From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 01:05:41 GMT

In article <l8lqguINNrs2@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

Stuff deleted.
Wasn't going to answer today but I will forego my run.

>But you start your evaluation of consistency by assuming the right to life
>should take precedence, and that only where two rights to life come in 
>conflict is there an issue.  This is an incorrect assumption.  There are,
>for example, religions where "life" is a fleeting part of the existence
>of the spirit, and losing it or giving it up are not a big deal.

You are quite right.  However, I really was speaking from the viewpoint
that most of us in this society hold.  I think most of us are willing to
make this assumption as in rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.  Please note that the right to liberty or the pursuit of
happiness are contingent on the right to life.  The right to life,
though, is not dependent on liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  They
modify the right to life.  All three have been described as inalienable.
But from a logical standpoint the right to life must take precedence and
always has in this society.  Note that depriving someone of life can get
you the death penalty but depriving someone of civil rights will get you
a relatively short jail sentence (I think the maximum is ten years).

>
>Second, you assume that rationality is meaningful in this argument.  But 
>those who are "pro-life" believe that their position is a mandate from 
>God to go out and save the heathens, not to mention the children.  Society
>can only succeed with compromise and the acceptance of others views.  
>"Right-to-Lifer's" don't even consider this a possibility.

I always assume that rationality is important and meaningful.  Sometimes
I'm wrong.  Not all "Right-to-Lifers" refuse any compromise that
statement is incorrect.  And those who will settle for no less than
abortion at will are no less compromising.  Compromise is possible and
actually common except for extremists on both sides.

>Third, your example that the death penalty decision is a question of
>"whose right to life" is innacurate.  There have been no statistics to
>show a measurable impact of the death penalty either on the frequency
>of murder (murders in the US have gone up since the reinstatement of
>the death penalty) or even on the cost of dealing with murderers.

This argument is unsound.  I'm not going to spend time debating the
death penalty (something I am opposed to personally) but I will make a
point or two.  The murder rate is rising every year.  Many murderers are
serial killers.  The FBI estimates that over 500 serial killers are now
at large killing innocents.  Everytime one of them is put to death an
argument can made that the lives of innocents are protected.  However, I
already stated that good arguments exist on the other side.  Yours is
one of the most common but not one of the best.
 
>The problem with this issue is that only one side respects the others
>right-to-opinion, something which doesn't rank very high, but should.

As noted above I believe that this is patently false.  I think that any
discussion must be framed in a respectful manner to maximize its
effectiveness.  My point to these posts was not to state my positions
but to demonstrate that each argument is logical depending on which
assumptions you wish to accep{.

Tim
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40322 soc.motss:35500