are really members of ANY species per se.  Is a skin
cell of mine a member of the human species?  Even though it will never, can
never, with the mere addition of nutrition develop into a human being?  I think
not.
	If you have evidence to the contrary, I'll gladly consider it.

|> >	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.
|> 
|> But that wasn't the point.  Is a sperm cell or an egg cell an individual
|> entity?  Before you answer you better realize that each combination of
|> sperm and egg from the *same two people* will produce unique results.  It
|> seems to me that eachb sperm cell is therefore an individual entity.  Now
|> if it is an individual entity, and it's of human origin, doesm't it inply
|> that egg and sperm are living members of the human species?  

	Yes, if you use the term "human" as an adjective rather than a noun.  My
hair is human in that sense, Gordon, but certainly it will never develop into a
human adult, no matter how long we wait or what nutrition we provide it.

|> >|> >	But I don't see why you set personhood at one level of
|> >|> >awareness and not another.  Why can't we go out and define a
|> >|> >super-race, a class of men and woman with I.Q.'s above, say, 150,
|> >|> >who would have a right to life -- and everybody else would be
|> >|> >killed off to preserve racial purity.
|> >|> 
|> >|> It's been tried.  Remember a certain global disturbance in or around the
|> >|> year 1941??
|> >
|> >	Indeed it has been tried, and it is being tried right here in the good
|> >ol' US of A.
|> 
|> You're right.  Sadly, racism is on the rise, the flames fanned by
|> conservative extremists.  But I'm not accusing people like Rush 'n Chaney.

	Yeah, racism too...racism and abortion both.

|> >	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?
|> 
|> Technically Steve, I don't really care about awareness.  I've made this
|> clear before in statements about abortion and other analogies.  No one and
|> no thing has the right to occupy the body of another human being against
|> that human being's will, IMHO.  I don't really care if it's the next
|> Einstein, or it's Reverend Jim.
|> ...

	Yes, but awareness is important if your other argument fails, which I
firmly believe it does.

|> >|> And I've seen pro-lifers claim that married person are truer and better
|> >|> than unmarried people and should be accorded better treatment wrt jobs and
|> >|> housing.  It seems that both sides have certain age limits that they allow
|> >|> more or less protection.
|> >
|> >	I disagree with those pro-lifers.  I should point out, however, that
|> >refusing to hire someone for any reason does not violate his or her right to
|> >life, liberty or property.  I would condemn discrimination as immoral, but I
|> >would not use coercive force against those who do it.
|> 
|> Let me understand this:  You think discrimination is immoral (and you
|> think abortion is immoral) but you wouldn't attempt to use coercive force
|> to stop it (but you would use force of law to prevent abortion), even
|> though discrimination could cost people jobs, which in turn can cost
|> people housing, health care, education, and prevents them from purchasing
|> property.

	Discrimination in and of itself does not violate the rights to life,
liberty or property.  Assault, on the other hand, or murder, or theft, all these
things clearly do violate those rights.  My reaction to the racist would be to
refuse to buy from him or sell to him; he can't last long at that rate, if
everybody or most everybody cooperates.  But if the racist does not violate
someone else's right to life, liberty, or property, I cannot condone the use of
force against him.
	You're saying you can?

|> >	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.
|> 
|> Let me understand this: a child cannot own property, nor do they have true
|> liberty, but you think this sort of age discrimination is ok.  Right?

	Right, because I believe the parent holds these rights in trust.  A
parent holds these rights to prevent a child from doing something likely to harm
himself or others; the right is held in trust until a time legally determined, or
until such time as the child can exercize his or her rights without harming him
or her self and others.

|> As far as parents holding rights in trust for their child...  this is pure
|> baloney.

	But you have already agreed to the concept elsewhere.

|>  At the age of 18 in this country an individual can go out and
|> vote, regardless of whether their parents are alive, or are aware of their
|> actions.  There is no "trust" for the minor's rights held by a parent.

	I agree.  So what?  At the age of 18, our society recognizes that most
persons are capable of exercizing their rights more-or-less responsibly.

|> > 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.
|> 
|> Ah, if only more parents took an active role in their child's development,
|> instead of trusting it to strangers in a school system.

	Agreed!  Bravo!  I never expected to read such words of wisdom from your
pen (or keyboard in this case).

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion