From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 18:04:48 GMT

In <16DEC92.21555384@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>>In <16DEC92.07023222@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>>>>In <14DEC92.21004172@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>>>>   1) What quality do human beings possess that makes it wrong to
>>>>      kill them?
>> 
>>>There is no one quality that makes us "wrong to kill".  There is no one 
>>>quality that makes us human beings.  It is a whole bunch of things, some of 
>>>which are not quantifiable.  I just don't think that 
>>>age/maturity/state-of-development is one of them.
>> 
>>I disagree with this, for reasons I've discussed in previous articles.

>You disagree that there is not one quality?  Could you please tell us what 
>that quality is, in your opinion.

No, I agree with the "not one quality" part. I disagree with everything
else you said. 

There are two qualities:
   - The ability to enjoy exercising "human rights" and to suffer
     when these rights are infringed upon, OR, the potential
     to have this ability.
   - The ability to function from day-to-day without causing 
     people to suffer by infringing upon their rights (whether 
     intentionally or accidentally.)

[I don't feel like posting a long definition of "human rights".
Just assume that it means more or less what you think it means.]

If something lacks the first quality, then it isn't inherently
wrong to kill it. This would include non-human animals, as well
as brain-dead accident victims. 

If something lacks the second quality, then it isn't inherently
wrong to kill it, provided there is _no_ _other_ _way_ to keep
it from infringing upon people's rights. Examples would be unwanted 
sperm cells, unwanted non-viable fetuses, some unwanted viable fetuses,
and some criminals.

>>>>   3) If my answers to the first two questions turn out to be
>>>>      different from your answers, do you have any kind of rational
>>>>      argument that might convince me that your answers are better 
>>>>      than mine?
>>>> 
>> 
>>OK. You didn't even attempt to answer this one. I can only assume
>>that you wanted to be absolutly certain that we would answer the
>>first two questions differently. Now that you know that I disagree
>>with you, are you willing to take a stab at it? Please?

>I have already stated my arguments in previous articles (many times).  If you 
>can't find them, then I will repost them.

OK. If you're talking about some well-reasoned, logical arguments that
have the potential for convincing people, then, no, I haven't seen them 
and, yes, you should repost them.

On the other hand, if you're talking about all those times that 
you've said "It's wrong to kill a fetus because it's a person",
then, yes, I've seen them, and, no, you shouldn't repost them,
because they're not what I asked for.

They're what us talk.abortion veterans call "Blatant Assertions".
That means that you're just stating your opinion, without providing
any support that might encourage me to change my mind. 

[You'll note that my answer to Question 1, above, was also a
Blatant Assertion. However, I _have_ supported it elsewhere, in
those messages where I talked about stuff like "the greatest good for
the greatest number". There's nothing wrong with Blatant Assertions,
as long as you're willing to back them up.]
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================