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: <2017@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Wed, 9-Oct-85 14:33:14 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2017 Posted: Wed Oct 9 14:33:14 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 19:30:49 EDT References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 83 [ *** PREVIOUS POSTING INTERRUPTED SUDDENLY -- PLEASE IGNORE *** ] > 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. [RICH ROSEN] Does this mean that a being that has no right to control its own body does not have the right to exist? Does Mr. Rosen really fail to see any between the right to do what you want with your own body, and the right to prevent others from doing things to your body, like killing you? ------- "Real, potential human beings"? Sounds self-contradictory to me! How can something be both a "real human being" and a "potential human being" at the same time? It's a good thing Michael McNeil explained what he meant, namely, something that is a "real being" and a "potential human being" at the same time, which, of course, is perfectly acceptable. > | > 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. [MATT ROSENBLATT] > 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 [R. ROSEN] And Mr. Rosen's position isn't??? [Assorted ad hominem insults & name-calling], followed by: > I am actually proud that you > you have chosen to proclaim so boldly that YOU have decided not to argue > with me on the net. [R. ROSEN] The wish is father to the thought! My article didn't say, "I HAVE stopped arguing with him on the net." It said, "that I stopped arguing with him on the net" (simple past tense.) I stopped arguing with Mr. Rosen about whether Mr. McNeil had used a particular phrase, because he continued to assert that Mr. McNeil had never used used that phrase. Even after I stopped arguing on the net, there was a private-mail exchange to the same effect, which is why I added the phrase "on the net" to the sentence before posting my article. My purpose in responding to articles with which I disagree has been to point out the assumptions and reasoning upon which such articles are based. The most serious disagreements are based upon differences in assumptions ("values"), rather than upon faulty reasoning, which is usually easy to spot. Someone wrote recently that values must be judged on their own merits. Mr. Rosen's values are no exception, which is why he MUST be argued with, regardless of how unpleasant such argument may become at times. He puts a high value on liberalism, materialism, and feminism. The main difference between materialism on the one hand, and liberalism and feminism on the other, is that materialism is based on merely unwarranted assumptions, whereas liberalism and feminism are based on assumptions that are historically false, as well as unwarranted. I believe that there are a lot of readers who sort of take for granted the assumptions of liberalism, materialism and feminism because to do otherwise would open them up to social (and maybe economic) ostracism within their academic or intellectual circles. I hope that once you see the hurtful consequences that can arise from blanket acceptance of these values, you will scrutinize much more carefully any argument that rests on them. If liberalism, feminism, and materialism had no bad consequences at all other than the destruction of 1.5 million fetuses a year in the U.S., they, and Mr. Rosen, would be worth arguing with for that reason alone. -- Matt Rosenblatt