From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:47:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <16efd4INNkes@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
|In article <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
|>In article <16drfkINNbst@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
|>>OK, Tim:
|>>So, *if* the woman has rights that can be violated, what happens to those
|>>rights if we decide a fetus has individual rights?
|>
|>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.              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^             
|
|Who says?  Why?  In fact, this isn't how the world works today, Tim, so you
|are suggesting a change that has more than trivial implications for ALL PEOPLE
|on this planet.  I don't think that's quite as 'simple' as you maintain that
|it is.  If the right to life takes precedence over other rights, then we could
|force all people to donate kidneys to save lives, to donate blood, to donate
|money, to give up their material goods. 

Maybe if Tim had said ALL other rights, you'd have something here, but
I believe some of these rights would have to be individually weighed 
against the right to life.

|We don't have that power today, and we aren't about to get it any time soon
|(for which some of us are glad).  But you would hold pregnant women to a
|standard that doesn't apply to ANYBODY ELSE.  Why is that?  And why would you
|imply that it is a standard that we currently live by, when it plainly is not?

MAYBE JUST MAYBE the pregnant womem is IN A PLACE DIFFERENT THAN ANYONE ELSE.

The conviction that the unborn is a being of worth is enough to make 
argue for different guidelines for a pregnant woman.  One's attitude
about the 'human-being-ness' of the unborn, as you state below, shows
the opposite stance.  This doesn't make either side right, but at 
least you should be able to understand the Pro-Life position.

|>It isn't that the woman does not have
|>rights it is that they are subservient to the right to life of the
|>fetus.  Again this is logical and consistent if you accept the
|>assumption (all arguments are based on assumptions) that the fetus is a
|>human being.
|
|No, it isn't.  A woman's rights (other rights beyond your purported right
|to life) don't get put on ohld in a rape, in her normal medical affairs, in
|her choice of job or recreation, etc.  There is NO OTHER ARENA wherein a
|woman's rights are abrogated to this extent except in your proposal, where-
|by you would give a fetus rights that NO OTHER HUMAN BEING on this planet
|enjoys.

I'm not sure to which RIGHTS you are referring - could you list some?

|>The argument for women's reproductive right are based on the assumption
|>that the fetus is NOT a human being.
|
|Not necessarily.  There are some, me among 'em, who don't give a damn about
|the human-being-ness of the fetus.  We are capable of recognising that fetus

Your response/attitude seems to imply that you don't care or believe the
unborn is a human - it appears to be don't believe, which is it?

|worshipers would annoint fetuses with rights NO OTHER HUMAN BEING has on
|this planet.  And we see something wrong with that.  You aren't merely 
|talking about raising the rights of a fetus to be equal to the rights of an
|existing person, no.  You are talking about raising the fetus's purported
|rights to a level FAR BEYOND those anyone else would have.

The United Nations and States are considering risking lives by giving
armed support for the relief efforts in Yugoslovia(sp?) - these people
seem to have some special right.  In fact, doesn't the world often go out of
its way to help some oppressed/tortured group or individual, when they
are helpless?  How much more helpless can you be than the state of being
unborn and at the free will of a woman who wants to get ride of you?

|Many people see something 'wrong' with that.  Your simplification of the
|argument mearly ignores the argument.  It does *not* address the logic of
|the arguments.

Many people see something right with helping those who can't help themselves.
In fact, some religous groups (maybe most) are challenged to do so.

|Adrienne Regard

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |