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: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights Message-ID: <1764@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 22-Sep-85 19:26:10 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1764 Posted: Sun Sep 22 19:26:10 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 23-Sep-85 02:57:03 EDT References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> <1571@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 60 >>>You've got it! ITS right to live outweighs HER right to kill it.[ROSENBLATT] >> The question is why! Because you say so. Because you feel that your breed >> of antifeminism (which you have spouted before) is ipso facto correct. Or do >> you have reasons for saying that a non-autonomous entity using the woman's >> body for metabolic support has more rights to stay inside a woman's body >> against her will than the woman herself has to remove the entity?[R. ROSEN] > I told everyone that abortion is a question of values. MY values tell me so, > so I say so. YOUR values tell you that the woman's right to remove the > entity outweighs the entity's right to go on using her body for support. > It goes back to my very first posting: WHOSE right to control her own body? > Can you PROVE than every person has the right to control his own body? Or > is it just something you assume as a basic, fundamental right? [ROSENBLATT] Not assume. I've said this time and again: if society has rights over you and your person, if society is more important than individuals, than if society "decided" that we as human beings were getting in the way of the smooth running of society (as we often do), then it would have the "right" to get rid of us all. And thus have no humans left in "society". Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? Furthermore, as I have said before, saying "these are my values" is not enough. A Nazi can proclaim "these are my values", but we can show rationally where those values are founded on lies, falsehoods, and anit-human ideals. Why don't we go to the root of YOUR values and see what they're founded on? >>>> And these children are not all identical, they are not clones. >>>> Every one of them possesses that ``unique genetic entity'' >>>> that you prize, Matt. And every act of ordinary ``old-style'' >>>> human reproduction, every man's wet-dream, every woman's >>>> non-impregnated fertility cycle, consigns these real, >>>> potential human beings to death in their millions. In an >>>> environment such as *Brave New World*, these would be real, >>>> *actual* human beings, any of whose lives develops to become >>>> as complicated, tangled, and wonderful as our own! [M. MCNEIL] >>> "Real, potential human beings"? Make up your mind -- are they real, >>> or only potential? The whole problem lies in deciding when they >>> become real. [M. ROSENBLATT] >> Mr. McNeil made up his mind. Why are you saying that he has not. He never >> used the phrase "Real, potential human beings" as you misquoted him. [RICH >> ROSEN] > Does Mr. Rosen have information not privy to the rest of us net.abortion > readers that justifies referring to Michael McNeil as "Mr. McNeil"? You mean the name "Michael"? What are you saying? That he should be called "Miss McNeil"? (I know you despise people wishing to refer to themselves as "Ms.") Is Michael a rare example of a woman with the name Michael (there are a few I can think of)? I think I would heard from a Ms. McNeil complaining about my mistitling her if this were the case. What information are you talking about that I am "privy" to? If you are claiming that I said that he made up his mind and you don't see why, or you don't see why I say you misquoted him, read what he said again. And answer the question, my friend. What is the purpose of your evasion of that question? -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com