An Interesting American
Dvdwn
Theology. His favorite topic is morality. He has the same type of ability to
see to the core of issues as did Ayn Rand. He has profound respect for the
Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. He is a very engaging
speaker and ran for the Republican nomination in 1996.
In 1996, Alan Keyes was
physically prevented from participation in a later round of debates and removed
from the premises. This, because polls determined he wasn't likely to win the
nomination. Really because the "influential" were able to use the poll data to
exclude a competetor. It worked like it worked against the Libertarian Party.
Since 1996, I've seen Keyes speaking to conservative
audiences on C-Span and recently on the "Sick Willie in Crisis" shows. (His
slick days are over). Keyes' interpretation on the prez is that he stole the
'92 elction with his lie, and must give back what he obtained by fraudulent
means, which is the presidency. The man sounds extraordinary in his
perceptivness. Just his facination with morality in a nearly amoral country
distinguishes him. Lately, I'm beginning to see that liberals see morality as
only a collective enterprise. The human is hopelessly immoral. So give money
and you've fulfilled your obligation. Now you are given your ticket to all of
the deepest levels of depravity you desire. Since that is
the nature of the enemy, how does Alan Keyes compare to Harry Browne as someone
to support for president?
David Wharton
Robert Kolker
.................snip econium of keyes..................
What is Allan Keyes stand on abortion. Does he
regard women as brood mares of the Human Race?
Does he think that abortion is even in the
domain of government concern?
If Keyes is an abortion prohibititionist, regardless of
how capitalist friendly he is on other issues I do not
want him within a kilometer of power.
I regard the issue of self ownership of ones body
and life force a litmus test of fitness to govern.
Bob Kolker
John Alway
>
> He's not an objectivist. His values are derived mostly from Chri
> stian
> Theology. His favorite topic is morality. He has the same type of ability to
> see to the core of issues as did Ayn Rand.
No he doesn't. He's on the same planet as Ayn Rand. His philosophy
is actually quite Kantian. In fact, I recall him glowingly quoting from
Kant on ethics. He rails against selfishness with zeal.
> He has profound respect for the
> Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. He is a very engaging
> speaker and ran for the Republican nomination in 1996.
He, like so many conservatives, doesn't understand the philosophy
behind the Declaration of Independence. He is not animated by the same
spirit as the founders.
When I first saw Alan Keyes speak, I was impressed, and had great
hopes, but the more I hear his views, the less I agree with him. Yes,
he is a principled man, but his principles are the problem.
...John
liam...@my-dejanews.com
Then you might like Harry Browne's approach, Bob.
While he personally does not favor abortion, he considers it completely
outside the government's business. He believes the government should not be
involved in the issue, in any manner.
Warm regards,
A...@LiamWorks.com
*How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World*
by Harry Browne http://www.HowIFoundFreedom.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
lfin...@hotmail.com
> If Keyes is an abortion prohibititionist, regardless of
> how capitalist friendly he is on other issues I do not
> want him within a kilometer of power.
I am sure you would prefer Clinton or Gore since they
fully support the right to suck the brains out of
8 month old fetuses.
lf
lfin...@hotmail.com
> He, like so many conservatives, doesn't
> understand the philosophy behind the
> Declaration of Independence.
Given the possible choices, does it _really_
matter whether he supports the Constitution
and Declaration of Independence, etc? Does
it really matter, today? There are important
principles in those documents that will
"win out" because they are right. Period.
It is far better to support a man who supports
the Constitution, even if he doesn't fully
appreciate it, than to by lack of action,
by default, supporting the likes of Clinton.
That has always been the problem with
Objectivists. That is why they are political
losers, just like the Libertarians. If they
had half a brain they would be supporting
Christian right supporters of the Constitution.
Not because they like Christians, but because
they (should) love the Constitution and
anybody truely for that should be our friend.
Return to the Constitution, return to some
semblance of respect for the Bill of Rights,
return to a small Feral government and _then_
we can discuss whether it should be legal for
women to have the brains sucked out of 8 month
old fetuses.
regards,
lf
He is not animated by the same
> spirit as the founders.
>
> When I first saw Alan Keyes speak, I was impressed, and had great
> hopes, but the more I hear his views, the less I agree with him. Yes,
> he is a principled man, but his principles are the problem.
>
> ...John
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
genein
Dvdwn <dv...@aol.com> wrote in article <
Keyes' interpretation on the prez is that he stole the
> '92 elction with his lie, and must give back what he obtained by
fraudulent
> means, which is the presidency. The man sounds extraordinary in his
> perceptivness. Just his facination with morality in a nearly amoral
country
> distinguishes him. Lately, I'm beginning to see that liberals see
morality as
> only a collective enterprise. The human is hopelessly immoral. So give
money
> and you've fulfilled your obligation. Now you are given your ticket to
all of
> the deepest levels of depravity you desire.
keyes may well be a good speaker but much of his platform should be
evaluated a bit more closely...a national sales tax to replace income
tax?...it is very compelling and one may conclude that just maybe, it
could work.....but as it stands today those who make large sums of money
pay large sums of income tax..there are tax breaks into todays system that
benefit the small wage owner....a tax credit for the middle class when
sending their children to college and yes there are those few who pay
little or no tax.....his nst is dependent on how much you spend, that is,
spend less and pay less taxes, simple, sounds good, but in reality
unfair...there are so many pitfalls in the nst that i can only invite
others to walk it through and discover for themselves.....during a
recession people reduce their spending, how does the government make up
this shortfall expecially in a time of crisis and please understand many
cuts affect the average citizen...
his statement "we need schools that are in the hands of people who pray"
indentfies him further...oth his stand on affirmative action has
merit....he also has said "if we find that our rights are violated, we
have the right to resist and overthrow"........my question is "who is we"?
is he advocating a race war?..a class war? in a nation such as the united
states there are many groups that are "we"
keyes is a mixed bag and at the moment while i also firmly believe in a
greater morality it does not neccessarily follow that morality must spring
from the christian right...
complex as our system is today..it can be fine tuned without upsetting the
proverbial applecart...imo people are never satisfied with the present
until they have lossed it to those who offer a shiney lamp for the
old...if you recall that little story.
g.
> David Wharton
>
Jeffrey Haber
lfin...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I am sure you would prefer Clinton or Gore since they
> fully support the right to suck the brains out of
> 8 month old fetuses.
...and I prefer Clinton to a Christian fundamentalist who supports
capitalism but
opposes abortion. Not being able to decide whether or not you will spend
the
next 18 years raising a child is a huge government-imposed burden on your
life.
You could abstain from sex, but that is also a huge deprivation. This is a
much
bigger issue than whether or not a Republican will cut your taxes by a few
percentage points.
Can you provide an argument that an 8 month old fetus has a right to pursue
its
life? For that matter, can you demonstrate that it posesses a
personality--a
rational consciousness and not just an animal's consciousness? I have
observed
no evidence that a newborn has anything more than an animal's mentality--no
person is in there.
Furthermore--that Christian fundamentalist capitalist president will be
advocating
the kinds of philosophical ideas that are inimical to capitalism. Part of
Christianity
is altruism. You have a duty to sacrifice yourself to God, to the poor,
the sick, etc.
It also holds that knowledge is gained, not through reason, but divine
revelation and
accepting others' revelations on faith. Christianity has been around for
hundreds
of years and was the pre-eminent philosophy in Medieval times. A president
who
advocates a contradiction--the Christian philosophy and capitalism, will be
advocating
a return to the Dark Ages because metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics are
more
fundamental than the politics he is advocating. Long term, you will not
have the
products of reason by believing and indoctrinating others to live and
believe unreason.
The extent that a religious mystic nation's populace is wealthy will be the
extent
to which they have political freedom and the extent to which people
compartmentalize
and do not take faith seriously as a means of knowledge in their productive
life. (If a
religionist plows his field, he'll have food, but if he takes his religion
seriously and spends
all of his time praying and hoping for manna, he'll starve.) (The Arab
states are a
good illustration of this.)
Jeffrey Haber
http://www.sb.fsu.edu/~haber
lfin...@earthlink.net
Jeffrey Haber wrote:
> ...and I prefer Clinton to a Christian fundamentalist who supports
> capitalism but opposes abortion.
Well, at least you admit to being evil and irrational.
That's step in the right direction.
> You could abstain from sex, but that is also a huge deprivation.
Try rubbers.
> l...can you demonstrate that it posesses a
> personality--
Can you prove that you have one? :)
> I have observed
> no evidence that a newborn has anything more than an animal's mentality--no
> person is in there.
Really? You have been present at the birth of any childrenyou fathered?
The fact of the matter is that Clinton et al are pure, unadulterated
evil. They want to take away _all_ of your freedoms. At least
the Christian supporter of the Constitution is willing to defend _some_
of your most important freedoms (as defined in the Constitution).
Marc H. Po
And, it is the same animal mentality that I was born with. I have merely
added 42 years of programming and experiences to my being
--
Regards,
Marc H. Po
For the benefit of Spambots everywhere:
webmaster@localhost abuse@localhost postmaster@localhost
Jeffrey Haber <ha...@sb.fsu.edu> wrote in article
<35E90DE7...@sb.fsu.edu>...
>
>
> lfin...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > I am sure you would prefer Clinton or Gore since they
> > fully support the right to suck the brains out of
> > 8 month old fetuses.
>
> ...and I prefer Clinton to a Christian fundamentalist who supports
> capitalism but
> opposes abortion. Not being able to decide whether or not you will spend
> the
> next 18 years raising a child is a huge government-imposed burden on your
> life.
> You could abstain from sex, but that is also a huge deprivation. This is
a
> much
> bigger issue than whether or not a Republican will cut your taxes by a
few
> percentage points.
>
> Can you provide an argument that an 8 month old fetus has a right to
pursue
> its
> life? For that matter, can you demonstrate that it posesses a
> personality--a
> rational consciousness and not just an animal's consciousness? I have
> observed
> no evidence that a newborn has anything more than an animal's
mentality--no
>
> person is in there.
>
lfin...@hotmail.com
> ...and I prefer Clinton to a Christian fundamentalist
> who supports capitalism but opposes abortion
This truely illustrates a mind out of proportion
(and not atypical of some Objectivists, though I am
not sure Jeffrey earns that title).
Let us say you have two alternatives:
1. Going back to a society where abortion was flatly
illegal, but most individual and property rights
were respected, or,
2. going forward to a society where abortion is both legal,
and government funded, but all rights and property were
subject to "social goals".
The correct answer _should_ be obvious, even to the
terminally brain-dead.
lf
lfin...@hotmail.com
> I am 42 and [an ] animal mentality working for me.
I believe you!
> I have merely added 42 years of programming and experiences
> to my being
I believe you! Everything you needed to know you learned
in kindergarten. Now, please go back and play with the
other children.
Robert J. Kolker
lfin...@hotmail.com wrote:
> ...............snip..............
> Let us say you have two alternatives:
>
> 1. Going back to a society where abortion was flatly
> illegal, but most individual and property rights
> were respected, or,
>
> 2. going forward to a society where abortion is both legal,
> and government funded, but all rights and property were
> subject to "social goals".
>
This of course is a false alternative.
What we should have is a society
where property rights are *strictly*
recognized and enforced. And that
includes fetuses and newborn's which
are the property of their mother.
Bob Kolker
PS. I am so brain-dead I can recognize
your goy-shaygetz anti-abortion bias
10 klicks in the distance.
Jeffrey Haber
lfin...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Jeffrey Haber <ha...@sb.fsu.edu> wrote:
>
> > ...and I prefer Clinton to a Christian fundamentalist
> > who supports capitalism but opposes abortion
>
> This truely illustrates a mind out of proportion
> (and not atypical of some Objectivists, though I am
> not sure Jeffrey earns that title).
>
> Let us say you have two alternatives:
>
> 1. Going back to a society where abortion was flatly
> illegal, but most individual and property rights
> were respected, or,
>
> 2. going forward to a society where abortion is both legal,
> and government funded, but all rights and property were
> subject to "social goals".
It depends on whether or not society #2 is socialist or communist..
If abortion is illegal in the free market society, how long can that free
market society last if the vast majority of the populace (I assume) are
religious mystics? If the vast majority believes
in altruism and that men and women should be sacrificed for fetuses, how
long will it continue to
support capitalism and individual rights? How long before the government
tries to regulate other activities which contradicit religious mysticism?
If your life belongs to God, and if the people believe that the
individual's interest should be sacrifice for God, as demonstrated by their
position on abortion, then will they try to force people to become
Christians and indoctrinate children?
Ownership of the functioning of your own body and the ability to chose how
you want to live your life and what responsibilities you will undertake is
just as fundamental as your freedom to pursue private property, if not more
so.
If the second society you mentioned were socialist--like England, France,
or Sweden, and not a communist nightmare like China or the Soviet Union,
I'd go with the second option and have "social freedoms" and not the
economic ones. At least the populace believes to some extent that you
should be happy, that you should have the freedom to do whatever you want
with your own body (abortion, being atheist, etc.), and hopes that everyone
can have some degree of economic prosperity (though they are very mistaken
in how to achieve that). I think self ownership and being able to pursue
your own happiness, is more important than your freedom of production and
trade. You certainly cannot have the latter without the former.
Not having erred as poorly as the religious mystics in metaphysics,
epistemology, and ethics there is probably more hope for a free society in
option two than option one.
I find the notion that you do not own your body and are not free to choose
whether or not you will have a child so offensive and outrageous, and I
think that such a society would be so malevolent and evil, I'd choose the
socialist (not communist) society over the free market illegal abortion
society.
The abortion issue is fundamental, and it relates to a person's sense of
life. Should you be able to pursue your own happiness or be sacrifice for
the benefit of a potentiality and a non-existent God? It is a defining
issue, and I will not vote for an opponent of legal abortion, non matter
how good the rest of his platform, unless the opposition is advocating
communism.
If abortion becomes illegal in America, I would begin searching for a more
rational, less
malevolent society to immigrate to.
Jeffrey Haber
http://www.sb.fsu.edu/~haber
Jim Klein
writes:
>If abortion is illegal in the free market society, how long can that
>free market society last if the vast majority of the populace (I
>assume) are religious mystics?
It depends on whether God tells them to use force or not, doesn't it?
>If the vast majority believes in altruism and that men and women
>should be sacrificed for fetuses, how long will it continue to
>support capitalism and individual rights? How long before the
>government tries to regulate other activities which contradicit
>religious mysticism?
This is your error---you understand your position, but you don't
understand theirs; it has nothing to do with religious mysticism. It
has to do with their (incorrect) view of the nature of human life.
What you're doing is projecting the reasons you would be against
abortion if you were a religious mystic, onto them. This is a subtle
form of the Objectivist Fallacy.
I'm sure you know that I'm in full agreement with you on abortion per
se. But the fact is that the opponents have a premise which is induced
at least as reasonably as many of the premises around here--really more
so, since they plead to neither God nor "self-evident axioms" to
declare the fetus as a living person. They just look at it.
And once they have that premise, their logic to the conclusion is at
least as solid as yours that would outlaw murder, say; and probably
stronger than yours that would outlaw fraud. [I'm using "yours"
generically here.]
I stay out of abortion debates because they get people going like
nothing else. But on the general topic of parents and their offspring,
I've come across only one _logically_ consistent position. And that
is, that non-volitional existents are literally the property of their
creators, and so the creators may do as they wish with them.
Unfortunately, that logically consistent position leads to some
emotionally reprehensible conclusions.
Should torturing animals be forcibly stopped? If so, on what basis?
>If your life belongs to God, and if the people believe that the
>individual's interest should be sacrifice for God, as demonstrated by
>their position on abortion,
Again, it's not demonstrated by their position on abortion; it's
demonstrated by your interpretation of their position on abortion.
>then will they try to force people to become Christians and
>indoctrinate children?
Like I said, it depends on what they think God tells them to do.
I think maybe better an enemy of God, than an enemy of the State!
After all, the really critical issue is stopping abortion, not
outlawing it. Those two are hardly the same things...mystics may well
do the latter, but only statists can do the former.
jk
lfin...@earthlink.net
Jim Klein wrote:
> In <35EB6478...@sb.fsu.edu> Jeffrey Haber <ha...@sb.fsu.edu>
> writes:
>
> >If abortion is illegal in the free market society, how long can that
> >free market society last if the vast majority of the populace (I
> >assume) are religious mystics?
>
> It depends on whether God tells them to use force or not, doesn't it?
Before you all go off the deep end, might I suggest that you put
this in proportion to history?
It is a simple fact that all though Americans have enjoyed an
unprecedented (in the historical record) degree of individual
history since the founding of this county, it has only been during
a small percentage of that time (a percentage of time marked
by _declining_ freedom, I might add) that abortion in any form
has been legal.
Think about it.
I personally would prefer to have a return to something like
the 1900s _without_ any freedom to abort, over what we
have now, or what it appears we are headed for.
Anyone who thinks that the right to have abortion is even
in the top ten most important category of freedoms is,
quite frankly, an idiot (or a slut without any personal
responsibility).
lf
lfin...@earthlink.net
Jeffrey Haber wrote:
> If abortion is illegal in the free market society, how long can that free
> market society last if the vast majority of the populace (I assume) are
> religious mystics?
Get a clue, man :). Abortion _was_ illegal all during the 19th centurywhich Ayn
Rand praised to the skies as the epitomy of human
freedom and accomplishment.
> If the vast majority believes
> in altruism and that men and women should be sacrificed for fetuses,
That is not what they believe. Most of these people believe that a fetusis a
human being. Killing a human being is wrong. It has nothing to do
with "altruism" per se.
> ...how long will it continue to
> support capitalism and individual rights?
Look, no matter what your beliefs, supporting true totalitarians (the
Clintons, for example) while not standing for "partial totalitarians"
who actually support a _lot_ of personal freedom (remember that
old Constitution?) is sheer stupidity.
I personally would sacrifice abortion (in a NY minute) for strong
support of the Bill of Rights.
The bottom line is that there is no effective political party, or
reasonably large group of people supporting what Objectivists
and Libertarians support. However there are a lot of Christians
who would support the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Help them win the battle to get back the Constitution and limited
government then we have some _basis_ to fight for other
rights (like the right to buy an abortion or pornography).
Like I said, put it into _perspective_. Otherwise you can piss
it all off and prepare for a _real_ dictatorship.
regards,
lf
Robert J. Kolker
lfin...@earthlink.net wrote:
> The bottom line is that there is no effective political party, or
> reasonably large group of people supporting what Objectivists
> and Libertarians support. However there are a lot of Christians
> who would support the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
> Help them win the battle to get back the Constitution and limited
> government then we have some _basis_ to fight for other
> rights (like the right to buy an abortion or pornography).
>
Abortion is pretty definite or is it?
An IUD which prevents the fertilized
egg from attaching itself to the uterine
wall is regarded as an instrument of
abortion in anti-abort circles.
Given illegal abortion, it will be but a thrice
before all but the most ineffective means
of birth control are illegalized. Just keep
in mind what Margaret Sanger went
through trying to give diaphragms to
poor women to keep them from getting
preggers. She faced persectution and
prosecutions.
Now as to porn. What is porn? One
dumb-fuck-goy's porn is another
person's literature. Consider Lady
Chatterly's Lover which by current
standards is lo-cal erotica. Consider the
infamous Comstock Laws. If you want
freedom of speech and freedom of expression
then you put up with what YOU regard
as porn. If you don't like it, do read it,
don't see and keep it away from your kids.
Thus comes under the heading of
being a parent.
Yup, all the Christian wants to do is restore
freedom on HIS terms. Soon we will have
a theocracy and we can kiss our freedoms
adieu and farewell.
Bob Kolker
Where ever they burn books, sooner or
later they burn people ---Heine
Robert J. Kolker
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> as porn. If you don't like it, do read it,
Sorry, I mean to type "don't read it"
Bob Kolker
Dlwusa
>I've come across only one _logically_ consistent position. And that
>is, that non-volitional existents are literally the property of their
>creators, and so the creators may do as they wish with them.
Jim, think about it. people* have* children, they don't create them. Nature
creates them. To act retroactively, after life with an original blueprint has
been created is to deny the an individual is of that much importance.
>Should torturing animals be forcibly stopped? If so, on what
basis?
On the basis that living in a world with freedom to torture animals would be
horrible. David Wharton
Reigncloud
>capitalism but
>the
>next 18 years raising a child is a huge government-imposed burden on your
>life.
Are you forgetting about the multitudes of so-called abortion-choice advocates
who *would* governmentally impose that same burden based on gestation status?
If it's truly an individual's choice to abort what she may deem a non-valuable
thing, then shouldn't it follow that she can decide *when* she wants to do so?
(The point of viability, which many pro-choicers lean on to justify abortion
acceptibility, is a very precarious qualifier.) At least the xian
fundamentalists are consistent.
It seems the only truly consistent pro-choicer is one who believes abortions
are acceptible up to the moment before birth. I dare you to find a politician
willing to admit to that position!
(I mustn't leave out another point. That the government doesn't force a parent
to raise the child she conceived. )
>You could abstain from sex, but that is also a huge deprivation. This is a
>much
>bigger issue than whether or not a Republican will cut your taxes by a few
>percentage points.
>
>Can you provide an argument that an 8 month old fetus has a right to pursue
>its
>life?
Sure. The only difference between an 8 month old fetus and a baby born at that
same stage of gestation is that the mother went in to labor a little early.
THAT'S IT. Does the latter have a right to pursue it's life? I think so.
> For that matter, can you demonstrate that it posesses a
>personality--a
>rational consciousness and not just an animal's consciousness?
Such a thing can't even be proven about a 2 day old baby. Are you suggesting
that the above determines human value? If so, the prom-mom did an acceptible
thing when she disposed of her newly born baby who did not exhibit a
personality or rational consciousness. (Please don't share your views with too
many pregnant teens, okay?)
> I have
>observed
>no evidence that a newborn has anything more than an animal's mentality--no
>
>person is in there.
I love this. You "have observed no evidence that a newborn....". That's darn
good rationale then, huh? I'm guessing you did not intend to type "newborn".
But you did. The statement, minus the part about "no person is in there",
applies to pre-born and post-born babies. Such rationale justifies disposal of
individuals who lack human mentality - or at least *observable* human
mentatlity. How committed are you to this idea? Are you prepared to follow it
consistently?
Jim Klein
<dlw...@aol.com> writes:
>>Should torturing animals be forcibly stopped? If so, on what
>>basis?
>
>On the basis that living in a world with freedom to torture animals
>would be horrible.
Hmmm...I wasn't aware that we _didn't_ live in such a world, at least
fundamentally.
Offhand, I'd say it's better to recognize it than not.
jk
J. Kendrick McPeters
>The abortion issue is fundamental, and it relates to a person's sense of
>life. Should you be able to pursue your own happiness or be sacrifice for
>the benefit of a potentiality and a non-existent God? It is a defining
>issue, and I will not vote for an opponent of legal abortion, non matter
>how good the rest of his platform, unless the opposition is advocating
>communism.
Then you, sir, are an idiot. If you choose to support statist thugs
who "support a woman's choice," rather than flawed but sincere
Christians who support economic freedom (eg Ron Paul), then you will
get what you deserve--- the chains of servitude.
Good lord... haven't you ever heard of a BLACK MARKET? I assure you,
that even if religious conservatives get their way, abortion and porno
will still be available. Just like drugs are today. Granted, the
convenience factor will be reduced, and the prices will be elevated,*
but everything the bluenoses oppose will still be available,
somewhere, at some price.
Compare and contrast the damage religious conservatives can do to that
which secular liberals routinely do. Here's a clue---- organizations
like Microsoft and GM are a wee bit too big to go underground!
>If abortion becomes illegal in America, I would begin searching for
>a more rational, less malevolent society to immigrate to.
Maybe Police State Peikoff can liquidate the Rand Estate and plow the
money into building some sort of offshore platform, thus creating the
Perfect Objectivist Utopia! Sure sounds like fun, doesn't it?
---Kendrick
* I personally am convinced that, if abortion is ever made illegal,
an "underground railroad" will be set up by feminists to supply
RU-486 abortion pills. And they'll be free, most likely!
Robert Kolker
.......................snip....................
>
> Good lord... haven't you ever heard of a BLACK MARKET? I assure you,
> that even if religious conservatives get their way, abortion and porno
Amazing!!! By this logic one could justify
Stalinist Russia where the Black Market flourished
in the necessities that the State could barely
produce.
Is this the best defense of the Christian right
you can offer?
> will still be available. Just like drugs are today. Granted, the
> convenience factor will be reduced, and the prices will be elevated,*
> but everything the bluenoses oppose will still be available,
> somewhere, at some price.
If the Patriarchs of the Christian Right get
the political ascendancy our economic freedoms
will be just as put upon as they are under the
God-Damned Welfare State abomination.
But what is worse, is that our intellectual lives,
our freedom of expression and our freedom of
conscience will be crushed under the heel of religious
intolerance.
Where ever the church (Catholic or Protestant) has been
unopposed, there tyranny and repression flourish. It is
true the the Goy Patriarchs won't kill us, they will only
make is wish we were dead.
For a vision of what life in America (Gilead) might be
like under the Christian Right, read A Handmaids Tale
by Margaret Attwood. If that does not make your blood
run cold nothing will.
Your posting gives a further insight into what is
called the Goyische Kopf.
Bob Kolker
Where ever they burn books, sooner or later they will
burn people ---- Heine.
If I live to be a thousand I will never ever understand
the Mind of the Gentile. ---- Me
GRADinc
>our economic freedoms
>will be just as put upon as they are under the
>God-Damned Welfare State abomination.
>But what is worse, is that our intellectual lives,
>our freedom of expression and our freedom of
>conscience will be crushed under the heel of religious
>intolerance.
He admits that there can be something worse
than taxes!!!!
>It is true the the Goy Patriarchs won't kill us,
Don't be so sure!
Tom Clarke
J. Kendrick McPeters
> Amazing!!! By this logic one could justify
> Stalinist Russia where the Black Market flourished
> in the necessities that the State could barely
> produce.
As Jim Klein pointed out, I'm talking about a basically laissez faire
state with a few consensual activities made illegal. It's rather a
large leap from 19th Century America to Stalinist Russia, IMHO.
> Is this the best defense of the Christian right
> you can offer?
Well, no. I've done better before... check out DejaNews. In truth, I
wasn't defending the Christian right, anyway. I was just attacking
the ludicrous claim, advanced by some ARIan or other, that abortion is
so almighty important and indespensible, that a neo-totalitarian like
Bill Clinton (who supports the income tax, Bob!) is preferable as
President to a Christian supporter of LF who opposes abortion (such as
Ron Paul, who wants to abolish the income tax.)
Tell me truthfully, Bob.... who would you prefer to see running
things... Bill Clinton, or Ron Paul?
> If the Patriarchs of the Christian Right get
> the political ascendancy our economic freedoms
> will be just as put upon as they are under the
> God-Damned Welfare State abomination.
Proof? Is there evidence that a Ron Paul or an Alan Keyes would be
anywhere as bad, for the economy, as today's leaders?
> But what is worse, is that our intellectual lives,
> our freedom of expression and our freedom of
> conscience will be crushed under the heel of religious
> intolerance.
I doubt it very much. First of all, you are ignoring the whole idea
of federalism. There are some places today (eg, Alabama) where
freedom of expression is crushed (and the right to buy dildos!), while
others (eg San Francisco) allow free expression to the extent that
live sex shows are tolerated. As long as the RR doesn't usurp the
Constitution, this variety will continue to exist. So, if you feel a
wee bit "crushed," vote with your feet, and move.
> Where ever the church (Catholic or Protestant) has been
> unopposed, there tyranny and repression flourish. It is
> true the the Goy Patriarchs won't kill us, they will only
> make is wish we were dead.
Who sez the church will be unopposed? I merely point out that, if
only one "type" of freedom is to be allowed, "economic freedom" is my
preference. "Personal" freedom I can always enjoy, by means of the
black market.... but, black markets have their limits. They are
pretty useless when it comes to manufacturing, for instance!
> For a vision of what life in America (Gilead) might be
> like under the Christian Right, read A Handmaids Tale
> by Margaret Attwood. If that does not make your blood
> run cold nothing will.
Well, I saw the movie, which was feminist agit-prop at best. Yep, it
sure would be awful if that were to happen here... but, it ain't gonna
happen, so I'm not gonna worry unduly.
Those who see a slippery slope from ANY restrictions on abortion to
the "Handmaid's Tale" dystopia are forgetting one very important piece
of data--- the fact that the majority of Americans support legalized
abortion. People who not only VOTE, but would serve on JURIES for
those accused of black market distribution of RU-486.
Sorry, Bob. I just don't see the religious right (leastwise, the part
of it that supports economic freedom) as being that big of a threat.
> Where ever they burn books, sooner or later they will
> burn people ---- Heine.
Maybe so, but try burning the Internet. A laissez faire society, by
definition, will allow for modems, digital cameras, and encryption.
How will the bluenoses be able to stamp out pornography, given today's
technology? This is a non-threat, if ever I saw one!
----Kendrick
Jeffrey Haber
Jim Klein wrote:
> In <35EB6478...@sb.fsu.edu> Jeffrey Haber <ha...@sb.fsu.edu>
> writes:
>
> >If abortion is illegal in the free market society, how long can that
> >free market society last if the vast majority of the populace (I
> >assume) are religious mystics?
>
> It depends on whether God tells them to use force or not, doesn't it?
Their religion already told them to use force when they made abortion (and
whatever else people choose to do with their bodies) illegal. I see no
reason to believe that they will notuse further force in an attempt to
achieve a society consistent with their religion.
>If the vast majority believes in altruism and that men and women
> >should be sacrificed for fetuses, how long will it continue to
> >support capitalism and individual rights? How long before the
> >government tries to regulate other activities which contradicit
> >religious mysticism?
>
> This is your error---you understand your position, but you don't
> understand theirs; it has nothing to do with religious mysticism. It
> has to do with their (incorrect) view of the nature of human life.
> What you're doing is projecting the reasons you would be against
> abortion if you were a religious mystic, onto them. This is a subtle
> form of the Objectivist Fallacy.
I wouldn't have such a large problem with a society where abortion is legal
up to
three months as it is here.
How can people contemplate a zygote, right after conception, and argue
that it has a right to pursue life? Or a three month old fetus whose brain
isn't even developed yet? There is no rational basis for arguing that a
fertilized egg, cell mass, or three month old fetus with an ill-developed
brain can have a right to pursue life. That said, I could understand how a
good person could be confused about the latter stages of pregnancy, but
not at those early stages.
What deeper philosophical ideas could motivate them to oppose legal
abortion before three
months time? Strong belief in religious mysticism and a hatred for human
happiness on this Earth. What other explanations can you think of?
I don't think an anti-abortionist can compartmentalize such strong beliefs
to just this issue.
They will have to spill over into other areas, such as making illegal other
activities which contradict their religious views (being atheist, divorce,
pre-marital sex, prostitution, drugs,
the content of books and movies) and forcing everyone to take actions
consistent with their views and the propagation of their religion (taxing
to fund churches, religious schools, wars against countries where abortion
is legal, religious indoctrination in third world countries)
> Should torturing animals be forcibly stopped? If so, on what basis?
This is a good question. Obviously, an emotional response would be
"Yes!". However,animals do not have rights and are property. As a matter
of principle, as despicable as
I find it, I would have to answer "No". (As an aside, not all animal
torture is horrible, as
animals can be used for food, fur, clothes, other materials, and scientific
experiments).
> >If your life belongs to God, and if the people believe that the
> >individual's interest should be sacrifice for God, as demonstrated by
> >their position on abortion,
>
> Again, it's not demonstrated by their position on abortion; it's
> demonstrated by your interpretation of their position on abortion.
Perhaps 10% of the opponents of legal abortion out there do not have
astrong belief in a God. That generous estimate should be questioned since
many
opponents of abortion who do believe in a God will deny it or refuse to
emphasize
it in debate. That doesn't mean that their belief does not have a strong
philosophical
influence, and if they oppose abortion up to three months on secular
grounds, what
could be their reasoning? That people's happiness and livelihood should be
sacrificed
for the benefit of cell masses (opponents of RU-486, morning after pills)
and flesh
without minds (three month old fetuses) -- that men and women's self
interest is not
inviolate, but should be sacrificed?
Jeffrey Haber
http://www.sb.fsu.edu/~haber
Jim Klein
writes:
>Their religion already told them to use force when they made abortion
>(and whatever else people choose to do with their bodies) illegal. I
>see no reason to believe that they will notuse further force in an
>attempt to achieve a society consistent with their religion.
Hopefully, you can extrpolate that argument to understand why
_nonconsensual_ monopoly government is so wrong.
>>If the vast majority believes in altruism and that men and women
>>>should be sacrificed for fetuses, how long will it continue to
>>>support capitalism and individual rights? How long before the
>>>government tries to regulate other activities which contradicit
>>>religious mysticism?
>>
>>This is your error---you understand your position, but you don't
>>understand theirs; it has nothing to do with religious mysticism.
>>It has to do with their (incorrect) view of the nature of human life.
>>What you're doing is projecting the reasons you would be against
>>abortion if you were a religious mystic, onto them. This is a subtle
>>form of the Objectivist Fallacy.
>
>I wouldn't have such a large problem with a society where abortion is
>legal up to three months as it is here.
You almost concede their point with this. How could prohibiting the
death of a 2 month old fetus be so foundational to you and overrule
almost any other issue, yet the death of a 4 month old one is not even
a "large problem?"
>How can people contemplate a zygote, right after conception, and
>argue that it has a right to pursue life? Or a three month old fetus
>whose brain isn't even developed yet?
Simple...the factors which distinguish human life to them occur when
the egg is fertilized.
>There is no rational basis for arguing that a fertilized egg, cell
>mass, or three month old fetus with an ill-developed brain can have a
>right to pursue life.
I agree, but that's besides the point. The point is that they DO view
the fertilized egg as fully human with respect to acquiring rights.
>That said, I could understand how a good person could be confused
>about the latter stages of pregnancy, but not at those early stages.
That's silly, and you're just being stubborn. If a good person could
be confused that a non-volitional fetus at 7 months pregnancy carries
the rights of a volitional human, then you ought to believe that a good
person could likewise be confused that a zygote with essentially the
same characteristics (volition-wise) also carries those rights.
>What deeper philosophical ideas could motivate them to oppose legal
>abortion before three months time?
What deeper philosophical ideas motivate you to think that three months
is a particularly logical time for the cutoff?
>Strong belief in religious mysticism and a hatred for human
>happiness on this Earth. What other explanations can you think of?
The same ones you're using---trying to do right!
>I don't think an anti-abortionist can compartmentalize such strong
>beliefs to just this issue.
Probably so; likewise the ARIan and nonconsensual governance.
>They will have to spill over into other areas, such as making illegal
>other activities which contradict their religious views (being
>atheist, divorce, pre-marital sex, prostitution, drugs,
>the content of books and movies) and forcing everyone to take actions
>consistent with their views and the propagation of their religion
>(taxing to fund churches, religious schools, wars against countries
>where abortion is legal, religious indoctrination in third world
>countries)
I basically agree; that's why I personally don't trust _anyone_ to
judge how I ought to live my life.
What I'm challenging is the degree of primacy you're giving this issue;
it just doesn't follow. In many ways, your disagreement with the
pro-lifers is trivial in that you only disagree about the boundary line
when other people ought to be involved in it.
I'm just saying that the particular issue of "when does a human acquire
'rights' legally" is a pretty minor one in the whole scheme of things.
Personally, I'd opt for "when it's born" or even better, "when it's
volitional" or even best, "when it can do something about it."
And no...I don't really care to defend any of those; I'm not convinced
it's a legitimate topic for action. But if it _is_, then there are
other far more primary ones. The right of a fully developed volitional
adult to defend his own life any way he sees fit, is one that comes
immediately to mind. Do you consider that one as basic as this one?
>> Should torturing animals be forcibly stopped? If so, on what basis?
>
>This is a good question. Obviously, an emotional response would be
>"Yes!". However,animals do not have rights and are property. As a
>matter of principle, as despicable as I find it, I would have to
>answer "No".
Okay...now distinguish a one month old human baby, on principle.
>Perhaps 10% of the opponents of legal abortion out there do not have
>astrong belief in a God.
Perhaps 10% of the PROponents too!
>That generous estimate should be questioned since many
>opponents of abortion who do believe in a God will deny it or refuse
>to emphasize it in debate. That doesn't mean that their belief does
>not have a strong philosophical influence, and if they oppose abortion
>up to three months on secular grounds, what could be their reasoning?
They've told you and so have I; you just don't want to hear it.
>That people's happiness and livelihood should be sacrificed
>for the benefit of cell masses (opponents of RU-486, morning after
>pills) and flesh without minds (three month old fetuses) -- that men
>and women's self interest is not inviolate, but should be sacrificed?
No, they'd offer the same argument you would for a 7 month old fetus or
a 2 month old baby---that an existent exists which has acquired the
status of being protected by law and with force.
Your mission--should you decide to accept it--is to figure out how they
can be so wrong on interfering in someone's life but you can be so
right, in those rare cases where you support it.
And no fair pleading to "certainty of the facts," since they have
exactly the same plea! That is, you can enter facts alright but you
can't use the common Objectivist approach of begging the question by
asserting non-facts and appealing to certainty and "obviousness."
So enter the facts and explain why pro-lifers don't have the right to
stop a woman from having an abortion, but you do have the right to stop
David Friedman from hiring the protection agency of his choice.
Unless you don't think you have that right, of course.
jk
Jonathan Carryer
>Let us say you have two alternatives:
>1. Going back to a society where abortion was flatly
> illegal, but most individual and property rights
> were respected, or,
>2. going forward to a society where abortion is both legal,
> and government funded, but all rights and property were
> subject to "social goals".
>The correct answer _should_ be obvious, even to the
>terminally brain-dead.
Yeah, none of the above.
*Jonathan
John Alway
>
> >Let us say you have two alternatives:
>
> >1. Going back to a society where abortion was flatly
> > illegal, but most individual and property rights
> > were respected, or,
This wouldn't happen. The war on drugs would be escalated. The war on
pornography would be escalated. Strange policies like flag burning
amendments would be created. Prayer in school would be instituted.
Family values would be incorporated into the tax code. The draft may be
reinstituted. The sky is the limit as to what the fundamentalists
would impose. Their core principles are _not_ the sort that could ever
lead to individual rights. They don't even care all that much about
rights. They care more about religion.
If they gained too much power, look out, because they'll send is in
another statist direction.
Don't confuse the nice religious guy down the street with the sort of
zealots that end up gaining power in Washington.
...John
lfin...@hotmail.com
Jonathan Carryer <jcar...@YorkU.CA> wrote:
> lfinghin,
> >The correct answer _should_ be obvious, even to the
> >terminally brain-dead.
>
> Yeah, none of the above.
Well Jonathan, the nature of reality is that you don't
always get the choices you want, and wishing won't
make it so.
Jeffrey Haber
The only response to Jim Klein that is warranted is to clarify that my
position is that abortion
should be legal until birth. However, I do not think that a nation would
be horrible if
it only allowed abortion to three months (or four, or five, etc.). This
gives a woman who
does not want to be pregnant ample time to go have the abortion, which
probably
allows 95% of the women who want to have abortions to have them.
Of course, I do think it is horrible that abortion is not legal until
birth, but I do not think
that makes the nation horrible or intolerable; Americans generally believe
that you should be able to control the course of your own life and pursue
your own happiness.
As for why the opponents of legal abortion oppose abortion and his argument
that I am wrong to assume that the reason is religious mysticism, my
response is
-- go talk to and/or observe the people who oppose abortion for yourself.
I have not
assumed anything, my belief is based on the observation of those people who
oppose legal
abortion and who do so most vehemently. They are religious mystics. I do
not claim
that all opponents of legal abortion are religionists, just that the
overwhelming majority
take seriously their belief in a diety and that that is why they oppose
it. If you find an
opponent of illegal abortion who claims that his position is based on
reason and reality,
debate with him, ask him why a two day old zygote has a right to pursue
life. Ask him if
his position is based on faith that a diety "breathes" a "soul" into the
egg at the time
of conception and if he might feel embarrassed about it and is hiding his
real belief, and tell
him that there is no reason to hide or to be ashamed of a belief and/or
your basis for it (if you are, you must reconsider your belief).
The only way to resolve this dispute is to go out and see for yourself the
reasons why people oppose legal abortion from birth.
Jeffrey Haber
http://www.sb.fsu.edu/~haber
Jeffrey Haber
J. Kendrick McPeters wrote:
> Jeffrey Haber <ha...@sb.fsu.edu> wrote:
>
> >The abortion issue is fundamental, and it relates to a person's sense of
> >life. Should you be able to pursue your own happiness or be sacrifice for
> >the benefit of a potentiality and a non-existent God? It is a defining
> >issue, and I will not vote for an opponent of legal abortion, non matter
> >how good the rest of his platform, unless the opposition is advocating
> >communism.
>
> Then you, sir, are an idiot. If you choose to support statist thugs
> who "support a woman's choice," rather than flawed but sincere
> Christians who support economic freedom (eg Ron Paul), then you will
> get what you deserve--- the chains of servitude.
Hmm...let's think about this. If the basis for opposing abortion is religious
mysticism,which in the cases of the overwhelming majority of opponents of
abortion from birth,
it is, and if they are willing to act on their faith in a diety and their
religion to impose their
belief on others by making abortion illegal--does anyone reading this really
believe
that they will stop there if the vast majority of the populace believes the
same thing?
They will try to impose prayer in school, make drugs, prostitution,
pornography,
homosexuality, and perhaps even gambling and alcohol illegal. They will then
try to make movies, television shows, and even books which air irreligious
views, such as couples living together, homosexuality, etc., illegal. Did I
mention birth control? After all a great many
religious mystics oppose any form of birth control, it' s murder of a potential
person and
sacrilege in their eyes.
Now...you can't rightfully allow a holocaust like abortions being performed in
other countries
to go on, can you? Perhaps the religionists will embark on holy crusades to
right such a horrible wrong and secure their places in Heaven...shouldn't they
burn in Hell for tolerating
such evil? Many opponents of abortion today think that shooting abortion
doctors is
morally justified, so why wouldn't they launch military crusades against
nations which
allow and encourage abortion? Plan on being taxed to support such crusades and
taxed
for programs to oppose birth control in third world countries and to
indoctrinate the people
with religious mysticism.
Did someone mention that this was to be a free market economy and that all of
your
individual rights, except legal abortion, would be protected? On what basis?
Because
God tells them to? Bullshit! Their basis of individual rights is that God
tells them what is
right and their version of individual rights is consistent with God's law. I
bet that communists
and socialists would also claim that they believe in individual rights.
You would not have capitalism, you would have religious dictatorship. It might
be somewhat
better than communism, but no worse than socialism. At least Western
socialists would let
you have your mind to yourself (until the country de-evolved). So, yes, I
would rather live in Canada, England, France, Germany, or Sweden, Western
Europe, than live under a religious dictatorship like Iran or Iraq or
AmeriChrista.
Religion is anti-reason, and thus anti-human life and an evil ideology. I want
no part of it,
and I have no appologies for what I have said on these subjects.
Jeffrey Haber
http://www.sb.fsu.edu/~haber
Robert J. Kolker
Jim Klein wrote:
>
>
>
> Ha...another good one! But in all fairness, you're showing a bit of
> the "hand-wringing Jew" yourself, I think.
>
The only hand wringing this Jew wants to dois around the necks of those who
oppress
me, especially tax collectors and whore
politicians who sic the tax collectors on
us.
Bob Kolker
Lavos999
>> market society last if the vast majority of the populace (I assume) are
>> religious mystics?
>
>Ayn
>Rand praised to the skies as the epitomy of human
>freedom and accomplishment.
First of all, this is incorrect. Abortion was only made legal in the latter
parts of the 19th century, and then it was done because the procedure at that
time was dangerous, not because of any alleged fetal "rights".
Secondly, what _did_ happen to 19th-century laissez-faire capitalism? Since we
don't still have it, something must have destroyed it. Could it be that
"religious mysticism" that is also responsible for the move against abortion?
"They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why
do they want to come here?"
-Paul Harvey
"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take
it all away."
-Barry Goldwater
Lavos999
>As I alluded to in another post...I think we have more to fear from a
>real State, than an imagined God.
God may be imaginary but his servants are not.
Jim Klein
writes:
>The only response to Jim Klein that is warranted is to clarify that my
>position is that abortion should be legal until birth.
---------------------------------------
If by "warranted" you mean "required," then not even that is so. What
you're saying is that you don't choose to address the various issues I
brought up, even though you've taken the time to post 4 or 5 responses
on the topic, to others.
That's fine---you may recall that I wrote "...should you choose to
accept [the mission]". As with everything I write, I was sincere;
you're under no obligation to respond at all, of course.
But I think you'll find that skipping over the tough stuff, and
sticking only with those ideas that can be responded to with things
that others have already said, is inherently against the idea of both
egoism and the belief that reason is the essence of life MQM. It
doesn't seem to occur to those under the ARIan influence (and that's
what it is, like it or not) that a fundamental function and goal of
reason, is to think of things not thought of before.
Lastly, rather than considering me so antagonistic toward you (which I
don't mean to imply), you might consider that my engaging you in such a
consideration of fundamental principles is a form of respect. When you
choose to reply as you have ("the only response to Jim Klein that is
warranted..."), you're saying nothing about me or my post; you're
telling us something of yourself.
--------------------------------------------------
Anyway, at least you're willing to clarify this single point...that
"abortion should be legal until birth." Okay, please do so.
WHY?? What happens _at birth_ such that you now have business stopping
the mother from killing it, that you didn't have two hours earlier?
Jim Prescott has some very succinct answers to this question; I'm
wondering if yours are the same.
>However, I do not think that a nation would be horrible if it only
>allowed abortion to three months (or four, or five, etc.).
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN??? Where are you coming from, such that "it
allows" makes sense to you? Is that the function of governance to
you...to determine that which should be allowed?
>This gives a woman who does not want to be pregnant ample time to go
>have the abortion, which probably allows 95% of the women who want to
>have abortions to have them.
You say you're willing to clarify, so please do. Could you briefly
explain the principles which conclude that allowing something which
(you believe) is sufficient to please 95% of a group of people, is a
wise standard for objective law?
Would outlawing pig's brains as food likewise be okay with you? After
all, 99.9% of the people could still eat what they want!
>Of course, I do think it is horrible that abortion is not legal until
>birth, but I do not think that makes the nation horrible or
>intolerable; Americans generally believe that you should be able to
>control the course of your own life and pursue your own happiness.
Prima facie, that seems contradictory. If what "the nation is doing"
is horrible, then why is it not a horrible nation?
>As for why the opponents of legal abortion oppose abortion and his
>argument that I am wrong to assume that the reason is religious
>mysticism, my response is -- go talk to and/or observe the people who
>oppose abortion for yourself. I have not assumed anything, my belief
>is based on the observation of those people who oppose legal
>abortion and who do so most vehemently. They are religious mystics.
Point granted. But as I mentioned, the vast majority of folks who are
pro-choice are _also_ religious mystics; do you deny this?
>I do not claim that all opponents of legal abortion are religionists,
>just that the overwhelming majority take seriously their belief in a
>diety and that that is why they oppose it. If you find an opponent of
>illegal abortion who claims that his position is based on reason and
>reality,
How are you going to find that, when it's stipulated that the person is
a mystic? What you're not seeing is that this is irrelevant to the
issue. Do you likewise disagree with all the religious mystics who are
pro-choice because God told them that women ought to have the right to
choose? No---you agree with them but for different reasons.
You're very preoccupied with the _reasons_ that pro-lifers are the way
they are. Well, I'm turning that standard on you...what are the
reasons YOU hold the beliefs you do?
>debate with him, ask him why a two day old zygote has a right to
>pursue life.
His answer will be the same as yours regarding a born baby--that the
entity has acquired all of the necessary attributes to be considered a
person as a matter of legal status.
You say he's wrong. You say that the factors which give rise to the
legal status of being protectable by law occur at birth. So I'm
asking, "What are they?"
>Ask him if his position is based on faith that a diety "breathes" a
>"soul" into the egg at the time of conception and if he might feel
>embarrassed about it and is hiding his real belief, and tell him that
>there is no reason to hide or to be ashamed of a belief and/or your
>basis for it (if you are, you must reconsider your belief).
>
>The only way to resolve this dispute is to go out and see for yourself
>the reasons why people oppose legal abortion from birth.
But that's not interesting enough! We already know their crazy reasons
and whence they derive. What I'm trying to do is genuinely understand
YOUR position, and see if it's as reasonable as you think it is. I'm
not saying it's not; I'm just saying that _claiming_ a basis in
reality is hardly more than what they're doing.
I'm asking you to _demonstrate_ that reality is as you say it is, and
that something happens at birth such that you now have some business
interfering in other people's choices. I'm not saying you're wrong;
I'm just asking you to show that you're right.
And kindly keep in mind that you're not Chris Wolf, or Tony Donadio, or
Wrathbone. I wouldn't bother asking any of them a serious question.
This isn't a debate, at least not yet. I told you up front that I
don't debate abortion; freedom I might. But for now, I'm genuinely
trying to discern your position.
And I'm asking you questions because I think you may be capable of
answering.
jk
Dvdwn
wrote:
>First of all, this is incorrect. Abortion was only made legal in the
latter
>parts of the 19th century, and then it was done because the procedure at that
>time was dangerous, not because of any alleged fetal "rights".
>Secondly, what _did_ happen to 19th-century laissez-faire capitalism? Since
>we
>don't still have it, something must
>have destroyed it. Could it be that
>"religious mysticism" that is also responsible for the move against abortion?
I'm no historian, but the end of the 19th Century American brand of capitalism
coincided with the world wide Great Depression almost 30 years into this
century. The response to the depression was the acceptance of interventional
government. The communists made their move then, and their communist
grandchildren are still living the good life today in Washington.
Sorry, I don't see a connection.
David Wharton
R Lawrence
>Lavos999 <lavo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Secondly, what _did_ happen to 19th-century laissez-faire capitalism? Since
>>we don't still have it, something must have destroyed it. Could it be that
>>"religious mysticism" that is also responsible for the move against abortion?
>
>I'm no historian, but the end of the 19th Century American brand of capitalism
>coincided with the world wide Great Depression almost 30 years into this
>century. The response to the depression was the acceptance of interventional
>government. The communists made their move then, and their communist
>grandchildren are still living the good life today in Washington.
>
There were substantial encroachments of statism in the US before the Great
Depression. Wars were sometimes the cover, notably the American Civil War
and World War I, although some politicians -- e.g., Teddy Roosevelt -- were
vigorous about pushing statist measures even without a war. Examples of
these encroachments include: transportation regulations and anti-trust laws
were introduced in the 19th century; food and drug regulation, income taxes
and the Federal Reserve system were all introduced prior to WWI.
And that's not even considering statist holdovers from earlier times, such
as oppression of women and racial minorities or censorship of news and
literature, which marred the capitalist system even in its heyday.
============================================================================
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com>
"How many people, for example, would voluntarily pay for their groceries?"
-- Wrathbone <than...@pacbell.net>
Dlwusa
wrote:
>There were substantial encroachments of statism in the US before the
Great
>Depression. Wars were sometimes the cover, notably the American Civil War
>and World War I, although some politicians -- e.g., Teddy Roosevelt -- were
>vigorous about pushing statist measures even without a war.
>Examples of
>these encroachments include: transportation regulations and anti-trust laws
>were introduced in the 19th century; food and drug regulation, income taxes
>and the Federal Reserve system were all introduced prior to WWI.
>
>
The questions I have are was there an increase in the rate of growth of
goverment encroachments before the Great Depression. And is it attributable to
the religious portion of the population and/or abortion laws? Did the increased
rate of encroachments, if there was one, even coincide with abortion laws or
increased influence among religious people, if there was an increase of
influence?
American capitalism and
culture in the 1920's didn't look like it was under the strangle hold of big
government, big minister or facist abortion police.
On the other hand, a huge change occured in
the 1930's when the communists infiltrated all the institutions of American
society. And they were Athiests. If most of your neighbors are religious, stay.
If most of your neighbors are Athiests, it's time to move, because they've got
to be communists; there aren't that many Objectivists out there.
David Wharton
lfin...@hotmail.com
Jonathan Carryer <jcar...@YorkU.CA> wrote:
> lfinghin,
>
>
> >1. Going back to a society where abortion was flatly
> > illegal, but most individual and property rights
> > were respected, or,
>
> > and government funded, but all rights and property were
> > subject to "social goals".
>
> >terminally brain-dead.
>
> Yeah, none of the above.
Good luck. How many voters did you say you have in your
camp? Enough to even get on the ballot in a majority of
states?
Reality bites. A is A.
regards,
Robert J. Kolker
lfin...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Good luck. How many voters did you say you have in your
> camp? Enough to even get on the ballot in a majority of
> states?
Do you really regard a women's rightto her own body a matter for a
majority to decide? Are rights
decidable by majorities or
are they iherent in the individual.
The matter of self ownership is
not an issue for a vote.
We all own our bodies, our time
and our energy.
Bob Kolker.
Reigncloud
>majority to decide? Are rights
>decidable by majorities or
>are they iherent in the individual.
>
>The matter of self ownership is
>not an issue for a vote.
>We all own our bodies, our time
>and our energy.
I haven't yet seen a rational argument denying human rights to unborn humans.
Lots of rationalizations, sure. That in mind, how can we be so sure that any
human has the right to end the life of an innocent human for the sake of
convenience, just by claiming "more" rights.
Robert J. Kolker
Reigncloud wrote:
> I haven't yet seen a rational argument denying human rights to unborn humans.
> Lots of rationalizations, sure. That in mind, how can we be so sure that any
> human has the right to end the life of an innocent human for the sake of
> convenience, just by claiming "more" rights.
A fetus is a parasitical organism
living off of the blood and bones
of its mothers. If a woman has
the right to get rid of tapeworms
she surely has the right to get
rid of a parasitical fetus.
The fact that a fetus has a
human genome in and of
itself does not confer rights
to the fetus. Only *persons*
have rights and there is no
way an insensate fetus which
does not even have a cerebral
cortex for 3 months to be a
person.
The accusation of convenience
is an old war horse trundled
out in anti-abort circles. It is
a form of moral intimidation
and it won't stand up to a
rational analysis.
Would you compel a woman
who has been raped to carry
the fetus foisted on her by a
criminal to birth? Would you
compel a women to risk her
life to carry a fetus to birth?
Remember it is one tenth less
dangerous to abort in the
first trimester than to go to
term. Are you ready to tell
a woman you don't even know
how much risk she should take?
And finally if the fetus's "rights"
are being abused he can always
sue.
Bob Kolker
Dlwusa
>I haven't yet seen a rational argument denying human rights to unborn humans.
>
>Lots of rationalizations, sure. That in mind, how can we be so sure that any
>human has the right to end the life of an innocent human for the sake of
>convenience, just by claiming "more" rights.
I'm on your side completely regarding what a zygote, embryo,
fetus is: human life. And so it's the equal of all babies, toddlers, children,
teenagers, gen-x-ers, baby boomers, middle aged and seniors.
The problem with rights is that just as reality determined that the unborn is
human, reality is not so kind to the fetus, in that it is located within the
body of someone who has extreemly well defined rights.
In order to transfer rights to the fetus, they can only be taken
from the mother. Imagine the lack of freedom of all people, women and even
men, if this happened. Force would be legitimate; reason not needed. Why study
and think and work, just compete with others to aquire power though force. The
only way to settle this is with reason in an environment of the exact freedoms
that reality has confered on us. Force is never an option.
Rights do not apply between mother and her unborn child. If
the mother thinks that's what's involved, something is terrible wrong. What's
involved it something so important that it's at the heart of every human action
and struggle. To live, to be happy, to share it with your child.
Rights can
only apply between rational beings. I have rights, but a lot of good it'll do
me if I'm being chased by a tiger.
We can't deny it's
human. We can't deny where it is.
We can't deny that force is wrong, we can't deny reason is our
only salvation.
David Wharton
lfin...@hotmail.com
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Do you really regard a women's right to
> her own body a matter for a
> majority to decide?
When another human being is inside her?
Maybe?
>Are rights decidable by majorities or
> are they iherent in the individual.
Rights are a political concept. If they
are not implemented politically then I don't
know that they exist. Obviously I disagree
with Objectivism on this. Rights, as a
political concept, do derive from human
nature, but they are fundamentally political.
And no "right" that is not protected by
brute force is very meaningful.
> The matter of self ownership is
> not an issue for a vote.
> We all own our bodies, our time
> and our energy.
Well, there were possibly over 1,000
chinese last year that apparenlty didn't
own their own bodies. They were executed
for their organs, or so Mr. Wu would have
us believe. Rights without force are
meaningless.
lfin...@hotmail.com
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Would you compel a woman
> who has been raped to carry
> the fetus foisted on her by a
> criminal to birth?
Why not? It was certainly not the
fault of the fetus.
> Remember it is one tenth less
> dangerous to abort in the
> first trimester than to go to
> term.
I don't have a terrible problem with
1st trimester abortions. It is the
much later ones that trouble me.
> Are you ready to tell
> a woman you don't even know
> how much risk she should take?
Well, if she didn't use a contraceptive
and could have, maybe.
> And finally if the fetus's "rights"
> are being abused he can always
> sue.
"And if the Jews think their 'rights"
are being abused, well let them sue
the Reich".
-- SS Gestapo
Robert Kolker
> In article <35F6AE1A...@hotmail.com>,
> > her own body a matter for a
> > majority to decide?
>
>
> When another human being is inside her?
> Maybe?
is not a person and it has
no rights we are bound to
respect.
There is no bill of rights
for parasites eating at the
bones and blood of a women.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
..................snip.................
>
> Well, if she didn't use a contraceptive
> and could have, maybe.
>
Suppose milady did use contraception
and it failed. Must she put on life
on the line for that? I think not.
Bob Kolker
lfin...@hotmail.com
> We are conclusion leaping aren't we.
> Suppose milady did use contraception
> and it failed. Must she put on life
> on the line for that? I think not.
Here is what I would support. Let the
lady get her abortion quickly. After
some arbitrarily drawn point (3rd
trimester?) she would not be allowed to
abort except for specific reasons
(supported by affadavits from a
panel of physicians) like danger to the
mother's life, or serious defects in
the fetus.
Now, that I would support.
lfin...@hotmail.com
> What ever is inside Mom
> is not a person and it has
> no rights we are bound to
> respect.
If a majority of Americans grant rights
to late term fetuses then you will either
respect them or go to jail if you violate
the law. "Rights" are fundamentally a
political concept derived from one's view
of reality. My view of reality is that a
late term fetus is a human being.
> There is no bill of rights
> for [ fetuses ]
Yet.
genein
Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<35F6B859...@hotmail.com>...
> Reigncloud wrote:
> > I haven't yet seen a rational argument denying human rights to unborn
humans.
If a woman has
> the right to get rid of tapeworms
> she surely has the right to get
> rid of a parasitical fetus.
to abort or not to abort is a personal decision but this does not take
away from the fact that a fetus is a human being endowed with the
characteristics of both parents.....it does no harm to the mother,
tapeworms do.....and for how long were you a parasite to your parents?
they fed you, clothe you, until what age?.....
>Only *persons*
> have rights and there is no
> way an insensate fetus which
> does not even have a cerebral
> cortex for 3 months to be a
> person.
where is it written that the unborn have no rights? its human, its alive
but housed inside for a period for protective reasons...the mind of a
human being takes years to develop....at what age do the "born" become
"persons"?
while i strongly believe that the individuals involved have the last say
and not the courts, i object to your comparison as not only wrong in every
sense of the word but lacking humanity in its delivery....
g.
> Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
genein wrote:
> where is it written that the unborn have no rights? its human, its alive
> but housed inside for a period for protective reasons...the mind of a
> human being takes years to develop....at what age do the "born" become
> "persons"?
Somewhere around birth + one monthjudging from my own children. The
little tykes seem to have a sense of
themselves or least exhibit it about
then.
I seriously doubt whether a new born
babe has any wits or self awareness
on the day of its birth. For that reason
I would not oppose infanticide in the
first week or so.
Bob Kolker
PS
> and not the courts, i object to your comparison as not only wrong in every
> sense of the word but lacking humanity in its delivery....
>
Thank you. I take pride in beinglogical and not humane which is
just another word for haviing
brains as soft as shit.
Robert Kolker
...................snip...................
>
> If a majority of Americans grant rights
> to late term fetuses then you will either
> respect them or go to jail if you violate
> the law. "Rights" are fundamentally a
> political concept derived from one's view
> of reality. My view of reality is that a
> late term fetus is a human being.
Such is your view. Regardless of what laws
you or your ilk pass abortion is here to stay.
I live in the hope that sufficient quantities of
ru 486 will be available to all who want it.
In fact I am thinking of going into the
business myself, if it ever is made illegal.
Prohibition did not work, nor will illegalizing
abortions. There is always Mexico and Canada and
I am sure someone will set up an abortion ship
just off the 12 mile limit on the high seas, if the
need should ever arise.
Give it up. You can't stop it. Why even try?
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
[ Article reposted from humanities.philosophy.objectivism ]
[ Author was lfin...@hotmail.com ]
[ Posted on 10 Sep 1998 12:51:21 GMT ]
Robert Kolker <r...@tiac.net> wrote:
> What ever is inside Mom
> is not a person and it has
> no rights we are bound to
> respect.
If a majority of Americans grant rights
to late term fetuses then you will either
respect them or go to jail if you violate
the law. "Rights" are fundamentally a
political concept derived from one's view
of reality. My view of reality is that a
late term fetus is a human being.
> There is no bill of rights
Reigncloud
> A fetus is a parasitical organism
>living off of the blood and bones
>of its mothers. If a woman has
>the right to get rid of tapeworms
>she surely has the right to get
>rid of a parasitical fetus.
I love semantics. Call it whatever you want. It has human DNA. It is human.
According to my dictionary, a parasite is also a person who: flatters his host
in exchange for meals; assists a priest then feasts with priests after a
sacrificial rite; lives at the expense of others without contributing in
return.
Being parasitic does not inherently justify death. If I have the right to rid
myself of tapeworms, do I have the right to end the life of my invalid
dependant grandmother?
I'm guessing you use the term parasite to also mean insect. One does not equal
the other, though "parasite" serves a graphical purpose in that way. Different
species may share a method of survival, that hardly makes them equal.
Dependancy on another entity does not automatically disqualify one from a right
to exist. What disqualifies the insect parasite from a right to exist, is that
it is an insect. Yours is a common, if not creative, argument which does not
apply to humans. I have no right to kill a human, based on that human's
dependancy on another.
>The fact that a fetus has a
>human genome in and of
>itself does not confer rights
>to the fetus. Only *persons*
>have rights
You must be speaking of *governmentally instituted rights*. For they are the
only "authority" I know of that is in a position to make such a claim. Unless
you are willing to depend on government to justify you, rather than vice versa,
I suggest you drop this claim you have made based upon their authority.
>and there is no
>way an insensate
Do you use "insensate" as a mere adjective, or another attempt to indicate
devaluation of a human fetus? If you depend on this for justification, I ask
you if the woman no longer has a right to do with her body what she chooses,
once the fetus is sensate, even though it is still a parasite? I also must
know, exactly *why* does such an ability determine human value for you? What
makes the lack of that ability any different than any lack of any ability in
any human? Does a fetus' inability to feel the pain of dilation and
curretage/suction abortion mean that it's okay? If that is so, does a
paraplegic's inability to feel pain in his legs make it okay for me to cut them
off? Or do you cite this for some other reason?
>fetus which
>does not even have a cerebral
>cortex for 3 months to be a
>person.
Does this mean abortion is not acceptible following such developement? Does
this mean posession of cerebral cortex determines human value? * Why* is that
significant? If abortion is still acceptible following such developement, this
can hardly be a factor to justify it prior? Either it matters or it doesn't.
>The accusation of convenience
>is an old war horse trundled
>out in anti-abort circles.
No, it's not. Take it from an ex-very-pro-choice individual. Convenience is a
reason, not an accusation. If you don't like it, that's just your emotional
reaction to a mere word. But the debate isn't really about subjective reasons
for aborting fetuses, it's about objective justification for it - which you
still do not provide.
> It is
>a form of moral intimidation
>and it won't stand up to a
>rational analysis.
Huh??? Intimidation? What context do you "project" this word into? Go ahead
and lay on your "rational analysis". I'd love to see you try to stand behind
that claim. Convenience is merely a word which means, "personal well-being,
comfort, a condition personally favorable or suitable; advantage, anything that
adds to one's comfort or makes work less difficult and complicated." Exactly
how do you propose to prove that abortion is not so (unless you're referring to
forced abortion, which is an entirely different topic)? Remove yourself from
your emotional response to the word and you too will see how appropriate it is.
>Would you compel a woman
>who has been raped to carry
>the fetus foisted on her by a
>criminal to birth? Would you
>compel a women to risk her
>life to carry a fetus to birth?
I'm guessing your question is rhetorical, so I ask one of my own:
Would you kill a human because its existence is the result of another's crime?
Risk of life is a different issue. I would ask no human to sacrifice his life
for another. But please don't try to tell me that all pregnancies threaten
mom's life - that's just not true. For if it were, we humans should cease to
exist entirely.
>Remember it is one tenth less
>dangerous to abort in the
>first trimester than to go to
>term. Are you ready to tell
>a woman you don't even know
>how much risk she should take?
You tell me. What do you consider risk? Risk of life, risk of diminished
health, risk of comfort loss, risk of complications??? What quantity of risk?
How is it measured? You leave out a huge portion of your argument. If you
want to cite "risk" as justification, you should be prepared to describe what
you mean by that very vague word. Life is a risk. Does that make willful
death reasonable?
>And finally if the fetus's "rights"
>are being abused he can always
>sue.
Okay, this was a nice attempt at sarcasm, but it missed the mark. It barely
amused me, and it sure didn't intimidate me.
All of the above factors cannot stand alone or together. Each factor matters
at one time but is cancelled out at another time, but you offer no reason as to
why the timing matters. You offer the following points:
fetus=parasite
rights=person
cerebral cortex=???human value???
insensate=???
claim of convenience=intimidation
rape=justified abortion?
risk=justified abortion?
abused rights=sue the abuser
fetus=parasite: If a human fetus is a parasite, and a born baby human is a
parasite, and an invalid adult human is a parasite, according to your argument,
they have no right to exist *because* their existence is parasitic. None of
these humans are insects, though they may be described as parasites. Either
their method of sustanance matters or it does not. I say it does not.
rights=person: If we justify abortion based on governmentally sanctioned
rights applying to governmentally defined persons, then it is the government
which defines us and not us definining government. Either we have inherent
human rights - which include the right to exist - or we do not. Either we know
what those rights are without our govt telling us, or we do not. I say we have
those rights, govt approved or not.
cerebral cortex=???human value??? : If lack of posession of cerebral cortex
determines inherent human value, then posession equals human value. First, I
don't see any rationale of why this is so. Second, the obvious response if it
were, is that once the cerebral cortex exists in a fetus, it's wrong to abort?
Either it matters or it does not. If it is to matter, then no abortion should
be performed once the fetus has a cerebral cortex.
claim of convenience=intimidation: No further response to this is necessary.
rape=justified abortion?: If a fetus has inherent value as a human, the
(subjective) cause of the fetus' existence cannot justify it's death. Thus,
this justification only applies *if* one is able to prove a fetus's non-value
as a human. Until then, it is a terribly unfortunate, horrifying, unfair, sad,
event which caused another human to exist, but should not determine the death
of that human.
risk=justified abortion?: As above, "risk" is a very vague word. Life is a
risk. Does risk equal death?
abused rights=sue the abuser: Sarcasm, of course. A murdered man cannot sue
his murderer. If the survivor is the man's mother, and also the murderer, I
doubt the mother would sue herself.
Reigncloud
Reigncloud
>I'm on your side completely regarding what a zygote, embryo,
>fetus is: human life. And so it's the equal of all babies, toddlers,
>children, teenagers, gen-x-ers, baby boomers, middle aged and seniors.
>
>The problem with rights is that just as reality determined that the unborn is
>human, reality is not so kind to the fetus, in that it is located within the
>body of someone who has extreemly well defined rights.
"Not so kind" aren't exactly the words I'd choose. The womb is a rather "kind"
place indeed, for a fetus. What is "not so kind" is that some parents may not
be interested in the well being of their offspring. Parent's lack of concern
does not justify the elimination of their offspring. To say that "reality is
not so kind to the fetus" in the context you offer is like saying reality is
not so kind to abuse victims. Duh. Reality of injustice isn't kind, but does
that somehow make the reality of injustice right?
> In order to transfer rights to the fetus, they can only be taken
>from the mother.
No one (at least not I) is asking the mother to sacrifice her life for the
fetus. However, pro-choice persons *are* asking that a fetus give it's life
for the mother - and not even that she may live, just that she may not be
inconvenienced by nine months of pregnancy. You and I are not talking about
the same thing. It is not even close to reasonable to compare the life of one
to the nine months of convenience of another.
> Imagine the lack of freedom of all people, women and even
>men, if this happened.
If freedom is a right to kill innocent human life - which you agree a fetus is
- I suggest you reevaluate what *kind* of freedom you value. What you say
could only make sense if murder of any innocent human were an expression of
one's freedom. *YOU* point out in your own words above that *you* agree it is
equal to a baby, toddler, teenager, etc! Could you justify killing a teenager
simply because that teenager infringes on the "freedom" of his parents???
Either you think they are equal or you do not. Which is it? Are you prepared
to hold to your convictions, or just rationalize what is easiest for society?
>Force would be legitimate; reason not needed. Why
>study
>and think and work, just compete with others to aquire power though force.
>The
>only way to settle this is with reason in an environment of the exact
>freedoms
>that reality has confered on us. Force is never an option.
Again, do you believe as you say above, that a fetus is equal to a baby,
toddler, senior citizen, etc??? If you do, think about what you suggest. You
suggest that this equal being may be killed because *forcing* someone to allow
it to live is wrong. Would you suggest that any one of those equal beings
should be killed simply because no one should be "forced" to allow it to live?
> Rights do not apply between mother and her unborn child.
>If
>the mother thinks that's what's involved, something is terrible wrong. What's
>involved it something so important that it's at the heart of every human
>action
>and struggle. To live, to be happy, to share it with your child.
You've lost me here. Did this contain a point?
>Rights can
>only apply between rational beings. I have rights, but a lot of good it'll do
>me if I'm being chased by a tiger.
>We can't deny
>it's human. We can't deny where it is.
Again you've lost me. Your point?
>We can't deny that force is wrong, we can't deny reason is
>our
>only salvation.
"Force" of one to allow another to live, is this what you call "force"?
Reason does not justify murder of an innocent, equal human. If you believe, as
you say above, that a fetus is equal to baby, toddler, etcetera, then abortion
*is no different* than murder of a toddler to you. You offer rationalizations,
not reason. Reason cannot make one human (a mother) more deserving of being
pregnancy-free than another, *equal* human (fetus) to merely live.
"I'm on your side completely regarding what a zygote, embryo, fetus is: human
life. And so it's the equal of all babies, toddlers, children, teenagers,
gen-x-ers, baby boomers, middle aged and seniors." ---David Wharton
Regards,
Sheri
Reigncloud
> What ever is inside Mom
> is not a person and it has
> no rights we are bound to
> respect.
>
> There is no bill of rights
> for parasites eating at the
> bones and blood of a women.
This I find laughable. What ancient biology text says that a fetus eats at the
bones and blood of a woman? A bit of fire and brimstone fer ya mate? What
warped minds can possibly see pregnancy as such a horrific experience? Is this
perhaps what Freud might have termed "womb envy"?
Reigncloud
>genein wrote:
>
>> where is it written that the unborn have no rights? its human, its alive
>> but housed inside for a period for protective reasons...the mind of a
>> human being takes years to develop....at what age do the "born" become
>> "persons"?
>
>Somewhere around birth + one monthjudging from my own children. The
>little tykes seem to have a sense of
>themselves or least exhibit it about
>then.
Does this mean it would have been acceptible to kill your 3 week old baby,
since of course it hadn't yet achieved personhood?
>I seriously doubt whether a new born
>babe has any wits or self awareness
>on the day of its birth. For that reason
>I would not oppose infanticide in the
>first week or so.
You are just plain sick. You are very sick. Does your wife know you think
this way? Do your children? Do your neighbors? Or is this just ng bravado?
No doubt I'm not the first nor the last to inform you of how deranged your
thinking is. You would kill an infant that *you believe* has no self
awareness? You find that acceptible *because* it *appears to you* to have no
self awareness? I just wonder, how do you define self awareness??? How would
you determine self awareness in an infant?
>Thank you. I take pride in beinglogical and not humane which is
>just another word for haviing
>brains as soft as shit.
Okay, Mr. Spock. Be as logical as you think you are. Do you exist without
others? Have you never behaved humanely toward your children? Your wife?
Your mother? Anyone you care about? Do you care about others? Your brand of
logic would have to preclude you from caring about others, since caring
requires humanity, which you deny. So, either you occasionally succumb to
humaneness, or you live a solitary life, or you are surrounded by martyrs - or,
what I really suspect, you do not live what you write.
Phil Oliver
m>...
>I love semantics. Call it whatever you want. It has human DNA. It is human.
One cubic micron of your blood has lots of human DNA. Is it a human being?
Phil Oliver
lfin...@hotmail.com
> Give it up. You can't stop it. Why even try?
It is not a major campaign issue to me. I can easily
support a conservative for office if he supports
criminalizing all abortion, even though that is not
exaclty what I support, if he supports others things
I find important. I certainly support some legal
constraints on late term abortions of normal and
healthy fetuses. I certainly won't expend a lot
of effort on these issues. However if I should
end up on a jury where someone is accused of
murdering a doctor who performed lots of partial
birth abortions, well then, I can assure that
is one person who won't be convicted by that
jury.
lfin...@hotmail.com
>One cubic micron of your blood has lots of human DNA.
>Is it a human being?
At conception a human zygote is not much more complex
than that.However at birth it is quite complex and
supposedly scientists can measure brain waves and
very significant activity in the brain. Is it human?
If not, is it human a minute after birth? At one year
old? At two? When?
I don't see any really good way to draw a hard and
fast line that is not arbitrary. One moment you ar
a rightless collection of tissue, and the next moment
you are -- voila! -- a _human_being_. Yea!
Sure, we can see at the extremes (zygote, newborn
baby) very significant differences, however I see no
one proposing an objective, and verifiable "moment"
when someone _becomes_ a human being. All such "moments"
it would seem to me are essentially arbitrary.
So you, or anyone, can point out that rather lack of
"humaness" (brain activity, self-consciousness, whatever)
of cells, or zygotes, but nevertheless I don't think you
can provide any means to detect when humanness is
achieved. And, if like some, you base humaness on a
certain level of consciousness and self-awareness,
the logically you let wide the door to allowing
infanticide. After all, I seriously doubt that even
a newborn baby meets the criterion of "humanness" that
some Objectivists seem to require.
regards,
lf
genein
Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<35F7B091...@hotmail.com>...
> genein wrote:
>i object to your comparison as not only wrong in every
>sense of the word but lacking humanity in its delivery....
> >
> Thank you. I take pride in beinglogical and not humane which is
> just another word for haviing
> brains as soft as shit.
...what you propose and stand for is a rather corrupt form of logic...if
it can be called that.
i say this not in an insulting manner, although people of your caliber
normally accept it as such, nor do i ask you to reconsider your position
since the tenor of your posts indicate i would fail....my reasons are to
keep humane objectives alive and visable...no i am not religious, just an
advocate of equal rights but far more importantly, the growth of human
progress which can slow by the sheer weight of inhumane thinking...
again: while i believe that any woman has the right to do what she wishes
with her body, abortion should be considered a serious matter and
undertaken only if absolutely necessary...and to consider life a cheap
commodity to be disposed of if inconvenient only invites an atmosphere
similar to nazi germany somewhere up the road.
g.
genein
Phil Oliver <ph...@NOSPAMpoboxes.net> wrote in article
<6tafvo$6s9$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> Reigncloud wrote in message
<199809110410...@ladder01.news.aol.co
> m>...
> >I love semantics. Call it whatever you want. It has human DNA. It is
human.
>
> One cubic micron of your blood has lots of human DNA. Is it a human
being?
>
> Phil Oliver
if i hold up a "rose" and you respond by plucking the petal from a rose
and ask "is this the rose? what should be my answer?.....
g.
DSANDIN
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 1998 09:38 EDT
Message-id: <01bddd88$f2e003e0$8509440c@default>
Well, if your original statement amounted to something as
ridiculous and mystical as "This petal -- no matter that it's only
an organic part of a rose, as opposed to being a rose-entity in
itself -- contains rose DNA, so in some higher sense it's a rose in
itself", what should be my answer?.....
Perhaps something about a cubic micron of rose cells.
--- Dean
lfin...@hotmail.com
> ...abortion should be considered a serious matter and
> undertaken only if absolutely necessary...and to consider
> life a cheap commodity to be disposed of if inconvenient
> only invites an atmosphere similar to nazi germany somewhere
> up the road.
Not to far "up the road" I think. I fundamentally agree
with you. Having an abortion, most especially if that
abortion involves a late term fetus, is something that
should only be undertaken if absolutely necessary.
Even if one were for abortion, as some here are, they
should at the very least be outraged that many people
are _forced_ to pay money (taxes) to support government
programs that provide abortion services they consider
fundamentally immoral.
At least Bob Kolker should be indignant if abortions are
provided as a government service funded by tax money.
If he were principled then I think he would oppose at
least that.
regards,
lfin...@hotmail.com
Reigncloud
>>I love semantics. Call it whatever you want. It has human DNA. It is
>human.
>
> One cubic micron of your blood has lots of human DNA. Is it a human being?
>
>Phil Oliver
Good point. I should have written my point differently. As I wrote it, it
sounds as though I meant that anything with human DNA is human. That's not
what I meant. The point I was trying to make:
The individual to whom I was responding had described a fetus to a parasite.
"Parasite" describes a creature's method of sustanance. The term "parasite" is
often thought to be equal to "insect". It isn't. So, the fact that a fetus
derives sustanance parasitically does not equate the fetus to an insect. The
fetus is human, no matter how it derives sustanance. Use of the term
"parasite" is often used to justify abortion by equating the fetus to an
insect. An insect parasite has no right to life because it is an *insect*. A
fetus, no matter what it's method of sustanance, is not an insect, it is human.
A is A.
Phil Oliver
>Phil Oliver <ph...@NOSPAMpoboxes.net> wrote:
>At conception a human zygote is not much more complex
>than that.However at birth it is quite complex and
>supposedly scientists can measure brain waves and
>very significant activity in the brain. Is it human?
>If not, is it human a minute after birth? At one year
>old? At two? When?
As I saw Betsy Speicher put it, and I agree with the
reasoning, it doesn't become a human _being_ until after
birth. Being attached to an umblical cord and residing
physically inside of the mother makes it part of her,
de facto, until after delivery. It's the fact of this
that makes it also a potentially large threat to her
existence under some circumstances, _especially_ later
in the pregnancy, further underscoring the fact.
Morally I do distinguish between an "abortion of
convenience" at 4 weeks vs. 8.5 months, but the law
should say nothing at all about it. It should stay the
hell out of it because similarities aside the fetus is
not a baby.
Phil Oliver
Robert J. Kolker
Reigncloud wrote:
> The individual to whom I was responding had described a fetus to a parasite.
> "Parasite" describes a creature's method of sustanance. The term "parasi
> te" is
> often thought to be equal to "insect". It isn't. So, the fact that a fetus
> derives sustanance parasitically does not equate the fetus to an insect. The
> fetus is human, no matter how it derives sustanance. Use of the term
> "parasite" is often used to justify abortion by equating the fetus to an
> insect. An insect parasite has no right to life because it is an *insect
> *. A
> fetus, no matter what it's method of sustanance, is not an insect, it is
> human.
> A is A.
A parasite is an organism that livesoff another organism without
providing any benefits to the host.
A mutually beneficial relationship
is symbiosis.
Parasite does not imply any particular
species, rather it is used to define
the relationship between the parasite
and the host.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
lfin...@hotmail.com wrote:
> At least Bob Kolker should be indignant if abortions are
> provided as a government service funded by tax money.
> If he were principled then I think he would oppose at
> least that.
>
I am indeed. The government shouldnot even pay for the removal of a
hangnail. Abortions should be paid
out of private pockets.
I am thinking of starting a fund to
make abortions and ru-486 available
to poor folks, particularly underclass
people. The fewer of them the better.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Reigncloud wrote:
> Being parasitic does not inherently justify death. If I have the right t
> o rid
> myself of tapeworms, do I have the right to end the life of my invalid
> dependant grandmother?
>
No. But you don't have to feedher either. Wait 6 weeks, block
your eyes and ears and the problem
resolves itself. And you have clean
hands when it is all over.
Bob Kolker
PS: A parasite is any organsim
that lives of another organism.
Robert J. Kolker
Reigncloud wrote:
> This I find laughable. What ancient biology text says that a fetus eats
> at the
> bones and blood of a woman? A bit of fire and brimstone fer ya mate? What
> warped minds can possibly see pregnancy as such a horrific experience? I
> s this
> perhaps what Freud might have termed "womb envy"?
The fetus will take all the calcium
it needs from the bones of mama.
If mama does not eat enough extra
calcium here bones will pay the
price. There used to be an old saying
about having a baby and loosing a
tooth. That old saw reflects the way
a fetus will help itself to whatever
bodily resources mommy has in order
to live. This is preprogrammed genetic
processing and it conduces to the survival
of the species.
Also a new born is taking calcium from
the mother via the mothers
milk. Same priority holds.
Bob Kolker
lfin...@hotmail.com
> As I saw Betsy Speicher put it, and I agree with the
> reasoning, it doesn't become a human _being_ until after
> birth. Being attached to an umblical cord and residing
> physically inside of the mother makes it part of her,
> de facto, until after delivery.
It is not genetically "part of her". It is another
being which lives in her and is sustained by her.
But it is another biological/gentical being.
Period, despite Betsy's rationalizations.
Reigncloud
>providing any benefits to the host.
>A mutually beneficial relationship
>is symbiosis.
No argument there.
>Parasite does not imply any particular
>species, rather it is used to define
>the relationship between the parasite
>and the host.
Nor here.
There are alot of unseemly words which can be used to describe alot of
perfectly decent things. But this still has no bearing on justification of
abortion, which was the topic - I thought.
Reigncloud
>reasoning, it doesn't become a human _being_ until after
>birth.
This is not a universal definition. It's not even in any of the three
dictionaries in my posession. Nor is this the definition found in Webster's on
AOL.
It may be yours. It may be Betsy's. And I may make up my own definition for
the word if *I* so choose. But that's hardly reasonable. I can't imagine that
you do not see the arbitrariness of your statement.
>Being attached to an umblical cord and residing
>physically inside of the mother makes it part of her,
>de facto, until after delivery.
Again, this is your own determination. Is it *only* part of her? Is it not a
separate entity as well? Your point again is arbitrary, and also it is
severely insufficient support of your conclusion that pregnancy is a
"potentially large threat to her existence."
> It's the fact of this
>that makes it also a potentially large threat to her
>existence under some circumstances, _especially_ later
>in the pregnancy, further underscoring the fact.
Potential threat determines human value now??? Or are you suggesting that all
pregnancies threaten existence? If that were so, we should all cease to exist,
for it is not healthy. If "potential threat" is your point, then how valuable
is the unthreatening fetus? If level of threat need not be determined before
determining such value, then you base human (fetal) value upon a totally
unsupported conclusion. If that is the case, then we should be allowed to
exterminate any human for the same "potential threat" it may be to our
existence - without providing any evidence that such a danger exists. If the
rule of "potential threat" only applies to a fetus, then it's obvious you are
not concerned with "potential threat", but rather, you are concerned with the
developement status of the human (as fetus).
> Morally I do distinguish between an "abortion of
>convenience" at 4 weeks vs. 8.5 months, but the law
>should say nothing at all about it. It should stay the
>hell out of it because similarities aside the fetus is
>not a baby.
Sure, in your own personal, arbitrary, factually unsupported, idiosyncratically
defined opinion - which has nothing to do with objectivity.
Reigncloud
>it needs from the bones of mama.
Hmmm. Do I bother to try to explain the facts, or just let you appear as
poorly informed as you are? One would think the latter is most reasonable
since it's not likely you will accept such facts.
>If mama does not eat enough extra
>calcium here bones will pay the
>price. There used to be an old saying
>about having a baby and loosing a
>tooth. That old saw reflects the way
>a fetus will help itself to whatever
>bodily resources mommy has in order
>to live. This is preprogrammed genetic
>processing and it conduces to the survival
>of the species.
>
>Also a new born is taking calcium from
>the mother via the mothers
>milk. Same priority holds.
I suppose your ideas, if they were even a teeny bit reasonable - which they
aren't - may apply in some third world, starvation ridden desert, where mom is
not able to keep her health because the resources are not even within a week
long camel ride. But here the resources abound. If any woman dare complain
that her fetus is depleting her resources, yadda yadda, whine, whine, whine,
I'd personally shove a hunk of cheddar in her yap and send her on her way.
Since you seem driven to point out the horror of human reproduction, and you
seem to think that your make believe scenarios somehow justify abortion - or
infanticide, then you open the door to a pro/con game. I dare say I could
list a great deal more pros than you could cons, if I wished to spend more time
here. But this is not a competition. Suffice to say, you provide yet another
weak argument for pro-abortion (not that any rational pro-abortion person
really wants you to speak for them anyway.)
John Alway
>
> >As I saw Betsy Speicher put it, and I agree with the
> >reasoning, it doesn't become a human _being_ until after
> >birth.
> This is not a universal definition. It's not even in any of the three
> dictionaries in my posession. Nor is this the definition found in Webste
> r's on
> AOL.
This is because they aren't Objectivists and don't define by
essentials.
The important question is "_When_do_rights_begin_?" The answer is at
birth, when there is a physically separate human being. Rights can
only apply to individuals by their very nature, i.e. physically separate
entities. You can not logically take the position that the mother and
the unborn have rights. It's a contradiction.
None of this means that late term abortion is a great thing, typically
its an immoral choice, but rights have to start somewhere, and that
beginning point can't be contradictory nor arbitrary.
Objectivism upholds the sanctity of the individual.
...John
Reigncloud
>birth, when there is a physically separate human being.
Again, I ask *why*? Who determines the start-date of rights? On what basis?
That it is a physically separate human being is just as arbitrary a response as
any. Does a conjoined twin have rights? Or do both twins equal one? Or does
one have more rights than the other? Your statement, "[rights begin] at
birth..." is supposed to be reasoned by your statement "...when there is a
physically separate human being." Do you feel that this reasoning should only
apply to a fetus? Or does it also apply to conjoined twins? If it only
applies to fetuses, then your reason is missing a crucial explanation of why it
only applies to fetuses. *IF* you don't apply this reasoning to other
scenarios, such as conjoined twins, then you really must see that your reason
does not stand. Your reason would then be subjective. I'm still looking for
the *objective* factor in abortion justification.
>Rights can
>only apply to individuals by their very nature, i.e. physically separate
>entities.
And what about the conjoined twins???
>You can not logically take the position that the mother and
>the unborn have rights.
Um, yes, I can.
>It's a contradiction.
You fail to explain why this is so. No doubt because it isn't so.
> None of this means that late term abortion is a great thing, typically
>its an immoral choice,
why? If it matters, as even you acknowledge, can you articulate *why* it
matters??? If rights begin at birth as you claim, *why* is late term abortion
any different than earlier???
> but rights have to start somewhere, and that
>beginning point can't be contradictory nor arbitrary.
But by your own words, it is both.
Contradictory: because you claim rights apply to "physically separate human
beings". You wish this statement to apply to the fetus/mother relationship,
but presumably it does not apply to conjoined twins?
Arbitrary: Because the determination of rights beginning at birth is based on
a non-absolute, which even you have trouble defining
>Objectivism upholds the sanctity of the individual.
Your entire argument here depends on physical separation. I offer an example
of separate individualness of joined persons. Separateness cannot determine
individualness.
John Alway
> >The important question is "_When_do_rights_begin_?" The answer is at
> >birth, when there is a physically separate human being.
> Again, I ask *why*?
In which case you are not starting at the right point. Before you can
even approach this abortion issue you have to understand what rights
are and why men have them. Can you give me a run down of what rights
are and why men have them?
>Who determines the start-date of rights?
Who determines that F=ma? The facts of reality.
[snipped the rest in the interest of a productive discussion.]
....John
lfin...@earthlink.net
John Alway wrote:
>The important question is "_When_do_rights_begin_?"
Which you arbitrarily assign at birth.
>The answer is at birth, when there is a physically separate human being.
Your rationalized anser does.The fetus is a "seperate human being" long bef
ore. It
is a biologically,genetically different human being from its mother. It doe
s depend
on her body for survival, but it is most certainly a "separate human
being". It will _also_ depend on its mother's body and actions long
after birth.
>Rights can only apply to individuals by their very nature, i.e.
>physically separate entities.
Rationalization. The late term fetus is very much a human
being. It is very much an individual human being. Rights
do not metaphysically append by being born.
>You can not logically take the position that the mother and
>the unborn have rights. It's a contradiction.
Then if base rights on "humanhood", then you cannot any more
reasonably assign rights to the mother than to the late term
fetus.
lf
>
>
> None of this means that late term abortion is a great thing, typi
> cally
> its an immoral choice, but rights have to start somewhere, and that
> beginning point can't be contradictory nor arbitrary.
>
> Objectivism upholds the sanctity of the individual.
>
> ...John
genein
Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<35F90239...@hotmail.com>...
>
>
> Reigncloud wrote:
do I have the right to end the life of my invalid
> > dependant grandmother?
> >
>
> No. But you don't have to feedher either. Wait 6 weeks, block
> your eyes and ears and the problem
> resolves itself. And you have clean
> hands when it is all over.
hands can be cleaned by any good soap....the mind, once its on the wrong
track..."never".
g.
Robert Kolker
...................snip...............
>
> I love semantics. Call it whatever you want. It has human DNA. It is h
> uman.
>
toe a human being? It has human DNA.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
.....................snip...............
> of effort on these issues. However if I should
> end up on a jury where someone is accused of
> murdering a doctor who performed lots of partial
> birth abortions, well then, I can assure that
> is one person who won't be convicted by that
> jury.
Why go after the doctor when it was the *mother*
who initiated the destruction of her fetus. To be
absolutely consistent you must first condemn the
mother as the principle murderer.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
> normally accept it as such, nor do i ask you to reconsider your position
> since the tenor of your posts indicate i would fail....my reasons are to
> keep humane objectives alive and visable...no i am not religious, just an
Given the choice of being just or being
humane, being just wins every single time.
Humane is just a nice word which =
shit for brains and mush for logic.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
...........................snip..................
>
> Since you seem driven to point out the horror of human reproduction, and you
> seem to think that your make believe scenarios somehow justify abortion - or
None of my scenarios are make believe. They are based
on physiological fact..
> infanticide, then you open the door to a pro/con game. I dare say I could
> list a great deal more pros than you could cons, if I wished to spend mor
> e time
> here. But this is not a competition. Suffice to say, you provide yet an
> other
> weak argument for pro-abortion (not that any rational pro-abortion person
> really wants you to speak for them anyway.)
The strongest and only argument for abortion
is that the mother wants to abort her fetus.
Since the fetus is *her* property in *her* body
she has the right to dispose of it as she sees
fit.
The alternative view is to regard a women as a
brood mare past a certain point in her pregnency
which is tantamount to saying she is a *slave*.
I oppose slavery in any of its forms, whether it
be to force a women to bear against her will, or
to draft people into the military or to compel them
to work for a cause against their will (that is what
taxation does). Slavery is evil and it is more evil
than abortion.
What business is it of yours if some women strange to
you decides to dump her fetus? Has your ox been gored?
Has your purse been stolen? Has your field been set
aflame? Is it a threat against YOUR health or life?
Bob Kolker
lfin...@earthlink.net
Robert Kolker wrote:
> Why go after the doctor when it was the *mother*
> who initiated the destruction of her fetus. To be
> absolutely consistent you must first condemn the
> mother as the principle murderer.
I did not say anythting abouty "go[ing] after" anyone.
I said that I will not find someone guilty of
murder who kills a doctor who routinely performs
late term partial birth abortions on normal, and healty
fetuses [which I consider to be human beings at
that point in time].
lf
lfin...@earthlink.net
John Alway wrote:
> Can you give me a run down of what rights
> are and why men have them?
Reason guided action is a metaphysical requirement of man's
survival. Rights are the political recognition of that requirement
of man's survival qua man in a social setting.
Given that then _only_ human beings who are guided by
reason have rights. Madmen don't. Comatose patients don't.
Infants don't. Fetuses don't. If Objectivists were to follow
their own logic ruthlessly then they would support not
only abortion, but infanticide.
regards,
lf
genein
Robert Kolker <r...@tiac.net> wrote in article
<6tf8c0$i...@news-central.tiac.net>...
> genein (gen...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> > normally accept it as such, nor do i ask you to reconsider your
position
> > since the tenor of your posts indicate i would fail....my reasons are
to
> > keep humane objectives alive and visable...no i am not religious, just
an
> Given the choice of being just or being
> humane, being just wins every single time.
they travel in pairs, one cannot be humane without being just, one cannot
be just without being humane...unless you are dancing the intellectual
"twist".
> Humane is just a nice word which =
> shit for brains and mush for logic.
its an opinion that lies only in your mind.....logic is not physically
descriptive...which is usually the haven for those who lacking in logical
retorts respond with "oh yeah, sez you".....same level.
g.
> Bob Kolker
>
cath...@my-dejanews.com
> > > normally accept it as such, nor do i ask you to reconsider your
> position
> > > since the tenor of your posts indicate i would fail....my reasons are
> to
> > > keep humane objectives alive and visable
>
> > humane, being just wins every single time.
>
> they travel in pairs, one cannot be humane without being just, one cannot
> be just without being humane...unless you are dancing the intellectual
> "twist".
According to an Objectivist, the morality presented in _Atlas Shrugged_ *is*
humane, though admittedly its conception of what is humane is fairly
unconventional. If humane is to be measured by respect for persons ("respect
for man," as Rand would probably put it), then Objectivism should be
considered fully humane. (Of course, that takes a lot more explanation to
show why, but for a start, check out my post, "Recasting the terms of
debate," a reply to the "Omnibus Discussion" thread.) Objectivism's
conception of "respect for persons" differs sharply from a lot of other
conceptions.
Robert J. Kolker
lfin...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Given that then _only_ human beings who are guided by
> reason have rights. Madmen don't. Comatose patients don't.
> Infants don't. Fetuses don't. If Objectivists were to follow
> their own logic ruthlessly then they would support not
> only abortion, but infanticide.
>
I am not an Objectivist, but I amconsistent down to the atomic
nucleus. I have pointed out on
several occassion that until a
newborn develops the attributes
of personhood, it is the *property*
of its mother and therefore the mother
has the right to ( or ought to have the
right) to dispose of her property as
she sees fit.
Now most women who have gone
through a great deal to bear a child
into the world will care for it and
cherish it. Some will not. A women
ought to be able to give her property
(i.e. the child away) or leave it to
perish. Since leaving it to perish is
a form of abandonment then someone
else should be free to pick up the
the property (i.e. the child) the mother
has discarded.
Infanticide has had a long and useful
history among the great civilizations of
the past (except for the Israelites). It
is a way of discarding cripples and mis-
formed children. It is a way of controlling
excess population in times of famine or
want.
Bob Kolker
> regards,
>
> lf
John Alway
> John Alway wrote:
> > Can you give me a run down of what rights
> > are and why men have them?
> Reason guided action is a metaphysical requirement of man's
> survival.
That's right. Man as an individual entity in nature.
> Rights are the political recognition of that requirement
> of man's survival qua man in a social setting.
Right.
> Given that then _only_ human beings who are guided by
> reason have rights. Madmen don't. Comatose patients don't.
Your train of logic fails here. Remember, the very egoistic question
of politics is how can man _best_ live among others, not how can he
create an arduous environment for his survival. Look at it from a
personal point of view. In order for you to _survive_ among others
your rights must be recognized. If your are going to be free to use
your rational faculty, then you must be left free from others. Whether
you will use that faculty or not is a different question.
> Infants don't. Fetuses don't. If Objectivists were to follow
> their own logic ruthlessly then they would support not
> only abortion, but infanticide.
Abortion should be a right because rights apply to individuals.
Infanticide isn't a right, because infants are physically separate
entities with a rational faculty, however undeveloped.
...John
Dlwusa
wrote:
>Abortion should be a right because rights apply to individuals.
The right to an abortion is similar in principle to giving legal immunity to
diplomats while they are in another country. It allows them to commit murder or
assault against the citizens, but the police can only take the dead and injured
to the hospital or morgue.
Just because something is
legal or unenforcible, it can still be very immoral.
David Wharton
John Alway
> >John Alway <jal...@ICSI.Net>
> wrote:
> >Abortion should be a right because rights apply to individuals.
> The right to an abortion is similar in principle to giving legal immunity to
> diplomats while they are in another country. It allows them to commit mur
> der or
> assault against the citizens, but the police can only take the dead and i
> njured
> to the hospital or morgue.
Do you believe in reaching and supporting a conclusion by a process of
reason? If so, can you please point me to your argument which supports
your position?
...John
Dvdwn
wrote:
>Do you believe in reaching and supporting a conclusion by a process of
>reason? If so, can you please point me to your argument which supports
>your position?
>
Both diplomats abroad and pregnant women have in common a legal
protection that doesn't exist in any other situation that I know of. If an
official covered under diplomatic immunity initiates force against a citizen,
he cannot be prosecuted. But what he did was wrong. If a pregnant woman has an
abortion, she also cannot be prosecuted. And what she did was also wrong.
I only
used your sentence:
>> >Abortion should be a right because rights apply to
individuals.
because I was thinking of the concept "rights" which seems as inappropriate in
the case of abortion as it does in the case of a diplomat having the right to
murder a citizen. It's perhaps a right by default, only because law enforcement
is unable to take any action to protect the victim, due to highly unusual
circumstances, in each case.
David
John Alway
[...]
> Both diplomats abroad and pregnant women have in common a legal
> protection that doesn't exist in any other situation that I know of. If an
> official covered under diplomatic immunity initiates force against a citizen,
> he cannot be prosecuted. But what he did was wrong. If a pregnant woman h
> as an
> abortion, she also cannot be prosecuted. And what she did was also wrong.
The problem with your argument, David, is that you assume your
conclusion. The question is do the unborn have rights? I've been
arguing that they don't. I give my argument in a posting to Lawrence
Kennon.
...John
Reigncloud
>In which case you are not starting at the right point. Before you can
>even approach this abortion issue you have to understand what rights
>are and why men have them. Can you give me a run down of what rights
>are and why men have them?
Sure.
Right n. 1. what is right or just, lawful, morally good, proper, correct,
etc. 2. that which a person has a just claim to; power, privelege, etc. that
belongs to a person by law, nature, or tradition: as, it was his right to say
what he thought. (there are more, but for the sake of space and time, I left
them out.)
Reigncloud
Reigncloud
>The alternative view is to regard a women as a
>brood mare past a certain point in her pregnency
>which is tantamount to saying she is a *slave*.
This is your greatest error. You may agree or disagree with a pro-life
position, but you *should* understand it. You don't. If you understood the
position, you would understand that the issue is not about taking away the
right of the woman, but acknowledging the right of the fetus. In the ideal
world we'd all get our way, but that's just not so, is it? The core question
is (and this one's rhetorical, so please don't try to lengthen this discussion
any more by answering) does the fetus have equal human rights to exist?
But since you mention the term "slave", and you support infanticide for the
same reasons you support abortion, do you believe child rearing is slavery?
For if that is so, you have one of the most anti-female views I have ever
witnessed.
>I oppose slavery in any of its forms, whether it
>be to force a women to bear against her will, or
>to draft people into the military or to compel them
>to work for a cause against their will (that is what
>taxation does). Slavery is evil and it is more evil
>than abortion.
Slavery is evil. However your idea of what falls under the category of slavery
is what I challenge. Is meeting one's responsibilities slavery? Is fulfilling
a promise slavery? Is facing the consequences of life slavery?
>What business is it of yours if some women strange to
>you decides to dump her fetus? Has your ox been gored?
>Has your purse been stolen? Has your field been set
>aflame? Is it a threat against YOUR health or life?
The business it is to anyone who is concerned with the issue is the same as it
is regarding any innocent human life. I would not support child abuse simply
because such abuse is to the parent's advantage, or because the child is
property of the parent, or because someone thinks that children commit parents
to slavery.
I still have not seen any non-arbitrary reasoning supporting a lack of rights
of a human which happens to be at the developemental stage which is the fetus.
Your justifications are based on such a lack of rights, so you've not
explained justification of abortion sufficiently either.