From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:15:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <g2yn=gf.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> <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) writes:
|> >|> <Sep12.071229.20901@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> >|> ><1992Sep2.205935.9428@coopsol.com>, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> There is no child or baby involved in an abortion, except those cases of
|> >|> an underage girl having an abortion.  You can't impose beliefs on a fetus
|> >|> (as in make them obey or follow you belief system).  You can *apply* your
|> >|> beliefs on a fetus, but then, so what?
|> >
|> >	Well, that's where we disagree, isn't it?  You arbitrarily choose some
|> >level of development you think is "good enough" and call that class of human
|> >beings "persons."  I, on the other hand, would not presume to impose my personal
|> >judgements regarding the beginning of personhood on any living humans.  Hence,
|> >you make an arbitrary division among living human beings and I do not.
|> 
|> *We* arbitrarily apply all sorts of limits and levels of development on
|> *people* all the time.  Can a 16 year-old vote in this country?  If
|> the IQ of the 16 year-old is 180 can it vote?  Can a 7 year-old drive a
|> car?  Can a 30 year-old be president of the USA?   Can a 15 year-old be
|> legally drafted?
|> 
|> What level of development does a 17 year and 363 day old teenager have
|> that prevents them from making as informed a decision about who to vote
|> for as an 18 year and 1 day old teenager?
|> 
|> Why does the government issue Birth and Death certificates but not
|> *Conception* certificates?  Why do you have to be 18 to play the CA
|> lottery?
|> 
|> These are all *arbitrary* age points that *we* decide or agree are
|> reasonable for the specific activity.

	You seem to be assuming that merely because certain legal restrictions
are applied to certain groups on the basis of age that those groups do not have a
right to life, liberty or property.
	Parents are responsible to protect the lives of their children.  If they
simply let their children do anything they pleased, that responsibility could
never be carried out to any satisfactory degree.  The child has the same rights
as you or me, but those rights are held in trust by the parents until the child
attains a sufficient degree of knowledge to use them without harming himself and
others.
	Parents cannot kill their children.  But they can corporally punish them.
 They cannot enslave their children.  But they can insist, to a fairly extensive
degree, that the child learn certain skills and do certain things, especially if
those things are  necessary to the child's future well-being.
	Making a reasonable decision about who to vote for is a complex skill,
much more complex than driving, etc.  It is reasonable to set a fairly high age
limit.  It is reasonable to require that those who vote must have a sense of
values, they must be able to assess what is in their interest, and so on.  As a
society, we have decided that the great majority of people can do this (within
reason) by the age of 18.  Nobody is violating their rights, but their rights are
being held in trust until the individual is reasonably able to exercize the
right without harming himself and others.

|> >	Just what OTHER living human beings aren't quite good enough for you? 
|> >Cripples?  Those in a coma?  Newborns?  The mentally handicapped?  Where does it
|> >end, Gordon?  And don't dodge that question: give me a real answer, and give me
|> >your reasons for that answer.  Where does it end?  What human beings are good
|> >enough for Gordon Stoga?
|> 
|> Cripples?  They're good enough, as long as they obey the laws like the
|> rest of us?

	Why?  Unborn children violate no laws.

|> Those in a coma?  Good enough, and technically unable to vioalte the law.

	Those in a coma are NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING.  My dog is probably more aware
then most comatose folks, and I don't even have a dog.  Why should those who are
not aware and who may never be aware again be considered persons?

|> Newborns?  I suppose so, they sort of fit in amongst the comatose in my
|> list.

	Same argument as above.  If awareness is your criteria for personhood,
newborns are just about comatose for practical purposes.

|> Mentally handicapped?  They're good enough too, as long as they obey the
|> laws.

	Why?

|> Where does it end?  Where the constitution says it ends.

	The constitution does not grant a right to commit abortions.  But suppose
it did.  Is the constitution the source of moral law?  For that matter, do you
believe in moral law at all?

|> What human beings are good enough?  Those that obey the laws, those that
|> do not occupy the body cavities of another person against that person's
|> will.

	So we have two general categories: law abiding citizens, and those who,
while they may be law-abiding, inhabit the body cavity of someone else against
their will.
	And it is your opinion (correct?) that any one person who happens to
inhabit the body of any other person may be killed by the former person, and you
maintain this to be true absolutely, regardless of any modifying circumstances or
other special exceptions.  Is this your opinion?

|> My answers are fairly succinct to save bandwidth.  Don't assume that the
|> answers given are the *only* reasons behind my opinions.
|> 
|> >	BTW, I don't pick on you because I dislike you, but because your comments
|> >are interesting enough to deserve a reply.  No offense, I hope.
|> 
|> No problem.  The "personality" of my responses vary with my mood which is
|> governed by what I might have just heard on the radio or TV, my work load,
|> and my personal life.  It may not seem like a fair thing, but I'm honest
|> about it.

	Fair enough.

|> >|> >|> Another question:  In the above simple scenario, would it be better if you
|> >|> >|> came to me with a problem and I said, "You can *only* do such-and-such,
|> >|> >|> you have no other choice"?  Which would you prefer, if it were you?
|> >|> >
|> >|> >	It would certainly be better if you had advised me not to rob the bank;
|> >|> 
|> >|> Don't go robbing any banks now Steve. Unless you are prepared to face the
|> >|> consequences.
|> >
|> >	Don't go killing any unborn children, Gordon, whether you're prepared for
|> >the consequences or not.
|> 
|> I can't kill any "unborn childre", Steve.  And, on the off chance you are
|> speaking of 'fetuses', what "consequences" of being a party to an abortion
|> would I be facing?

	The consequence you SHOULD face is the consequence most people who
commit first-degree murder should face: you should be hung by the neck until
dead.  BTW, your statement above contains a factual error.  All the unborn, from
conception to birth, are human young.

|> >|> >or in the case of abortion, if you advised the woman not to destroy her child.
|> >|> 
|> >|> No child to destroy.  You analogy falls flat because you equate a fetus,
|> >|> *barely* the complexity of a brine shrimp, with a child.
|> >
|> >	What are your criteria for personhood, Gordon?  And what means would you
|> >use to empirically test them?  And is your test susceptible to false negatives? 
|> 
|> Personhood has never been the basis for my pro-abortion stance.  The fact
|> that a woman has her body used against her will has always been good
|> enough for me.  As I've stated before, I don't really care if the fetuses
|> is going to be the next Ghandhi, Jesus, or Einstein - if it's in the body
|> of a woman who doesn't want it there then it should be removed.  If it can
|> be removed in such a way that keeps it alive, and releases the woman from
|> *all* responsibility, then fine.

	You brought up the issue, and I'd appreciate an answer if you have one. 
What is your definition for person?  Naturally, it may be that you simply haven't
considered the matter and have no answer.

|> >Or false positives?  And if so, just how susceptible?  And why should your
|> >criteria be accepted and not someone else's?
|> 
|> Because it is one of the criteria we as "Americans" have prided ourselves
|> upon for the last 100 years:  Freedom from slavery.

	Are you saying that anyone who does not consider personhood to begin at
birth is an advocate of slavery?  Come on, Gordon, I really expected better of
you.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion