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!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!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: <2015@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 9-Oct-85 13:11:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2015
Posted: Wed Oct  9 13:11:59 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 19:29:25 EDT
References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 58

> > 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. [R. ROSEN]

I said the existence of such a right could not be proved.

I believe the right to control one's own body is not absolute.

The right to control your body to do something you want to do with it,
and the right to be free of being killed, are different rights.

> | >>> 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]

> 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. [R. ROSEN]

NOW, Mr. McNeil has made it clear what he meant by using the phrase "real,
potential people," which by itself is self-contradictory.  "Make up your
mind" means, "You have described something, at a point in time, as both
really

  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