NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/talk/abortion/28633

Text File | 1992-07-23 | 5.2 KB | 116 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!acd4!TEFS1!wdo
From: [e-mail] (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: "Ice Cubes Applied To The Genitals..."
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:58:16 GMT
Lines: 105

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
   (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: >
In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
   (Keith A. Cochran) writes: >>>
In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>

>>>[Good for you, Bill.  Now for a tougher one...]
>>
>>>Denise (not her real name) is a mature adult working full time, and going
>>>to college part time to get a programming degree.  She met Ted (not his
>>>real name).  Three months (or so) later, they had sex.  She was on the
>>>pill.  Within a week or so after they began having sex, he became abusive.
>>>She dumped him immediatly, and then found out she was pregnant.  Would
>>>you allow her to have an abortion?
>
>>No.  (Gee, I'm starting to feel *real* powerful...)
>
>Which means, that IMNSHO, you're an asshole.  You're an intelligent asshole,
>but still an asshole.

Vilifier!  Hey Keegan, Keith is vilifying me!

>[Now, you call me an asshole back, and let's try and continue the discussion
>without any more name calling, ok?]

Keith, you *know* I'd never call you any uncomplimentary names...

>>Risk is relative to the health of the respective woman and her ability
>>to safely carry a pregnancy to term as determined by her physician.
>
>So, if a doctor lies, and signs his name to a statement saying that
>carrying the pregnancy to term is likely to kill the woman, she can
>have an abortion?

Sure, if he's willing to take that kind of risk.  Most, I imagine,
wouldn't be.

>How are you going to verify that the doctor isn't lying?  Require two
>doctors to sign?  Require a panel?

How about this:  most physicians aren't willing to falsify diagnostic
information; the consequences (if discovered) simply aren't worth it.

>>The interests of society (should) include a sanctioned acknowledgement
>>that all human life is valuable.  Currently I fear the opposite value
>>is endorsed i.e., the value of human life is relative to the opinion
>>of the individual.  Such a philosophy (IMO) undermines interests of
>>society in that human life can be treated as a commodity (with the
>>blessing of the state).
>
>I hate to tell you this, Bill, but human life, like all things is a
>commodity.  Diamonds are only valuable because they are (1)scarce, and
>(2)humans place a value on them for various reasons.  Human life has
>no _objective_ value, just as animal and tree life have no _objective_
>value.  [Let's not go into the subjective values of these things, ok?]

This is one of those points on which I base my entire (pro-life) position.
*If* human life has no objective value, then the worth of anyone's life
is relative to individual opinion.  If such a belief becomes a dominant
cultural value, then we're likely in for a very scary ride, because there
is no ethic that supersedes the arbitrariness of human opinion.  Then it's
(potentially) open season on any particular class of people that fails to
conform to the majority's definition of "valuable".

I *know* that's a Slippery Slope Scenario(tm), but the possibilities are
frightening, nevertheless.

>>The government cannot force me to donate blood to save the life of another
>>human.  The government cannot force me to donate organs to another human.
>>The government cannot force me give up the food I brought at the store to
>>hungry homeless people.  The government cannot force me to stop and attempt
>>to save the life of a person who has had a heart attack, even though I know
>>CPR.  The government cannot force me to give up my bodily resources for ano-
>>ther.  Why do you feel it should be able to force women to give up their
>>bodily resources?
>
>You didn't answer my question which, of course, is your option.  But I
>will answer yours.  If there were no direct cause and effect relationship
>between voluntary (hetero)sexual activity and pregnancy, your question
>would be appropriate.  In that event, your analogies would be relevant
>as well.  Please note that none of them implies any cause and effect re-
>lationship between your behavior and the plight of the other human in-
>volved.

>Ok.  I know that I'm the only person who would be an acceptable organ doner
>for "Jerry".  I go out and intentionally do something that causes "Jerry's"
>kidney's to fail.  The government cannot force me to donate a kidney _or any
>other body part/resource_ to save Jerry's life, even though I'm the one who
>caused his prediciment.
>
>Now what?

Now you're arrested for some combination of assault, battery, attempted
murder, etc.  I hope, for your sake, that Jerry doesn't die.

>[Rest of article deleted.  However, since Bill keeps deleting it

Wait a minute.  I only deleted it once...

Other silliness deleted...  :-)

Bill