From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:44:55 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Gordon

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

No waaaaaaay!   :)

>Kevin
>>Gordon writes:

>>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.

I would say this is true for self-defense in a street situation and in war.

>For example, a woman is allowed to use deadly force to stop
>a rapist.

I agree.  The rapist puts the woman in a possible situation where she
may be mortally injured or killed.

>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.

Hmmmm.  Well, if he intended not to kill, why shoudl the woman kill him?
Although I wouldn't trust that man in a situation like that when he is
so overtly violating her body.

>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.

But the woman did not create the rape situation.  It was not her fault
that she got raped.  She should be allowed to compensate for this injustice
by using force with the rapist.

However, the fetus takes no action at all with the mother.  It doesn't rape
her, threaten her with a knife or do all the disgusting things associated
with rape.  The fetus is there do to the fault of the woman and her partner.
One or both messed up along the lines and she got pregnant.  The fetus has
done no wrong...

>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).

Gordon, I can empathize with this woman.  I must agree that her situation
has a grim outlook.  But one thing I don't understand is why her advancement
is a proper reason to justify the killing of the fetus that she carries.
At five months, that's a viable fetus.  Right now the state has good reason
to block her wishes for an abortion.

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

It is a purpose, but I don't think it is a good one, considering that
the fetus is viable.

>>>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.

This Basic human right is the right to life.  It should be valued over
all other rights.

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

>And it's wrong IMHO.

I agree.  If someone wishes to die, and that's his autonomous wish, then
I will not kill him, but I will let his disease take his course.
Passive euthanasia.

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

>And it's wrong IMHO.

I don't think it is wrong when she can be saved.  I dare say most doctors
would agree, as it is their job to save lives.

>>                                                              The right
>>to life far exceeds privacy.

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

Because life evolves from such a complex process and every time a
unique individual is formed that can never duplicate itself.  If we buy
antiques, one of a kind, they become very valuable.  We just don't throw
them in the trash and say "I'll come across another."  We cannot come
across another "Gordon" ever again.  We are all unique in that sense.
Just like Ray Ban, "always imitated, but never duplicated".  

Because we are individuals and unique and that we evolve from such a
magnificient process, we should be treasured, unless we later in life, waive
our rights to this uniqueness.

I think human life should be valued above all because privacy can be regained.
Another time, another place, another country.  Human life cannot be replaced.

>>                              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?

Such as if a pregnant woman would die?  If this is the answer to your question,
I can say that the law would never outlaw an abortion that saves a mother's
life from inevitable death.

Tell me if that's not the answer you saught.

>>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.

They were cheering to keep abortion legal.  They weren't necessarily
cheering for women's rights.  They were not cheering for the killing of
ALL 'unborn children', just unborn children.

>I cheer
>the fact that the Dallas Cowboys won a football game.

Oh, Gordon!  Just when I was beginning to like you, you go an side
with those...those...Cowboys.  :)

>Does that mean I'm
>cheering the fact that during the game they broke the arm of the opposing
>quarterback?

I don't know.  Sometimes people do.  Sometimes people go to hockey games
to see the fights.  There's a lot of that in lacrosse games as well.

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

>There are no prisoners to take.

Exactly, abortion kills the one opponent of the mother.

>>               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 know the casualties of war are heavy, and sometimes unjustified.  But
war can take prisoners.  Yes, war does kill off many more than it saves,
but abortion kills all the victims.

>>>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.

Perhaps some would try an attempt, but I don't think it would fly.  I would
be against such a notion.

>>>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.

Suzanne has a different concept of the issue and she is entitled to have
one.  I agree that abortion is just the first step, but I think it won't
go any further.

Apology accepted.

>>>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.

For those that believe abortion is murder, it's like the US has said
murder is okay.  If full abortion rights are extended, the probability of
it leading to euthanasia then looser homocide laws are the same as contracep-
tives being outlawed and then what we read.

>>                                                                   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.

Agreed.  A plea or passage of not guilty means that the court has to prove
one's guilt or that the court was unable to prove one's guilt.  But I agree
that one who is not guilty is not necessariy 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.

Yes, this is the law.  I think it is good.

>>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.

But someone must pay for the sick person on the machines.  The hospital won't.
Their insurance has run out.  Now the familiy must pay for them.  Is
that a violation of their rights?  I mean, shouldn't they be able
to kill the person on the machines?

It's the same thing as abortion.

>>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.

What about the family who is suffereing against their will.


>>>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.

Okay, I'll give you that one.  (damn)
Bad wordage.

How about "What is ethical SHOULD be defined by law."


>>>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".

It's also illegal because of the disease she may spread.  It's also illegal
because it is unethical.

>>>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?

Society can conjure values for themselves during eras.  These are morals.
Morals change.  Ethics are everlasting, until humans mutate into better or
worse forms.

I approve of ethics that dictate that I should respect human life.  I approve
of ethics that say we should value bodily autonomy.  So I approve of the
general ethics consensus.

>>>>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.

Yes, but it is not one functioning being.
It cannot act without the body.

>>>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.  

Well, it does matter.  When two laws conflict, they must be resolved.
Here is a conflict Z privacy and life.  LIfe should prevail as the
overriding ethical concept.


Ah, the important question:

>Point blank, Kevin:  Do you feel you have a right to not have your body
>used or occupied by another human against your will?

I believe if one being is not genetically tied to me, not directly dependent 
upon me as a human being for one and only one purpose, and if that one
being did not come into existence without my presence, I have the right to 
allow my body to be used by only myself.

I believe that after birth, one's body cannot be violated in this sense.


>Do you feel you have 
>a right to use deadly force to stop someone from using or occupying your 
>body against your will?

No one can occupy MY body.  I believe in using force to prevent violation
of my body.

>Especially something that could kill you and
>would definately result in your body never recovering completely from.

I would use force for this outside intruder who seeks entry.


>>>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.

All those things fall under human likeness.


>>>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.

Different concept:  human being v person.

>>                                                     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.

In cases of retardation, this will not occur.  Most fetuses will do this.


>>             There is disagreement on what a human actually is.  

>I don't understand how there could be.

What are the following to you:
person
human being
human (adj)
human
Constitutional person
moral human being


>>                                                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?  

Sperm and egg have 0 potential to be a person.  They have a potential to
be a human fetus though.


>>>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.

What about the man who wants to keep the fetus that his wife carries?
Why should he not have a say, much less be notified of an abortion?


>>>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?

Sure suffering counts.  But when human life is involved, life is more
special.  It deseves more attention.

>>>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?

I would question deadly force as I did above.  Definitely I would allow force.


>Gordon

Gordon:  could you repost next time or really do some major truncating?
This one's really long.


welch

--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Kevin Welch | Penn Pro-Life   | Spread your conscience overseas:
| kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu   | We are agents of the Free.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion