Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Now we can get somewhere, I hope!
Message-ID: <1687@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Sep-85 13:56:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1687
Posted: Sat Sep 14 13:56:40 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 00:24:29 EDT
References: <1247@ihlpg.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 54

> I was heartened to hear the response to my comment that abortion
> is a question of values, not just facts.  Perhaps we can now get somewhere.
> How about some ground rules for a new discussion?  I would suggest the
> following, and hope that some of the pro-lifers will take me up. [TANENBAUM]

It is the FACT that some sets of values are not based on facts to beging
with that is the crux of the argument here.  How do judge two differing
sets of values if not by their veracity?  It most certainly does get right
back to facts.

> 1) No arguments about whether the fetus is human, alive, a person,
> a non-person, etc.  I will agree ahead of time that the fetus is
> alive.  I will also agree that a human fetus is human.  Discussion
> about whether the fetus is a human being or merely a potential human
> being is purely semantic and pointless.  We all know what a fetus
> really is. The labels don't matter.
> We can avoid the above by rephrasing the question of the legality
> of abortion as follows.
> "What legal rights should a human embryo or fetus have at each state
> of development?"

Then let's start another newsgroup:  net.rock-right-to-life.  There will
be no arguments about whether rocks are human, alive, etc.  I will agree
to these axioms that say that they are all these things, in advance.
Sorry, I don't buy it for a minute.

> 2) No arguments based on God or religious faith.  VALUES stemming
> from religion are O.K. as long as argued on their own merits.  As
> a confirmed skeptic, I will toss all "God says X, therefore we
> must do X" arguments into the wastebasket.

So what you're saying in this case, "judge on their own merits".  Meaning
how factual they are.  Back to the crux.

> 4) An agreement that what happens to the aborted fetus AFTER it is dead is
> irrelevant.  Arguments about what the fetus goes through DURING an abortion
> while it is still alive are O.K.

The first sentence should rid us of Samuelsonesque rambling about "but they're
using human fetuses in consumer products because it doesn't say they're not"
The second goes back to the problems with point (1) above.

> 5) No name calling or ad-hominem attacks.  If you MUST use words like stupid,
> say "That's a stupid idea" and then explain why.  Don't say "You're stupid."

I would hope you would reserve the right to point out when someone is abusing
the rules of cogent argument deliberately for purposes of branching around
the need for reasoning to get to their conclusion.
-- 
"I was walking down the street.  A man came up to me and asked me what was the
 capital of Bolivia.  I hesitated.  Three sailors jumped me.  The next thing I
 knew I was making chicken salad."
"I don't believe that for a minute.  Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is
 La Paz."				Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr