From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 02:37:04 GMT


One heck of a long post, but I ask Kevin a good question somewhere in
here.

<73799@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (King of Birds) said:
>Gordon writes:
>>Gosh, is this a private conversation, or can anyone join in?  Mind you,
>>these are serious observations even though they may appear flippant.
>
>Remember, Gordon, email is private, not the public access boards.

Sarcasm Kevin, sarcasm.

>What purpose is there in killing life?  I can see no exceptions to this
>"non"-purpose other than war or self-defense.  Without these two incidents,
>there should be no reason to take life (human).
>Bar the death penalty too.

The taking of human life is not only done, and allowed, to save the life 
of a person.  For example, a woman is allowed to use deadly force to stop
a rapist.  The rapist may not have intended to kill her and may have even
told her so, but her right to not have her body used against her will
takes precedent over the rapists life.

In the same way a fetus uses the body of a woman, sometimes against her
will.  The woman should have a right to stop the use of her body against
her will, by deadly force if necessary.

The purpose is to allow the woman to control her own body, her own health,
and her own life.  Anecdotal situation: My wife worked with a woman who,
at 5 months pregnancy, had to become bed-ridden by order of her doctor.
Just standing upright induced labor contractions.  While she didn't lose
her job, she also could not continue developing her career, and because
she was not at work will miss out on possible performance bonuses.  If she
was at school during this time she would no doubt miss months of school
and lose the tuition money as well (if this occured in mid term).

You may not agree with this purpose as being important enough, but it is a
purpose for getting an abortion.

>>And why do you think that ALL human beings deserve basic rights?  What
>>about conflicting human rights?  You know, like *womans's* rights.
>
>I am speaking about BASIC human rights.  BASIC human rights are far more 
>important than personal rights.  

Enumerate these BASIC human rights for me.  And please explain why they
*are* BASIC human rights.

>                                 We override a Jehova's Witness's right to
>religion (when he refuses blood) to save his life.  

And it's wrong IMHO.

>                                                    We override an old
>lady's wish to die when the doctors think that she can live.  

And it's wrong IMHO.

>                                                              The right
>to life far exceeds privacy.

Why?  I mean, you say so, but I'm interested in why you think so.

>                              The right of privacy on exists so far as it
>does not conflict with public policy or law.  This right of privacy directly
>intereferes with the right to life.

But does it interfere with the right to life of a person?

...

>War is sometimes justified.  I saw near 750,000 people cheer last week about
>killing unborn children.

Now, now.  Were they really cheering the killing of 'unborn children', or
were they cheering the retention of women's rights?  Be honest.  I cheer
the fact that the Dallas Cowboys won a football game.  Does that mean I'm
cheering the fact that during the game they broke the arm of the opposing
quarterback?

>So what's the difference?  I'll tell you the difference.  Abortion takes
>no prisoners.  

There are no prisoners to take.

>               War does.  The unborn child dies.  Iraqis, whoever are taken
>prisoner if confronted face to face.

Excuse me Kevin, but we (the USA) bombed the shit out of an Iraqi
hospital.  Our bombs and missiles have resulted in the deaths of hundreds
of Iraqi babies and innocent women and children.  War occasionally takes
prisoners.  But it usually kills far more people than it captures.  True,
abortion always kills, but then so does dropping a bomb on an Iraqi infant.

>>I don't agree with the extreme view of the above person from NARAL,
>>although I do think that contraceptive removal will be next if abortion is
>>outlawed.
>
>Oh come on, Gordon.  This would be a 180 turn for the United States
>if this were to happen.  This would cause FAR more outrage.  Why in an age
>of sexual awareness and diseases like AIDS would the country forbid
>contraceptives if in fact it is the goal to contain diseases?

I meant that an _attempt_ to illegalize contraceptives would be next.
Contraceptives lead to icky promiscuity don't you know.

>>We have it on good authority that abortion is just the foot in
>>the door.
>
>I disagree.  Abortion is the door.  It stops there.

Talk to Suzanne Forgach, she has publically claimed that outlawing
abortion is just the beginning.  I was purposely alluding to her.  It was
a poor joke.  I apologize.

>>However, your claim about abortion is less convincing -
>>abortion has been around in some form for countless centuries and it
>>hasn't caused the acceptance of murder yet.  Do you accept murder just
>>because abortion is legal?  I know I don't?  Does anyone on this net
>>accept murder because abortion is legal?  Please speak up now.
>
>Gordon, what about the Abortionist Case and the Twinslayers case.

Not familiar with them.  My point still stands:  Does the current
legality of abortion cause you to want to accept murder?  It doesn't cause
me to.  I noticed that no one has stepped up and claimed that the
legality of abortion has led them to believe that murder is okay.

>                                                                   Old cases
>in law where those involved were tried for murder, yet they came out
>scott free because of a lack of evidence.  These are murder cases; in not
>deciding "guilty" the murder was accepted.  The defendants got off on a 
>technical flaw.

While I admit that the guilty sometimes go unpunished in our judicial
system, that doesn't mean that you should accuse someone found not guilty
of being guilty.  If a jury or judge finds there isn't enough evidence
against someone then they are *innocent* by our standards of law.  I'm not
going to defend a case I've never heard of.

>If abortion were to remain legal and its domain extended to 9 months (better
>technology means 3rd trimester abortions are safer), what would be the
>difference Z that and active euthanasia of a sick human being who isn't
>qualified as a person either?

The sick human being you're refering to isn't inside the body of another
person.  *THAT* is the difference.  *THAT* is the difference I've been
arguing about in talk.abortion for a loooong time.

>I see no difference.

You don't see the woman who's body is being used against her will.  The
woman who's body will *never* be the same again.

>>>Ethics come from reflection on the limitations and rights of humanity.
>>>Can humans play God?  Can humans do this or that?  Are they permitted
>>>to do this to others?  What are the natural and philosophical limitations
>>>of man?  Those types of goals.  Ethics are set by philosophers and confirmed
>>>by law givers.
>
>>And the average person is expected to live by this, huh?  Dictated
>>Ethics.
>
>Yes.  What is ethical is defined in the law!  We live by dictated ethics 
>already!

Therefore abortion is ethical.  It *IS* legal.  Glad you agree, point, set
and match.

>>Morality Imposed By Law.
>
>Nope.  Only ethics.

Try hiring a prostitute in CA (something I haven't done, OK) and see if
you don't get slapped in jail.  Why?  It's illegal because it's "immoral".

>>Unless philosophers are in the numerical 
>>majority what right do they have to determine global ethics in a democracy?
>
>They have already.

Didn't answer my question.  Earlier you talked about a society deciding
what is moral.  Yet you approve of philosophers (a minority) dictating
our ethics.  Why?

>>>>-What property of the fetus, if abortion is murder, makes it thus? Because
>>>> it is "human", a "human being", a "person", has "potential" to be one of these?
>>>
>>>Well, it's genetic tie to the human race affords it human rights.
>
>>Like a liver cell?
>
>No, not like a liver cell.  The liver cell is a unit of a liver which is a
>unit of a human being (this case).  It is the human's genetic tie that
>affords it rights.

A human liver cell has a genetic tie to the human race.  It's DNA is the 
same DNA found in the body when the body was a fetus.

>>But abortion is legal, therefore not murder.  I'm glad to see you finally
>>labelling your own opinions as such too.
>
>Yes abortion is legal...it is a product of free-hand Constituation making.
>There is NO warrant in the Right of Privacy for this matter.

According to you above, it doesn't matter.  It's already law.  

...

>>And the pregnant woman is *already* a person, but anti-abortion
>>legislation reduces her to less a person in the legal sense.  Why is this
>>alright?
>
>It does not reduce her personhood status.  It reduces her "right" to kill her
>unborn child...or permit it at least.

Where in the law does it force a man to allow another human to occupy his
body against his will?  It seems men have a right to not have their bodies
occupied against their wills.  And you want to allow feti the right to
occupy women's bodies against the woman's desires.  It appears you place
women below men and feti in terms of *rights*.





Point blank, Kevin:  Do you feel you have a right to not have your body
used or occupied by another human against your will?  Do you feel you have 
a right to use deadly force to stop someone from using or occupying your 
body against your will?  Especially something that could kill you and
would definately result in your body never recovering completely from.





[what makes a fetus valuable]
>>>Human likeness in form and movement.  
>
>>Do you realize that at 8 weeks (the normal or average time of an abortion)
>>the fetus still has a tail, it's head is half the size of it's entire
>>body, it's eyes are sealed shut (like a kitten's), and it has no
>>functioning lungs.
>
>Sure.  It has a beating heart, brain activity, blood flow, growth, it feeds
>on energy, it puts it to purpose...it is alive.  

That's not what you listed above.  You said "human likeness in form and
movement" when it doesn't have a human likeness nor human movement.

>>>Resemblence to the human species.  Life.  Potential.
>
>>At the 8 week stage a human fetus resembles just about any other primate
>>fetus.  And chimp DNA closely resembles the human species (99% DNA
>>match).  Are these worth protection too?  They meet your criteria.
>
>A chimp does not have the potential to be a person.  

No, a chimp does not have the potential to be a human being.

>                                                     A human does.  This 1%
>accounts for all the things that humans have been able to do over the past
>centuries...build, construct, think, etc.  A fetus will do this.

Not necessarily.  Again, it's just potential, like sperm and eggs, just
potential.

>>While your post appears rational on the surface, your statements appear to
>>fail close examination.
>
>I don't think so.  There is a conflict in your understanding of ethics
>and morals.  

Well, you didn't really explain what that conflict is.

>             There is disagreement on what a human actually is.  

I don't understand how there could be.

>                                                                 I think
>that biology is a proper criterion for rights.  

I don't.

>                                                I think potential is
>enough.

Your sperm has potential.  So do a woman's eggs.  Does that mean the fetus
that would be produced by the joining of your sperm and her egg has a
*right* to be created?  

>>You also fail to mention once the "other" human
>>involved in abortion.
>
>Yeah...good point.  What about the woman and the MAN involved.  The man has
>a right to say in abortion.  He has a right to protect her child.

I agree to a point:  he has a right to protect his child.  But a fetus is
not a child.

>>You know, the woman.
>
>That's not all that's involved, Gordon.

But you never mentioned her.

>>What about her resemblence to
>>the human species?
>
>Hey, she's got human status with me any day.  Her death isn't imminent though.

Why do a person's rights only count when they are facing direct death?
Isn't suffering enough for you?

>>And her DNA, and her potential?
>
>Her death isn't imminent, though.

So?  It isn't emminent in a rape either.  Does that mean you wouldn't
allow her to use deadly force to stop being raped?

>>Why the blind worship
>>of the fetus at the cost of a realized person?
>
>The woman has little chance of dying.  

Neither do women who are raped.  Do you want to deny them the right to use
deadly force to stop a rapist?

>                                       The fetus in this current age has
>a 53% chance of dying from abortion.  Other percentages from spontaneous
>abortion and disease.

Again I say, "so what?"  A fetus is occupying the body of a woman against
her wishes.  I find it amzing that you extrapolate acceptance of murder
from legality of abortion, but probably dismiss the extrapolation of
birthing slavery for women from the illegality of abortion.



Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity