Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site 3comvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm From: michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights (Proof of Rights) Message-ID: <238@3comvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 27-Sep-85 23:19:48 EDT Article-I.D.: 3comvax.238 Posted: Fri Sep 27 23:19:48 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 01:33:37 EDT References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: 3Com Corp; Mountain View, CA Lines: 126 [Help! Angry villagers chained me to this rock! Don't leave me here...] > >>You've got it! ITS right to live outweighs HER right to kill it. > >>[MATT 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? [RICH 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? > [MATT ROSENBLATT] Asking for "proof" of the existence of a "human right" is a non sequitur. Can you prove, Matt, in the existence of the "right of free speech"? And, while you're at it, why don't you cut your teeth on something *easy*, like proving the *existence of the external world*? Absolute proof, except in wholly abstract realms such as mathematics, doesn't exist in the universe! On the other hand, Matt, if you simply point to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for your "proof" that freedom of speech exists, then I am equally free to refer to Roe vs. Wade for my "proof" in the human right to control one's body (otherwise known as the right to personal privacy). What *are* "human rights," anyway? Aren't they really just general guidelines, painfully arrived at throughout history, for allowing people their individual dignity and sovereignty? Not only are "human rights" intended to be *humane*, but they are also a measure of the status of tyranny. When accepted "human rights" are violated by a government, then the theory of our society has been that the people have a right, nay even a *duty*, to throw off the tyranny and reclaim their rights. "Pro-lifers" will say that that is precisely what they're doing -- rebelling against the tyrannical suppression of the fetus's rights. Unfortunately for this idea, and for sentiments expressed in this newsgroup such as how "the rest of us will be next," few fetuses are out on the barricades fighting for their own rights. All the "pro-lifers," in this newsgroup anyway, seem to have been *born*! Of course, this same argument could also be raised against people who object to infanticide -- i.e., "if the babies don't object, why should you?" There is a crucial difference -- babies are capable, if not of political lobbying, at least of *experiencing* the denial of their rights -- right then, not "later providing they grow up." Fetuses at an early stage can experience nothing! How can *their* rights be violated, except in the never-never-land, circular sense of arguing that if they *had* lived, then they shouldn't have died? No fetuses *experience* the denial of their rights through legalized abortion. On the other hand, if abortion were outlawed, *plenty* of women would experience their rights being violated, all the way from *merely* being forced to carry a fetus for nine months and deliver it, up to the non-negligible possibility of *death* due to complications of pregnancy or the butchery of an illegal abortion. No, the only persons whose rights are violated in the abortion debate are women! The denial of women's rights is so extreme, were the "pro-life" dream ever realized, that if I were a woman (maybe even if I'm not) it would *warrant* a revolt. Let a few "pro-lifers" *experience* the "blood in the streets" that they're telling us is already there! The blood *would* be there -- for *women* -- if they were forced to go back to the back alleys for their freedom. Let them bring this bloodbath to "pro-lifers" -- then we'll see how they (and the rest of us) like it. At least the women would be fighting to protect their *own* rights! > > 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! [MICHAEL 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. [MATT 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] I must jump to the defense of my writing, and resolve this disagreement. Matt quoted me correctly -- I *did* say "real, potential human beings" at one point. However, I fondly assumed (bad start in this newsgroup) that the context of the phrase would make my meaning clear. The point is that "potential" human beings *are real* -- they do exist, they are alive, they do grow up to become real, *actual* human beings (that is, the sort of human we can converse with, who is larger than microscopic size, etc.). This is true whether the potential human life form is a fetus, an embryo, a fertilized egg, or an unfertilized egg and sperm. I find it *highly* peculiar that "pro-lifers" grant the *fertilized* egg extensive if not complete human rights, yet are willing to treat the equally wonderful, potential-filled unfertilized egg and sperm as garbage, fit for disposal. > Does Mr. Rosen have information not privy to the rest of us net.abortion > readers that justifies referring to Michael McNeil as "Mr. McNeil"? > [MATT ROSENBLATT] No, he didn't -- but now he does. Is this a relevant criticism, Matt? -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Who knows for certain? Who shall here declare it? Whence was it born, whence came creation? The gods are later than this world's formation; Who then can know the origins of the world? None knows whence creation arose; And whether he has or has not made it; He who surveys it from the lofty skies, Only he knows -- or perhaps he knows not. *The Rig Veda*, X. 129 Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com