Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice2.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice2!pwk From: pwk@ccice2.UUCP (THE PALE AVENGER) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: "Pro-life", "anti-slavery" prejudge the issue Message-ID: <685@ccice2.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 21:58:32 EST Article-I.D.: ccice2.685 Posted: Mon Nov 4 21:58:32 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 04:07:27 EST References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: pwk@ccice2.UUCP (THE PALE AVENGER) Organization: POOR but I'm trying to improve :-) Lines: 124 Keywords: slavery In article <820@x.UUCP> wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes: >This is still STella, no matter who the header thinks it is. To change the name and organization fields of the header one can set the variables NAME and ORGANIZATION. This works with readnews, vnews, and rn. if you use sh the commands are; $ NAME = "STella Calvert" $ export NAME $ ORGANIZATION = "Milky Way" $ export ORGANIZATION If you use csh; % setenv NAME "STella Calvert" % setenv ORGANIZATION "Milky Way" You have to do this every time you login and before you post news unless you put the commands in your .login file. (All of this assumes you use UNIX) PART 1 : The issue at hand. >In article <669@ccice2.UUCP> pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) writes: >>Your right to be free >>from enslavement by an unwanted tenant for nine months is less then >>that tenants right to be free to live 70 years (on the average) of life. >I have no rights that depend on compelling you to serve me. I grant no such >rights to anyone else. If I choose to serve you, I will. Otherwise, if you >attempt to enslave me I will prevent you. If I must kill you to do this, I >may or may not regret the necessity, but I will not surrender. (text deleted) >I cannot, presently, emancipate myself from a slaveholding fetus >without killing it. If ever I can put it in cold storage until I am willing >to birth it, I would consider that an acceptable resolution. But if the >choice is between my freedom and a slaveholder's life, I will kill. Doesn't a newborn enslave you too? I know that only a fetus is an actual parasite on your body but, in some ways isn't a newborn more enslaving on you as a person then a fetus? (At least fetuses don't cry :-) I mean, what is the difference between killing a fetus and killing a newborn that is so different from the difference between killing a newborn and an adult? (did you get all that? :-) They are all just humans in different stages of development. You once said that once you had "committed an unwanted" that you would be responsible for it. The only difference between that veiwpoint and mine is that I'm not sure that an unwanted is not committed at conception. >By the way, I don't see in your posting that you support the right to >abortion, so all I hear you say is that my statement of the anti-slavery >position doesn't convince you. With all _possible_ respect, you are not >qualified to judge how my statement is received by pro-choice people. OK? Huh? If I judged how your statement is received by pro-choice people I am unaware of it. PART 2 : Our relationship with our society. >> Since you are alive you have the freedom to choose theft >>as a way of life. Society has the power to punish you for it. > >NO! I disagree. Since you are alive, you have the right to choose to attempt >to steal from me.... I will never concede to society any right I >will not claim for myself. And I do not have the right to "punish" you.(,?) >Kill you, or convince you in less final terms that I am not a mark, but I >have no right to judge that you should be "punished". I used the phrase "has the power" instead of "has the right" because I didn't want to discuss what rights a society has. However; >Society? What actions is it acceptable for a group to do that would be >unacceptable if performed by the individual members, and why? I argue that >there are no such cases, you -- I don't know -- I don't want to state (8-) >your case. I think there are such cases, taxation, administration of justice, and law enforcement come to mind. For an example lets use administration of justice. You said that if I made a drunken assault on your auto that you would seek justice. (I assume you mean compensation since you don't believe in punishment) How would you do this? You could ask me to pay the damages, but what if I refuse? You may be able to force me to pay, others may not. What if I claim that there was contributory negligence on your part, or that the stated value for your car is too high? Is it fair for you to force me to pay what you think is fair? We could submit our claims to an independent arbitrator, but what if we can't agree on one? If we do agree on one, and I think his judgment is unfair I would like the right of appeal, as well as review and certification procedures for the arbitrator. Also an arbitrator is of no use if he can't enforce his judgements. I think it is right, proper, and mandatory for a responsible government/society/group to set up a fair and consistent court system that applies to all members. Our relationship with our society really need not concern us here. I believe in a democratic system and am willing to allow it to pass laws. (If we don't have one form of strong central government another will surely come to power and I prefer a democracy.) However, if I believe that the laws it passes are immoral I will go my own way. You have said that making abortion illegal will not stop you from aborting. So as creatures of free will we can let society go its way (maybe try and direct it a little :-) and we can go ours. Anyway, if you want to continue our discussion of what is moral for a society to do to its members I suggest that we move it or take it off line. PART 3 : Terminology >As above, by assuming that, having experienced the moral preemption strategy, >you are now willing to think with me about neutral terms that do not (as >"pro-life" DOES) prejudge the issue. People who call themselves "pro-life" >either don't seem to see the insult implicit in their claim that only folks >who agree with them are pro-life, or (I hope not, but I've met some that cause >me to wonder) consciously intend to prejudge the issue. Yeah, I wonder too. I guess that I am so used to the terms pro-choice and pro-life that I don't consider the implied anti-choice and anti-life connotations. If censors started calling their position pro-justice I would be offended since I don't agree with them and I like to think I am for justice. So, I have no objections to using different terms if you think the current ones are too loaded. How about fetal rights (FR) and parental rights (PR)? Or we could use STella and Paul :-) > STella Calvert > Every man and every woman is a star. -- Of course I could be wrong. siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk (Paul W. Karber)