Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Torek's SECOND ANNUAL CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT :->
Message-ID: <931@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 12:30:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.931
Posted: Wed Aug 14 12:30:41 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 00:40:33 EDT
References: <597@mit-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 71

> ... 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.

You, by the single statement above, have condoned South Africa's
apartheid, Iran's Khomeini, the USSR's Gulag, and, of course,
US involvement in Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, and Central America.

When the government decides that you no longer have the right
to live, because you are too young, or too old, or the wrong color,
or a member of the wrong political party, are you going to quietly
acquiesce, or are you going to resist, because, "It's not fair!
I didn't do anything wrong!" ?

> If you are going to wave a
> white banner in the air and "fight for the cause of human life", you've
> got a lot of work ahead of you before you even get to the abortion
> issue.

That sounds like more I-don't-want-to-hear-it.  Still, you may be
right.  Apparently, some people, like yourself, need to learn some
basics about rights.  (Lesson one: if rights exist at all, in any
practical sense, they exist independent of whether any particular
government respects them.)

On the other hand, no matter what social problem a person addresses
himself to, someone who wishes to maintain the status quo will say
that he ought to address a different problem.  I've already seen
articles in this newsgroup telling me that I should work instead on
the problem of starvation in Africa, or vivisection of animals in
high school laboratories, and leave the abortion issue alone.  But I
suspect that if I were to involve myself in these other causes
(also important issues, to be sure), someone else would tell me I
should move on to something else, perhaps even to the abortion issue.
The point being that all the issues need to be addressed.  No one
person can work on all of them, but each has to work on the one(s)
which he or she thinks is most important, and/or have the most
effect.

> Charles Forsythe
> CSDF@MIT-VAX
> "I was going to say something really profound, but I forgot what it was."
> -Rev. Wang Zeep

What you said is profound, in that it has far reaching implications,
but profundity by itself is not sufficient to recommend a position.

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys