Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!matt From: matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights (Proof of Rights) Message-ID: <1862@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1862 Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Oct-85 05:31:58 EDT References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> <998@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1597@pyuxd.UUCP> <1095@brl-tgr.ARPA> <214@3comvax.UUCP> <1476@brl <238@3comvax.UUCP> Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 85 My apologies to net readers who are sick and tired of reading the following three paragraphs. -- M.A.R. > > >>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! > [MICHAEL MCNEIL] Thank you, Mr. McNeil. I agree with you -- the existence _vel non_ of a given "human right" is not a matter for proof. It is a matter of values. "Can you PROVE . . ." was just a rhetorical question -- Mr. Rosen can no more prove the right to control one's own body than I can prove the right to life of the fetus. > > > 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. [MICHAEL MCNEIL] Why bring this worn-out disagreement up again? Mr. Rosen PROVED that you never used the phrase, by saying so so often that I stopped arguing with him on the net. > 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. > [MICHAEL MCNEIL] Read the discussion about continuation of pregnancy to term as a "natural process" for the pregnant woman, discussion among Brian Wells, Ken Mont- gomery and Matt Rosenblatt that has been going on in the net. > > 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? Just trying to tell Mr. Rosen that one can't assume ANYTHING on this net. -- Matt Rosenblatt Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com