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 (Proof of Rights) Message-ID: <1847@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 7-Oct-85 16:21:10 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1847 Posted: Mon Oct 7 16:21:10 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 8-Oct-85 04:28:19 EDT References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 78 > 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. [ROSENBLATT] Well, if you do not accept the right to control one's own body, you just gave up and lost your own argument. By your reasoning, the fetus ALSO has no right to control ITS own body, so, in your world where entities (human or otherwise) do not have the right to control their own bodies, abortion would be perfectly acceptable. | >>> 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. | [ROSENBLATT] I quote this section in its entirety for very good reason. Matt had never responded to the carefully selected section of Michael's writing in the manner he claims. I have hear the exact quote from his article: | >>The conclusion, I think, is inescapable -- that human beings, | >>before their existence becomes ``real'' not potential in some | >>important sense, do *not* have the right to ``dictate'' that | >>they actually be made to exist. *Of course*, those that cross | >>this threshold, wherever it is, must be nurtured and cherished! [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. [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. [ROSEN] It seems quite clear to me that McNeil (as this point, earlier typos and whatnot notwithstanding) made it EXTREMELY clear what the difference between real and potential was. It is both crass and abusive for Rosenblatt to claim that McNeil had not made up his mind when he clearly had and documented it. What's even more crass and abusive is his denunciation that it is I who is arguing from assertion (regarding what McNeil said), especially when Rosenblatt's whole position is and always has been based on values he simply asserts to be valid, values such as men have more right to use a woman's body to procreate than a woman would have not to allow that just because he says so. You are not only an androcentric ethnocentric crass son of a bitch but a manipulative liar (as shown above) as well. I am actually proud that you have chosen to proclaim so boldly that YOU have decided not to argue with me on the net. I hope that practice continues not to continue in the future, because you have had so little of substance to say that debunking you repeatedly has hardly been worthwhile, though it has been arduous. It always is when arguing with the "work backwards from your conclusion" school of thinking. I can't say I can't say it hasn't been fun. -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr