Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Torek's SECOND ANNUAL CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT :->
Message-ID: <5691@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 13:49:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5691
Posted: Fri Aug  2 13:49:55 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 09:45:24 EDT
References: <789@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1012@noscvax.UUCP> <915@umcp-cs.UUCP> <427@mit-vax.UUCP> <1041@cbsck.UUCP> <509@mit-vax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 66


A response to Charles Forsythe:

>>The right to life is not just a specific case.  It underlies all other
>>rights.  What other human right means anything without it?
>
>Can you say WAR? Can you say CAPITAL PUNISHMENT? Hmmm, sounds like
>SOMEBODY is losing their God-given right to life!

Hmmm, sounds like you haven't answered my question.  I'm asking, how
can you talk about a human having any other conceivable right if she
doesn't have the right to live?

>>If calling a human
>>"fetus" or "infant" means the former has no right to live and the latter does,
>>what logically prevents anyone from from making the same distinction between
>>"teenagers" and "adults"?
>>Paul Dubuc
>
>Nothing really. Remember the draft? 18 years old and *BAM* you have lost
>your right to live safely!

Live *safely* (<-important qualification there), right?  Is living safely
a right?  How safe?  Anyway, the draft is not quite the same thing as
classing individuals just for the sake of killing them.  Is that the intent
of the draft?  Presumably, war itself is to be avoided and if not it is
done for the country's protection from an enemy.  Some of us are alive today
only because others went to war.  Also those being drafted have some voice
in the draft policy itself (wasn't always so, but it should have been).
Those people helped remove the draft, remember?  Lastly, I don't think
the draft is a good idea at all.  I think it is an infringment on human
rights.  So, at least with me, it's pointless to defend abortion with
the draft.  (Defending an bad practice with another bad practice, in my
view).  Do you support the draft?  If not it is no use in defending your
own position, let alone attacking mine.

>The labels we put on people have a definitive
>effect on whether or not they are allowed to live.

But they shouldn't.  Can you justify the idea?

>Why do murderers lose their right to live (in some states)?

Because people in some state think that a human who kill another
human forfeits that right.  "Murderer" isn't just a label.  The
one being so labeled has presumably committed the crime.  What
sort of crime does the lable "infant" describe?  None.  See the
difference?

>Why does "the enemy" have any
>less right to live than "the ally"? If a Russian general shoots a
>nuclear missile at New York, what right do we have to kill millions of
>innocent civilians in response (after all, it's not their fault The Big
>Apple got baked!). What if you came home to find somebody raping your
>wife? I'm sure you would try to stop them and see to it they lost their
>right to liberty (got locked up). But would you, at all costs, respect
>their right to life? After all, it underlies all other rights! You
>wouldn't want to harm the fellow... just to stop him from raping your
>wife. After all, the worst thing that could happen is that she would get
>pregnant! (And we wouldn't want to rob him of his right to procreate!!)

All this is similarly missing the point (and is a little "off the wall"
to boot). 
-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd