Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunkerb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ittatc!bunkerb!garys
From: garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Message-ID: <610@bunkerb.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Mar-86 18:14:48 EST
Article-I.D.: bunkerb.610
Posted: Mon Mar  3 18:14:48 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Mar-86 02:57:26 EST
References: <11560@watnot.UUCP> <9534@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Reply-To: garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Distribution: na
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 169
Summary: 

Pardon me for butting into someone else's argument.

In article <9534@ucla-cs.ARPA> cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev (the student incarnation)) writes:
>In article <11560@watnot.UUCP> pdobeda@watnot.UUCP (pdobeda) writes:
>>I do not necessarily feel that the right to life of a fetus should
>>supercede the right to life of the mother--they are equals.  The

>THAT is ONE of the points we disagree on, Paul! I beleive the life of
>the mother is of a far greater import.

Why?  Proof by vigorous assertion?

>>question of what is ethical in the cases where the life of the mother
>>is threatened is another question entirely.  ("One will die--whom
>>shall it be??")

>Why? Why is it "another question entirely"?

The parenthesized statement answers that question.  The question of
who shall die, when two lives are threatened, seems pretty distinct
from the question of should one die when no one's life is threatened.

>I feel the an unwanted child
>birth DOES threaten the mother's life if not physically, then emotionally
>and financially.

All those poor people are threatening my life.  If not physically, then
emotionally and financially.  Does that give me the right to get rid of
them to alleviate that threat?  (My answer: of course not.)  So what's the
difference?  (Expected answer (yours): the fetus is not yet a person).
OK, back to the issue then (is the fetus a "person"?).

>>I do, however, feel that the possibility that a fetus *should* indeed
>>be granted the right of life (a legal question, now) is sufficient,
>>especially when considered against the restrictions, to be the
>>dominant right, when it becomes a question of the liberty of the
>>mother and her pursuit of happiness.

>WHY?! Why should you damage the life of one human being to give another
>one a (quite possibly) equally miserable life?!

Why do you presume that the "other human being" (did you intend
to tacitly admit that the fetus is a human being?) will have a miserable
life?  Why don't you let that "other human being" make that choice?

>>This, though, assumes that we are working from a 'good' definition of
>>what constitutes a restriction on the liberty of the mother.  Is
>>marriage to be outlawed, by virtue of the limits it gives to liberty?

>Marriage is entered into by MUTUAL CONSENT and can be annulled when
>either of the partners is not satisfied by the relationship (or at 
>least it is so in most civilized countries).

Actually, I think that the above attitude towards marriage is all too
casual -- it should be more difficult to get married and to get a
divorce than it is.  The lack of commitment in such an attitude is
not civilized at all (you would have us accept your notion of what
is and is not "civilized", of course).

>It is very hard to get out 
>of motherhood for a number of reasons (mostly emotional ones, but in
>case of teenage minority girls [black, hispanic] it is also the question
>of ethnicity and "undesirable ancestry")

I confess I don't understand the above.

>>Further, some rights are present *in time*.  A school is not
>>considered as wrong to require that students pursue their happiness at
>>a later time.  The mother will regain her fullest ability to pursue
>>her happiness in time--nothing is lost.

>Garbage! "In time" in this case is when the kids graduate high school.
>To effectively parent a child BOTH parents have to spend AS MUCH TIME
>AS POSSIBLE with the kids. In case of a single mother (or even worse a 
>single teenage underpriveleged mother) she has to work to feed herself
>and her child. No possibility of getting a good education or gaining
>a useful set of skills that would allow her to get a decent job. No 
>possibility of spending ENOUGH time with her kid. All her plans ruined.
>Her life crippled. And most people will never forgive their kids for 
>ruining their lives ("I could have been SOMEBODY!")

Garbage yourself.  You have totally ignored the possibility that
the child could be placed for adoption.  You have ignored the
possibility that the mother might decide that she wanted to keep
the child.  You have implied that being a mother is being a NOBODY.

And such appeals to emotion from someone who claims to be strictly
rational: "underprivileged...no possibility...to get a decent job...
*ALL* her plans ruined...crippled...never forgive...'I could have
been SOMEBODY'"  (Being a mother is being a NOBODY?)

>I don't want to make it a definite statement but the facts I've come
>accross suggest that a majority of abused kids are unwanted ones, 

I'm glad you don't want to make it a definite statement, since
statistics show otherwise.  (Most abused kids are wanted -- statistics
to this effect are posted to this group from time to time (not by
me, so I don't have the references, but some one will probably post
them again), but this argument gets dredged up from time to time
anyway.)  Besides, more than a decade after abortion on demand became
the law of the land would suggest that there are very few "unwanted"
children born any more.  So which social problems has abortion on
demand alleviated?

>I have no facts regarding teen-age gang violence or teenage crime in
>general, but I would be surprized if those kids grew up with a lot of
>parental attention. 

Your predisposition to believe something about teenage crime in the
admitted absense of facts proves nothing, so why state it?

>>In the meantime, who is harmed?

>Both the mother and the unwanted child will be harmed if the child is 
>born.

Now you are claiming that abortion is actually doing the aborted child a
favor.  "You wouldn't have enjoyed life anyway, so I am going to kill
you."  Perhaps we should try an old shoe on a new foot:  If you really
are concerned about the child, why don't *you* give him or her a good
home?  (And yes, my wife and I have talked about this and are willing
and able to do so.  So are lots of other people -- the waiting list to
adopt babies is several years long in many (most?) places in this country.
We are also willing to house, if needed, an unmarried pregnant woman,
to get her to refrain from getting an abortion.)

>>Finally, there is the complex legal question, which we are just
>>brushing the tip of, as to when one's rights may be superceded for the
>>greater benefit of mankind.  Occasionally, this is cited as relevant
>>in the abortion issue.  Yet, over time, I have seen enough evidence
>>to convince me that abortions are to the ultimate detriment of
>>mankind, rather than to his benefit.

>If we put individual's rights and freedoms above all else (as would be
>rational)

But allowing abortion on demand denies certain individuals their basic
rights (back to the central issue, please: is the unborn human a "person"?)

>and make happiness of individuals paramount to all other 
>aspirations we might have (what good is a prosperous nation of perpetually
>depressed nervous wrecks?) then abortion issue very nicely fits into my
>definition of basic freedoms. 

Certainly, let's make happiness of paramount importance.  Let's make
it more important than life itself.  Then, we can kill off all the
unhappy people, or the people who might be unhappy if they live long
enough, and then everyone will be happy (vacuously).

> When is it OK to tell people what to do and limit (deny?) their rights?

You know that there is no easy answer to that, but to start with,
how about limiting people's ability to take away others' right to live?

>Who will decide?

In this country, it used to be that duly elected legislators were
expected to decide such things, according to the desires of their
constituents.  Now, however, these decisions are decided by nine
judges, who are apparently answerable to no one.

>What will they stop at? Will they?

Exactly the question that pro-life people ask.  If it's okay to kill
unwanted children -- quotes have already been posted to this forum
extending the reasoning behind abortion to justify infanticide --
then why not unwanted old people?  or unwanted handicapped people?

Gary Samuelson