Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Re: Torek's SECOND ANNUAL CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT :-> Message-ID: <688@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 10:35:33 EDT Article-I.D.: cybvax0.688 Posted: Mon Aug 19 10:35:33 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 15:16:51 EDT References: <597@mit-vax.UUCP> <931@bunker.UUCP> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 53 Summary: In article <931@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: > > ... nobody has a "right-to-life" necessarily. Nobody. The government > > gives it to some, and takes it from others. > > That's not the theory on which our government was founded. (If it's > the theory on which our government now operates, more's the pity.) > > "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are > created equal; That they are endowed by their Creator with > certain inalienable rights; That among these are life, liberty, > and the pursuit of happiness; That governments are instituted > among men to secure these rights." > > That's about all I can remember verbatim, but it goes on to say that > the people have a right, even a duty, to alter or abolish a government > which becomes abusive of these rights. (What do they teach in the > schools, these days?) (I can't resist the temptation to see if anyone > asks where this is from.) > > Your theory (not that it is original with you; I mean "yours" in the > sense of that which you espouse) says that whatever the government > does is justified, simply because the government is doing it. Those > calling themselves pro-choice think the government was wrong to > prohibit abortion; those calling themselves pro-life think the > government wrong to allow it (let alone provide it). But the point > I am making now is that THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE WRONG. Golly gee! What a novel moral lesson! Why, I'll bet none of us had ever heard that idea before! [Sarcasm off.] Of course though, that leads also to the idea that the Declaration of Independence, being merely a product of a government, can also be wrong. (And, by the way, the Declaration of Independence has zero legal standing in the USA: it was merely an announcement of intentions with no legal force.) The founding fathers may not have been divinely infallable. Thus, the "rights" discussed may not have any real existence, but serve only as guidelines to remedy common abuses of their era. They are not universal remedies: else we wouldn't have capital punishment, imprisonment, the draft, wars, etc. The fact is, that balancing tests are applied to these desirable goals. And always have been, even by the authors of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence itself applies a balancing test for when to overthrow a government. So, the conclusion that: > > ... nobody has a "right-to-life" necessarily. Nobody. The government > > gives it to some, and takes it from others. is correct. The Declaration of Independence (and Constitution and Ammendments) provides no support for or reason to oppose choice of abortion. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh