From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:02:54 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Tim Buckley) writes:
|> I wrote:
|> >|> Tim Buckley) writes:
|> >|> >
|> >|> >Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that the fetus
|> >|> >is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
|> >|> >precedence over other rights.              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^             
|> >|> 
|> >So the death penalty, declaring war on Iraq, all go away.  The right
|> >to life takes precedence over public safety, economic interests,
|> >etc.
|> 
|> If you had read my preceding posts carefully I don't believe that you
|> would make this statement.  All my posts dealt with both sides of the
|> issue and the consistency of the arguments involved depending on which
|> of two assumptions one chooses to accept.  Giving you the benefit of the
|> doubt I assume that you wrote this before my clarification was posted.
|> It was a clarification that I at first deemed unnecessary but it soon
|> became clear that there was some uncertainty.  In my most recent post I
|> discussed that the difficulty comes in when the one person's right to
|> life is butted up against another's. 
|> 
|> The two cases you have mentioned are two such instances.  The death
|> penalty and war both require society to make judgments about whose right
|> to life takes precedence NOT whether the right to life takes precedence.
|> Without the right to life there are no other rights.  It is fundamental.
|> That IS (or should be) why we go to war (to defend our (or others) right
|> to life) and that is why we have the death penalty (to protect the right
|> to life of our citizenry).  Consistent and cohesive arguments can be
|> made in opposition to the death penalty and war this, again, is because
|> of the difficulty involved when two equal rights juxtapose each other.
|> 
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.

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.

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.

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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.guns