Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site oliven.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!oliven!hawk From: hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: replies to a few articles Message-ID: <495@oliven.UUCP> Date: Tue, 11-Sep-84 17:54:31 EDT Article-I.D.: oliven.495 Posted: Tue Sep 11 17:54:31 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 16-Sep-84 11:33:39 EDT References: <1028@shark.UUCP> Organization: University of Waikiki Lines: 124 >Q From: hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) >Q The two positions aren't aborting and not aborting. I don't know of any > >The issue is one of restricting the actions of others of society. >Some want to restrict actions they don't like. (And they aren't >even being harmed by those actions!) I also want to restrict rape, murder, and a handful of other things that aren't harming me. >Q These were the laws that society >Q set up, having made its decision on the abortion matter. >Do you have statistics on who actually voted for those laws? It is >possible that legislators and powerful lobbyists wanted the laws, >but not a significant majority of the people. Likewise with the >Supreme Court. "Society" and "legislature" are not quite the same, >unfortunately. (It's a matter of (im:-)practical versus theoretical.) >I know that people aren't all on side of the issue of abortion on the net! OK. Just what is a legislature for? And how are you proposing that we settle this. What are we paying them (the legislators) for anyway? They are the established way of dealing with these situations, and dealt with the situation in the established way. >>Q The rights of the fetus did not enter into the decision, >>Q as whether or not the fetus is a legal person is a grey area. >>The decision is WHETHER the fetus should even HAVE rights. >>And the Supreme Court ruling doesn't seem grey to me. >>Whether a fetus SHOULD have rights is grey. That's the decision that *should* have been made. The text of Roe v. Wade talks of the mothers right to privacy (yes, that's the right the decision was based on) and the rights of the state. The right to privacy came from a previous court ruling in which it threw out a state's (Mass?) prohibition of birth control, saying (wording not exact) that "In matters as fundamentally personal as whether or not to bear a child the individual must be free from the intervention of the state." >Q Congress could probably define a legal person, >Q and could probably defend its constitutionality > >(Net.abortion is having a hard enough time. Congress now??? :-) Congress is charged with certain duties relating to the people. It's reasonable for congress to define who this means. >Q Actually, the state legislatures >Q should each produce their own legal definition for their laws. >Q Currently all those born and all corporations are legal persons >Q (just try to abort big blue Q :-)). Please note that fetuses >Q can currently inherit property and have lawsuits filed on their behalf. >Yet you can kill a fetus legally. :-? You got it, Batman. >It looks like there are many facets to the legal definition of "person". >With different state laws, you could legally murder people, by >crossing state lines and having an abortion. There are different state laws on most topics right now. Teenagers drive from one state to another to get drunk. Anyway, unless the federal government can demonstrate constitutional grounds for producing a nationwide law, it simply can't. The tenth ammendment to the United States Constitution gives all powers not listed to the states and people. Varying state laws are a consequence of this. (Although perhaps crossing a state line in order to avoid state laws should be a federal offense.) >Q >(That's US. Embryos are OTHERS. They are not us. >Q >Q How about those under age 18? They have no legal voice. >Q Does this mean we can start putting them to sleep just >Q like are dogs once we decide it's OK? This >Q ain't my idea of a solution for problem children. >Do you think it's ok for me to put YOUR dogs to sleep just like >they are dogs, and I decide it's OK? So I can put my children to sleep, but not yours? >Just because people under 18 >are not us doesn't mean that we therefore have decided to show >zippo concern for them. But do show zippo concern for those who haven't been born yet. >Q >To require or forbid abortions is to impose the desires of >Q >some members of society upon all the members, as if the decision >Q >really had been made. This is tyranny. >Q >Q 1. The decision had been made. Nine men on the Supreme Court >Q tossed out that >Q which had been decided. >Q >Q 2. Once you write to you legislature demanding the repeal of the >Q 14th and 15th >Q ammendments, demand the repeal of the civil rights act of 1965 and all laws >Q against discrimination in the workplace, I'll take your tyranny argument >Q seriously. Until then, forget it. >Q rick (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) >I think we're talking numbers here. In my quoted quote, "some" means >less than the number we agree is enough to determine an issue. >"all" means that number. Your point number one has two "unknowns" in it, >the number of people making the laws/constitution upon which the >Supreme Court based their interpretations, and the number of people in >"it has been decided". >Your number two point is silly. Such laws are supported by the >number of people we have decided is enough. (or were when they >got passed, for sure) Silly? The abortion laws that the supreme court through out met your criteria. As for point one, if the established quorum, in this case the state legislatures, is not enough of a "some," then what is? >Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp > -- rick (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC) [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk