home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!eco.twg.com!vishnu.eco.twg.com!chall
- From: chall@vishnu.eco.twg.com ()
- Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, "dictator," meet C.D. Hall & death penalty
- Message-ID: <1992Dec22.164759.1137@eco.twg.com>
- Lines: 83
- Sender: news@eco.twg.com (News)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: eco.twg.com
- Reply-To: chall@vishnu.eco.twg.com ()
- Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
- References: <1992Dec14.190626.5475@eco.twg.com> <14DEC92.21004172@vax.clarku.edu> <1992Dec15.185721.12223@eco.twg.com> <16DEC92.07023222@vax.clarku.edu> <1992Dec16.193427.29113@eco.twg.com> <16DEC92.21555384@vax.clarku.edu> <1992Dec17.180448.14467@eco.twg.com> <nyikos.724965455@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
- Distribution: na
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:47:59 GMT
- Lines: 83
-
-
- In article <nyikos.724965455@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
- |> Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- |> Path: eco.twg.com!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!opusc!usceast!nyikos
- |> From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
- |> Subject: Loren Finkelstein, "dictator," meet C.D. Hall & death penalty
- |> Message-ID: <nyikos.724965455@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
- |> Sender: usenet@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu (USENET News System)
- |> Organization: USC Department of Computer Science
- |> References: <1992Dec14.190626.5475@eco.twg.com> <14DEC92.21004172@vax.clarku.edu> <1992Dec15.185721.12223@eco.twg.com> <16DEC92.07023222@vax.clarku.edu> <1992Dec16.193427.29113@eco.twg.com> <16DEC92.21555384@vax.clarku.edu> <1992Dec17.180448.14467@eco.twg.com>
- |> Distribution: na
- |> Date: 21 Dec 92 19:17:35 GMT
- |> Lines: 68
- |>
- |> In <1992Dec17.180448.14467@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
- |>
- |> >In <16DEC92.21555384@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
- |> >>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
- |> >>>In <16DEC92.07023222@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
- |> >>>>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
- |> >>>>>In <14DEC92.21004172@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
- |>
- |> >>>>> 1) What quality do human beings possess that makes it wrong to
- |> >>>>> kill them?
- |> >>>
- |> >>>>There is no one quality that makes us "wrong to kill". There is no one
- |> >>>>quality that makes us human beings. It is a whole bunch of things, some of
- |> >>>>which are not quantifiable. I just don't think that
- |> >>>>age/maturity/state-of-development is one of them.
- |> >>>
- |> >>>I disagree with this, for reasons I've discussed in previous articles.
- |>
- |> >>You disagree that there is not one quality? Could you please tell us what
- |> >>that quality is, in your opinion.
- |>
- |> >No, I agree with the "not one quality" part. I disagree with everything
- |> >else you said.
- |>
- |> >There are two qualities:
- |> > - The ability to enjoy exercising "human rights" and to suffer
- |> > when these rights are infringed upon, OR, the potential
- |> > to have this ability.
- |> > - The ability to function from day-to-day without causing
- |> > people to suffer by infringing upon their rights (whether
- |> > intentionally or accidentally.)
- |>
- |> A kleptomaniac would seem to fit the second description. Also psychotics
- |> and sociopaths of various sorts.
- |>
- |> >[I don't feel like posting a long definition of "human rights".
- |> >Just assume that it means more or less what you think it means.]
- |>
- |> A kleptomaniac would probably think you and 'e are talking a different
- |> language.
- |>
- |> >If something lacks the first quality, then it isn't inherently
- |> >wrong to kill it. This would include non-human animals, as well
- |> >as brain-dead accident victims.
- |>
- |> >If something lacks the second quality, then it isn't inherently
- |> >wrong to kill it, provided there is _no_ _other_ _way_ to keep
- |> >it from infringing upon people's rights. Examples would be unwanted
- |> >sperm cells, unwanted non-viable fetuses, some unwanted viable fetuses,
- |> >and some criminals.
- |>
- |> Well, now. There are a number of ways of keeping criminals from doing
- |> what they do without killing them. I wonder what Charles Don Hall has
- |> in mind here, and whom he would include in his category of people it
- |> is not inherently wrong to kill. After all, a kleptomaniac has lots
- |> of opportunities to steal, even in a maximum-security prison.
- |>
- |> Backing up a minute, I wonder when it was legally established that a
- |> fetus in infringing on its mother's rights.
- |>
- |> >===========================================================
- |> >Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher (chall@eco.twg.com)
- |> >===========================================================
- |>
- |> Licensed sophist is what I would call him.
- |>
- |> Peter Nyikos
- |>
- |>
-