NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/talk/abortion/31351

Text File | 1992-08-12 | 4.5 KB | 108 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!news
From: Larry Margolis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Red Button Scenario
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:55:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Nntp-Posting-Host: lamail.watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Lines: 93

In  <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Steven Arnold) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] (Larry Margolis) writes:
> > In  <[e-mail]>
> [e-mail] (Steven Arnold) writes:
> > >
> > >      I distinguish between murder and killing,
> >
> > Good, because they're two different things.
>
>      Well, good.  For once you take a sensible position.

For once?  I've done that consistently.  In fact, I don't recall
*anyone* who failed to distinguish between murder and killing.

> > > (for the fetus is human life and abortion takes that life)
> >
> > An appendix is human life and an appendectomy takes that life.
>
>      An appendix is not a living member of the human species.

But it is human life; I was addressing what you wrote.

> > >      I maintain that a woman has a right to control her own body unless she
> > > waives that right,
> >
> > I maintain that you can't waive that right completely, you can only
> > give it up temporarily.  E.g., someone entering into a B&D master/slave
> > relationship is waiving their right to liberty, but if they change their
> > mind, they have a right to be freed.  Similarly, a person has a right
> > to prevent others from intruding on their body.  If they waive this
> > right, it's called consensual sex.  But if they change their mind -
> > even in the middle of the act - and the other person refuses to stop,
> > it's called rape or sodomy.
>
>      No doubt that's true.  In fact, I do not believe that the woman must
> allow the fetus to remain in her body.  But if she takes it out and it
> dies, she's up Shit Crick.  Without a paddle.

You're clearly wrong, since abortion is legal.

> > > just as I have a right to control MY body unless I
> > > modify that right by joining the Army
> >
> > Bad example - ever hear of the draft?  :-)
>
>      I've heard of it and I oppose it.

I didn't ask how you felt about it; just pointing out that you example
was incorrect.

> > > I further maintain that if I, or anyone else, by our
> > > own voluntary behavior endangers the life of someone else, we incur an
> > > obligation to protect the person we have endangered.
> >
> > Perhaps a moral obligation, but certainly no legal obligation.  (Did you
> > miss all the discussion pointing out that you *can't* be forced to donate
> > blood, organs, etc.?)
>
>      I mean a LEGAL obligation.  If I injure someone, I must do everything I
> feel is reasonable to save that person -- but if my idea of "reasonable"
> doesn't do the job, I can be in big trouble.  If, for example, I hit a
> pedestrian, and if I think that saying a quick prayer as I drive away is
> "reasonable," most juries would probably differ.

You're still ignoring the issue:  if the person requires a transfusion to
save their life, you *can not* be forced to provide one, and you will be
in *no* legal trouble for failing to do so.  I assume you keep failing
to address this because you realize that this is where your argument
falls apart.

> > > In the abstract, few pro-choicers would question this.
> > > Only when applied to pregnancy do they seriously deny it.
> >
> > Well, you *can't* apply it to pregnancy, because above you were talking
> > about a person, and now you're attempting to apply the same logic to a
> > fetus.
>
>      Well, you *can* apply it to a pregnancy, because above I was talking
> about a person, and now I'm applying the same logic to an unborn person.

.. which you assume to be a person.  But for someone who believes it
to *not* be a person, it's quite reasonable to say that the logic which
applies to a person doesn't apply to a fetus.  So if you want to be
logical, you either have to come up with an abstract argument that
*doesn't* assume personhood, or prove that the fetus is a person.

>      Did not!  Did so!  Did not!....

Or, of course, you can continue to argue as you've been doing.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)