NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53530

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 3.2 KB | 72 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mksol!noonan
From: [e-mail] (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: noonan@mksol (Michael P Noonan)
Nntp-Posting-Host: localhost
Organization: Texas Instruments
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:43:52 GMT
Lines: 59

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael P Noonan) writes:
|>
|> }You are saying here that in a natural state (no law), a small man cannot
|> }enslave a bigger man, or a minority cannot enslave a majority.
|>
|> }You are saying here that in a natural state (no law), a developed
|> }person can stop the beating heart of a lesser developed person.
|>
|> Umh, without law there is no slavery.
|>      without law there is abortion.

You oversimplified.  Your example pointed out that without law, the
weak cannot enslave the strong.  I was trying to stress that without
law, the strong can and will enslave the weak.

So without law, there is slavery of the weak.
You stated there was no slavery of the strong and concluded that
there is no slavery, period.

|> In some cultures, the term "law" is not law as we know it.  It sometimes
|> is little more than peer pressure, in others it is far more like what we
|> are used too.
|>
|> }What's the difference?  In both cases, the stronger can impose will
|> }upon the weaker or underrepresented?
|>
|> In some cases, the stronger can indeed impose its will on the weaker.

Without a law to protect the weak, this would be most of the cases.
I think this is proven throughout history.

|> Sometimes the weaker impose their will on the stronger.  This is done
|> usually with the help of legislation or some kind of enticement to
|> enlist the aid of some strength, often refered to as the "teeth" behind
|> the provision.

I guess my point was that you need law in order for the weaker to
impose it's will on the stronger.  In the example you gave, the weaker
parties were (1) the "small" or "minority" and thus potential slaves,
and (2) the "lesser developed person" and thus potential aborted fetuses.
Law is necessary to protect both parties, if they are to be protected at
all.

|> I'm sure there are other explanations about law and the like which would
|> be much more satisfying and correct than I can provide.  If you
|> find it difficult to differentiate between slavery and abortion I
|> doubt that I could do much to explain strength and the law...

I am not trying to say that slavery and abortion are equal.  I am
merely trying to point out that there is precedent for law to protect
underrepresented parties.

|> --
|>        hang gliding mailing list: [e-mail]
|>      Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr [phone] [e-mail]
|>                   Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...

Mike Noonan