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: <1912@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 14:09:26 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1912 Posted: Fri Oct 18 14:09:26 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Oct-85 08:21:06 EDT References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 121 > [ *** PREVIOUS POSTING INTERRUPTED SUDDENLY -- PLEASE IGNORE *** ] Understood. (The finished portions of that article were responded to separately.) >> 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? > [ROSENBLATT] I don't know what breed of logic leads you to the conclusion that I am saying "a being that does not have the right to control its own body does not have the right to exist". As for this rather arbitrary and inappropriate "distinction" that Rosenblatt makes, let me say this. If indeed he is talking about "the right to do what you want to your own body AND the right to prevent others from doing things to your body", then he loses his argument for a second time. Because this would give the woman the right to prevent an "other" (the fetus) from "doing things to her body" (like making use of her metabolism to survive) against her will. > "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. Which you denied that he said at all. In fact, as I quoted in the article of mine that you just responded to, McNeil made a very clear distinction between "real" and "potential". But you ignored that completely to utter your "make up your mind" statement. He did. Fini. >> 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??? No. It isn't. > [Assorted ad hominem insults & name-calling], followed by: Odd that he asserts that there were "assorted ad hominem insults & namecalling, but chose not to document any of it. Why might that be? Perhaps because this is an attempt at libeling me for something he has no evidence for? Equally odd that that section contains statements about Mr. Rosenblatt's values regarding values about the relative worths of men and women that he perhaps felt should not be repeated. > 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 was hoping it meant "stopped and did not resume". Amazing how this person will latch on to an insignificant discrepancy in his own writing (past versus present perfect) to try to make a point that isn't there. > 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. Indeed. As are the assumptions that lead to certain values. Or don't you want to talk about them? > 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. What I put a high value on, dear sir, is human dignity and freedom. The fact that you put labels on such beliefs that you don't like, calling the simple belief that women have the same rights as men by a name like "feminism" which you can poke your little stick at, shows us the emptiness of YOUR assumptions that lead to your values. You can call these beliefs "unwarranted assumptions", but it is YOU who is making the claim that merits substantiation (that women do not have such rights because they are somehow less than men, or that any group is less deserving of such rights, or that the freedom of the individual is preempted by the needs of society). Especially when the logical holes shown in your own assumptions are big enough to drive a truck through. > 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. Talk about straw men. You're right. I won't keep my job if I don't hold them, and I'll lose my friends (most of whom voted for Reagan). Grasping at straws, my friend, grasping at straws. > 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. I can't. But since you can (??) why not document these "hurtful consequences", and see if maybe it is YOU who is making the assumptions (perhaps about the "hurtfulness" of the consequences?) I am most anxious to hear these "hurtful consequences". (Hurtful to whom? Society? The status quo? Whom?) Someone else also asked you specifically what it is beyond your assertions that makes these things "bad". It will be most interesting to see whether Matt's presumptions are actually rooted in deeper sets of assumptions. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr