From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 21:21:47 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa

<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:
>|> >|> <1992Aug31.145731.12606@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
>|> >|> >In article <a3andz+.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>|> >|> ...
>|> >|> >And everybody wants to impose their belief system on the rest of the
>|> >|> >country through the use of law.
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> Please answer this simple question directly:  If you come to me with a
>|> >|> problem and I say, "It's your decision, your choice", how does that
>|> >|> qualify as imposing my belief on you?  I'm speaking in the context of
>|> >|> abortion, ok?
>|> >
>|> >	If I told you I needed money and I wanted to rob a bank: what do you
>|> >think?  And if you said, sure, go ahead, it's your decision -- you have, of course,
>|> >NOT imposed your beliefs on anyone.  But if I went and robbed the bank, *I* would
>|> >certainly be imposing my beliefs on others, and that would be impermissable. 
...
>|> >Relating it to abortion, when a woman has an abortion she is taking the life of
>|> >her unborn child, and is therefore imposing her beliefs on her unborn child to
>|> >the point of killing the baby.  This is a pretty serious level of imposition.
>|> 
>|> 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.

>	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?
Those in a coma?  Good enough, and technically unable to vioalte the law.
Newborns?  I suppose so, they sort of fit in amongst the comatose in my
list.
Mentally handicapped?  They're good enough too, as long as they obey the
laws.
Where does it end?  Where the constitution says it ends.  
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.

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.

>|> >|> 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?

>|> >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.

>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.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and 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: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity