From: mdiehl@triton.unm.edu (J. Michael Diehl)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 27 Jan 1993 19:16:10 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: triton.unm.edu
Keywords: abortion, religion


Actually, I am in awe of the final responder's logical prowess and find it hard
to add anything of substance to his post, but I have a few comments.

>>I contend that the only position that can consistently claim that a
>>fertilized egg is an unborn person, with the same right to live that I
>>have, is a religious one:  that the act of conception creates a soul,
>>and that the soul is what distinguishes humans from non-humans.  In
>>fact, I believe this is specifically Christian:  the Jewish faith, I
>>have been told, holds that the soul begins life with an infant's first
>>breath.
>
>Well, this is often said, but it isn't true (that the only basis to be
>against abortion is religious or Christian), as I'll explain below.  I
>am not a Christian, and my view is not based on any religion.

That is a crying shame.  You'd make a good Christian...you'd make a better
Christian than many Christians.  Keyword: RationalThought.

>Those who favor legal abortion often say, we don't know when human life
>starts or science can't tell us when human life or personhood begins. 

And do we really want to take the chance of killing a "person" ?

>This statement can only be made based on (at least) a quasi-religious
>belief in some extra-biological aspect in what constitutes human life
>(personhood).  The biological facts are not in question (at least, not
>this century), and these, it seems to me, are the only sound basis for
>deciding what is and isn't human life (a person).
>
`
Stuff deleted.
>when it would have been ok just a few minutes before.  I have heard it
>argued, on the NET and elsewhere in print, that "abortion" be allowed
>up to two years after birth.  I see it argued that there are too many
>people in the world and we therefore should do nothing to discourage
>abortion.  I worry about the effect of this kind of thinking on the
>children who are born and those who raise them.  Legal abortion
>inevitably cheapens human life, and I think we are seeing the effects
>of that, in the high murder rate, increasing child-abuse, and the
>increasing talk (and act) of euthanasia on the other end of life.  I
>find it highly alarming that so many people seem to take the position
>that it is ok to kill unproductive members of society simply for
>personal or societal convenience.

Damned Straight!

>It is said that we have no right to force our morality on others.  I'm
>not doing that, and wouldn't if I could.  And I don't think this is any
>business of the federal government's either way.  I think this should
>be decided by the vote, state by state.  But should a society, through
>the state, "force" morality on people.  Again, we aren't shy about
>forcing our morality on people in other cases where other people are
>involved.  We do not hesitate to "force" our morality on Jeffrey Dalmer
>or Ted Bundy, or even in the case of parents who abuse their children, 
>so we aren't violating some inviolable principle to do it in the case of
>abortion.

We most certainly do impose "our" morality on others by force of law.
(read "social contract")  We can not kill people, even if we think they
"deserve" to die.  We can't steal food, even if we're hungry....etc. etc.
Why?  Mostly because we (a part of society) think it is immoral.  The only
alternative is total anarchy.  So, we MUST impose some (small) part of morality
on others.  I just get tired of hearing, "You can't legislate morality."
Indead, we do.

>People bring up the case of danger to the life of the mother, and ask if
>abortion is ok to save the life of the mother, aren't we making a value
>judgement here?  If the fetus is a human life, why would we value the
>life of the mother's over his?  I see no need to make any value

Actually, here I dissagree with you, a little.  No one likes it, but doctors
do have to play god sometimes.  The mother is mature and can sustain herself
in society.  The child is totally dependant on others and would die if left
alone.  Which is the (purely) logical choice to make if you can only save one.
My reservation is in the definition of "matter of the life of the mother."
It has been said that ANY abortion is a matter of life for the mother, which
I must reject.  It must be a MEDICALLY proven matter of life.

>judgement over the relative merits of the two lives.  It is a clear cut
>case of self-defense, and I would treat it exactly as such.  Everyone has
>a right (and I think a duty) to defend their life by any reasonable
>means necessary, up to and including killing others, if that is
>reasonably necessary, if there is no other way out.  The fetus isn't
>wittingly putting the mother's life in danger, but does that change
>anything?  No.
>
>Once again, I posted my position on abortion because I was asked.  I
>obviously can't stop people from responding, but if you want to ask me
>questions or want to debate abortion with me, please take it to email. 
>Use the address below.

I will.


+-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
|  J. Michael Diehl  ;-]  |  I thought I was wrong once.  But, I was mistaken. |
|                         +----------------------------------------------------+
|  mdiehl@hydra.unm.edu   | "I'm just looking for the opportunity to be        |
|  Thunder@forum          |            Politically Incorrect!                  |
|  Thunder@Tiny*          |                               <me>                 |
|  (505) 272-HaHa         |                                                    |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex