Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!orca!shark!brianp From: brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: (30% quoting) Society, laws, other basic fun stuff..... Message-ID: <1019@shark.UUCP> Date: Wed, 29-Aug-84 03:09:17 EDT Article-I.D.: shark.1019 Posted: Wed Aug 29 03:09:17 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 1-Sep-84 04:35:02 EDT Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 253 `` >(Brad Templeton) `` >Now you'll note I didn't say it proves that abortion is good or bad, `` >simply that it should be legal. ``But are you then saying that the question of whether something is good ``or bad is irrelevant to whether or not it should be legal? The key here is "good or bad". All people have their own idea of good and bad. In some matters, many or even most people agree about good and bad. In some matters, people do not agree at all. Laws are rules of behaviour (agreed upon by the "lawmakers") to make things "better". (for the lawmakers, or some superset they belong to) That a law has been passed PERMITTING some behaviour does not mean that the behaviour is thought of as "good" by most people. It means that most of the people (or whoever makes the laws) do NOT think that it is "BAD". (note that the double "negatives" do not cancel to become "good") If there were a law REQUIRING certain behaviour, then you could say it says the behaviour is "good". The current law on abortion reflects the indecision in our society on the matter. `` >The existence of net.abortion proves one thing. That there is a large `` >controversy over the issue. It shows there are two large camps on either `` >side, with some sitting in the middle. It shows plainly that the issues `` >involved are intangible and highly subject to debate. ``Are the issues really intangible? I think they are so only to those ``who want them to be. Maybe the existence of net.abortion proves that ``there are some to those people around too. What is your exact definition of "tangible"? Do you mean "obvious"? Obvious to whom? If something is not obvious to just about everyone, It (obviously :-) can't be agreed upon, and therefore should not be restricted or required by laws. Does "tangible" mean "physical" ("touchable"?) A "human" embryo has homo-sapiens DNA, comes from homo-sapiens, and is alive. This just describes one species of life on the planet earth. These facts don't >determine< our decisions, but they should be taken into consideration, though. Does "tangible" mean "provable"? Any proof has axioms, or assumptions. These assumptions can be the physical world, and they can be desires of men. (Note that "desires" means not just lusts, but spiritual, intellectual, or ANY wants that a person may have.) The physical world is common to all. Desires are different in all people, and the only person who can say what a desire is is the person holding the desire. (People may count expressed desires, and make generalizations...) So now we take one physical reality, a whole bunch of (most likely conflicting) desires, and we now set out to "prove" what behaviours must be permitted, required, or restricted. The problem gets hard if you start seriously listening to and taking into account what other people think. (an issue is most certainly tangible if you blind yourself to see only your own opinions....) `` >Now the maxim of a free society is to err on the side of freedom in a `` >situation can can't be clearly decided. No matter how much one side may `` >claim it, the issue isn't "obvious." ``The assumption here is that both sides of the issue are clearly, and ``without bias, presented to the public. The issue certainly is not as ``obvious as night and day. But it doesn't follow that the issue cannot ``be resolved or that the difficulty is inherent in the issue itself. The issue does NOT have to be clearly presented or understood. The issue certainly doesn't have to be obvious, provable, tangible, inherintly easy, or whatever. It doesn't have to be ANYTHING: The IMPORTANT point is that there is major disagreement, therefore the "free society" has NOT decided what is right OR wrong. Period. By not deciding, society can actually try both (or all 3, 4...) choices, since people are different, and will try different things. (this is especially likely, if there is disagreement on a matter.) If an issue is not clear in YOUR mind, you don't commit yourself blindly to only one course of action, do you? You might investigate the possibilities, and if you are forced to choose randomly, at least you wonder "what if". That an issue is crystal clear and as obvious as your nose to YOU, doesn't mean that it is clear to society. ``Whose freedom do we err on the side of? The "reproductive freedom" of ``certain men and women, or any freedom at all for the unborn? It all boils down to "Who is society? Who is it who is doing all this agreeing and disagreeing?" What can this "society" do? Just as you cannot make decisions for your neighbor, and he cannot make decisions for you, this "society" thing can only make decisions for itself. Any actions it takes on others is just that. Doing something to others. We kill cows, and (try to) give little baby seals a break. The only basis we have for deciding what is right or wrong in such matters is "what will happen?" Will it benefit us, or harm us? But what about "will it help or harm those for whom we decide?" But what basis do we have for deciding what is right for the physical world, or for "nature"? So who is society? It is who "we" agree to let in. It is those things/individuals/whatever who agree to agree-and-disagree. Those who read net.abortion, for example, are a "society" of sorts, even though there is substantial disagreement among them. (a society is a group which shares an exchange of information???) Thus embryos, like hermits and foreigners, are not a part of our (American, in my case) society. However, we can make decisions ABOUT them, as outsiders. (By the way, some people might say that "reproductive freedom" "obviously" overrides the freedom of people who aren't even born. This is because people have different desires. These desires are not wrong. They might be different from yours, though.) `` >Thus the law is not competent to judge on this issue. Only individuals `` >are. When there is no proof, it is not the province of the law to `` >interfere. The maxim of the law is "innocent until proven guilty beyond `` >a reasonable doubt." ``I disagree that there is no proof. I think there is sufficient evidence ``to consider the fetus a human being. There are many definitions of a "person". I think of four. _________________________________________________________________________ Biological: A (living) creature with DNA of this single species, born of other creatures of this species (us, that is). [This is an obvious definition, and easy to work with.] [Where does it get us, though?] Religious: Whatever they say. Religions are not universal, so therefore should not be used as a basis for decisions. (in other words, "that belongs in net.religion" :-) Religion may, of course be used as a basis for one's PERSONAL beliefs, but when society deals with someone's desires, it should not concern itself about how they got there. Others' desires are not "right" or "wrong". They just are THERE. You don't want to be required to "prove" your Christianity, Buddhism, Satanic-ness, or whatever, do you? Intellectual: (philosophical, etc) This encompasses intelligent things, "sentient beings". It might include dolphins, gorillas, extra-terrestrials, future AI projects, or even (insert your favorite ethnic group here :-) It might exclude VERY senile people, embryos, earthworms, '65 chevies, and today's AI projects. Let us assume that everyone involved in the (any) debate certainly is a "person" under this category. Legal: A person in the "legal" sense is whoever is covered by the laws we have. (What do the net.legals say?) As above, this "person" is whatever we agree that it is. (Any other definitions out there?) _________________________________________________________________________ So `there is sufficient evidence to consider the fetus' (embryo, etc) a BIOLOGICAL person. A fetus before the first trimester (do I have my laws straight?) is NOT a legal person. Religion does not enter into discussions among non-consenting-adults. The intellectual definition could use more work to be more than an intuitive guideline. Now, which definition applies in a situation? When considering which actions are allowable, we use the (current, of course) legal one. In mating, we use the biological one. Discussions of who should be considered as a person involve deciding what the legal definition of "person" should be. (The biological definition is a matter of evidence, not discussion. The religious definition is a personal matter. The intellectual one can be tackled by philosophers, if they want. I just put it in because I perceive it.) What do we use when deciding what the legal definition of person should be? We use the physical world (reality, EVIDENCE, facts), and we use the set of desires of all those involved in the discussion. (That's US. Embryos are OTHERS. They are not us. Are any of you an embryo, out there? If you talk of embryos' "desires", it must be via physical evidence. Only the embryos themselves can tell us what they really want, if they in fact can care.) We must find some average or middle or sum which incorporates just about everybody's desires. It is ok to present evidence to attempt to change somebody's desires, but if you can't convince somebody, then tuffo. It may turn out that we do not reach an agreement. Then the proper course is to allow, but not require abortions. To require or forbid abortions is to impose the desires of some members of society upon all the members, as if the decision really had been made. This is tyranny. If that happens, are we then a society? (Those who bring up the tyranny against the unborn should also take into account the tyranny against cows, mosquitos, and microbes. There is a difference between acting against your society and the outside.) `` I would think that the burden of ``proof to the contrary should rest on those who want to kill it as part ``of their freedom of choice. Something like "human until proven not ``a human beyond a reasonable doubt". Have abortion rights been won ``on the basis of such proof? I think not. The court cases that struck ``down abortion laws did not even consider the issue, only the rights of ``the woman. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to legal "persons". It does NOT apply to embryos younger than 3 months. If you want a law restricting other members of society, the burden of proof rests on you. Requiring people to prove that embryos are not human before they do abortions is one instance of requiring a law in order to do ANYthing. This is not the freedom that we supposedly have. `` >So if you believe in the free society legal system, and the maxim stated `` >above, you must conclude that abortion should be legal. ``I believe that freedom carries with it the responsibility to uphold ``the legitimate rights of others. I don't think your conclusion follows ``from your premises. "True freedom" (anarchy) carries the need to watch your tail. To benefit from a set of rules requires that people choose them well, and to make sure that they are followed. "Legitimate rights" are just agreed-upon rules. Just like there are no "absolute" rights, there are no "absolute" responsibilities. `` >You need not state it is moral. ``So can we say it is immoral? Maybe we should say that people have different morals. Calling it immoral is just ranting and raving. Emotions are useless in carrying on intelligent discussions. `` >You may campaign with vigour against it. You may `` >take steps to ensure public money is not used. ``There are some who think that lack of government funds for abortion ``inhibits the choice of poor women. Although many of them are "personally ``opposed" to abortion, they are publically in favor of all of us (even ``others who are personally opposed) personally helping to pay ``for abortions through our personal income taxes. (Lot of "personal" stuff ``there.) Until we agree to forbid abortions, we should allow them. (Else we have no freedom.) Until we agree to pay for others' abortions, we should not have to. (Else the government is robbing us.) Until we agree to pay for others' lives, we shouldn't have to. (Else we have parasites. who can't find jobs.) It is better, though, (cheaper to the taxpayer, healthier to the woman) to have abortions than to pay welfare for the child that appears in its place. If you want a human to be born somewhere, you pay for it, please. If you don't want to pay for abortions, stop to think that some people don't want to pay for the results of irresponsible people. `` >But you may not make it illegal ``If someone thinks they have good reason for thinking that abortion is ``the killing of humans who have a right to live, I wouldn't blame them in ``the least for trying to make it illegal. How can you? You may TRY to make abortion illegal. That is, you may TRY to get everyone (or whatever we agree is the "threshold") to agree not to allow abortions. Don't try to dictate what others are to do. Unfortunately, just because a law gets created does not mean that most people agree with it. It means that most legislators agreed with it, or with the lobbyists, anyway. Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp