Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!nike!rutgers!caip!clyde!cbatt!cbdkc1!pmd From: pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) Newsgroups: talk.abortion Subject: Re: It's still mine Message-ID: <1609@cbdkc1.UUCP> Date: Thu, 2-Oct-86 08:32:05 EDT Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.1609 Posted: Thu Oct 2 08:32:05 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 09:09:57 EDT References: <5152@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1091@ogcvax.UUCP> <631@houem.UUCP> <1597@cbdkc1.UUCP> <636@houem.UUCP> Reply-To: pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 33 In article <636@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: >In <1597@cbdkc1.UUCP>, pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) purports to answer >my response to an article of his. He has so misrepresented my position >that I cannot answer his article. He says ... or maybe you didn't represent your own position adaquately enough? I won't press this point. Let any who have read this discussion decide for themselves. >> ... Why do you apparently give her the blank check of "pursuit >>of happiness", subordinating the life of the fetus to whatever reason >>she fills in? > >Of course, I did no such thing. I stated certain logical relationships: > >>> ... The state, in the exercise of its police powers, CAN >>>protect a two-year-old WITHOUT imposing on the pursuit of happiness >>>of any other person. > >(caps added). And so on. I also said that this depends on how you define (or qualify) one's right to the "pursuit of happiness". Of course, you did no such thing. You appently use the term in an unqualified manner where its perception by the pregnant woman and the implicatons of it for the life or death of the fetus is concerned. It seems that we do qualify the concept where its meaning to others might involve the killing of born humans. One logical relationship you failed to state is the one you apparently assume between "CAN protect" and "should protect" on the part of the state. -- Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd