Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-spice!tdn
From: tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: It is about time!
Message-ID: <275@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 31-Jan-85 17:21:10 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-s.275
Posted: Thu Jan 31 17:21:10 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Feb-85 03:17:10 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 23

If argument from natural rights is an "arbitrary assertion", how can you
claim *anything* about abortion, one way or the other?  After all, all of
the arguments about abortion revolve around the conflict between a woman's
right to liberty and a fetus' right to life.  If neither the woman or the
fetus has any rights, you shouldn't care which way the issue is settled.

I suppose you would also say that slavery in the South was OK, since white
society had decided that blacks didn't have a right to liberty.  And Hitler
couldn't have been doing anything wrong when he caused the massacre of Jews,
because under your system they didn't have any right to expect to live.

I think that Jefferson was right when he wrote that people "have certain
inalienable rights, that among these are the rights to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness."  Just because many governments don't recognize
them doesn't mean that they don't exist.

If you want to live under a system that recognizes few (if any) rights, you
can take your pick from a number of left-wing and right-wing dictatorships.
However, the "meaningless" natural rights upon which our system is based do
work pretty well in practice.

                                        -- Thomas Newton
                                           Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA