Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!cs111olg
From: cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Message-ID: <9795@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 11-Mar-86 23:11:48 EST
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.9795
Posted: Tue Mar 11 23:11:48 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Mar-86 00:12:29 EST
References: <11560@watnot.UUCP> <9534@ucla-cs.ARPA> <610@bunkerb.UUCP>
Reply-To: cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev (the student incarnation))
Distribution: na
Organization: The Land Of Mental Midgets
Lines: 54

In article <610@bunkerb.UUCP> garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
>But allowing abortion on demand denies certain individuals their basic
>rights (back to the central issue, please: is the unborn human a "person"?)
Fetuses are NOT "INDIVIDUALS" until they are viable.

>>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).

An UNHAPPY LIFE??? Is is worth living? Is not one of the basic human
rights the "pursuit of happiness"??? Or are you saying that it's OK
NOT to be happy and suffer?!

>> 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?

Other PERSONS and INDIVIDUALS. Not fetuses, as fetuses don't belong
to either group.

>>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.

Nine judges appointed by "duly elected legislators" who are not likely
to sacrifice TRUTH to the election polls.

>>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?

Extended by people like YOU. NOBODY on pro-choice side would have ever
thought to twist a reasonable position into something as ugly  as you
and others of the so called "pro-life" camp manage to make it.
>
>Gary Samuelson

Gary! I am not planning to respond to you ravings in the future. WE have
nothing to debate. You view life from a VERY different perspective. SO 
DIFFERENT, in fact, that I don't think we are living in the same WORLD.
If you fail to see as reasonable points of view I hold as fundamental
truths, WHAT CAN WE ACHIEVE BY YELLING AT EACH OTHER?
					Oleg Kiselev
					ucla-cs!oac6.oleg