From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 19:19:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.120002.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.042143.2459@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>> 	Now please explain why it's morally acceptable for actual, undoubted
>> human persons to die in the interest of reducing the crime rate, but morally
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> unacceptable for zygotes or fetii to die in the interest of reducing the
>                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> rates of mental and physical distress and/or illness among women.  
>
>     "Human persons" should be replaced by "convicted murderers" in your 
>appeal -- to make it more specific to the thread.
	Wrong.  In the portion of the post you deleted, I pointed out that
supporting a justice system that employs capital punishment inevitably means
supporting a system in which *some* of those convicted and executed will, in
fact, be innocent.  Unless you intend to claim that no one ever has or ever
will be unjustly executed, which is obviously nonsense.
>Second, your use
>of "zygotes or fetii" tends to dehumanize the unborn children you're
>considering (definition of child is an unborn or recently born person).
	Zygote and fetus are medically correct terms.  I know they don't fit
your political agenda, but there it is.  One might just as justifiably say
that you are trying to "humanize" zygotes or embryos.

>Third, using your assumption that abortions reduce the rate of mental
>distress among women (which is debatable), would you also assume that
>capital punishment reduces the intensity of mental distress among
>the families of those murdered?  Would this influence your thoughts
>on capital punishment, or does it only apply to abortion?
>
	You have no idea what my thoughts on capital punishment are for the
simple reason that I haven't expressed them.  For the record, I am not
opposed to capital punishment.  But then, *I'm* not the one labeling myself
"pro-life".  .
>> 	You're really better off just admitting that you're simply anti-
>> abortion and letting it go at that.  Actually claiming to be "pro-life" puts
>> you in an awkward position, philosophically.  Only the Catholic Church seems
>> to be logically consistent on this matter, since they are opposed to abortion,
>> capital punishment, and a host of other life-affecting issues.
>
>  The pro-life/pro-capital punishment position is also
>logically consistent.  It assumes that there is a right-to-life, but, along
>with this right, there is a responsibility not to murder (i.e. to unlawfully
>cease another's right-to-life).  If one acts irresponsibly, then he is 
>no longer necessarily entitled to his right.
>
	As I pointed out above (for the second time) they are not at all
consistent.  A justice system employing capital punishment will inevitably
execute some innocent citizens, no matter how well-designed.  Supporting this
system is therefore inconsistent with an ethical system that places primacy
on the sanctity of human life.  Ditto for all forms or organized warfare,
widespread availability of firearms, and so on.  All of these result in the
deaths of persons who have done nothing to forfeit their right to life.

The_Doge
ObQuote:	"Life?  Don't talk to me about life!"
			-- Marvin the Paranoid Android


Newsgroups: talk.abortion