pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/01/70)
>Brave New World, Revisited > >Anti-abortionists -- as I recall, including you, Matt -- >usually now talk about, ``Well, what if your parents had >decided to abort *you* -- how would you feel then!'' And >usually now the case studies are trotted forward, where >so-and-so's parents toyed with abortion but didn't, and >here he is, and boy, isn't he glad! This *ss-backwards- >looking argument puts the cart before the horse, and is >not a sensible guide to action. Naturally, humans *once >they exist* psychologically want to be assured of their >present existence! I'll try to illustrate with a parable. The point, as I see it is whether anyone has the right to decide whether any other persons future life will be worth living and destroy that person if they thing not. This has nothing to do with how that person would have felt if she had been allowed to live. [I have deleted the parable because I think it misses the point I have made here.] >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! What give us the right to dictate whether they shall exist? >Defining Humanity -- Or, Murder Most Foul! > >... >So, the crux of the debate comes down to precisely *where* the >existence of human beings becomes ``real'' in whatever sense >is deemed to be ``important.'' And what sense of ``humanity,'' >pray tell, is important to the ``pro-lifers''? Why, the >non-sentient *egg* is deemed so ``human'' that an adult human >is to be forced -- by the *State* -- to stand down before it! To respect her right to live you mean? >It is here where the case is so clear-cut -- and ultimately >so ridiculous -- that the anti-abortionists usually slowly >give way, all the while fighting rear-guard actions with >mouthings about ``slippery slopes.'' Yes, it *may* be all >right, some will reluctantly agree, for a woman to use an >I.U.D. (But only in cases of rape or incest... :-)) Someone else stressed the IUD question in a subsequent article. What is wrong with not using it? Is it the only form of birth control for any women? It surely isn't the safest (especially if it fails) or the most effective. I don't see how the IUD backs pro-lifer's into any corner. >Anti-abortionists charge that allowing abortion on demand will >lead inevitably to legalized killing of babies, children, the >feeble-minded, and old people (next -- *us*). These are the >``slippery slopes.'' I say this could *only* happen if we as >a society loose sight of what it really means to be *human*. More to the point: The logic involved in defining who is a rightful human being and who is not does not prevent the killing of other classes of humans that we tend to want to protect. Whether or not these other classed hold onto their protected status in the future then depends on things that ought not to be the basis for defining rightful human life. Things such as whether someone else wants that person; econmomic factors; and asthetic judgements. >On the contrary, I charge the so-called ``pro-life'' movement with >inciting just such dehumanizing influences, with its single-minded >insistence that the fetus has ``human rights'' -- during stages >of development where the fetus manifests no more correspondence >to characteristics we would consider ``human'' than certain >organizations of chemicals -- which transcend the human rights of >a living, breathing, thinking, feeling, human being -- the woman! Again you are wheighing any conceiveable right the woman has against all the rights of the fetus. We can examine your "characteristics" of a rightful human being next: >The Nervous System and The Brain > >Fortunately, I think that society as a whole is smarter than the >``pro-life'' philosophy. For example, I think this is reflected >in the growing acceptance of ``brain death'' rather than ``heart >stop'' as an accurate indicator of when the ``person we knew'' has >gone. *What* defines the ``human.'' This is the philosophical >issue of all time, and we won't solve it today, but it seems clear >that some essential part of what being *human* means, that which >sets us apart from the animals, requires that the nervous system >and the many-convoluted apparatus of the *brain* be present to >support it. In particular, centuries of medical experience with >accidents, disease, and surgery on brain and body have revealed >that when a brain's *cerebral cortex* has been heavily damaged, >all traces of a human personality go away and *never* come back. I think it is a misuse of the "brain dead" criterion to apply it as a standard of "what defines 'human'". Incidently, the "Harvard Criteria" are used here, which include more vital functions than just brain activity. The proper use of these critera have always been to define a reasonable point of when we are only prolonging natural death rather than giving that person a chance at continued life. This has been deemed necessary with the advent of our ability to *artificially* continue many vital functions indefinitely when human bodies cannot. These criteria help us to know when to discontinue artificial life support and let the person die her natural death. I don't see how we can apply these same criterion to the other end of the continuum of that individual's life. There you are trying to decide whether you can *actively* kill a human being that when left alone will continue her normal human life. The Harvard Criteria are used to determine when there is not "potential" left in a person's life. This is not what you are doing with the fetus. >... >Evolutionists sometimes say that ``the embryo recapitulates >evolution'' in its development. The observed fact is that the >embryos of many mammalian species closely resemble each other >during development. Only towards the end of fetal development >do changes occur that strongly fix the identity of a creature >within its species, and the cerebral cortex is the *last* part >of the brain to develop (``the last to evolve''; I won't argue >the matter here). As the seat of all ``human'' emotional and >intellectual abilities, if the cerebral cortex does not exist, >or exists only in highly rudimentary form, human emotional, >intellectual, even tactile experiences are *impossible*. It has been argued even in evolutionist circles that these fetal resemblances are a projection of preconceived ideas upon their observation of the fetuses. Anyway, your case seems to rest untimately on the actual *functioning* of the brain rather than it's mere existence. See below: >Anti-abortionists, with the aid of their horror film *Silent Scream*, >argue that the fetus feels *pain*, that it is, in fact, *tortured*, >by even a relatively early (late first trimester, say) abortion. The >line of thought goes this way: a (rudimentary) nervous system exists >in the fetus by a certain stage -- ergo, when the fetus is aborted, >it ``feels'' the procedure. This argument ignores the near certainty >that even if ``the switchboard is lit up,'' there's no one ``manning >the console.'' There is *no brain* early in fetal development, no >destination to ``experience the pain'' from all those hypothetical >pain signals. Without the human *experience* of pain, pain signals >themselves are mere electricity, no more meaningful than the myriad >of other messages traveling up and down the ``nervous'' system all >the time. (Anyone who's been under general anesthesia knows that!) So would you argue that the fetus should at least be put under general anesthesia before being killed? We, at least, require that animals be treated with that respect. Also, how does your argument here gaurd against logically legitimizing methods of killing any human being that do so very quickly or without feeling? (Maybe getting them while the "man" at the console is asleep, so to speak). You argue that the fetus is only a bunch of chemicals. Well, someone might argue that so is the brain. The fact that it produces a certain consiousness may make no difference, especially if we can kill the person while the "man" at the console is off gaurd. If the fact that the person in question will be conscious at other time makes any difference, why didn't the same fact make a difference for you and I when we were at the fetal stage? >That is what ``pro-lifers'' are doing, really. They are projecting >a ``little man'' into the fertilized egg -- rather than into sperm, >but otherwise it's a similar idea. There is no evidence whatsoever >for ``little men'' within eggs -- and plenty of evidence that being >``human'' requires a *brain*! Yet, we are to give this non-sentient >cell human rights, just for the ``benefit of the doubt,'' and it is >to be *murder* when a woman attempts to use her body as she chooses! >I suggest, Matt, that it's *much* more likely that *cattle* will be >discovered worthy of ``human rights'' than a being lacking a brain. >(And why don't *women* ever deserve the ``benefit of the doubt''?) You ignore the *inherent* potential that the zygote has that the sperm and egg do not. This has been gone over before. It's OK for women to use there bodies as they choose. (I suppose many men see a lot of benefit in that where sex is concerned. Need I say :-)?). But there are limits to how we use our bodies. Those limits are generally defined by injury or death to someone else. (Continued) -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (01/01/70)
[*Ohhhh*, yoooouuu'll *never* catch me, you Line Eater Monster, yo...] KEY: > > Me > Rich Rosen > > Rich, I'll disagree with you first. I don't agree that dependency > > by the fetus is an important consideration in the abortion debate. > > If a human (adult, say) should be connected with another by some > > vital lifeline, surely the person that line was tied to would *not* > > be able to cut it on a whim. The fact that the fetus isn't built > > to live outside the womb until birth doesn't alter that situation. > > First, there's a big difference between being tied to a machine for > a small subset of life functions and being tied to A HUMAN BEING for > all life support. Are the machine's rights in violation because the > person is "using" it? Of course not. Are the woman's rights in > violation if an entity is "using" her without her consent? All right, Rich, since you claim that ``being tied to a human being'' is the crucial factor, let's use an example of dependency on a human. A pair of siamese twins are born. Initially considered unseverable, they grow to adulthood. Finally, surgical developments arrive which will allow *one* of the twins to survive separation, but the other (due to sharing of his liver, say) would die. Do you claim, Rich, that the twin who would survive separation could, legally or morally, *force* his brother to accept surgery that would result in his death, simply because his brother is ``using'' his body without his consent? ________________ Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation ``All disclaimers including this one apply'' (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (01/01/70)
[ :=<< ] (<- Shush! Line eater monster lurking!) > > So what that the ``genetic entity'' that you possess, Matt -- > > whether unique or not -- has just come into physical existence. > > At that moment it is still but a single quantity of the chemical > > substance deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), located within a single > > eucaryotic cell similar in all functional respects to an amoeba! > > . . . > > Levity aside, the ``pro-life'' movement philosophically > > maintains -- nay, *demands* -- that this single non-sentient > > cell's ``human'' rights [outweigh] the rights of an adult human! > > [MICHAEL McNEIL] > > You've got it! ITS right to live outweighs HER right to kill it. > [MATT ROSENBLATT] This is the crux of the matter. Pro-lifers weigh the life of a single, unfeeling, nearly microscopic *cell* against the life of a woman, and soberly declare that the scale tips toward the *cell*! If the stakes were trivial, since the pro-lifers are raising such a fuss, I and no doubt many others would be inclined to give them what they want, just to shut them up. Raising this reaction is precisely what they are they are trying to accomplish, of course. However, the stakes are not small. Thousands of women's lives depend, emotionally and physically, on the maintenance of their right to personal privacy. Because of this, we must oppose you. -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm ... if "dead" matter has reared up this curious landscape of fiddling crickets, song sparrows, and wondering men, it must be plain even to the most devoted materialist that the matter of which he speaks contains amazing, if not dreadful powers, and may not impossibly be, as Hardy has suggested, "but one mask of many worn by the Great Face behind." Loren Eiseley, *The Immense Journey*, 1946
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (01/01/70)
BILL TANENBAUM writes: > Forget about what is NOW legal or illegal. If you feel that premeditated > abortion SHOULD BE a distinct crime from premeditated murder, you must > agree that the fetus, at least in its earlier stages, should be legally > a distinct entity from a post-birth human being. If you feel this way, > I was mistaken in saying that you took the extreme pro-life position. I would outlaw all abortion except to save the mother's life. Isn't that extreme enough for Mr. Tanenbaum? > However, you can then no longer use "the fetus is a human being" as your > sole justification for outlawing abortion. We all agree that, if the > fetus had the same legal standing as a post-birth human being, that abortion > would be legally murder. It may be that Mr. Tanenbaum is arguing from a hidden premise, namely, that all human beings are entitled to the same legal rights. If one holds that premise, then by treating fetus-killing as a different crime from killing an already-born human being, society was admitting that the fetus was not a full human being. It will come as no surprise to readers of this net that Matt Rosenblatt does not hold this premise. Distinctions based on birth are part of the American legal system (e.g., a naturalized U.S. citizen cannot become President); part of the English legal system (royalty); part of the Biblical system (different rules for priests, Levites and plain Israelites) -- and all these distinctions show that the premise "all human beings are entitled to the same legal rights" has never been put into practice anywhere. > Since you have denied this full legal status to > the fetus, you must justify why you would grant the fetus sufficient partial > legal status to make abortion a crime. You must state the values which > compel you to this belief, and why they are so overriding that you feel you > should have the right to impose your belief on all women. I've stated these values several times on net.abortion. I believe the fetus is innocent human life, whose preservation outweighs all other considerations on the part of the woman except the preservation of her own life. -- Matt Rosenblatt
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (01/01/70)
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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/09/85)
The following is a response to all those, on both sides of the abortion fence, who question my position on the status of the fetus as a living autonomous being. I have extracted statements from Brad Templeton, Marie Desjardins Park, Jim Gordon Sr., and of course Thomas Newton. I hope this clarifies the issues. > I have never understood. Why all this bickering about whether a fetus is > human or not? Of course it is, but that's totally beside the point. > Teenagers are human, but we won't let them vote, drink, disobey their parents > or enter contracts. People with total brain damage are members of our > species, too, but the law says they are dead. [BRAD TEMPLETON] But the anti-abortionists have a point in that if we claim the right of society to restrict the "rights" (to point of termination) of a particular group or *people* based on flimsy criteria like "less than X units of time 'old'", what is to stop us from extending the size of a group by altering the value of "X"? Or adding other age ranges to the "acceptable" list? This is a legitimate concern. My point is that in the case of abortion it is not a related concern, precisely because the fetuses do not qualify as fullfledged living human beings for a variety of reasons that will be discussed here. I was asked in private mail correspondence [name withheld] "is it your position that a fetus' humanity is dependent on the ability of medical technology to keep it alive outside its mother's womb? If not, what is your position on this issue?" Forsythe noted that Newton finds this fact of life horrible, in a way: the notion that "right to life" is dependent on the ability of the organism to survive, and thus may be dependent on the technology available to maintain the organism if it is not capable of surviving autonomously. But that is the real world. There is no "right" to life from some universal perspective. As a society, we can agree not to interfere in the rights of human beings. But what constitutes a living human being? What does "alive" really mean? Why should the definition be extended to fetuses residing within a woman's body and drawing sustenance from it. > By the way, I think nearly every word you could possibly think of has > ambiguous meanings. In the context of this debate many words (like > "human" and "alive") are VERY ambiguous, mainly because you are using > them in a different sense than I am. You can't just say "there is > only one definition of word X and it is the one that I am using" > unless everyone else agrees to it. So why don't you let us know > your definitions of "human" and "alive" and we'll tell you what > we think. [DESJARDINS] > There seems to be a debate going on about the meaning of the word > 'alive.' Thomas Newton seems to think the term is well defined. > Well, Thomas, is a cancer cell alive? Is a kidney alive -- can I > choose to transplant my kidney, or do I have to ask it's permission? > Personally I think that a fetus qualifies as alive, as does a cancer > cell, but I think that the carrier of either has the right to remove > it. The concept of 'alive' is not so well defined as some think! [GORDON] Both these extracts can be contrasted to Newton's own views about the nature of the word "alive": > On the other hand, the function ALIVE(X) is fairly well-defined. Rich's > assertion that ALIVE(fetus) = FALSE was thus either a lie (intentional or > not) or an attempt to introduce a second meaning for ALIVE. If it was a > lie, it was definitely counterproductive. But even if it was an attempt > to redefine ALIVE it was counterproductive -- do we really need the sort > of confusion surrounding the word "alive" that we have surrounding the word > "human"? If every word used to communicate has extremely ambiguous meanings, > we will all be the worse off for it. [NEWTON] I have to agree that this is one reason why arguments of all sorts fall into noise and disorder and nonsense: there is no consensus as to what the terms mean. No, Mr. Newton, it was not a lie by any stretch of the imagination. And no, it was not an attempt to redefine the word "alive". It was an attempt to use the term in the proper context. To just redefine a term (like "human") and say "this term no longer applies to you, thus..." is indeed a hideous manipulative and baseless way of determining and restricting rights. But that's not what was done here in any way. > Let's be blunt. The claim that "the fetus is not alive" goes against > everything that modern biology tells us. If you expect any of us to > believe that you are right and modern biology is wrong, you had better > damn well give some reasons other than "I say it's so and if you don't > agree then you have a closed mind". [NEWTON] On the contrary, when you are using the term "alive" to refer to a "living autonomous being" rather than a virus or a bodily organ or collection of similar cells within an organism, modern biology *is* in agreement with me. (Actually it's the other way around. It's not, as some would have you believe, that I am making this up and scientists are convening to decide whether or not to agree with me; it's more like I am in agreement with modern biology.) (As an aside, I like Newton's "Let's be blunt", as if this was meant to be in contrast to "less blunt" things like wild accusations and unsupported assertions he has made about me. No matter.) > The problem with the statement 'modern biology tells us that the fetus > is not human' is that you are using your own definition of 'human'. In > the past, there have been proposals on this net that children up to the > age of 12 are not 'human', and are thus fair game to be slaughtered!!!! > And clearly if your definition of HUMAN is HUMAN(X) = HOMO_SAPIENS(X) & > (TIME_SINCE_BIRTH(X) >= 13 years), logic will lead you to conclude that > children up to the age of 12 are not 'human'. [NEWTON] Wait a minute. A second ago you were saying that I was going *against* modern biology, now you're saying that I'm just redefining human. No, Mr. Newton, I don't think so. The fact that a person's age is determined by his/her date of BIRTH, not the date of conception, the fact that the person is only an autonomous living being once it is BORN, indicate to me that the definition of "human" begins at birth, and it is YOU who is desperately trying to redefine it for your ends. By the way, who offered these "proposals"? As I mentioned before, it is a legitimate concern to ask about arbitrary criteria like ">= x years old" for determining humanness. It is not legitimate to try to stretch that concern to things for which the definition does not apply. It is up to those who would stretch the definition to provide hard proof that it should be stretched, and to precisely what point it should be stretched. > The only 'support' you have given for your assertion so far is the claim > that the fetus is a parasite. If false, this claim has no bearing on the > main assertion. If true, it falsifies your main assertion -- a parasite > is a LIVING organism. Now you might be able to get a lively debate > started on whether viruses are alive or not. But I suspect that debate > belongs in a different newsgroup. [NEWTON] Only? I hardly think so, though this is what you have persistently asserted. Let's look at it a little more carefully than your cursory examination. If true, and it is a living parasitic organism, are you thus denying the right of human beings to remove such parasitic organisms from their bodies on these grounds? Let's look at ALL the factors leading to the conclusion that a woman has the right to remove a fetus from her body. 1. her rights to her own body: I think all except Mr. Rosenblatt, who seems to think that rights stem from your ability to convince people that you have them, would agree to a human being's rights to his/her body. The question thus becomes "Are there factors that outweigh this? Are there other 'rights' that are being ignored?" 2. its parasitic nature: already discussed. No one is demanding that a woman MUST remove the fetus, but given what it does to her body, surely her wishes take precedence over anything usurping nourishment from her and causing changes to her body against her will, if indeed the fetus can be thought of as doing these things "wilfully". If a woman has the right to remove things from her body as a general case, what are the grounds for granting an exception to a fetus? 3. inability to survive in the open world as an autonomous living being: if a woman has the right to remove things from inside her body, and if we cannot find a valid reason why fetuses should be an exception to this rule, then clearly a woman should be able to do so. The fact that fetuses so removed cannot survive, and in fact, would undergo a pretty pathetic end to their existence if just extracted and left on their own, indicates that the humane thing to do is simply to terminate their existence prior to having them endure a grueling and protracted end. If they could, then perhaps they "should". But the fact that they can't tells me that they weren't fully alive in the first place, that they required the environment of a LIVING HUMAN BEING'S BODY for sustenance. (This is very different from saying "well, WE need air and food for sustenance".) Given this, and given a person's rights to their health and their bodies, I see no human rights being violated. > Some seven month old fetuses can survive outside of their mother's bodies. > Admittedly, they require incubators, but even normally born infants require > a degree of care not necessary for older members of our species. Are seven > month fetuses human, then? If not, why not? [private mail - name withheld] Yes, there is surely a point at which a fetus is close enough to being a living human being that it *could*, with medical assistance, be sustained through the end of the fetal period to the point where it could be disconnected from supporting equipment, and thus be a living human being. (The nature of distinguishing between different degrees of supporting equipment is important, but not relevant, because we are talking about supporting equipment that eventually is removed to allow an autonomous living person to continue [or start] living. Support by machines that perform all necessary life functions, without which the person would cease to live, where there is no hope of ever acheiving autonomy in life [again?], this is not life by any reasonable definition. To claim that it is would mean that an airconditioning system is alive by this definition.) Getting back to the point, such fetuses that *could* survive, well, in many cases, they do. And 99% of the time that has nothing to do with abortion! It has more to do with pregnant women in auto accidents and other similar circumstances where the woman has been badly hurt or even killed, where doctors attempt to sustain the fetus. My question: what does this have to do with a woman who WANTS to remove the fetus from her body, rather than a woman who doesn't? The limits to abortion do not reach into the time of pregnancy at which doctors have even attempted to save a fetus from such a circumstance as I describe, certainly before the point at which a fetus can be saved and expect to live a life as a human being. In closing, I leave you with this little ditty of a parable, about the fetus who wouldn't come out. Its nine months were "up", but it just decided to just sit right where it was and not come out. Forceps and other more drastic measures proved futile, as it barricaded itself in the womb and refused to budge. The police came with an eviction notice, ordering it to leave the premises of the woman's body forthwith, immediately and right now, but he ignored it. SWOT teams were brought in (Special Women's Obstetric Taskforce), to no avail. Where do its "rights" to occupy this woman's body end? More importantly, where do they begin in the first place? That is the question. Are there "rights" at all? Or can it only expect to remain in there in the cases where the woman decides to support and nourish and care for it with her body? This article, of course, has effectively dismissed out of hand another argument for abortion, along the lines of "you engaged in sex, and now you're pregnant, and now you MUST endure the consequences of your naughty action". It has ignored this argument completely. Rightfully so. -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/15/85)
> The fact that a person's age is determined by his/her date of BIRTH, not > the date of conception, The date of birth is more easy to find out than the date of conception, and until comparatively recently we didn't know much about fetal development. > the fact that the person is only an autonomous living being once it is BORN, ^^^^^^^^^^ That says it all. The person in the womb is dependent upon another person for support. But it doesn't make the one dependent upon support any less human. > As I mentioned before, it is a legitimate concern to ask about arbitrary > criteria like ">= x years old" for determining humanness. It is not > legitimate to try to stretch that concern to things for which the definition > does not apply. And I suppose the people who want to see the most restrictive definition get to decide on the validity of everyone else's definition? When the U.S. got rid of slavery, it wasn't because everyone suddenly said "blacks are human"; even today, you could probably find KKK members who would assert that blacks are not human and that skin color is not an arbitrary criterion. So who gets to decide what is arbitrary and what is not? > It is up to those who would stretch the definition to provide hard proof > that it should be stretched, and to precisely what point it should be > stretched. > there is no consensus as to what the terms mean Given these two statements, why shouldn't we go by "It is up to those who would restrict the definition to provide hard proof that it should be restricted, and to precisely what point it should be restricted."? After all, there have been lots of atrocities committed on "subhumans" who were later found to be human after all. I haven't heard of any atrocities that resulted from going the other way: assume human until proven otherwise. > If true, and it is a living parasitic organism, are you thus denying the > rights of human being to remove such parasitic organisms from their bodies > on these grounds? Go ahead and kill all the tapeworms, bacteria, and viruses that you want. But don't kill other human beings. > Let's look at ALL the factors leading to the conclusion that a woman has > the right to remove a fetus from her body. > > 1. her rights to her own body: I think all except Mr. Rosenblatt, who > seems to think that rights stem from your ability to convince people that > you have them, would agree to a human being's rights to his/her body. > The question thus becomes "Are there factors that outweigh this? Are there > other 'rights' that are being ignored?" > > 2. its parasitic nature: already discussed. No one is demanding that a > woman MUST remove the fetus, but given wht it does to her body, surely > her wishes take precedence over anything usurping nourishment from her > and causing changes to her body against her will, if indeed the fetus can > be thought of as doing these things "wilfully". If a woman has the > right to remove things from her body as a general case, what are the > grounds for granting an exception to a fetus? As to the first part of #2, clearly everyone does not agree with you. Note that fetuses are younger than newborn infants, and we don't hold infants to be responsible for their actions. We DO hold parents/guardians to be both (a) reponsible for their children's actions, and (b) responsible for taking good care of their children (this precludes things such as killing them). Also note that it is logically impossible for fetuses to cause their own conception, since they don't exist before that point. The grounds for granting an exception to a fetus is that it is human, it is alive, and it is not responsible for its presence in the womb. > 3. inability to survive in the open world as an autonomous living being: > if a woman has the right to remove things from inside her body, Not everyone thinks that this applies to fetuses. > and if we cannot find a valid reason why fetuses should be an exception to > this rule, But we can. > then clearly a woman should be able to do so. The fact that fetuses so > removed cannot survive, Most cannot survive given current medical technology, but this does NOT prove that fetuses are necessarily dependent upon other persons' bodies. Remember the people who said that heavier-than-air flight was impossible? > and in fact, would undergo a pretty pathetic end to their existence if > just extracted and left on their own, indicates that the humane thing to > do is simply to terminate their existence prior to having them endure a > grueling and protracted end. The humane thing to do is to let them live, i.e. don't abort them. > If they could, then perhaps they "should". But the fact that they can't > tells me that they weren't fully alive in the first place, that they > required the environment of a LIVING HUMAN BEING'S BODY for sustenance. Where's your hard proof that this is necessary? Don't bother even trying to construct a 'proof' for late-term fetuses, as we already have counterexamples. > (This is very different from saying "well, WE need air and food for > sustenance".) Why? What's so special about depending upon plants and animals? The whole ecosystem is just one huge web of dependencies. > Given this, and given a person's rights to their health and their bodies, > I see no human rights being violated. But not everyone would agree with your premises, or with the premise that a person has UNLIMITED rights to control of their body. If someone has absolute rights to control their body, what right do you have to prevent them from strangling someone else? After all, they were just exercising their right to close their fingers, and if they happened to be around someone else's throat at the time, too bad... >> Some seven month old fetuses can survive outside of their mother's bodies. >> Admittedly, they require incubators, but even normally born infants require >> a degree of care not necessary for older members of our species. Are seven >> month fetuses human, then? If not, why not? [private mail - name withheld] > Yes, there is surely a point at which a fetus is close enough to being a > living human being that it *could*, with medical assistance, be sustained > through the end of the fetal period to the point where it could be > disconnected from supporting equipment, and thus be a living human being. Did everyone catch that? Now you not only need to be independent from other human beings, but from MACHINES as well for Rich to consider you to be a living human being. Tell me, Rich, is an adult who uses a dialysis machine not a 'living human being'? If doctors connect a patient to a heart-lung machine during a major operation, is the patient not a 'living human being' during the operation, and thus subject to being killed by any random who wants to kill him/her? If not, then how do you justify calling seven-month and older fetuses not human, even by your definitions? Or could it be that treating fetuses consistently would force you to the conclusion that younger fetuses might be human also? > (The nature of distinguishing between different degrees of supporting > equipment is important, but not relevant, because we are talking about > supporting equipment that eventually is removed to allow an autonomous > living person to continue [or start] living. Under your definition, a dialysis patient is not human, because the support equipment never goes away. > Support by machines that perform all necessary life functions, without which > the person would cease to live, where there is no hope of ever acheiving > autonomy in life [again?], this is not life by any reasonable definition. > To claim that it is would mean that an airconditioning system is alive by > this definition.) Dependence upon a person or a machine isn't the right measure. A closer approximation would be "does this person have any non-brain-dead life left?" Fetuses, healthy children or adults, and people on dialysis machines do. A person in a coma who is expected to snap out of it also does. A person who is brain-dead doesn't. > . . . My question: what does this have to do with a woman who WANTS to > remove the fetus from her body, rather than a woman who doesn't? The > limits to abortion do not reach into the time of pregnancy at which > doctors have even attempted to save a fetus from such a circumstance as > I describe, certainly before the point at which a fetus can be saved and > expect to live a life as a human being. But if a late-term fetus is as much a human being as a newborn infant (and I don't think anyone can rationally dispute that), doesn't it suggest that earlier-term fetuses might also be human? And if so, doesn't that throw a major monkey wrench into your arguments for allowing abortion? -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/19/85)
>>The fact that a person's age is determined by his/her date of BIRTH, not >>the date of conception, [ROSEN] > The date of birth is more easy to find out than the date of conception, and > until comparatively recently we didn't know much about fetal development. > [THOMAS NEWTON] And still, despite our newfound knowledge, we have a person's age beginning at birth. Ever see the books "The First Twelve Months of Life" or "The Second Twelve Months of Life"? Can you take a guess as to when the first 12 start? That's but one example of how we determine when a human life begins. >>the fact that the person is only an autonomous living being once it is BORN, ^^^^^^^^^^ > That says it all. The person in the womb is dependent upon another person for > support. But it doesn't make the one dependent upon support any less human. Newton, it's amazing how you can attempt to twist someone else's words to try to make a point, and fail miserably. It is a person, an autonomous living being ONLY once it is born. Did *I* make references to a "person" in the womb? Or did you? *THAT* says it ALL!!!!! That says a lot about who is running a clean argument between the two of us. >>As I mentioned before, it is a legitimate concern to ask about arbitrary >>criteria like ">= x years old" for determining humanness. It is not >>legitimate to try to stretch that concern to things for which the definition >>does not apply. > And I suppose the people who want to see the most restrictive definition get > to decide on the validity of everyone else's definition? When the U.S. got > rid of slavery, it wasn't because everyone suddenly said "blacks are human"; No, people had known that for some time (despite bogus non-science that still perpetuates to this day). In fact, it was precisely because they wanted to get rid of the hypocrisy, because they knew there was no moral way to support it. There is no such hypocrisy here in our debate. At least none coming from me. >>It is up to those who would stretch the definition to provide hard proof >>that it should be stretched, and to precisely what point it should be >>stretched. >> >>there is no consensus as to what the terms mean > Given these two statements, why shouldn't we go by "It is up to those who > would restrict the definition to provide hard proof that it should be > restricted, and to precisely what point it should be restricted."? Because it's a stupid thing to go by. The demarcation point of life is at birth. It is you who wants to stretch it. > After all, there have been lots of atrocities committed on "subhumans" who > were later found to be human after all. I haven't heard of any atrocities > that resulted from going the other way: assume human until proven otherwise. By this logic, we should never remove the heads from department store mannequins. After all, they might be human. The fact is they weren't "later" found to be human, they were already known to be human; it was foul bigots who in their personal insecurity blame other people for their problems who label some people "subhuman". >>If true, and it is a living parasitic organism, are you thus denying the >>rights of human being to remove such parasitic organisms from their bodies >>on these grounds? > Go ahead and kill all the tapeworms, bacteria, and viruses that you want. But > don't kill other human beings. I'm not proposing that we do. I'm proposing that similar organisms in the body (like fetuses) be dealt with in the same way if the person wants to. Unless you can prove that these are human beings. Unless you can show how they can exist in a physically autonomous separate state from the bodies they inhabit. >>Let's look at ALL the factors leading to the conclusion that a woman has >>the right to remove a fetus from her body. >> >>1. her rights to her own body: I think all except Mr. Rosenblatt, who >>seems to think that rights stem from your ability to convince people that >>you have them, would agree to a human being's rights to his/her body. >>The question thus becomes "Are there factors that outweigh this? Are there >>other 'rights' that are being ignored?" [NOTHING TO SAY HERE, TOM?] >> >>2. its parasitic nature: already discussed. No one is demanding that a >>woman MUST remove the fetus, but given wht it does to her body, surely >>her wishes take precedence over anything usurping nourishment from her >>and causing changes to her body against her will, if indeed the fetus can >>be thought of as doing these things "wilfully". If a woman has the >>right to remove things from her body as a general case, what are the >>grounds for granting an exception to a fetus? > As to the first part of #2, clearly everyone does not agree with you. You mean some people are DEMANDING that women remove the fetuses within them? Care to substantiate that? Or are you referring to "parasitic nature"? Who doesn't agree with that, and why? > Note that fetuses are younger than newborn infants, Yes, they are -x months old. Whatever that means. > and we don't hold infants to be responsible for their actions. Meaning we never punish children for wrongdoing in an effort to educate them and set them straight. (Some punish just for the hell of it, out of some pleasure of power over the kids.) This is clearly not true. > We DO hold parents/guardians to be both > (a) reponsible for their children's actions, and (b) responsible for taking > good care of their children (this precludes things such as killing them). > Also note that it is logically impossible for fetuses to cause their own > conception, since they don't exist before that point. To which I say: So? What relevance does this have to the argument? All the adults you refer to were once fetuses, and THEY didn't cause their own conception, thus (by your logic) THEY shouldn't be held responsible either. > The grounds for granting an exception to a fetus is that it is human, it is > alive, and it is not responsible for its presence in the womb. If it's human, why must it occupy another person's body? What if someone kidnapped you, hollowed out your skull, and chose to live in your head. Could you have him evicted? How? He's not "responsible" for that act, obviously he is not of sound mind. What kind of bogus argument is that? Clearly it does not qualify as a physically autonomous being at all, because it cannot live outside the environment it occupies. A better example: people who have lost their jobs and have no money are evicted from their apartment for not paying their rent. Are they exempt from eviction because they are not "responsible" for their predicament? >>3. inability to survive in the open world as an autonomous living being: >>if a woman has the right to remove things from inside her body, > Not everyone thinks that this applies to fetuses. Then remove them from the woman's body and see if they survive. I think this would be far more inhumane than abortion by any standards. >>and if we cannot find a valid reason why fetuses should be an exception to >>this rule, > But we can. YOU can, based on your bogus assumptions and preconceptions that I think I've dismantled here and elsewhere, but which you persist in re-asserting in the spirit of contempt for the argumentative process. >>then clearly a woman should be able to do so. The fact that fetuses so >>removed cannot survive, > Most cannot survive given current medical technology, but this does NOT > prove that fetuses are necessarily dependent upon other persons' bodies. > Remember the people who said that heavier-than-air flight was impossible? Then what I said above applies: take the fetus of the body of the woman who doesn't want it inside of her and do with it what you will. Put up or shut up. >>and in fact, would undergo a pretty pathetic end to their existence if >>just extracted and left on their own, indicates that the humane thing to >>do is simply to terminate their existence prior to having them endure a >>grueling and protracted end. > The humane thing to do is to let them live, i.e. don't abort them. The humane thing is to let tapeworms live, too. After all, don't they have rights, too? >>If they could, then perhaps they "should". But the fact that they can't >>tells me that they weren't fully alive in the first place, that they >>required the environment of a LIVING HUMAN BEING'S BODY for sustenance. > Where's your hard proof that this is necessary? Don't bother even trying to > construct a 'proof' for late-term fetuses, as we already have counterexamples. Late-term fetuses, as you call them, are beyond the scope of legal abortion in any case. Yes, they can be saved. And in the cases where the mother has carried the fetus to term with the intent of giving birth, every attempt is often made to do so. But this has little to do with the arguments about legal abortion. If you are seeking "hard proof", why not do what I suggested above: remove a fetus from a woman's body during the early part of pregnancy, and do whatever you like to sustain it, and take responsibility for any grotesque deformities that occur, causing a barely functioning human at "term" (whenever and ifever "term" is, and if indeed it would be human at all). >>(This is very different from saying "well, WE need air and food for >>sustenance".) > Why? What's so special about depending upon plants and animals? The whole > ecosystem is just one huge web of dependencies. I'm not occupying an animal's insides for sustenance. Furthermore, if I was out there seeking my own food from animals, do I have a "right" to do this? Is the animal powerless from stopping me from using it for food? Is a woman "powerless" to choose to have a fetus removed from her body? Same rules apply. >>Given this, and given a person's rights to their health and their bodies, >>I see no human rights being violated. > But not everyone would agree with your premises, or with the premise that a > person has UNLIMITED rights to control of their body. If someone has > absolute rights to control their body, what right do you have to prevent them > from strangling someone else? After all, they were just exercising their > right to close their fingers, and if they happened to be around someone else's > throat at the time, too bad... Ever hear "your right to swing your fist ends before it hits my face"? You have the right to your OWN body, not to others. Something anti-abortionists could learn a little about when trying to impose their will on others. >>>Some seven month old fetuses can survive outside of their mother's bodies. >>>Admittedly, they require incubators, but even normally born infants require >>>a degree of care not necessary for older members of our species. Are seven >>>month fetuses human, then? If not, why not? [private mail - name withheld] >>Yes, there is surely a point at which a fetus is close enough to being a >>living human being that it *could*, with medical assistance, be sustained >>through the end of the fetal period to the point where it could be >>disconnected from supporting equipment, and thus be a living human being. > Did everyone catch that? Now you not only need to be independent from other > human beings, but from MACHINES as well for Rich to consider you to be a > living human being. Indeed. If you are connected to full life support because your body does not pump blood or perform bodily functions, the law says you are dead. And in fact you are. To claim that you are alive (in this case) is to claim that a sewage or irrigation system or an airconditioning system is alive. There is a big difference between a living person temporarily using machines to recuperate and get back to a fully functional state and a person (or fetus) that cannot function without machines and has no hope of ever functioning without full life support of machines. > Tell me, Rich, is an adult who uses a dialysis machine not a 'living human > being'? If doctors connect a patient to a heart-lung machine during a major > operation, is the patient not a 'living human being' during the operation, and > thus subject to being killed by any random who wants to kill him/her? If not, > then how do you justify calling seven-month and older fetuses not human, even > by your definitions? 1) I answered most of these questions in the previous paragraph. 2) I did not call any fetuses human above. (A blatant and foul misquoting by Newton.) What I did say was: >>Yes, there is surely a point at which a fetus is close enough to being a >>living human being that it *could*, with medical assistance, be sustained >>through the end of the fetal period TO THE POINT WHERE IT COULD BE >>DISCONNECTED from supporting equipment, and THUS be a living human being. > Or could it be that treating fetuses consistently would > force you to the conclusion that younger fetuses might be human also? Or sperm cells? Or ova? Or individual body organs? Note again that I did not say that fetuses, older or not, are necessarily human. That occurs at birth. After all, what is birth is not the fully grown fetus saying "I'm ready, let me out", metaphorically speaking. >>(The nature of distinguishing between different degrees of supporting >>equipment is important, but not relevant, because we are talking about >>supporting equipment that eventually is removed to allow an autonomous >>living person to continue [or start] living. > Under your definition, a dialysis patient is not human, because the support > equipment never goes away. Even if one were connected to it permanently (most kidney patients need it at intervals), enough of one's other body functions are taken care of by the person's own body that he is of course still human. Even an artificial heart serves such a purpose. In fact it becomes a part of the person's body. Does the mother become a part of the fetus' body? Vice versa? >>Support by machines that perform all necessary life functions, without which >>the person would cease to live, where there is no hope of ever acheiving >>autonomy in life [again?], this is not life by any reasonable definition. >>To claim that it is would mean that an airconditioning system is alive by >>this definition.) > Dependence upon a person or a machine isn't the right measure. A closer > approximation would be "does this person have any non-brain-dead life left?" > Fetuses, healthy children or adults, and people on dialysis machines do. A > person in a coma who is expected to snap out of it also does. A person who > is brain-dead doesn't. But since a fetus is not a person in that it has not functioned autonomously, this does not apply to them. This is not an assertion of the type that you persistently make ("a fetus IS a person, it IS, it IS, it IS"). Physical autonomy is one of the fundamental pieces of the definition of "living" in the context we are using it. >>. . . My question: what does this have to do with a woman who WANTS to >>remove the fetus from her body, rather than a woman who doesn't? The >>limits to abortion do not reach into the time of pregnancy at which >>doctors have even attempted to save a fetus from such a circumstance as >>I describe, certainly before the point at which a fetus can be saved and >>expect to live a life as a human being. > But if a late-term fetus is as much a human being as a newborn infant (and > I don't think anyone can rationally dispute that), doesn't it suggest that > earlier-term fetuses might also be human? Newton, shut it. Nowhere above did I even imply that the fetus, even in late term, qualifies as a physically autonomous human being, yet you insist that I did so as to screw around with my argument. A late term fetus is not "just as much a human being as a newborn infant", it merely has much more of a chance of surviving a disruptive removal from the womb (say, due to an accident) and eventually be weaned off of medical equipment to become human. Please desist from such twisting in the future. > And if so, doesn't that throw a major monkey wrench into your arguments for > allowing abortion? If I make your assumptions, yes. Unfortunately for you and your position, I don't, and I think I have shown gaps and assumptions in your reasoning that are invalid. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
tdn@cmu-sei.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/22/85)
> And still, despite our newfound knowledge, we have a person's age beginning > at birth. Ever see the books "The First Twelve Months of Life" or "The > Second Twelve Months of Life"? Can you take a guess as to when the first > 12 start? That's but one example of how we determine when a human life > begins. Old habits are hard to change. And it is still true that we can measure the date of birth more easily than the date of conception. >>> the fact that the person is only an autonomous living being once it >>> is BORN, > Newton, it's amazing how you can attempt to twist someone else's words to > try to make a point, and fail miserably. It is a person, an autonomous > living being ONLY once it is born. Did *I* make references to a "person" > in the womb? Yes, if inadvertently. Your statement implied "person before and after birth, autonomous living being after birth". Perhaps you ought to use language more precisely in the future. > No, people had known that for some time (despite bogus non-science that > still perpetuates to this day). In fact, it was precisely because they > wanted to get rid of the hypocrisy, because they knew there was no moral > way to support it. But many of the people who believed in the restrictive definition were not convinced. There were probably a fair number of slaveholders who actually believed the stuff they were spouting. But this did not make slavery right; it was wrong even though there were people who did not know it was wrong and who believed that they had a right to hold slaves. > There is no such hypocrisy here in our debate. At least none coming from > me. But if abortion is wrong, does everyone need to believe that it is wrong in order for it to be wrong? That is to say, there may be some people who need to be stopped from performing actions that *they believe* would not harm other people but which *actually* would harm other people. > Because it's a stupid thing to go by. The demarcation point of life is at > birth. It is you who wants to stretch it. On the contrary, the demarcation point of life is at conception. You have the same DNA that you had when you were a fetus. It determined the color of your hair and skin, your sex, and various other things. It organized your growth from a single cell to an infant to a child to the person you are today. >> After all, there have been lots of atrocities committed on "subhumans" who >> were later found to be human after all. I haven't heard of any atrocities >> that resulted from going the other way: assume human until proven >> otherwise. > By this logic, we should never remove the heads from department store > mannequins. After all, they might be human. Come on now, you expect us to believe this? Even a most rudimentary examination will show you that mannequins are not living organisms and do not belong to our species. Fetuses are living organisms and do belong to our species. > The fact is they weren't "later" found to be human, they were already known > to be human; it was foul bigots who in their personal insecurity blame other > people for their problems who label some people "subhuman". I'm not labeling fetuses as "subhuman"; you are. Be careful, or you'll end up insulting yourself. >> Go ahead and kill all the tapeworms, bacteria, and viruses that you want. >> But don't kill other human beings. > I'm not proposing that we do. I'm proposing that similar organisms in the > body (like fetuses) be dealt with in the same way if the person wants to. Tapeworms, bacteria, etc. don't belong to the species Homo sapiens. Fetuses do, and this difference is a major one as far as rights are concerned. > Unless you can prove that these are human beings The fact that they are living, that they belong to our species, and that it has already been proven that seven-month-old fetuses can live outside of their mothers (suggesting that we'll get proofs for younger ages as our technology advances) SHOULD suggest something to you. Also note that every adult who is living today was once a fetus with the same DNA, and that no adult who lives today was once a cancer, tumor, etc. -- the "fetus=cancer" argument is BOGUS. > Unless you can show how they can exist in a physically autonomous separate > state from the bodies they inhabit. This has been shown for seven-month-old and older fetuses. The environment provided by the human body is better than the one provided by hospitals, but this is hardly surprising. After all, the human body is the end-product of hundreds of millions of years of evolution. The difference between seven-month-old fetuses and six-month-old fetuses is one of degree, not one of kind. In fact, if you keep looking back you will discover that the 'difference of kind' occurs when you cross the boundary of conception. >> As to the first part of #2, clearly everyone does not agree with you. > You mean some people are DEMANDING that women remove the fetuses within > them? Care to substantiate that? Or are you referring to "parasitic > nature"? Who doesn't agree with that, and why? What were you saying about twisting words? I was referring to: >>> ...given wht it does to her body, surely her wishes take precedence >>> over anything usurping nourishment from her and causing changes to >>> her body against her will, >> and we don't hold infants to be responsible for their actions. > Meaning we never punish children for wrongdoing in an effort to educate > them and set them straight. (Some punish just for the hell of it, out of > some pleasure of power over the kids.) This is clearly not true. Notice that I said infants. What do infants do that deserves punishment? >> Also note that it is logically impossible for fetuses to cause their own >> conception, since they don't exist before that point. > To which I say: So? What relevance does this have to the argument? All > the adults you refer to were once fetuses, and THEY didn't cause their own > conception, thus (by your logic) THEY shouldn't be held responsible either. More word-twisting. You were not responsible for your OWN conception, but that says nothing about any conceptions that you cause. After all, in the first case one doesn't have any control over the situation, whereas in the second situation one does (except in cases of rape). >> The grounds for granting an exception to a fetus is that it is human, it >> is alive, and it is not reponsible for its presence in the womb. > If it's human, why must it occupy another person's body? What if someone > kidnapped you, hollowed out your skull, and chose to live in your head. ^^^^^ The fetus doesn't choose to be conceived; two people conceive it. > Could you have him evicted? How? He's not "responsible" for that act, > obviously he is not of sound mind. What kind of bogus argument is that? What am I have supposed to have done that resulted in placing him there? In the case of fetuses, the mother and father placed the kid(s) in the mother's body. It would be a little bogus for me to place a lunatic inside my head and then claim a right to have him evicted at the cost of his life. That's why I don't place lunatics in my head or even invite them to come live there. > Clearly it does not qualify as a physically autonomous being at all, because > it cannot live outside the environment it occupies. Clearly this is a bogus statement, because seven-month-old and older fetuses can live and have been shown capable of living outside of the womb. There is good reason to believe that younger fetuses can live outside of the womb given an appropriate environment -- the trend has been towards showing that younger and younger fetuses can live outside the womb. > A better example: people who have lost their jobs and have no money are > evicted from their apartment for not paying their rent. Are they exempt > from eviction because they are not "responsible" for their predicament? I suspect (a) that the landlord didn't put them in there, and (b) they were competent to handle their own affairs, unlike fetuses, infants, and children. >>> 3. inability to survive in the open world as an autonomous living being: >>> if a woman has the right to remove things from inside her body, >> Not everyone thinks that this applies to fetuses. > Then remove them from the woman's body and see if they survive. I think > this would be far more inhumane than abortion by any standards. That's not what I said. Not everyone believes that your standard that "the fetus must be able to survive in today's world with today's technology outside of the mother's body" (is this close enough?) applies to fetuses. >>> and if we cannot find a valid reason why fetuses should be an exception to >>> this rule, >> But we can. > YOU can, based on your bogus assumptions and preconceptions that I think > I've dismantled here and elsewhere, but which you persist in re-asserting > in the spirit of contempt for the argumentative process. That's funny. Not a single pro-lifer disagreed that the fetus is alive. But I distinctly remember Sophie telling you that you shouldn't resort to lies to 'prove' your point. >> Most cannot survive given current medical technology, but this does NOT >> prove that fetuses are necessarily dependent upon other person's bodies. >> Remember the people who said that heavier-than-air flight was impossible? > Then what I said above applies: take the fetus of the body of the woman who > doesn't want it inside of her and do with it what you will. Put up or shut > up. Sorry. The fact that we don't have extremely advanced technology today does not mean that fetuses aren't human. Given that I would protect their lives, and you would not, it is up to you to prove that they are not human. >> The humane thing to do is to let them live, i.e. don't abort them. > The humane thing is to let tapeworms live, too. After all, don't they have > rights, too? Not very many rights in my eyes. Whatever species the tapeworm belongs to, it doesn't have anywhere near the rights of Homo sapiens, or the rights of chimpanzees for that matter. > Late-term fetuses, as you call them, are beyond the scope of legal abortion > in any case. Yes, they can be saved. And in the cases where the mother has > carried the fetus to term with the intent of giving birth, every attempt is > often made to do so. But this has little to do with the arguments about > legal abortion. It has a lot to do with the arguments about legal abortion; the fact that late-term-fetuses can survive outside of their mother's bodies shows just how bogus it is to say that birth is the starting point of life. And it raises obvious question: "if these fetuses are human, what makes these others not human, if anything?" I don't see anything sufficient to call them "subhuman". > If you are seeking "hard proof", why not do what I suggested above: > remove a fetus from a woman's body during the early part of pregnancy, nd > do whatever you like to sustain it, and take responsibility for any > grotesque deformities that occur, causing a barely functioning human at > "term" (whenever and ifever "term" is, and if indeed it would be human at > all). I would not do this to a seven-month-old fetus, even though I know that such fetuses can survive outside the womb, because the risk to the child outside the womb is currently greater than the risk to the child inside the womb. I suspect that any doctor with a proper sense of ethics would refuse to do such an experiment if you approached him/her with it. >> Why? What's so special about depending upon plants and animals? The whole >> ecosystem is just one huge web of dependencies. > I'm not occupying an animal's insides for sustenance. Furthermore, if I > was out there seeking my own food from animals, do I have a "right" to do > this? Is the animal powerless from stopping me from using it for food? We raise lots of animals each year to be slaughtered. And in large part, they are powerless from stopping people from using them for food. > Is a woman "powerless" to choose to have a fetus removed from her body? > Same rules apply. Hardly. I'm sorry if this offends you, but I believe that humans have more rights than dogs, cats, tapeworms, and plants. I treat other human beings quite differently from the way that I treat insects, and I don't see anything wrong with it. >> But not everyone would agree with your premises, or with the premise that a >> person has UNLIMITED rights to control of their body. If someone has >> absolute rights to control their body, what right do you have to prevent >> them from strangling someone else? After all, they were just exercising >> their right to close their fingers, and if they happened to be around >> someone else's throat at the time, too bad... > Ever hear "your right to swing your fist ends before it hits my face"? You > have the right to your OWN body, not to others. Something anti-abortionists > could learn a little about when trying to impose their will on others. Your right to control your body ends where the other human being you placed inside it begins. Abortion is imposing your will on the fetus. In fact, I can't think of any law that doesn't impose someone's will on someone else. >> Did everyone catch that? Now you not only need to be independent from >> other human beings, but from MACHINES as well for Rich to consider you to >> be aliving human being. > Indeed. If you are connected to full life support because your body does > not pump blood or perform bodily functions, the law says you are dead. And > in fact you are. To claim that you are alive (in this case) is to claim > that a sewage or irrigation system or an airconditioning system is alive. > There is a big difference between a living person temporarily using machines > to recuperate and get back to a fully functional state and a person (or > fetus that cannot function without machines and has no hope of ever > functioning without full life support of machines. I didn't say FULL life support. Note that a dialysis patient is as fully dependent upon the machines as a late-term fetus, if not more so. If the dialysis patient is deprived of the use of the machines for even a fairly short period, the poisons in his/her blood will kill him/her. I notice that you have avoided saying outright whether or not a dialysis patient is human, and have claimed that a late-term fetus is not a human being even though it can live outside it's mother's body. >> Tell me, Rich, is an adult who uses a dialysis machine not a 'living human >> being'? If doctors connect a patient to a heart-lung machine during a >> major operation, is the patient not a 'living human being' during the >> operation, and thus subject to being killed by any random who wants to kill >> him/her? If not,then how do you justify calling seven-month and older >> fetuses not human, even by your definitions? > 1) I answered most of these questions in the previous paragraph. 2) I did > not call any fetuses human above.(A blatant and foul misquoting by Newton). > What I did say was: >>>Yes, there is surely a point at which a fetus is close enough to being a >>>living human being that it *could*, with medical assistance, be sustained >>>through the end of the fetal period TO THE POINT WHERE IT COULD BE >>>DISCONNECTED from supporting equipment, and THUS be a living human being. 1) You are evading the question: Is a dialysis patient human? First answer YES or NO. Then justify your answer. If your answer is NO, you will have a lot of work to do to convince us that dialysis patients are not human. If your answer is YES, explain why you continue to say that late-term fetuses are not human, in light of the standards that you set for other human beings. 2) In my response to the paragraph, I did not 'accuse' you of calling any fetuses human. True, you earlier referred to fetuses as persons, but that seems to be a case where you were being inconsistent. I said that you were claiming that late-term-fetuses were "not human". How else is one supposed to interpret >>> close enough to being a living human being ? Again, if you say that dialysis patients are not human, you will have one hell of a fight on your hands. If you say that they are human, how can you possibly justify calling late-term fetuses 'close enough' (which implies that they are not quite human) rather than acknowledging their humanity? >> Or could it be that treating fetuses consistently would >> force you to the conclusion that younger fetuses might be human also? > Or sperm cells? Or ova? Or individual body organs? Note again that I > did not say that fetuses, older or not, are necessarily human. That occurs > at birth. After all, what is birth is not the fully grown fetus saying > "I'm ready, let me out", metaphorically speaking. If dialysis patients are human (and you haven't claimed that they aren't, or answered my question), HOW can you claim that late-term-fetuses are anything BUT human, even going by the 'criteria' that you have put into your posts? >> Under your definition, a dialysis patient is not human, because the support >> equipment never goes away. > Even if one were connected to it permanently (most kidney patients need it > at intervals), enough of one's other body functions are taken care of by > the person's own body that he is of course still human. Even an artificial > heart serves such a purpose. In fact it becomes a part of the person's > body. Does the mother become a part of the fetus' body? Vice versa? Now you finally get around to answering the first question with a few qualifications. Now answer the second one: How can you maintain that late-term-fetuses are not human if you acknowledge that dialysis patients are human? The 'take away the machine and see if it dies' criterion is now definitely OUT. What's left? Dependence on the care of other human beings? But infants and other hospital patients also exhibit this trait. >> Dependence upon a person or a machine isn't the right measure. A closer >> approximation would be "does this person have any non-brain-dead life >> left? Fetuses, healthy children or adults, and people on dialysis machines >> do. A person in a coma who is expected to snap out of it also does. A >> person is brain-dead doesn't. > But since a fetus is not a person in that it has not functioned > autonomously, this does not apply to them. This is not an assertion of the > type that you persistently make ("a fetus IS a person, it IS, it IS, it > IS"). Physical autonomy is one of the fundamental pieces of the definition > of "living" in the context we are using it. This does not apply to them because you don't want it to apply to them? Bogus! Why is physical autonomy so important? If an infant goes straight from the delivery room to the operating table, would you claim that the child is not human until the operation is complete? And notice that I referred to the fetus as a person. Your bogus assertions that "The fetus is not alive. It ISN'T! It ISN'T!" to the contrary. >> But if a late-term fetus is as much a human being as a newborn infant (and >> I don't think anyone can rationally dispute that), doesn't it suggest that >> earlier-term fetuses might also be human? > Newton, shut it. Nowhere above did I even imply that the fetus, even in > late term, qualifies as a physically autonomous human being, yet you insist > that I did so as to screw around with my argument. A late term fetus is not > "just as much a human being as a newborn infant", it merely has much more of > a chance of surviving a disruptive removal from the womb (say, due to an > accident) and will eventually be weaned off of medical equipment to become ^^^^^(I may have scrambled two words here in breaking the line) > human. Please desist from such twisting in the future. It is you who are doing the twisting. Did you even read the last half of my message? In it, I did not say that you claimed that fetuses are human. I *did* ask for you to explain how you could possibly arrive at the conclusion 'dialysis patients are human; late-term fetuses are not' if indeed that was your position. You didn't answer my questions directly, but since you did answer some of them in response to later parts of my post, I have been able to deduce that 'dialysis patients are human; late-term fetuses are not' is indeed your position. But you have not provided any rational justification of this position. "Newton, shut it" is not a rational justification. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/24/85)
>>And still, despite our newfound knowledge, we have a person's age beginning >>at birth. Ever see the books "The First Twelve Months of Life" or "The >>Second Twelve Months of Life"? Can you take a guess as to when the first >>12 start? That's but one example of how we determine when a human life >>begins. [ROSEN] > Old habits are hard to change. And it is still true that we can measure the > date of birth more easily than the date of conception. [ROSEN] You need to offer a good reason to break this "old habit". I see none, especially when the fetus is not an autonomous entity. >>>>the fact that the person is only an autonomous living being once it >>>>is BORN, >>Newton, it's amazing how you can attempt to twist someone else's words to >>try to make a point, and fail miserably. It is a person, an autonomous >>living being ONLY once it is born. Did *I* make references to a "person" >>in the womb? > Yes, if inadvertently. Your statement implied "person before and after birth, > autonomous living being after birth". You read that implication into my statement because of YOUR assumptions. Which says something. > Perhaps you ought to use language more precisely in the future. Perhaps. Perhaps you should read other people's writing without imposing and projecting your own wishes onto it. Perhaps. >>No, people had known that for some time (despite bogus non-science that >>still perpetuates to this day). In fact, it was precisely because they >>wanted to get rid of the hypocrisy, because they knew there was no moral >>way to support it. > But many of the people who believed in the restrictive definition were not > convinced. Old habits are hard to change. Even when there is good reason for it. This happens a lot when such people have a stake in believing such things about other people. What stake is there among pro-choicers, especially given your inability to offer a reason to change OUR old habit of denoting human life beginning at birth. > There were probably a fair number of slaveholders who actually > believed the stuff they were spouting. But this did not make slavery right; > it was wrong even though there were people who did not know it was wrong and > who believed that they had a right to hold slaves. But it was wrong not just because we now say it is wrong. And abortion is not wrong just because you say it is today. >>There is no such hypocrisy here in our debate. At least none coming from >>me. > But if abortion is wrong, does everyone need to believe that it is wrong in > order for it to be wrong? What is your basis for calling it wrong? If you quote religion, personal preference, non-scientific drivel, if you twist and manipulate, I'd say your basis is vacuous. > That is to say, there may be some people who need > to be stopped from performing actions that *they believe* would not harm other > people but which *actually* would harm other people. What other people would be harmed? Back to the burden of proof being on you. In another article, you said "I don't accept your assumption that the fetus is not a human being". The burden of proof still rests with you, though you choose to use your assumptions to prove your conclusions in arguments here. >>Because it's a stupid thing to go by. The demarcation point of life is at >>birth. It is you who wants to stretch it. > On the contrary, the demarcation point of life is at conception. You have > the same DNA that you had when you were a fetus. It determined the color of > your hair and skin, your sex, and various other things. It organized your > growth from a single cell to an infant to a child to the person you are today. As someone else pointed out, at conception the zygote still has the potential to split into two different entities. To say that that is where life begins sounds very foolish in light of that---by the same reasoning, the minute a woman produces an egg, and a man produces a sperm, later "destined" to meet, that could also be termed the demarcation point by your logic. That is quite silly to me. Given the erroneousness of claiming that a zygote represents a viable life form, we must use the criteria of real life, that include physical autonomy. >>>After all, there have been lots of atrocities committed on "subhumans" who >>>were later found to be human after all. I haven't heard of any atrocities >>>that resulted from going the other way: assume human until proven >>>otherwise. >>By this logic, we should never remove the heads from department store >>mannequins. After all, they might be human. > Come on now, you expect us to believe this? Even a most rudimentary > examination will show you that mannequins are not living organisms and > do not belong to our species. Fetuses are living organisms and do belong > to our species. Come on now, you expect us to believe this? Even a most rudimentary examination will show you that fetuses are not living organisms. (They may belong to our species, but then so do corpses of once living people. Speciation is simply a way of categorizing life forms, in living form or not.) >>The fact is they weren't "later" found to be human, they were already known >>to be human; it was foul bigots who in their personal insecurity blame other >>people for their problems who label some people "subhuman". > I'm not labeling fetuses as "subhuman"; you are. Be careful, or you'll end > up insulting yourself. I am? You read a lot into my writing. What possibly could have prompted you to leave out the section in which YOU invoked the word "subhuman"? What indeed!! >>>Go ahead and kill all the tapeworms, bacteria, and viruses that you want. >>>But don't kill other human beings. >>I'm not proposing that we do. I'm proposing that similar organisms in the >>body (like fetuses) be dealt with in the same way if the person wants to. > Tapeworms, bacteria, etc. don't belong to the species Homo sapiens. Fetuses > do, and this difference is a major one as far as rights are concerned. Tapeworms and bacteria aren't similar themselves, and since fetuses aren't living in that they are not physically autonomous, I fail to see the point of this line of argument. >>Unless you can prove that these are human beings > The fact that they are living, that they belong to our species, and that it > has already been proven that seven-month-old fetuses can live outside of > their mothers (suggesting that we'll get proofs for younger ages as our > technology advances) SHOULD suggest something to you. Also note that every > adult who is living today was once a fetus with the same DNA, and that no > adult who lives today was once a cancer, tumor, etc. -- the "fetus=cancer" > argument is BOGUS. The fact that you cannot show them to be living, because you know they are, at the point at which abortion is considered, not capable of physical autonomy, SHOULD suggest something to you. But you choose to keep ignoring that point. "Suggesting that we'll get proofs for younger ages"???? I'm not sure what relevance "everyone was once a fetus" has to any argument here. >>Unless you can show how they can exist in a physically autonomous separate >>state from the bodies they inhabit. > This has been shown for seven-month-old and older fetuses. Which is beyond the point at which abortion is considered. > The difference between seven-month-old fetuses and six-month-old fetuses is > one of degree, not one of kind. In fact, if you keep looking back you will > discover that the 'difference of kind' occurs when you cross the boundary of > conception. But since conception is NOT a viable point of demarcation, since few if any of the qualities of independent LIFE are present, we must look to other criterai, which you seem to be unwilling to do. >>>As to the first part of #2, clearly everyone does not agree with you. >>You mean some people are DEMANDING that women remove the fetuses within >>them? Care to substantiate that? Or are you referring to "parasitic >>nature"? Who doesn't agree with that, and why? > What were you saying about twisting words? I was referring to: > >>> ...given wht it does to her body, surely her wishes take precedence > >>> over anything usurping nourishment from her and causing changes to > >>> her body against her will, Which was the middle of the paragraph, not "the first part of #2". I don't need any further substantiation of your tactics of argument to form an opinion. As you said earlier, though, some people feel that other people are "subhuman", and choose not to acknowledge their rights. Perhaps what you have cited is an example of this. >>>and we don't hold infants to be responsible for their actions. >> Meaning we never punish children for wrongdoing in an effort to educate >> them and set them straight. (Some punish just for the hell of it, out of >> some pleasure of power over the kids.) This is clearly not true. > Notice that I said infants. What do infants do that deserves punishment? I don't know if you're a parent or not, but infants in most households I'm familiar with don't get to run rampant. If they do what they're told not to do, they are punished, as part of a means to teach them right from wrong and such. Of course, as I said above, some parents just smack kids around because they feel like it, because they think it's their right, but that's probably not germane to THIS particular discussion. >>>Also note that it is logically impossible for fetuses to cause their own >>>conception, since they don't exist before that point. >>To which I say: So? What relevance does this have to the argument? All >>the adults you refer to were once fetuses, and THEY didn't cause their own >>conception, thus (by your logic) THEY shouldn't be held responsible either. > More word-twisting. You were not responsible for your OWN conception, but > that says nothing about any conceptions that you cause. But I wasn't responsible for having been born in the first place, so how can you hold me responsible for ANYTHING that follows? It wasn't my fault, I didn't choose to be born. That's what you're putting forth as an argument. >>>The grounds for granting an exception to a fetus is that it is human, it >>>is alive, and it is not reponsible for its presence in the womb. >>If it's human, why must it occupy another person's body? What if someone >>kidnapped you, hollowed out your skull, and chose to live in your head. ^^^^^ > The fetus doesn't choose to be conceived; two people conceive it. But by your logic above they couldn't be responsible, because they never chose to be born in the first place. >>Could you have him evicted? How? He's not "responsible" for that act, >>obviously he is not of sound mind. What kind of bogus argument is that? > What am I have supposed to have done that resulted in placing him there? In > the case of fetuses, the mother and father placed the kid(s) in the mother's > body. It would be a little bogus for me to place a lunatic inside my head > and then claim a right to have him evicted at the cost of his life. That's > why I don't place lunatics in my head or even invite them to come live there. You are responsible for having a head, and taking care of it, making sure it is safe from intrusion by lunatics who want to live in it. If not, you MUST suffer the consequences. Is that what you're saying? Or are we really back to that old religious line "You had sex, you are obliged to 'take responsibility' and have a baby"? It sure sounds like it, but I can't be sure. >>Clearly it does not qualify as a physically autonomous being at all, because >>it cannot live outside the environment it occupies. > Clearly this is a bogus statement, because seven-month-old and older fetuses > can live and have been shown capable of living outside of the womb. There is > good reason to believe that younger fetuses can live outside of the womb > given an appropriate environment -- the trend has been towards showing that > younger and younger fetuses can live outside the womb. Fine, then put your money where your mouth is. Allow a woman the right to remove the fetus that she doesn't want in her body, and bring it to term in the "appropriate environment". And do with it what you will when it leaves that environment, and becomes an autonomous real life form, a human being. >>A better example: people who have lost their jobs and have no money are >>evicted from their apartment for not paying their rent. Are they exempt >>from eviction because they are not "responsible" for their predicament? > I suspect (a) that the landlord didn't put them in there, and (b) they were > competent to handle their own affairs, unlike fetuses, infants, and children. Why do you suspect that? Perhaps they grew up unable to learn a viable trade and earn a viable living for whatever reason. And now they've lost the last job they could hope for in these crunching times. But more importantly, what difference does it make if someone chose to "put" a fetus (or its ingredients) "there"? Why is that an important point in your argument? >>Then remove them from the woman's body and see if they survive. I think >>this would be far more inhumane than abortion by any standards. > That's not what I said. Not everyone believes that your standard that "the > fetus must be able to survive in today's world with today's technology outside > of the mother's body" (is this close enough?) applies to fetuses. Believe what you like, but there's a real world out there. Part of the prerequisite for life is physical autonomy. Otherwise, it is analogous to a "virus", which is not considered life because it does not exist as life in an autonomous way. > That's funny. Not a single pro-lifer disagreed that the fetus is alive. But > I distinctly remember Sophie telling you that you shouldn't resort to lies to > 'prove' your point. It's not surprising that pro-lifers continue in their assumptions. I haven't heard negative comments from Sophie since the original article in this series that clarified my position. Perhaps she understands now that I am not telling lies. Perhaps you choose to think otherwise because ... > Sorry. The fact that we don't have extremely advanced technology today does > not mean that fetuses aren't human. Given that I would protect their lives, > and you would not, it is up to you to prove that they are not human. And I proved that they were not living by showing that they cannot live as physically autonomous entities. A point which you skirt at every convenient opportunity, by saying "what about 7-monthers" (not applicable as far as abortion goes in any case) or some other dismissables. >>>The humane thing to do is to let them live, i.e. don't abort them. >>The humane thing is to let tapeworms live, too. After all, don't they have >>rights, too? > Not very many rights in my eyes. Whatever species the tapeworm belongs to, > it doesn't have anywhere near the rights of Homo sapiens, or the rights of > chimpanzees for that matter. So let's concentrate on the rights of living human beings. >>Late-term fetuses, as you call them, are beyond the scope of legal abortion >>in any case. Yes, they can be saved. And in the cases where the mother has >>carried the fetus to term with the intent of giving birth, every attempt is >>often made to do so. But this has little to do with the arguments about >>legal abortion. > It has a lot to do with the arguments about legal abortion; the fact that > late-term-fetuses can survive outside of their mother's bodies shows just how > bogus it is to say that birth is the starting point of life. Not at all, it merely says that only at THAT point are we able to simulat the NECESSARY womblike environment to allow the fetus to develop to term and become autonomous. > And it raises obvious question: "if these fetuses are human, what makes > these others not human, if anything?" I don't see anything sufficient to > call them "subhuman". Your choice of word. They may qualify as potential homo sapiens once they are born, but since they are not physically autonomous (a necessary prerequisite) and thus not alive, well ... >>If you are seeking "hard proof", why not do what I suggested above: >>remove a fetus from a woman's body during the early part of pregnancy, nd >>do whatever you like to sustain it, and take responsibility for any >>grotesque deformities that occur, causing a barely functioning human at >>"term" (whenever and ifever "term" is, and if indeed it would be human at >>all). > I would not do this to a seven-month-old fetus, even though I know that such > fetuses can survive outside the womb, because the risk to the child outside > the womb is currently greater than the risk to the child inside the womb. I > suspect that any doctor with a proper sense of ethics would refuse to do such > an experiment if you approached him/her with it. Damn right! Partially because they know that EVEN for a 7-month fetus (as you admit), and certainly for one that hasn't been around as long, it is less than unlikely that the fetus would not survive into lifehood, and if it did it was likely to be terribly deformed. Obviously you are making a point for which you know that hard proof is unavailable, then scoffing it off by saying "it's unethical" to get it, thus you win. >>>Why? What's so special about depending upon plants and animals? The whole >>>ecosystem is just one huge web of dependencies. >>I'm not occupying an animal's insides for sustenance. Furthermore, if I >>was out there seeking my own food from animals, do I have a "right" to do >>this? Is the animal powerless from stopping me from using it for food? > We raise lots of animals each year to be slaughtered. And in large part, > they are powerless from stopping people from using them for food. Do they lack "rights" to fight back? Amazing that we choose cows and sheep to raise, not animals that WOULD fight back. Wonder why? Anyway, what is the point you're making? >>Is a woman "powerless" to choose to have a fetus removed from her body? >>Same rules apply. > Hardly. I'm sorry if this offends you, but I believe that humans have more > rights than dogs, cats, tapeworms, and plants. I treat other human beings > quite differently from the way that I treat insects, and I don't see anything > wrong with it. Sorry if this offends you, but when it comes down to it, you are treating human beings differently only because you are a human being, and you do so in self interest. All those organisms, from an objective sense, have as many rights as you do. It is only because we value our own species that we agree that certain rights of life be granted to human beings, to allow freedom from interference and harm from others exercising their "freedom" beyond the boundaries of non-interference. Those rights start with becoming a human being, a physically autonomous life form, and not before. >>>But not everyone would agree with your premises, or with the premise that a >>>person has UNLIMITED rights to control of their body. If someone has >>>absolute rights to control their body, what right do you have to prevent >>>them from strangling someone else? After all, they were just exercising >> their right to close their fingers, and if they happened to be around >>>someone else's throat at the time, too bad... >>Ever hear "your right to swing your fist ends before it hits my face"? You >>have the right to your OWN body, not to others. Something anti-abortionists >>could learn a little about when trying to impose their will on others. > Your right to control your body ends where the other human being you placed > inside it begins. Again with the assumed conclusion style of argument? Start again, please, and this time give a reasoned argument. >>>Did everyone catch that? Now you not only need to be independent from >>>other human beings, but from MACHINES as well for Rich to consider you to >>>be aliving human being. >>Indeed. If you are connected to full life support because your body does >>not pump blood or perform bodily functions, the law says you are dead. And >>in fact you are. To claim that you are alive (in this case) is to claim >>that a sewage or irrigation system or an airconditioning system is alive. >>There is a big difference between a living person temporarily using machines >>to recuperate and get back to a fully functional state and a person (or >>fetus that cannot function without machines and has no hope of ever >>functioning without full life support of machines. > I didn't say FULL life support. Note that a dialysis patient is as fully > dependent upon the machines as a late-term fetus, if not more so. If the > dialysis patient is deprived of the use of the machines for even a fairly > short period, the poisons in his/her blood will kill him/her. It's amazing how you have to keep going back to "late-term fetuses outside the womb", when that has no relevance to the abortion argument. The degree of dialysis support necessary varies from patient to patient. > I notice that you have avoided saying outright whether or not a dialysis > patient is human, and have claimed that a late-term fetus is not a human > being even though it can live outside it's mother's body. The dialysis equipment is an external connection to the person's body, it is not that person's entire environment. And I said this. And I said that such a patient was human. So what are you trying to do in this argument now??? >>>Tell me, Rich, is an adult who uses a dialysis machine not a 'living human >>>being'? If doctors connect a patient to a heart-lung machine during a >>>major operation, is the patient not a 'living human being' during the >>>operation, and thus subject to being killed by any random who wants to kill >>>him/her? If not,then how do you justify calling seven-month and older >>>fetuses not human, even by your definitions? >>1) I answered most of these questions in the previous paragraph. 2) I did >>not call any fetuses human above.(A blatant and foul misquoting by Newton). >>What I did say was: >>>>Yes, there is surely a point at which a fetus is close enough to being a >>>>living human being that it *could*, with medical assistance, be sustained >>>>through the end of the fetal period TO THE POINT WHERE IT COULD BE >>>>DISCONNECTED from supporting equipment, and THUS be a living human being. > 1) You are evading the question: Is a dialysis patient human? I already answered that in the affirmative. Your attempt to make it seem like I haven't to promote your position is typically abominable. > If your answer is YES, explain why you continue to say that late-term fetuses > are not human, in light of the standards that you set for other human beings. I answered that above. And in my last article. And I refuse to do so again only to see you misquote or leave it out to your own ends. > 2) In my response to the paragraph, I did not 'accuse' you of calling any > fetuses human. True, you earlier referred to fetuses as persons, but that > seems to be a case where you were being inconsistent. This is a lie on top of a further lie. Do you care to document this? I thought not. You ceased long ago to argue reasonably. I don't see why I should continue. > I said that you were claiming that late-term-fetuses were "not human". How > else is one supposed to interpret > >>> close enough to being a living human being > Again, if you say that dialysis patients are not human, you will have one > hell of a fight on your hands. If you say that they are human, how can you > possibly justify calling late-term fetuses 'close enough' (which implies that > they are not quite human) rather than acknowledging their humanity? For a change, the implication you got out of this statement is correct. It is close enough to lifehood so that they can be weaned off of extreme supportive equipment and begin to live as autonomous beings. "Acknowledging their humanity"? Give me a break. Your words don't fit in my mouth. >>>Or could it be that treating fetuses consistently would >>>force you to the conclusion that younger fetuses might be human also? >>Or sperm cells? Or ova? Or individual body organs? Note again that I >>did not say that fetuses, older or not, are necessarily human. That occurs >>at birth. After all, what is birth is not the fully grown fetus saying >>"I'm ready, let me out", metaphorically speaking. > If dialysis patients are human (and you haven't claimed that they aren't, or > answered my question), HOW can you claim that late-term-fetuses are anything > BUT human, even going by the 'criteria' that you have put into your posts? Because dialysis is one body function among many that requires external support, and because in most cases dialysis treatment is an intermittent affair. >>>Under your definition, a dialysis patient is not human, because the support >>>equipment never goes away. Where the support equipment is all encompassing, and where it is permanent, and where there is no hope of removing the equipment, the law says the person is dead. >>Even if one were connected to it permanently (most kidney patients need it >>at intervals), enough of one's other body functions are taken care of by >>the person's own body that he is of course still human. Even an artificial >>heart serves such a purpose. In fact it becomes a part of the person's >>body. Does the mother become a part of the fetus' body? Vice versa? > Now you finally get around to answering the first question with a few > qualifications. Now answer the second one: How can you maintain that > late-term-fetuses are not human if you acknowledge that dialysis patients > are human? I already have. > The 'take away the machine and see if it dies' criterion is > now definitely OUT. What's left? Dependence on the care of other human > beings? But infants and other hospital patients also exhibit this trait. Yes, it's definitely out. Perhaps because you know it would prove my point, ethics aside. >>>Dependence upon a person or a machine isn't the right measure. A closer >>>approximation would be "does this person have any non-brain-dead life >>>left? Fetuses, healthy children or adults, and people on dialysis machines >>>do. A person in a coma who is expected to snap out of it also does. A >>>person is brain-dead doesn't. >>But since a fetus is not a person in that it has not functioned >>autonomously, this does not apply to them. This is not an assertion of the >>type that you persistently make ("a fetus IS a person, it IS, it IS, it >>IS"). Physical autonomy is one of the fundamental pieces of the definition >>of "living" in the context we are using it. > This does not apply to them because you don't want it to apply to them? It does not apply because they are not autonomous. Not because "I don't want them to be human", the converse of your position. > Bogus! Why is physical autonomy so important? Ah, I see, you just don't like that particular criterion. All the others ARE important, but physical autonomy, NAAAH! Thank you for summing up your position. > If an infant goes straight from the delivery room to the operating table, > would you claim that the child is not human until the operation is complete? Aren't human beings found on operating tables? What IS your point? > And notice that I referred to the fetus as a person. No, I hadn't. It must have totally slipped by me. You must have done it in the most subtle way imaginable. (Is a sarcasm indicator really necessary?) > Your bogus assertions > that "The fetus is not alive. It ISN'T! It ISN'T!" to the contrary. Assertions because I provide evidence to prove my point? Bogus because you don't like them? Thank you again. Your position is clear. >>>But if a late-term fetus is as much a human being as a newborn infant (and >>>I don't think anyone can rationally dispute that), doesn't it suggest that >>>earlier-term fetuses might also be human? >>Newton, shut it. Nowhere above did I even imply that the fetus, even in >>late term, qualifies as a physically autonomous human being, yet you insist >>that I did so as to screw around with my argument. A late term fetus is not >>"just as much a human being as a newborn infant", it merely has much more of >>a chance of surviving a disruptive removal from the womb (say, due to an >>accident) and will eventually be weaned off of medical equipment to become >>human. Please desist from such twisting in the future. > It is you who are doing the twisting. Did you even read the last half of my > message? In it, I did not say that you claimed that fetuses are human. Above you said that I said "if a late term fetus is as much a human being as a newborn infant", which I simply did not say. In fact, which is showed logical proof AGAINST. Earlier in this article you also claimed I had stated that fetuses are persons. I think it is very clear who is twisting what. > I *did* ask for you to explain how you could possibly arrive at the conclusion > 'dialysis patients are human; late-term fetuses are not' if indeed that was > your position. You didn't answer my questions directly, I did, but then we've heard this before. > but since you did > answer some of them in response to later parts of my post, I have been able > to deduce that 'dialysis patients are human; late-term fetuses are not' is > indeed your position. So why did you spend 50% of the article claiming that I didn't answer the question. (I answeredit directly, despite what you claim.) > But you have not provided any rational justification > of this position. "Newton, shut it" is not a rational justification. What follows was. "Newton, shut it" was just the words of a human being sick and tired of having his words twisted, his position manipulated, etc. This is the last in a series, simply because I refuse to have my position mangled and changed into something it isn't by Thomas Newton for the purpose of proving his lies. I will summarize my position in a later article, a much shorter article that doesn't concentrate on venting anger and defending myself against Newton's twisting, and hope to hear responses to *that*. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (08/26/85)
Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights Newsgroups: net.abortion References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> > > Given these two statements, why shouldn't we go by "It is up to those who > > would restrict the definition to provide hard proof that it should be > > restricted, and to precisely what point it should be restricted."? > > [THOMAS NEWTON] > Because it's a stupid thing to go by. The demarcation point of life is at > birth. It is you who wants to stretch it. [RICH ROSEN] Ipse dixit. It's at birth. It IS. IT IS!!! > > Go ahead and kill all the tapeworms, bacteria, and viruses that you want. But > > don't kill other human beings. [T. NEWTON] > I'm not proposing that we do. I'm proposing that similar organisms in the > body (like fetuses) be dealt with in the same way if the person wants to. > > All > the adults you refer to were once fetuses [R. ROSEN] That's right. All of us started out as fetuses. And that's the distinction between fetuses on the one hand, and tapeworms, bacteria, viruses and other parasites on the other. Even if the fetus fits the definition of a parasite ("often harmful"? How harmful? Who decides what harm is?), I refuse to treat a class of beings that once included myself as we treat germs or bugs or worms. > You mean some people are DEMANDING that women remove the fetuses within them? > Care to substantiate that? [R. ROSEN] See Steven Mosher's article in the latest Human Life Review. Mr. Mosher is the man who visited China as a Stanford anthropology student, wrote about forced abortions and government infanticide that the Communists use to enforce their one-child-per-family rule, and had his Ph.D. revoked by frightened academics who feared that the Chinese would no longer let in American anthropologists. Fetuses have been removed by rounding up pregnant women, throwing them bound hand and foot into cages, loading the cages onto trucks, tying them to operating tables, and performing abortions -- right up to the due date. A woman has twins -- one of the babies is taken from her and put to death. We convicted Nazis of war crimes for doing things like that. South Africa doesn't even do things like that to control their slave population. Yet the Marxist "wave of the future," in the country we are trying so hard to be friends with and trade with, DEMANDS that women remove the fetuses within them. >>Some seven month old fetuses can survive outside of their mother's bodies. >>Admittedly, they require incubators, but even normally born infants require >>a degree of care not necessary for older members of our species. Are seven >>month fetuses human, then? If not, why not? [private mail to R. Rosen -- >>name withheld] > Yes, there is surely a point at which a fetus is close enough to being a > living human being that it *could*, with medical assistance, be sustained > through the end of the fetal period to the point where it could be > disconnected from supporting equipment, and thus be a living human being. > [R. ROSEN] OK, take a seven-month fetus. It's inside the womb. Then there is a premature birth, and it's outside the womb. Six weeks later, it can breathe room air without additional oxygen, and leaves the incubator. A week after that, it leaves the Intensive Care Nursery and comes home. When does it become a human being? When it's no longer directly dependent on it's mother's body? Before sterilization and formula were invented less than 200 years ago, the ONLY way to feed a newborn infant was by nursing -- the infant was completely dependent on the mother's or some wet-nurse's body. Does that mean it wasn't human until it was weaned -- a baby with a cry, with a smile, with a name? Or does our seven-month premature baby become a human being when it no longer needs others to supply it with oxygen? I can see it now: just as the President of Harvard confers the Bachelor of Arts degree and "welcomes you into the fellowship of educated men and women," the neo- natologist disconnects the oxygen hose from the incubator and "welcomes you into the fellowship of human beings." Of course, it'll be a few years before the kid no longer needs others to supply it with food, clothing and shelter, before it can forage for itself like the orphans roaming the rubble during and after a war. And we will force someone to provide those things, make no mistake about it: If the parents can do it, we'll force them to. If not, we'll take money by force from taxpayers, thereby forcing THEM to provide the child with the external support it needs to survive. The anti-abortionists seek to extend this force farther back in time, requiring the pregnant woman to keep the fetus inside her for nine months so that it will not die. Our mothers did as much for us, all of us. The extension of society's force backward in time is not a difference in kind, only a difference in degree. Forcing parents to support their children is something society agrees to because society considers it the "natural" thing to do. The parents are not being forced to do something against their nature. The human infant, unlike that of some animals, requires a long period of dependence. We know we were provided for, so we don't resent having to provide for our young -- at least, we don't resent it enough to repeal the parental responsibility laws. Forcing pregnant women to carry their fetuses to term is something society agreed to because society considered it the "natural" thing to do -- the woman is not being forced to do something against her nature. The Supreme Court overruled these societal agreements in all 50 U. S. States. But even the Supreme Court granted enough humanity to my seven-month fetus to allow the State to prohibit its abortion. I don't believe that the seven-month fetus -- my 5-year-old son Eddie -- became human suddenly when he entered the third trimester (Roe v. Wade), or when he was born, or when the doctor checked him out and found he had no defects, or when he could breathe room air at six weeks, or when he could engage in meaningful intellectual activity (e.g., con- versation). I don't believe his humanity depended on whether he was "wanted" -- what if a kid is so bratty that he becomes unwanted: does that make him "unhuman" again? Biological humanity is a continuum, as premature births -- some NOT requiring any life-support equipment -- demonstrate. I say the law should follow biology, and all the pro-choice arguments that set the definition of "human" so as to allow abortion on demand have not convinced me of any discontinuity. > The > limits to abortion do not reach into the time of pregnancy at which > doctors have even attempted to save a fetus from such a circumstance as > I describe, certainly before the point at which a fetus can be saved and > expect to live a life as a human being. [RICH ROSEN (probably -- too > many '>'s for me to be sure)] Factual error which can be corrected by a counterexample: Two of my fellow-workers had two babies in succession, each born before the end of the second trimester, and therefore eligible for legal abortion. Both boys lived about 11 days, during which time doctors at the Johns Hopkins Hospital tried every method they could to save them, including jerry-rigging new methods that had not been tried before. -- Matt Rosenblatt
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/27/85)
In article <998@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: >I refuse to treat a class of beings that once included myself as we >treat germs or bugs or worms. I don't blame you. The Bible spends a lot of ink discussing how the humans are somehow "above" the "animals" (despite behavior to prove otherwise :-). It's tough to accept the fact that we're just another mammal. >[Comparison of China's forced abortions and infantacide to the Nazis > and the South Africans] This is not a very enlightened remark. China is a desperate country and has done a lot of things that would go over like a lead balloon in the US. When you consider the overpopulation in China, you realize something must be done. Fundamentalist scholars, like the ones who write for the "Human Life Review" are as incapable of understanding Chinese culture as they would be of the recently discovered Gospels of Thomas and Mary (oh, you hadn't HEARD of them?) One example: the Chinese have eliminated VD from their country. They did this by rounding up all the prostitutes and sending them to re-education camps where they stayed until they were ready to rejoin society as useful members. Thus, the main cause of the spread of VD was simply eradicated. This would not work in the US because our society is not so tightly controlled. In fact, the conservatives would have a fit that their taxes were being spent on such a program, while the liberals would whine about the civil rights of the women. You can wave your little flag and scream "godless communists" until your (red white and) blue in the face, but the fact remains that China will probably successfully curb the worst overpopulation in the world, while ours gets worse. If the US were to ban abortion, thus increasing our population, they would consider it equally as immoral as their methods of controlling population. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal Have they not suffered enough?" from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/27/85)
In article <998@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: > > See Steven Mosher's article in the latest Human Life Review. Mr. Mosher is > the man who visited China as a Stanford anthropology student, wrote about > forced abortions and government infanticide that the Communists use to > enforce their one-child-per-family rule, and had his Ph.D. revoked by > frightened academics who feared that the Chinese would no longer let in > American anthropologists. Somehow I doubt the situation was as simple as this: there was a big scandal as I recall. > Fetuses have been removed by rounding up pregnant > women, throwing them bound hand and foot into cages, loading the cages onto > trucks, tying them to operating tables, and performing abortions -- right > up to the due date. A woman has twins -- one of the babies is taken from > her and put to death. We convicted Nazis of war crimes for doing things > like that. In the United States, we are talking about pro CHOICE, not government dictated abortion or infanticide. Both pro-choicers and pro-lifers would oppose these practices. So? > South Africa doesn't even do things like that to control their > slave population. Yet the Marxist "wave of the future," in the country > we are trying so hard to be friends with and trade with, DEMANDS that women > remove the fetuses within them. This is the stupidest argument I've seen in quite a while. Forced abortion is no more characteristic of Marxism than inquisitions are of Christianity. Give us a break. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/27/85)
>>> Given these two statements, why shouldn't we go by "It is up to those who >>> would restrict the definition to provide hard proof that it should be >>> restricted, and to precisely what point it should be restricted."? >>> [THOMAS NEWTON] >>Because it's a stupid thing to go by. The demarcation point of life is at >>birth. It is you who wants to stretch it. [RICH ROSEN] > Ipse dixit. It's at birth. It IS. IT IS!!! [ROSENBLATT] I think the ipse dixit is in the line above. Clearly the demarcation point acknowledged by both historical standards AND scientific inquiry is at birth. Rosenblatt's claiming that I'm simply asserting "It is, it is" (how original!) sounds like whining in the face of inability to provide reasoned argument. Now, Matt, place the burden back on your own shoulders where it belongs and prove otherwise. >>> Go ahead and kill all the tapeworms, bacteria, and viruses that you want. >>> But don't kill other human beings. [T. NEWTON] >> I'm not proposing that we do. I'm proposing that similar organisms in the >> body (like fetuses) be dealt with in the same way if the person wants to. >> All the adults you refer to were once fetuses [R. ROSEN] That's right. All of us started out as fetuses. And that's the distinction between fetuses on the one hand, and tapeworms, bacteria, viruses and other parasites on the other. Even if the fetus fits the definition of a parasite ("often harmful"? How harmful? Who decides what harm is?), I refuse to treat a class of beings that once included myself as we treat germs or bugs or worms. "You" were also once a sperm cell. And/or an egg? And/or inanimate matter. This argument that "we were all once fetuses, thus fetuses should be protected" strikes me as vacuous. Matt, there seem to be a lot of things you refuse to do. No matter. >>You mean some people are DEMANDING that women remove the fetuses within them? >>Care to substantiate that? [R. ROSEN] > See Steven Mosher's article in the latest Human Life Review. Mr. Mosher is > the man who visited China as a Stanford anthropology student, wrote about > forced abortions and government infanticide that the Communists use to > enforce their one-child-per-family rule, and had his Ph.D. revoked by > frightened academics who feared that the Chinese would no longer let in > American anthropologists. Fetuses have been removed by rounding up pregnant > women, throwing them bound hand and foot into cages, loading the cages onto > trucks, tying them to operating tables, and performing abortions -- right > up to the due date. A woman has twins -- one of the babies is taken from > her and put to death. We convicted Nazis of war crimes for doing things > like that. South Africa doesn't even do things like that to control their > slave population. Yet the Marxist "wave of the future," in the country > we are trying so hard to be friends with and trade with, DEMANDS that women > remove the fetuses within them. I wasn't aware that we were (1) debating the actions of Communist or fascist countries, of which (I used to think) we were not one, or (2) debating the legitimacy of late term abortion of fetuses that are close enough to autnomous life that they can survive a removal from the womb. The fact that you bring these points up out of thin air is a testament to the vacuousness of your argument. Abortion in this country is a personal freedom issue, does a woman have the right to remove an unwanted entity from her body. Your attempt to bring in the actions of Communist countries and the like to "prove" the "badness" of abortion is crass and manipulative in the extreme. Gee, why is it that anti-abortionists always in the end seem to have to resort to this? >> Yes, there is surely a point at which a fetus is close enough to being a >> living human being that it *could*, with medical assistance, be sustained >> through the end of the fetal period to the point where it could be >> disconnected from supporting equipment, and thus be a living human being. > OK, take a seven-month fetus. It's inside the womb. Then there is a > premature birth, and it's outside the womb. Six weeks later, it can > breathe room air without additional oxygen, and leaves the incubator. > A week after that, it leaves the Intensive Care Nursery and comes home. > When does it become a human being? When it's no longer directly dependent > on it's mother's body? Before sterilization and formula were invented > less than 200 years ago, the ONLY way to feed a newborn infant was by > nursing -- the infant was completely dependent on the mother's or some > wet-nurse's body. Does that mean it wasn't human until it was weaned > -- a baby with a cry, with a smile, with a name? Aww. Still feeling the need to resort to emotional manipulation to swing your argument. I think that speaks for itself. It is an independent autonomous living being when it is capable of maintaining its own internal metabolism physically independent of other organisms. Obviously this does not include feeding, because all living organisms require sustenance. We are talking about physical autonomy and its importance as a criterion for independent life. At least I am. I'm not even sure you're listening. > Or does our seven-month premature baby become a human being when it no > longer needs others to supply it with oxygen? I can see it now: just > as the President of Harvard confers the Bachelor of Arts degree and > "welcomes you into the fellowship of educated men and women," the neo- > natologist disconnects the oxygen hose from the incubator and "welcomes > you into the fellowship of human beings." Of course, it'll be a few > years before the kid no longer needs others to supply it with food, > clothing and shelter, before it can forage for itself like the orphans > roaming the rubble during and after a war. And we will force someone > to provide those things, make no mistake about it: If the parents > can do it, we'll force them to. If not, we'll take money by force from > taxpayers, thereby forcing THEM to provide the child with the external > support it needs to survive. The anti-abortionists seek to extend this > force farther back in time, requiring the pregnant woman to keep the > fetus inside her for nine months so that it will not die. Our mothers > did as much for us, all of us. The extension of society's force backward > in time is not a difference in kind, only a difference in degree. I'm not sure what this last paragraph was supposed to mean, but let me discuss a few points. You said it yourself, Matt: "the anti-abortionists seek to EXTEND this FORCE farther back in time, REQUIRING the pregnant woman to keep the fetus inside her for nine months so that it will not [sic] die"!!!!! You've so clearly related the anti-abortionist position, I couldn't hope for a better clarification!!! You SEEK to EXTEND the FORCE upon a woman to REQUIRE her to keep the fetus inside her. How quaint. Do you have any other requirements you would like to force upon women? Cook and clean? Any requirements for other groups of people? Blacks? Jews? Red-haired people? Anyway, you said it yourself. YOU seek to EXTEND. The burden is on you, despite the fact that you offhandedly and callously denied this at the beginning of your article. That says it all. > Forcing parents to support their children is something society agrees > to because society considers it the "natural" thing to do. The parents > are not being forced to do something against their nature. The human infant, > unlike that of some animals, requires a long period of dependence. We > know we were provided for, so we don't resent having to provide for our > young -- at least, we don't resent it enough to repeal the parental > responsibility laws. Forcing pregnant women to carry their fetuses to > term is something society agreed to because society considered it the > "natural" thing to do -- the woman is not being forced to do something > against her nature. The Supreme Court overruled these societal agreements > in all 50 U. S. States. But even the Supreme Court granted enough > humanity to my seven-month fetus to allow the State to prohibit its > abortion. "Forcing pregnant women to carry fetuses" seems to have as moral weight as "forcing blacks to work as slaves in the cotton fields". I, for one, am glad that this particular brand of slavery was abolished by the high court. It represents another step on the road to human freedom. Obviously, you think otherwise, but it is clear from your earlier paragraph how you value "society's needs" above those of the individual. Allow me to relate to you that if a society is more important than people, then the society may see fit to rid itself of its people, because we "muck up the works" and get in the way of the proper "running" of society. Since a society without people is meaningles, I contend that for this reason individual human needs are more important than those of society. Societies exist to fill the needs of people, not the other way around. > I don't believe that the seven-month fetus -- my 5-year-old son Eddie -- > became human suddenly when he entered the third trimester (Roe v. Wade), > or when he was born, or when the doctor checked him out and found he > had no defects, or when he could breathe room air at six weeks, or > when he could engage in meaningful intellectual activity (e.g., con- > versation). Since you DO believe that forcing women to retain fetuses in their bodies against their will is a good thing, I think we have a reasonable right to question your beliefs on this topic. > I don't believe his humanity depended on whether he was > "wanted" -- what if a kid is so bratty that he becomes unwanted: does > that make him "unhuman" again? Biological humanity is a continuum, > as premature births -- some NOT requiring any life-support equipment -- > demonstrate. I say the law should follow biology, and all the pro-choice > arguments that set the definition of "human" so as to allow abortion on > demand have not convinced me of any discontinuity. Since the fetus cannot exist autonomously until late in the gestation period, at points previous to that it is not independently alive. Your argument would have us believe that a woman MUST keep it inside of her because you say so. I say, you say a hell of a lot of things, my friend. >>The limits to abortion do not reach into the time of pregnancy at which >>doctors have even attempted to save a fetus from such a circumstance as >>I describe, certainly before the point at which a fetus can be saved and >>expect to live a life as a human being. > Factual error which can be corrected by a counterexample: Two of my > fellow-workers had two babies in succession, each born before the end > of the second trimester, and therefore eligible for legal abortion. > Both boys lived about 11 days, during which time doctors at the Johns > Hopkins Hospital tried every method they could to save them, including > jerry-rigging new methods that had not been tried before. "Lived"? Yes, I'm sure they tried their very best. And I wish they had succeeded. But they didn't. And I think that goes to show that such fetuses cannot survive outside the womb environment. They must make use of another organism's body, existing inside of it and receiving all sustenance (nutritional and metabolic) from it. This means that they cannot continue to survive physically autonomous from the woman's body, and thus if the woman wants to remove it, she should have the right to do so. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/28/85)
> In article <998@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: > >I refuse to treat a class of beings that once included myself as we > >treat germs or bugs or worms. > > I don't blame you. The Bible spends a lot of ink discussing how the > humans are somehow "above" the "animals" (despite behavior to prove > otherwise :-). It's tough to accept the fact that we're just another > mammal. > You are of course speaking for yourself I assume? > > You can wave your little flag and scream "godless communists" until your > (red white and) blue in the face, but the fact remains that China will > probably successfully curb the worst overpopulation in the world, while > ours gets worse. If the US were to ban abortion, thus increasing our > population, they would consider it equally as immoral as their methods > of controlling population. > > -- > Charles Forsythe > CSDF@MIT-VAX Well your colors are out and flying high. You have declared above that abortion is a method of controlling population, in addition to getting rid of unwanted pregnancies. I shudder when I think of what you have said. Do you feel reasonably special or fortunate or even lucky that you were not singled out before birth to do your part in controlling population?
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (08/29/85)
>> I refuse to >> treat a class of beings that once included myself as we treat germs or bugs >> or worms. [MATT ROSENBLATT] > "You" were also once a sperm cell. And/or an egg? And/or inanimate matter. > [RICH ROSEN] No. You know when a unique genetic entity comes into existence with the genes that determine who "I" am. > [The fetus] is an independent > autonomous living being when it is capable of maintaining its own > internal metabolism physically independent of other organisms. Obviously > this does not include feeding, because all living organisms require > sustenance. We are talking about physical autonomy and its importance > as a criterion for independent life. At least I am. I'm not even sure > you're listening. [RICH ROSEN] You missed my point. Of course all living organisms require sustenance. But what does "independent" mean in this respect if the organism is incapable of getting its own sustenance? In plain English, an infant is as dependent as a bedridden adult on other people to bring it its food. A tree is independent because it makes its own food; a wild animal is independent because it finds and takes its own food. Neither a fetus nor a human infant can survive without imposing on people in one way or another. >> You said it yourself, Matt: "the anti-abortionists >> seek to EXTEND this FORCE farther back in time, REQUIRING the pregnant >> woman to keep the fetus inside her for nine months so that it will not >> [sic] die"!!!!! You've so clearly related the anti-abortionist position, >> I couldn't hope for a better clarification!!! You SEEK to EXTEND the >> FORCE upon a woman to REQUIRE her to keep the fetus inside her. How quaint. >> . . . >> Anyway, you said it yourself. YOU seek to EXTEND. The >> burden is on you . . . [RICH ROSEN] "Quaint" refers to the laws of all 50 States, democratically arrived at, as recently as 1973. Does something become "quaint" when it's been superseded for twelve years? My word "extend" means "restore to what it was 12 years ago," as in, "In 1945, the victorious allies extended the rights of non-Aryans in Germany to what they were in early 1933." You are right that the PRACTICAL burden is on the anti-abortionists, because they are the ones who are seeking to change the present law. That's the "burden of going forward with the evidence." The "ultimate burden of proof" is on those who seek to justify this type of killing as an exception to the general rule against killing, just as it is with those who seek to justify killing in war and capital punishment. > >>The limits to abortion do not reach into the time of pregnancy at which > >>doctors have even attempted to save a fetus from such a circumstance as > >>I describe, certainly before the point at which a fetus can be saved and > >>expect to live a life as a human being. [RICH ROSEN] > > Factual error which can be corrected by a counterexample: Two of my > > fellow-workers had two babies in succession, each born before the end > > of the second trimester, and therefore eligible for legal abortion. > > Both boys lived about 11 days, during which time doctors at the Johns > > Hopkins Hospital tried every method they could to save them, including > > jerry-rigging new methods that had not been tried before. [ROSENBLATT] >>"Lived"? Yes, I'm sure they tried their very best. And I wish they had >>succeeded. But they didn't. And I think that goes to show that such fetuses >>cannot survive outside the womb environment. [RICH ROSEN] All my counterexample shows is that the limits to abortion DO reach into the time of pregnancy at which doctors have ATTEMPTED to save a fetus. That's all it purported to show. And the failure of the attempt in the case of this couple's two babies does NOT show that such fetuses cannot survive -- it just shows that these two did not. ---------- Anytime I write an article, and someone writes a response, the fact that I may fail to respond to each and every one of his arguments does not necessarily mean that I have conceded his point. It may simply mean that I feel my original point stands because his argument is not so persuasive as mine. The other readers have read both my article and his response, so they judge for themselves which is more persuasive on any particular point. It would only waste everyone's time to reiterate stuff from the original article _ad nauseam_. -- Matt Rosenblatt
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/30/85)
>>>And still, despite our newfound knowledge, we have a person's age beginning >>>at birth. Ever see the books "The First Twelve Months of Life" or "The >>>Second Twelve Months of Life"? Can you take a guess as to when the first >>>12 start? That's but one example of how we determine when a human life >>>begins. [ROSEN] >> Old habits are hard to change. And it is still true that we can measure the >> date of birth more easily than the date of conception. [ROSEN] ^^^^^^^ Why are you attributing those two statements of mine to yourself? > You need to offer a good reason to break this "old habit". I see none, > especially when the fetus is not an autonomous entity. I have been offering reasons. However, the reason you see none is that your mind is closed. Whenever you lose some point of debate, you start saying that your opponent's debating tactics are bad and make personal attacks on him/her. >>>>>the fact that the person is only an autonomous living being once it >>>>>is BORN, >>>Newton, it's amazing how you can attempt to twist someone else's words to >>>try to make a point, and fail miserably. It is a person, an autonomous >>>living being ONLY once it is born. Did *I* make references to a "person" >>>in the womb? >> Yes, if inadvertently. Your statement implied "person before and after >> birth, autonomous living being after birth". > You read that implication into my statement because of YOUR assumptions. > Which says something. Who's making assumptions? It is a simple enough matter to reword that sentence to make it express the same 'ideas' as the rest of your post. Why didn't you? >> Perhaps you ought to use language more precisely in the future. > Perhaps. Perhaps you should read other people's writing without imposing and > projecting your own wishes onto it. Perhaps. There's no reason to get defensive about bad wording of a sentence. >>>No, people had known that for some time (despite bogus non-science that >>>still perpetuates to this day). In fact, it was precisely because they >>>wanted to get rid of the hypocrisy, because they knew there was no moral >>>way to support it. >> But many of the people who believed in the restrictive definition were not >> convinced. > Old habits are hard to change. Even when there is good reason for it. This > happens a lot when such people have a stake in believing such things about > other people. What stake is there among pro-choicers, especially given your > inability to offer a reason to change OUR old habit of denoting human life > beginning at birth. I assume you intended to end that last sentence with a question mark, rather than a period. With slavery, the stake was 'as soon as we recognize blacks as human, a lot more people are going to be against slavery and slavery may become illegal'. With abortion, the stake is 'as soon as we recognize fetuses as human, a lot more people are going to be against abortion-on-demand and abortion-on-demand may become illegal'. By the way, not all pro-choicers denote life as beginning at birth. I think that you will find if you open your eyes that there is more than one group on each side of the abortion issue. >> There were probably a fair number of slaveholders who actually >> believed the stuff they were spouting. But this did not make slavery right; >> it was wrong even though there were people who did not know it was wrong and >> who believed that they had a right to hold slaves. > But it was wrong not just because we now say it is wrong. And abortion is > not wrong just because you say it is today. Conversely, it is not right just because you say it is today. The fact that there are basic human rights issues where doing the right thing is much more important than getting everyone to agree that it is the right thing does not tell us what the 'right thing' is. I did not say that it did. >>>There is no such hypocrisy here in our debate. At least none coming from >>>me. >> But if abortion is wrong, does everyone need to believe that it is wrong in >> order for it to be wrong? > What is your basis for calling it wrong? If you quote religion, personal > preference, non-scientific drivel, if you twist and manipulate, I'd say your > basis is vacuous. I'm not quoting religion or non-scientific drivel. As to personal preference, the whole idea of human rights is non-scientific. Both sides in the abortion debate use arguments based on rights; if you say that rights are meaningless, you shouldn't care which side 'wins'. As for twisting and manipulating, you seem to do an awful lot of that, and not just to my arguments. >> That is to say, there may be some people who need >> to be stopped from performing actions that *they believe* would not harm >> other people but which *actually* would harm other people. > What other people would be harmed? Back to the burden of proof being on you. > In another article, you said "I don't accept your assumption that the fetus > is not a human being". The burden of proof still rests with you, though you > choose to use your assumptions to prove your conclusions in arguments here. Unborn children *are* being killed, in great numbers. The evidence shows that seven-month-old fetuses are human, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that fact, choosing instead to say that they're 'close' and trying to drop the subject. Why should your pronouncements be considered 'truth'? Back to the burden of proof being on you. >>>Because it's a stupid thing to go by. The demarcation point of life is at >>>birth. It is you who wants to stretch it. >> On the contrary, the demarcation point of life is at conception. You have >> the same DNA that you had when you were a fetus. It determined the color of >> your hair and skin, your sex, and various other things. It organized your >> growth from a single cell to an infant to a child to the person you are >> today. > As someone else pointed out, at conception the zygote still has the potential > to split into two different entities. To say that that is where life begins > sounds very foolish in light of that---by the same reasoning, the minute a > woman produces an egg, and a man produces a sperm, later "destined" to meet, > that could also be termed the demarcation point by your logic. That is quite > silly to me. Given the erroneousness of claiming that a zygote represents > a viable life form, we must use the criteria of real life, that include > physical autonomy. Grasping at straws. You are saying "if you are wrong, I must be right". The impression that I got from that article was that we both might be wrong. But I am willing to admit that I might be wrong and listen to the evidence for and against the position presented in that article, whereas your reaction to that article was to claim "I'm right! I'm RIGHT! I'M RIGHT!". What was that you were saying about non-scientific drivel? >>>>After all, there have been lots of atrocities committed on "subhumans" who >>>>were later found to be human after all. I haven't heard of any atrocities >>>>that resulted from going the other way: assume human until proven >>>>otherwise. >>>By this logic, we should never remove the heads from department store >>>mannequins. After all, they might be human. >> Come on now, you expect us to believe this? Even a most rudimentary >> examination will show you that mannequins are not living organisms and >> do not belong to our species. Fetuses are living organisms and do belong >> to our species. > Come on now, you expect us to believe this? Even a most rudimentary > examination will show you that fetuses are not living organisms. (They > may belong to our species, but then so do corpses of once living people. > Speciation is simply a way of categorizing life forms, in living form or > not.) It seems to me that we've had this argument before. Fetuses are biologically living organisms. This is a fact. There are assumptions behind the various other definitions of living (especially behind your version) which may not be valid; if you use other definitions, you must also justify their assumptions. Aside: I admit I was wrong about the single definition of living, but by the way you kept saying "The fetus is NOT alive. It ISN'T!", you didn't seem to be too aware of multiple definitions yourself. The point I raised earlier about needing to justify using any other definition than the biological one still remains. >>>The fact is they weren't "later" found to be human, they were already known >>>to be human; it was foul bigots who in their personal insecurity blame other >>>people for their problems who label some people "subhuman". >> I'm not labeling fetuses as "subhuman"; you are. Be careful, or you'll end >> up insulting yourself. > I am? You read a lot into my writing. What possibly could have prompted > you to leave out the section in which YOU invoked the word "subhuman"? What > indeed!! I don't read a lot into your writing. It is very clear when you refuse to admit that seven-month-old fetuses are human. What else could you mean by calling someone 'close' but 'not human'? I did not call anyone subhuman. Are you aware that one of the purposes of quotation marks (not the only purpose) is to indicate disbelief? >>>>Go ahead and kill all the tapeworms, bacteria, and viruses that you want. >>>>But don't kill other human beings. >>>I'm not proposing that we do. I'm proposing that similar organisms in the >>>body (like fetuses) be dealt with in the same way if the person wants to. >> Tapeworms, bacteria, etc. don't belong to the species Homo sapiens. Fetuses >> do, and this difference is a major one as far as rights are concerned. > Tapeworms and bacteria aren't similar themselves, and since fetuses aren't > living in that they are not physically autonomous, I fail to see the point of > this line of argument. Tapeworms and bacteria are similar in the sense that both can be found in the human body. The "physical autonomy" argument is bogus; you lost that one when you admitted that dialysis patients are human. >>>Unless you can prove that these are human beings >> The fact that they are living, that they belong to our species, and that it >> has already been proven that seven-month-old fetuses can live outside of >> their mothers (suggesting that we'll get proofs for younger ages as our >> technology advances) SHOULD suggest something to you. Also note that every >> adult who is living today was once a fetus with the same DNA, and that no >> adult who lives today was once a cancer, tumor, etc. -- the "fetus=cancer" >> argument is BOGUS. > The fact that you cannot show them to be living, because you know they are, > at the point at which abortion is considered, not capable of physical > autonomy, SHOULD suggest something to you. But you choose to keep ignoring > that point. "Suggesting that we'll get proofs for younger ages"???? I'm > not sure what relevance "everyone was once a fetus" has to any argument here. Not capable of living outside the mother's body with the help of machines? Maybe not with today's machines, but that says nothing about the *fetus*, only about our level of technology. Where's your proof that it's *inherently* impossible for a fetus to live outside of its mother's body? The equivalent of your argument a few hundred years ago would have been that 'infants are not human because they depend on breast feeding and thus are not autonomous'. If you read the rest of the sentence that included (roughly) "everyone was once a fetus", you would have seen that it was aimed at the "fetus=cancer" argument which appeared before and (knowing this net) will probably appear again. >>>Unless you can show how they can exist in a physically autonomous separate >>>state from the bodies they inhabit. >> This has been shown for seven-month-old and older fetuses. > Which is beyond the point at which abortion is considered. Are you *that* sure that it won't be shown for younger fetuses? The trend has been to show that fetuses at younger and younger ages can live outside the womb; I doubt that medical progress will stop at the trimester border as you so obviously hope. >> The difference between seven-month-old fetuses and six-month-old fetuses is >> one of degree, not one of kind. In fact, if you keep looking back you will >> discover that the 'difference of kind' occurs when you cross the boundary of >> conception. > But since conception is NOT a viable point of demarcation, since few if any > of the qualities of independent LIFE are present, we must look to other > criterai, which you seem to be unwilling to do. It is clear that birth is NOT a viable point of demarcation. And it is you who seem to be unwilling to look at other criteria, as evidenced by the way you reacted to the post suggesting that the demarcation point was just after the point where twins can appear. >>>>As to the first part of #2, clearly everyone does not agree with you. >>>You mean some people are DEMANDING that women remove the fetuses within >>>them? Care to substantiate that? Or are you referring to "parasitic >>>nature"? Who doesn't agree with that, and why? >> What were you saying about twisting words? I was referring to: >> >>> ...given wht it does to her body, surely her wishes take precedence >> >>> over anything usurping nourishment from her and causing changes to >> >>> her body against her will, > Which was the middle of the paragraph, not "the first part of #2". I don't > need any further substantiation of your tactics of argument to form an > opinion. As you said earlier, though, some people feel that other people > are "subhuman", and choose not to acknowledge their rights. Perhaps what > you have cited is an example of this. It was the "first part" as opposed to the "last part". I probably should have been more precise, but notice that I did quote the words which I was referring to when confusion arose. It is abundantly clear that you don't need substantiation of *anything* to form an opinion on *anything*. In fact, you seem to regard substantiation of other people's points as a threat, rather than as an opportunity to learn. >>>>and we don't hold infants to be responsible for their actions. >>> Meaning we never punish children for wrongdoing in an effort to educate >>> them and set them straight. (Some punish just for the hell of it, out of >>> some pleasure of power over the kids.) This is clearly not true. >>> Notice that I said infants. What do infants do that deserves punishment? > I don't know if you're a parent or not, but infants in most households I'm > familiar with don't get to run rampant. If they do what they're told not > to do, they are punished, as part of a means to teach them right from wrong > and such. Of course, as I said above, some parents just smack kids around > because they feel like it, because they think it's their right, but that's > probably not germane to THIS particular discussion. I'm not a parent, but I once was a child and I have a younger sister. Generally, if you don't want an infant to drink turpentine, you keep the turpentine out of reach of the infant. As children get older, the amount of responsibility they have *to their family* for their actions increases, but the *adults* in the family are held responsible to the outside world for the actions of their children. When a child goes to school, the school assumes some of the responsibilities of the parents while the kid is there. >>>>Also note that it is logically impossible for fetuses to cause their own >>>>conception, since they don't exist before that point. >>>To which I say: So? What relevance does this have to the argument? All >>>the adults you refer to were once fetuses, and THEY didn't cause their own >>>conception, thus (by your logic) THEY shouldn't be held responsible either. >> More word-twisting. You were not responsible for your OWN conception, but >> that says nothing about any conceptions that you cause. > But I wasn't responsible for having been born in the first place, so how can > you hold me responsible for ANYTHING that follows? It wasn't my fault, > I didn't choose to be born. That's what you're putting forth as an argument. How can I hold you reponsible for ANYTHING that follows? Very simply. Once you are an adult, you have CONTROL over your own actions and presumably enough INTELLIGENCE that you know (or should know) what you are doing. Before you were conceived, you didn't even EXIST, so you couldn't have possibly prevented your own conception. All during the period when you were a fetus, you had even less responsibility for your actions than an infant -- did your mother ever punish you for kicking her while you were a fetus? But now that you do have control over your actions and are presumably competent to make choices, it's appropriate to hold you responsible for the consequences of those choices. >>>>The grounds for granting an exception to a fetus is that it is human, it >>>>is alive, and it is not reponsible for its presence in the womb. >>>If it's human, why must it occupy another person's body? What if someone >>>kidnapped you, hollowed out your skull, and chose to live in your head. ^^^^^ >> The fetus doesn't choose to be conceived; two people conceive it. > But by your logic above they couldn't be responsible, because they never > chose to be born in the first place. That's not my logic; it's your twisting of my logic. Is it your position that infants are as responsible for their actions as adults are for theirs? If an infant plays with the trigger on a loaded gun and it goes off and kills someone, does that make the infant equivalent to a Mafia hitman? Or does it imply that someone was very stupid to leave a loaded gun lying around? >>>Could you have him evicted? How? He's not "responsible" for that act, >>>obviously he is not of sound mind. What kind of bogus argument is that? >> What am I have supposed to have done that resulted in placing him there? In >> the case of fetuses, the mother and father placed the kid(s) in the mother's >> body. It would be a little bogus for me to place a lunatic inside my head >> and then claim a right to have him evicted at the cost of his life. That's >> why I don't place lunatics in my head or even invite them to come live >> there. > You are responsible for having a head, and taking care of it, making sure it > is safe from intrusion by lunatics who want to live in it. If not, you MUST > suffer the consequences. Is that what you're saying? Or are we really back > to that old religious line "You had sex, you are obliged to 'take > responsibility' and have a baby"? It sure sounds like it, but I can't be > sure. Both of those 'summaries' are bogus. Reread my statement carefully. >>>Clearly it does not qualify as a physically autonomous being at all, because >>>it cannot live outside the environment it occupies. >> Clearly this is a bogus statement, because seven-month-old and older fetuses >> can live and have been shown capable of living outside of the womb. There >> is good reason to believe that younger fetuses can live outside of the womb >> given an appropriate environment -- the trend has been towards showing that >> younger and younger fetuses can live outside the womb. > Fine, then put your money where your mouth is. Allow a woman the right to > remove the fetus that she doesn't want in her body, and bring it to term > in the "appropriate environment". And do with it what you will when it > leaves that environment, and becomes an autonomous real life form, a human > being. It already IS a human being; asserting "It's NOT! It's NOT! It's NOT!" does not make it otherwise. When the appropriate environment is in place *and* is no more risky for the fetus than the womb, I will support letting the parents choose between supporting the fetus in the womb and supporting it in this environment. >>>A better example: people who have lost their jobs and have no money are >>>evicted from their apartment for not paying their rent. Are they exempt >>>from eviction because they are not "responsible" for their predicament? >> I suspect (a) that the landlord didn't put them in there, and (b) they were >> competent to handle their own affairs, unlike fetuses, infants, and >> children. > Why do you suspect that? Perhaps they grew up unable to learn a viable trade > and earn a viable living for whatever reason. And now they've lost the last > job they could hope for in these crunching times. But more importantly, > what difference does it make if someone chose to "put" a fetus (or its > ingredients) "there"? Why is that an important point in your argument? Roughly 99% of all abortions are performed to terminate pregnancies that the parents could have CHOSEN to avoid. Some of the remaining abortions are done to save the life of the mother, and most pro-lifers do believe in allowing abortions to save the life of the mother. Rape/incest cases comprise a very small fraction of all abortions; they are the hardest because *neither* the mother or the child could have acted to avoid the pregnancy. There are many pro-choice arguments which have some validity in rape/incest cases but not in others, although their proponents intend them to apply to the general case. >>>Then remove them from the woman's body and see if they survive. I think >>>this would be far more inhumane than abortion by any standards. >> That's not what I said. Not everyone believes that your standard that "the >> fetus must be able to survive in today's world with today's technology >> outside of the mother's body" (is this close enough?) applies to fetuses. > Believe what you like, but there's a real world out there. Part of > the prerequisite for life is physical autonomy. Yes, there is a real world out there, although you evidently don't want to live in it. I don't accept this 'autonomy' argument with respect to dialysis patients and the like; why should I apply a different standard to fetuses? > Otherwise, it is analogous > to a "virus", which is not considered life because it does not exist as life > in an autonomous way. More wishful thinking on your part. Go to school. Go directly to school. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200. When you have learned enough biology to distinguish cells and multi-celled organisms from viruses, come back and try using more reasonable arguments. Does anyone wonder now why I included a sentence debunking the fetus=cancer myth? (I didn't think *anyone* would say that fetus=virus!) >> That's funny. Not a single pro-lifer disagreed that the fetus is alive. >> But I distinctly remember Sophie telling you that you shouldn't resort to >> lies to 'prove' your point. > It's not surprising that pro-lifers continue in their assumptions. I haven't > heard negative comments from Sophie since the original article in this series > that clarified my position. Perhaps she understands now that I am not > telling lies. Perhaps you choose to think otherwise because ... It's not surprising that pro-lifers have not adopted YOUR assumptions, since they are extremely bogus. "Thou shalt believe because it is the word of Rich Rosen" sounds an awful lot like religion to me. >> Sorry. The fact that we don't have extremely advanced technology today does >> not mean that fetuses aren't human. Given that I would protect their lives, >> and you would not, it is up to you to prove that they are not human. > And I proved that they were not living by showing that they cannot live > as physically autonomous entities. You didn't prove anything. If you give a second-grade student a test, and s/he flunks that test, you *cannot* conclude that all second-grade students will flunk that test on the basis of that one trial. > A point which you skirt at every > convenient opportunity, by saying "what about 7-monthers" (not applicable > as far as abortion goes in any case) or some other dismissables. *You* are the one skirting the issue. On the issue of seven-month fetuses being human, you have clearly lost. Yet you refuse to admit that you are wrong. You claim that they are 'close' but 'not human' (when there is no ground for calling them anything but human) and try to change the subject at every opportunity. These tactics are known as bad sportsmanship. As I have mentioned before, the case of seven-month-old fetuses is relevant to the case of younger fetuses; the difference between seven-monthers and six-monthers is one of degree, not of kind. So the fact that seven-month- fetuses are human does have bearing on the abortion issue because of what it implies about younger fetuses. >>>>The humane thing to do is to let them live, i.e. don't abort them. >>>The humane thing is to let tapeworms live, too. After all, don't they have >>>rights, too? >> Not very many rights in my eyes. Whatever species the tapeworm belongs to, >> it doesn't have anywhere near the rights of Homo sapiens, or the rights of >> chimpanzees for that matter. > So let's concentrate on the rights of living human beings. That's what I was doing until you started talking about the rights of tapeworms. >>>Late-term fetuses, as you call them, are beyond the scope of legal abortion >>>in any case. Yes, they can be saved. And in the cases where the mother has >>>carried the fetus to term with the intent of giving birth, every attempt is >>>often made to do so. But this has little to do with the arguments about >>>legal abortion. >> It has a lot to do with the arguments about legal abortion; the fact that >> late-term-fetuses can survive outside of their mother's bodies shows just >> how bogus it is to say that birth is the starting point of life. > Not at all, it merely says that only at THAT point are we able to simulat > the NECESSARY womblike environment to allow the fetus to develop to > term and become autonomous. What a load!!! If the machines can simulate the womblike environment, then the fetus isn't dependent on the inside of another person's body, now, is it? And if dependence on machines makes a person "not human" then kidney dialysis patients are "not human". But you have admitted that they are human, and thus logically dependence on machines does NOT make a person "not human". >> And it raises obvious question: "if these fetuses are human, what makes >> these others not human, if anything?" I don't see anything sufficient to >> call them "subhuman". > Your choice of word. They may qualify as potential homo sapiens once they > are born, but since they are not physically autonomous (a necessary > prerequisite) and thus not alive, well ... You were saying "subhuman" in so many words. Why not be honest about it? They already *are* Homo sapiens; there is nothing "potential" about it (you can't squirm out of this one since Homo sapiens is the species name). The "physical autonomy" you keep raving about is clearly *not* a prerequisite since we don't require it of dialysis patients. The "thus not alive" part is false under the biological definition of life, and is also false under your definition as long as you apply the same standards to fetuses that you apply to dialysis patients. >>>If you are seeking "hard proof", why not do what I suggested above: >>>remove a fetus from a woman's body during the early part of pregnancy, nd >>>do whatever you like to sustain it, and take responsibility for any >>>grotesque deformities that occur, causing a barely functioning human at >>>"term" (whenever and ifever "term" is, and if indeed it would be human at >>>all). >> I would not do this to a seven-month-old fetus, even though I know that such >> fetuses can survive outside the womb, because the risk to the child outside >> the womb is currently greater than the risk to the child inside the womb. I >> suspect that any doctor with a proper sense of ethics would refuse to do >> such an experiment if you approached him/her with it. > Damn right! Partially because they know that EVEN for a 7-month fetus (as > you admit), and certainly for one that hasn't been around as long, it is > less than unlikely that the fetus would not survive into lifehood, and if > it did it was likely to be terribly deformed. Obviously you are making a > point for which you know that hard proof is unavailable, then scoffing it > off by saying "it's unethical" to get it, thus you win. Ethical doctors would also not recommend elective cosmetic surgery in which the patient has a 25% chance of dying. Does this mean that such surgery is impossible, especially if it had been used in non-elective cases? Of course not!! But if the trend in such surgery (performed non-electively) was towards making it safer and more widely applicable, it would not be bogus to note this trend and suspect that someday the surgery might be performed electively. >>>Why? What's so special about depending upon plants and animals? The whole >>>ecosystem is just one huge web of dependencies. >>>I'm not occupying an animal's insides for sustenance. Furthermore, if I >>>was out there seeking my own food from animals, do I have a "right" to do >>>this? Is the animal powerless from stopping me from using it for food? >> We raise lots of animals each year to be slaughtered. And in large part, >> they are powerless from stopping people from using them for food. > Do they lack "rights" to fight back? Amazing that we choose cows and sheep > to raise, not animals that WOULD fight back. Wonder why? Anyway, what is > the point you're making? You're confusing 'rights' and 'abilities' here: whether or not the animal has the RIGHT to fight back is independent of its ABILITY to fight back. You're the one who started off down this tangent. What is your point? >>>Is a woman "powerless" to choose to have a fetus removed from her body? >>>Same rules apply. >> Hardly. I'm sorry if this offends you, but I believe that humans have more >> rights than dogs, cats, tapeworms, and plants. I treat other human beings >> quite differently from the way that I treat insects, and I don't see >> anything wrong with it. > Sorry if this offends you, but when it comes down to it, you are treating > human beings differently only because you are a human being, and you do so > in self interest. All those organisms, from an objective sense, have as > many rights as you do. It is only because we value our own species that we > agree that certain rights of life be granted to human beings, to allow > freedom from interference and harm from others exercising their "freedom" > beyond the boundaries of non-interference. Those rights start with becoming > a human being, a physically autonomous life form, and not before. So you think that every animal has as many rights as you have. Why not plants? If you believe that plants and animals have as many rights as you do and that non-interference is everything (actually, it's non-attainable, since you can't avoid affecting others), why aren't you sitting in a corner slowly starving to death? Could it be possibly that animals and plants don't have as many rights as you have? If so, this little foray has gained you nothing. Or do you think that there are no rights at all? In this case, you don't have any reason to protest *any* outcome to the abortion debate, since all stands have the same validity, i.e. none. And as I have mentioned before, everyone does not accept your bogus definition of "human being". >>>>But not everyone would agree with your premises, or with the premise that a >>>>person has UNLIMITED rights to control of their body. If someone has >>>>absolute rights to control their body, what right do you have to prevent >>>>them from strangling someone else? After all, they were just exercising >>>>their right to close their fingers, and if they happened to be around >>>>someone else's throat at the time, too bad... >>>Ever hear "your right to swing your fist ends before it hits my face"? You >>>have the right to your OWN body, not to others. Something anti-abortionists >>>could learn a little about when trying to impose their will on others. >> Your right to control your body ends where the other human being you placed >> inside it begins. > Again with the assumed conclusion style of argument? Start again, please, > and this time give a reasoned argument. The argument Human(FETUS) + Non_Interference => Abortion is wrong has no more assumptions than the argument not Human(FETUS) + Non_Interference => Abortion is right You are asking us to accept "not Human(FETUS)" for reasons that basically boil down to "I want not Human(FETUS) to hold" (what other reason could you have for applying a different standard to dialysis patients than fetuses?). Why might you want us to believe "not Human(FETUS)"? Why, so that we will conclude "Abortion is right". I find it very interesting that you evade any argument that might cause you to conclude HUMAN(X) for any X for which FETUS(X) also holds. This says a lot about who is doing "assumed conclusion"-style arguments. >>>>Did everyone catch that? Now you not only need to be independent from >>>>other human beings, but from MACHINES as well for Rich to consider you to >>>>be a living human being. >>>Indeed. If you are connected to full life support because your body does >>>not pump blood or perform bodily functions, the law says you are dead. And >>>in fact you are. To claim that you are alive (in this case) is to claim >>>that a sewage or irrigation system or an airconditioning system is alive. >>>There is a big difference between a living person temporarily using machines >>>to recuperate and get back to a fully functional state and a person (or >>>fetus that cannot function without machines and has no hope of ever >>>functioning without full life support of machines. >> I didn't say FULL life support. Note that a dialysis patient is as fully >> dependent upon the machines as a late-term fetus, if not more so. If the >> dialysis patient is deprived of the use of the machines for even a fairly >> short period, the poisons in his/her blood will kill him/her. > It's amazing how you have to keep going back to "late-term fetuses outside > the womb", when that has no relevance to the abortion argument. The degree > of dialysis support necessary varies from patient to patient. Why do I keep going back to that argument? Because you continue to evade it. A simple "I was wrong; logic does lead to the conclusion that seven-month-old fetuses are human" will do; instead you continue to illogically maintain that seven-month-old fetuses are "not human". >> I notice that you have avoided saying outright whether or not a dialysis >> patient is human, and have claimed that a late-term fetus is not a human >> being even though it can live outside it's mother's body. > The dialysis equipment is an external connection to the person's body, it is > not that person's entire environment. And I said this. And I said that such > a patient was human. So what are you trying to do in this argument now??? What do you mean by 'entire environment'? The Shuttle astronauts depend upon machines for their oxygen, water, etc. and they are human. 'But they do not live there all the time', you might reply. So what if they did? It wouldn't make them any less human. For your information, fetal support equipment does not contain anything like a computer to replace the fetus's brain. What I am trying to get you to do in this argument is to make the entirely logical concession that seven-month-old fetuses are human. Not 'close', but 'human', just like the rest of us. >>>>Tell me, Rich, is an adult who uses a dialysis machine not a 'living human >>>>being'? If doctors connect a patient to a heart-lung machine during a >>>>major operation, is the patient not a 'living human being' during the >>>>operation, and thus subject to being killed by any random who wants to kill >>>>him/her? If not,then how do you justify calling seven-month and older >>>>fetuses not human, even by your definitions? >>>1) I answered most of these questions in the previous paragraph. 2) I did >>>not call any fetuses human above.(A blatant and foul misquoting by Newton). >>>What I did say was: >>>>>Yes, there is surely a point at which a fetus is close enough to being a >>>>>living human being that it *could*, with medical assistance, be sustained >>>>>through the end of the fetal period TO THE POINT WHERE IT COULD BE >>>>>DISCONNECTED from supporting equipment, and THUS be a living human being. >> 1) You are evading the question: Is a dialysis patient human? > I already answered that in the affirmative. Your attempt to make it seem > like I haven't to promote your position is typically abominable. A source of confusion here is that I read and answered your last post on a paragraph by paragraph basis, and you answered the question indirectly in response to a later paragraph. >> If your answer is YES, explain why you continue to say that late-term >> fetuses are not human, in light of the standards that you set for other >> human beings. > I answered that above. And in my last article. And I refuse to do so again > only to see you misquote or leave it out to your own ends. All I see are 'points' that could as easily be used to call adults undergoing medical treatment "not human". Taking these away in the name of consistency, all that's left is a double standard. >> 2) In my response to the paragraph, I did not 'accuse' you of calling any >> fetuses human. True, you earlier referred to fetuses as persons, but that >> seems to be a case where you were being inconsistent. > This is a lie on top of a further lie. Do you care to document this? I > thought not. You ceased long ago to argue reasonably. I don't see why I > should continue. Did I say intentionally inconsistent? Maybe T.C. Wheeler was right when he claimed that you have never admitted to any mistakes!! I think I understand the flames about you on various nets a lot better now. >> I said that you were claiming that late-term-fetuses were "not human". How >> else is one supposed to interpret >> >>> close enough to being a living human being >> Again, if you say that dialysis patients are not human, you will have one >> hell of a fight on your hands. If you say that they are human, how can you >> possibly justify calling late-term fetuses 'close enough' (which implies >> that they are not quite human) rather than acknowledging their humanity? > For a change, the implication you got out of this statement is correct. It > is close enough to lifehood so that they can be weaned off of extreme > supportive equipment and begin to live as autonomous beings. "Acknowledging > their humanity"? Give me a break. Your words don't fit in my mouth. Why do you continue to say 'close enough'? Are not adult humans sometimes to be found using extreme supportive equipment? All I can see is that you don't want to concede the point and have started acting in a much more emotional and illogical way than you do when an argument is still up in the air. >>>>Or could it be that treating fetuses consistently would >>>>force you to the conclusion that younger fetuses might be human also? >>>Or sperm cells? Or ova? Or individual body organs? Note again that I >>>did not say that fetuses, older or not, are necessarily human. That occurs >>>at birth. After all, what is birth is not the fully grown fetus saying >>>"I'm ready, let me out", metaphorically speaking. >> If dialysis patients are human (and you haven't claimed that they aren't, or >> answered my question), HOW can you claim that late-term-fetuses are anything >> BUT human, even going by the 'criteria' that you have put into your posts? > Because dialysis is one body function among many that requires external > support, and because in most cases dialysis treatment is an intermittent > affair. But it is as critical as any other body function -- if it doesn't work and you don't do something about it, you die. Is a crippled dialysis patient less human than one who can walk because the former uses two machines and the latter uses only one? If someone required continuous treatment, would that make them not human? >>>>Under your definition, a dialysis patient is not human, because the support >>>>equipment never goes away. > Where the support equipment is all encompassing, and where it is permanent, > and where there is no hope of removing the equipment, the law says the person > is dead. The law says the person is dead when brain death has occurred. In some cases, where people have been in a coma, and the coma is expected to last until death, and they are on supportive equipment, courts have allowed hospitals/families to remove the supporting equipment in hopes that the patient will die. Note *will die* rather than *because the patient already is dead*. Net.abortion is not the place to discuss this issue in any great detail. In the case of fetuses, the support equipment is not 'permanent' with 'no hope of removing the equipment' (aren't you being redundant?). This is true whether the support equipment is natural (the womb) or mechanical (machines in hospitals). >>>Even if one were connected to it permanently (most kidney patients need it >>>at intervals), enough of one's other body functions are taken care of by >>>the person's own body that he is of course still human. Even an artificial >>>heart serves such a purpose. In fact it becomes a part of the person's >>>body. Does the mother become a part of the fetus' body? Vice versa? >> Now you finally get around to answering the first question with a few >> qualifications. Now answer the second one: How can you maintain that >> late-term-fetuses are not human if you acknowledge that dialysis patients >> are human? > I already have. Then you don't have a reason sufficient to justify calling late-term-fetuses "not human"; your criteria would allow calling some adult humans "not human", and criteria that lead to contradictions are generally not very useful. >> The 'take away the machine and see if it dies' criterion is >> now definitely OUT. What's left? Dependence on the care of other human >> beings? But infants and other hospital patients also exhibit this trait. > Yes, it's definitely out. Perhaps because you know it would prove my point, > ethics aside. It's definitely out because it would allow one to conclude that dialysis patients are not human, and even you admit that they are human. It would 'prove' your point in the sense that FALSE implies anything; but the rules of logic do not allow using FALSE as one of the assumptions of a proof. >>>>Dependence upon a person or a machine isn't the right measure. A closer >>>>approximation would be "does this person have any non-brain-dead life >>>>left? Fetuses, healthy children or adults, and people on dialysis machines >>>>do. A person in a coma who is expected to snap out of it also does. A >>>>person is brain-dead doesn't. >>>But since a fetus is not a person in that it has not functioned >>>autonomously, this does not apply to them. This is not an assertion of the >>>type that you persistently make ("a fetus IS a person, it IS, it IS, it >>>IS"). Physical autonomy is one of the fundamental pieces of the definition >>>of "living" in the context we are using it. >> This does not apply to them because you don't want it to apply to them? > It does not apply because they are not autonomous. Not because "I don't want > them to be human", the converse of your position. So you're insisting that the assumptions behind your definition of life must be valid because you have decided to use your definition of life. A rather circular argument, don't you think? >> Bogus! Why is physical autonomy so important? > Ah, I see, you just don't like that particular criterion. All the others ARE > important, but physical autonomy, NAAAH! Thank you for summing up your > position. Accepting absolute physical autonomy as one of the basic requirements for being human means saying that dialysis patients are not human, which is very much at odds with reality. This is a good reason for not accepting absolute physical autonomy as part of the definition of 'human' or 'living', regardless of what one thinks of the other parts of your definition of these words. >> If an infant goes straight from the delivery room to the operating table, >> would you claim that the child is not human until the operation is complete? > Aren't human beings found on operating tables? What IS your point? Suppose the infant is on a heart-lung machine during the operation, and thus not 'physically autonomous'. Your criteria would lead one to believe that said infant was not a living human being until after the operation was over, which is much at odds with reality. Yes, human beings are found on operating tables. But from the 'physical autonomy' criterion, we'd never know it. >> And notice that I referred to the fetus as a person. > No, I hadn't. It must have totally slipped by me. You must have done it in > the most subtle way imaginable. (Is a sarcasm indicator really necessary?) >> Your bogus assertions >> that "The fetus is not alive. It ISN'T! It ISN'T!" to the contrary. > Assertions because I provide evidence to prove my point? Bogus because > you don't like them? Thank you again. Your position is clear. Assertions because faulty evidence proves nothing. Bogus because the fetus is biologically alive, and at least one of the assumptions that you use in your definition of 'living' leads to contradictions. >>>>But if a late-term fetus is as much a human being as a newborn infant (and >>>>I don't think anyone can rationally dispute that), doesn't it suggest that >>>>earlier-term fetuses might also be human? >>>Newton, shut it. Nowhere above did I even imply that the fetus, even in >>>late term, qualifies as a physically autonomous human being, yet you insist >>>that I did so as to screw around with my argument. A late term fetus is not >>>"just as much a human being as a newborn infant", it merely has much more of >>>a chance of surviving a disruptive removal from the womb (say, due to an >>>accident) and will eventually be weaned off of medical equipment to become >>>human. Please desist from such twisting in the future. >> It is you who are doing the twisting. Did you even read the last half of my >> message? In it, I did not say that you claimed that fetuses are human. > Above you said that I said "if a late term fetus is as much a human being as > a newborn infant", which I simply did not say. In fact, which is showed > logical proof AGAINST. Earlier in this article you also claimed I had stated > that fetuses are persons. I think it is very clear who is twisting what. Again you are wrong. I did not say that you said that; I was indirectly quoting myself, as the number of ">" marks in front of the paragraph shows. >> I *did* ask for you to explain how you could possibly arrive at the >> conclusion 'dialysis patients are human; late-term fetuses are not' if >> indeed that was your position. You didn't answer my questions directly. > I did, but then we've heard this before. As I mentioned above, I read and answered your last post paragraph by paragraph, which accounts for this confusion. >> but since you did >> answer some of them in response to later parts of my post, I have been able >> to deduce that 'dialysis patients are human; late-term fetuses are not' is >> indeed your position. > So why did you spend 50% of the article claiming that I didn't answer the > question. (I answeredit directly, despite what you claim.) Because I had read and answered 50% (or whatever) of the article before I got down to the end where you answered the question I had posed earlier. Sorry about that. I probably should have read through the whole article when answering every paragraph. >> But you have not provided any rational justification >> of this position. "Newton, shut it" is not a rational justification. > What follows was. "Newton, shut it" was just the words of a human being sick > and tired of having his words twisted, his position manipulated, etc. What's very interesting is that you start complaining about people twisting your words and manipulating your position at about the same time you start to lose some point of an argument in a big way. I'm under no delusions of being singled out for this treatment. > This is the last in a series, simply because I refuse to have my position > mangled and changed into something it isn't by Thomas Newton for the purpose > of proving his lies. I will summarize my position in a later article, > a much shorter article that doesn't concentrate on venting anger and > defending myself against Newton's twisting, and hope to hear responses to > *that*. Can't resist letting go with a final personal attack, can you? But you can't hurt me by them, because I don't value your opinions that highly. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/30/85)
>>>I refuse to treat a class of beings that once included myself as we >>>treat germs or bugs or worms. >>I don't blame you. The Bible spends a lot of ink discussing how the >>humans are somehow "above" the "animals" (despite behavior to prove >>otherwise :-). It's tough to accept the fact that we're just another >>mammal. > You are of course speaking for yourself I assume? I think, Ray, that Forsythe was speaking for the human species. Thus, you are probably right in your insinuation that he was speaking for himself and not for you. After all, human beings don't have brains that are "cast in cement"... -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/03/85)
>>> I refuse to treat a class of beings that once included myself as we treat >>> germs or bugs or worms. [MATT ROSENBLATT] >>"You" were also once a sperm cell. And/or an egg? And/or inanimate matter. >>[RICH ROSEN] > No. You know when a unique genetic entity comes into existence with the > genes that determine who "I" am. No "no". A zygote may split into two separate entities to form fetuses that become identical twins. Thus your statement is preposterous. >> [The fetus] is an independent >>autonomous living being when it is capable of maintaining its own >>internal metabolism physically independent of other organisms. Obviously >>this does not include feeding, because all living organisms require >>sustenance. We are talking about physical autonomy and its importance >>as a criterion for independent life. At least I am. I'm not even sure >>you're listening. [RICH ROSEN] > You missed my point. Of course all living organisms require sustenance. > But what does "independent" mean in this respect if the organism is > incapable of getting its own sustenance? It means that if it is using the inside of a person's body for sustenance, the person has the right to remove it. > In plain English, an infant > is as dependent as a bedridden adult on other people to bring it its > food. A tree is independent because it makes its own food; a wild > animal is independent because it finds and takes its own food. Neither > a fetus nor a human infant can survive without imposing on people in > one way or another. But an infant is a physically autonomous being, and thus qualifies for status as an independent separate human being. Your reasoning could just as easily be applied to rocks. Why aren't rocks called life forms just because they don't exhibit any of the characteristic of life forms? >>> You said it yourself, Matt: "the anti-abortionists >>>seek to EXTEND this FORCE farther back in time, REQUIRING the pregnant >>>woman to keep the fetus inside her for nine months so that it will not >>>[sic] die"!!!!! You've so clearly related the anti-abortionist position, >>>I couldn't hope for a better clarification!!! You SEEK to EXTEND the >>>FORCE upon a woman to REQUIRE her to keep the fetus inside her. How quaint. >>> Anyway, you said it yourself. YOU seek to EXTEND. The >>>burden is on you . . . [RICH ROSEN] > "Quaint" refers to the laws of all 50 States, democratically arrived at, > as recently as 1973. Does something become "quaint" when it's been > superseded for twelve years? My word "extend" means "restore to what > it was 12 years ago," as in, "In 1945, the victorious allies extended > the rights of non-Aryans in Germany to what they were in early 1933." Then let's "extend" the rights of people to own slaves, too. That would be another great step forward by your reasoning. > You are right that the PRACTICAL burden is on the anti-abortionists, > because they are the ones who are seeking to change the present law. > That's the "burden of going forward with the evidence." The "ultimate > burden of proof" is on those who seek to justify this type of killing > as an exception to the general rule against killing, just as it is with > those who seek to justify killing in war and capital punishment. Nonsense, of course. If I were to make the same claim for rocks, saying "I insist that rocks are alive, living autonmous beings, and smashing them up into little pieces is murder by my reasoning and thus you should not do it.", I would be laughed at. Rightfully so. Your position is not different. >>>>The limits to abortion do not reach into the time of pregnancy at which >>>>doctors have even attempted to save a fetus from such a circumstance as >>>>I describe, certainly before the point at which a fetus can be saved and >>>>expect to live a life as a human being. [RICH ROSEN] >>> Factual error which can be corrected by a counterexample: Two of my >>> fellow-workers had two babies in succession, each born before the end >>> of the second trimester, and therefore eligible for legal abortion. >>> Both boys lived about 11 days, during which time doctors at the Johns >>> Hopkins Hospital tried every method they could to save them, including >>> jerry-rigging new methods that had not been tried before. [ROSENBLATT] >>"Lived"? Yes, I'm sure they tried their very best. And I wish they had >>succeeded. But they didn't. And I think that goes to show that such fetuses >>cannot survive outside the womb environment. [RICH ROSEN] > All my counterexample shows is that the limits to abortion DO reach into > the time of pregnancy at which doctors have ATTEMPTED to save a fetus. > That's all it purported to show. And the failure of the attempt in the > case of this couple's two babies does NOT show that such fetuses cannot > survive -- it just shows that these two did not. Then show us two that did. This is most vacuous, my friend. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/03/85)
>>> Old habits are hard to change. And it is still true that we can measure the >>> date of birth more easily than the date of conception. [ROSEN] ^^^^^^^ > Why are you attributing those two statements of mine to yourself? An error in my attribution macros, simply a mistake. My apologies for having scarred your reputation by attributing your words to me. >>You need to offer a good reason to break this "old habit". I see none, >>especially when the fetus is not an autonomous entity. > I have been offering reasons. However, the reason you see none is that > your mind is closed. Whenever you lose some point of debate, you start > saying that your opponent's debating tactics are bad and make personal > attacks on him/her. Really? Your debating tactics ARE bad, Mr. Newton. For example, do you offer any instances of where I made remarks about your debating tactics where you DIDN'T either misquote or twist my words? It's so interesting that you twist the truth around to your own ends once again right here. You are a scurrilous liar, my friend. I answer your "points" with substantive argument, and it is YOU who leaves that substance out when responding in order to further your position. >>>>Newton, it's amazing how you can attempt to twist someone else's words to >>>>try to make a point, and fail miserably. It is a person, an autonomous >>>>living being ONLY once it is born. Did *I* make references to a "person" >>>>in the womb? >>> Yes, if inadvertently. Your statement implied "person before and after >>> birth, autonomous living being after birth". >> You read that implication into my statement because of YOUR assumptions. >> Which says something. > Who's making assumptions? It is a simple enough matter to reword that > sentence to make it express the same 'ideas' as the rest of your post. Why > didn't you? Because it wasn't necessary to do so. The fact that you, in your twisted way, interpreted my statements, which never once referred to a fetus as a person, as having done so (presumably to discredit my position and make me seem inconsistent), tells me much about your manipulative and contortive debating methods. Why don't you reproduce the sentence that was so ambiguous for all to see? And let the world judge whether my wording was ambiguous or whether you work from a biased perspective. >>> Perhaps you ought to use language more precisely in the future. >>Perhaps. Perhaps you should read other people's writing without imposing >>and projecting your own wishes onto it. Perhaps. > There's no reason to get defensive about bad wording of a sentence. Fine. Show us all the sentence in question, and explain how YOU feel it could possibly have been misinterpreted. >> Old habits are hard to change. Even when there is good reason for it. This >> happens a lot when such people have a stake in believing such things about >> other people. What stake is there among pro-choicers, especially given your >> inability to offer a reason to change OUR old habit of denoting human life >> beginning at birth. > With slavery, the stake was 'as soon as we recognize blacks as human, a lot > more people are going to be against slavery and slavery may become illegal'. Blacks were not recognized as non-human, the law simply made it legal to own humans as slaves. That's why the law mentioned nothing about race when slavery was abolished. It also stated that no person should be discriminated against due to race. It is clear that in neither case had it been assumed that blacks were not human, at least not in the eyes of the law. > With abortion, the stake is 'as soon as we recognize fetuses as human, a lot > more people are going to be against abortion-on-demand and abortion-on-demand > may become illegal'. But why do so when they're not? > By the way, not all pro-choicers denote life as beginning at birth. I think > that you will find if you open your eyes that there is more than one group on > each side of the abortion issue. So? >>> There were probably a fair number of slaveholders who actually believed >>> the stuff they were spouting. But this did not make slavery right; it was >>> wrong even though there were people who did not know it was wrong and >>> who believed that they had a right to hold slaves. >>But it was wrong not just because we now say it is wrong. And abortion is >>not wrong just because you say it is today. > Conversely, it is not right just because you say it is today. The fact that > there are basic human rights issues where doing the right thing is much more > important than getting everyone to agree that it is the right thing does not > tell us what the 'right thing' is. I did not say that it did. "Human" rights? All your arguments repeatedly stem from the assumption that the fetus is an independent human being worthy of the same degree of rights that we hold for independent human beings. The burden of proof for that is still on you. >>> But if abortion is wrong, does everyone need to believe that it is wrong in >>> order for it to be wrong? >> What is your basis for calling it wrong? If you quote religion, personal >> preference, non-scientific drivel, if you twist and manipulate, I'd say your >> basis is vacuous. > I'm not quoting religion or non-scientific drivel. As to personal preference, > the whole idea of human rights is non-scientific. Both sides in the abortion > debate use arguments based on rights; if you say that rights are meaningless, > you shouldn't care which side 'wins'. As for twisting and manipulating, you > seem to do an awful lot of that, and not just to my arguments. To whom? Where? You are really a class act, Newton. Talk about smear tactics. I have given more than a few examples where you deliberately left out sections of my article to distort my position. Right here in this article you have repeatedly insisted on the existence of an ambiguously worded sentence that you claim could be interpreted by a reasonable person to say that the fetus is a person, yet you have never produced that sentence. Please go away if this is the way you intend to argue. >>> That is to say, there may be some people who need >>> to be stopped from performing actions that *they believe* would not harm >>> other people but which *actually* would harm other people. >> What other people would be harmed? Back to the burden of proof being on you. >> In another article, you said "I don't accept your assumption that the fetus >> is not a human being". The burden of proof still rests with you, though you >> choose to use your assumptions to prove your conclusions in arguments here. > Unborn children *are* being killed, in great numbers. Great way to "prove" your argument. Call the fetuses "unborn children". Perfect. I do apologize for making remarks about your style of argument. Obviously you never engage in manipulative rhetoric. > The evidence shows that seven-month-old fetuses are human, and yet you > refuse to acknowledge that fact, choosing instead to say that they're 'close' > and trying to drop the subject. The "evidence"? Can the seven month old fetus live as an independent autonomous entity the way a newborn infant can? Then why doesn't it? If you really believe this to be true, then why force women to endure nine months of pregnancy? Obviously you have scientific proof that the fetus can be removed at seven months and be a full fledged autonomous human being, so let's remove ALL the fetuses at seven months and save the women the problems of an additional two months with a fetus inside her. Ante up. > Why should your pronouncements be considered 'truth'? Back to the burden > of proof being on you. You're right, it's YOUR pronouncements that should be considered truth. Scientific evidence? Who needs it! We have the truth as interpreted for us all by Mr. Newton, all knowing, all seeing. >>> On the contrary, the demarcation point of life is at conception. You have >>> the same DNA that you had when you were a fetus. It determined the color of >>> your hair and skin, your sex, and various other things. It organized your >>> growth from a single cell to an infant to a child to the person you are >>> today. >> As someone else pointed out, at conception the zygote still has the potential >> to split into two different entities. To say that that is where life begins >> sounds very foolish in light of that---by the same reasoning, the minute a >> woman produces an egg, and a man produces a sperm, later "destined" to meet, >> that could also be termed the demarcation point by your logic. That is quite >> silly to me. Given the erroneousness of claiming that a zygote represents >> a viable life form, we must use the criteria of real life, that include >> physical autonomy. > Grasping at straws. Anything I say that you can't answer is "grasping at straws"? How dare I speak ill of your methods of argument!! > You are saying "if you are wrong, I must be right". The impression that I > got from that article was that we both might be wrong. But I am willing to > admit that I might be wrong and listen to the evidence for and against the > position presented in that article, whereas your reaction to that article was > to claim "I'm right! I'm RIGHT! I'M RIGHT!". What was that you were saying > about non-scientific drivel? OK, since you are wise in the ways of science, and you have (GASP) admitted that you "might" be wrong (big man!), why not show ANOTHER viable demarcation point other than conception? Other than birth, of course, the reasonable one, because choosing that one would obviously interfere with your conclusions, and we all know a true scientist works backwards from desired conclusions. >>> Come on now, you expect us to believe this? Even a most rudimentary >>> examination will show you that mannequins are not living organisms and >>> do not belong to our species. Fetuses are living organisms and do belong >>> to our species. >> Come on now, you expect us to believe this? Even a most rudimentary >> examination will show you that fetuses are not living organisms. (They >> may belong to our species, but then so do corpses of once living people. >> Speciation is simply a way of categorizing life forms, in living form or >> not.) > It seems to me that we've had this argument before. Fetuses are biologically > living organisms. This is a fact. As is everything you assert, of course. Physical autonomy. Uh... well, that's not important in this case, but it would interfere with my desired conclusion. > There are assumptions behind the various other definitions of living > (especially behind your version) which may not be valid; if you use other > definitions, you must also justify their assumptions. Examine the reasons why a virus is not considered life. Then think about the definition of life. Then explain to us all, carefully, your assumptions, their assumptions, my assumptions, and let us in on the final result. > Aside: I admit I was wrong about the single definition of living, > but by the way you kept saying "The fetus is NOT alive. It ISN'T!", > you didn't seem to be too aware of multiple definitions yourself. On the contrary, I was at least aware that your definition left out significant factors solely for the purpose of declaring the fetus "alive" in the sense that humans are alive as opposed to body parts being "alive", or viruses NOT being "alive". > The point I raised earlier about needing to justify using any other > definition than the biological one still remains. Let me get this straight. You're saying MY definition is not the accepted biological one, and YOURS is? >>>>The fact is they weren't "later" found to be human, they were already known >>>>to be human; it was foul bigots who in their personal insecurity blame other >>>>people for their problems who label some people "subhuman". >>> I'm not labeling fetuses as "subhuman"; you are. Be careful, or you'll end >>> up insulting yourself. >> I am? You read a lot into my writing. What possibly could have prompted >> you to leave out the section in which YOU invoked the word "subhuman"? What >> indeed!! > I don't read a lot into your writing. It is very clear when you refuse to > admit that seven-month-old fetuses are human. What else could you mean by > calling someone 'close' but 'not human'? It is always very clear whenever I disagree with you that I am doing whatever it is you choose to say in order to further your position, isn't it? The choice of word "subhuman" is loaded with connotations of contempt, as opposed to simply saying non-human. I stated no such contempt for fetuses. YOU are the one who deliberately introduced the word in order to make it seem that I offered such contempt. The only thing I am showing contempt for right now is your base and vile argumentative techniques of invoking manipulative rhetoric, attributing connotative words to me that I never uttered. This technique of arguing is rampant among both the religious right and the anti-abortion movement, as if to say "We know we can't get them using reason, so let's get them any way we can because we know we're right!" (e.g., Samuelson with his collagen nonsense: "But it doesn't say anywhere that it ISN'T human fetal material, and it COULD BE INTERPRETED as saying that it is if you choose to interpret it that way...") > I did not call anyone subhuman. Are you aware that one of the purposes of > quotation marks (not the only purpose) is to indicate disbelief? Then you must not have "disbelieved" that I ever used the word or hinted at such a connotation. Why else would you put it in quotes? >>> Tapeworms, bacteria, etc. don't belong to the species Homo sapiens. Fetuses >>> do, and this difference is a major one as far as rights are concerned. >> Tapeworms and bacteria aren't similar themselves, and since fetuses aren't >> living in that they are not physically autonomous, I fail to see the point of >> this line of argument. > Tapeworms and bacteria are similar in the sense that both can be found in > the human body. Wow! So can fetuses!!!! Thank you for granting that point. > The "physical autonomy" argument is bogus; you lost that one when you admitted > that dialysis patients are human. This must be a new definition of the word "lost" with which I am totally unfamiliar. I take it that whenever I rebut to one of your arguments, and you fail to respond to it, that means I have lost. I should learn from that simply not to answer your articles, that way I'll "win" all the arguments. >>> The fact that they are living, that they belong to our species, and that it >>> has already been proven that seven-month-old fetuses can live outside of >>> their mothers (suggesting that we'll get proofs for younger ages as our >>> technology advances) SHOULD suggest something to you. Also note that every >>> adult who is living today was once a fetus with the same DNA, and that no >>> adult who lives today was once a cancer, tumor, etc. -- the "fetus=cancer" >>> argument is BOGUS. >> The fact that you cannot show them to be living, because you know they are, >> at the point at which abortion is considered, not capable of physical >> autonomy, SHOULD suggest something to you. But you choose to keep ignoring >> that point. "Suggesting that we'll get proofs for younger ages"???? I'm >> not sure what relevance "everyone was once a fetus" has to any argument here. > Not capable of living outside the mother's body with the help of machines? > Maybe not with today's machines, but that says nothing about the *fetus*, only > about our level of technology. Where's your proof that it's *inherently* > impossible for a fetus to live outside of its mother's body? The equivalent > of your argument a few hundred years ago would have been that 'infants are not > human because they depend on breast feeding and thus are not autonomous'. You talk big, but your bark is bigger than your bite. If you are so sure of the humanity of the fetus, take fetuses out of the bodies of women who want abortions and take care of them yourself. OK? Are you willing to do this? Why not? Either do this or stifle this longwinded non-motile argument. > If you read the rest of the sentence that included (roughly) "everyone was > once a fetus", you would have seen that it was aimed at the "fetus=cancer" > argument which appeared before and (knowing this net) will probably appear > again. So? You still haven't shown that this is a reason for not allowing abortion. >>>>Unless you can show how they can exist in a physically autonomous separate >>>>state from the bodies they inhabit. >>> This has been shown for seven-month-old and older fetuses. >> Which is beyond the point at which abortion is considered. > Are you *that* sure that it won't be shown for younger fetuses? The trend > has been to show that fetuses at younger and younger ages can live outside > the womb; I doubt that medical progress will stop at the trimester border > as you so obviously hope. Then do it. Close your big mouth and take some action, instead of mouthing off at me. If you can build artificial wombs where fetuses can grow to term and eventually be weaned off of and become full fledged human beings without significant deformities or other problems, then do so. Or shut it. >>>The difference between seven-month-old fetuses and six-month-old fetuses is >>>one of degree, not one of kind. In fact, if you keep looking back you will >>>discover that the 'difference of kind' occurs when you cross the boundary of >>>conception. >>But since conception is NOT a viable point of demarcation, since few if any >>of the qualities of independent LIFE are present, we must look to other >>criterai, which you seem to be unwilling to do. > It is clear that birth is NOT a viable point of demarcation. Oh, yes, very clear. Clear as mud. > And it is you who seem to be unwilling to look at other criteria, as evidenced > by the way you reacted to the post suggesting that the demarcation point was > just after the point where twins can appear. Which post was that? And when exactly is that? Why don't you tell us precisely why "it is clear that birth is not a viable point of demarcation"? Solely because it interferes with your desired conclusions? >>>>>As to the first part of #2, clearly everyone does not agree with you. >>>>You mean some people are DEMANDING that women remove the fetuses within >>>>them? Care to substantiate that? Or are you referring to "parasitic >>>>nature"? Who doesn't agree with that, and why? >>> What were you saying about twisting words? I was referring to: >>> >>> ...given wht it does to her body, surely her wishes take precedence >>> >>> over anything usurping nourishment from her and causing changes to >>> >>> her body against her will, >>Which was the middle of the paragraph, not "the first part of #2". I don't >>need any further substantiation of your tactics of argument to form an >>opinion. As you said earlier, though, some people feel that other people >>are "subhuman", and choose not to acknowledge their rights. Perhaps what >>you have cited is an example of this. > It was the "first part" as opposed to the "last part". Crock. The first part is at the beginning. If this is the care with which you quote sources and refer to words, it's not surprising you reach only the conclusions you want to reach. > I probably should have been more precise, but notice that I did quote the > words which I was referring to when confusion arose. You mean so you wouldn't be misinterpreted due to your ambiguous phrasing? Ambiguous doesn't even begin to cover it! > It is abundantly clear that you don't need substantiation of *anything* to > form an opinion on *anything*. In fact, you seem to regard substantiation > of other people's points as a threat, rather than as an opportunity to learn. I guess I feel anger towards you for no good reason then, since by your reasoning I have no reason to feel I have ever been threatened by you. >>> Notice that I said infants. What do infants do that deserves punishment? >>I don't know if you're a parent or not, but infants in most households I'm >>familiar with don't get to run rampant. If they do what they're told not >>to do, they are punished, as part of a means to teach them right from wrong >>and such. Of course, as I said above, some parents just smack kids around >>because they feel like it, because they think it's their right, but that's >>probably not germane to THIS particular discussion. > I'm not a parent, but I once was a child and I have a younger sister. > Generally, if you don't want an infant to drink turpentine, you keep the > turpentine out of reach of the infant. And if he find it anyway? What does any of this have to do with what I said or the topic at hand? >>> More word-twisting. You were not responsible for your OWN conception, but >>> that says nothing about any conceptions that you cause. >>But I wasn't responsible for having been born in the first place, so how can >>you hold me responsible for ANYTHING that follows? It wasn't my fault, >>I didn't choose to be born. That's what you're putting forth as an argument. > How can I hold you reponsible for ANYTHING that follows? Very simply. Once > you are an adult, you have CONTROL over your own actions and presumably enough > INTELLIGENCE that you know (or should know) what you are doing. Before you > were conceived, you didn't even EXIST, so you couldn't have possibly prevented > your own conception. All during the period when you were a fetus, you had > even less responsibility for your actions than an infant -- did your mother > ever punish you for kicking her while you were a fetus? But now that you do > have control over your actions and are presumably competent to make choices, > it's appropriate to hold you responsible for the consequences of those > choices. And when does such responsibility begin at which punishment is administered, at which learning is indulged in, AT WHICH AUTONOMY EXISTS?? >>>The fetus doesn't choose to be conceived; two people conceive it. >>But by your logic above they couldn't be responsible, because they never >>chose to be born in the first place. > That's not my logic; it's your twisting of my logic. Is it your position > that infants are as responsible for their actions as adults are for theirs? > If an infant plays with the trigger on a loaded gun and it goes off and kills > someone, does that make the infant equivalent to a Mafia hitman? Or does it > imply that someone was very stupid to leave a loaded gun lying around? So it all boils down to what I long said it was. YOU don't like the fact that people can have sex and choose not to have children, you want them to be "responsible" for it, like a vindictive abusive parent who makes the child "pay" for his/her "misdeeds". Thus, you conclude that abortion is wrong, a fetus' humanity notwithstanding, because to allow it would be to allow these people not to "pay" for what you see as their crime. >>>>Could you have him evicted? How? He's not "responsible" for that act, >>>>obviously he is not of sound mind. What kind of bogus argument is that? >>>What am I have supposed to have done that resulted in placing him there? In >>>the case of fetuses, the mother and father placed the kid(s) in the mother's >>>body. It would be a little bogus for me to place a lunatic inside my head >>>and then claim a right to have him evicted at the cost of his life. That's >>>why I don't place lunatics in my head or even invite them to come live >>>there. >>You are responsible for having a head, and taking care of it, making sure it >>is safe from intrusion by lunatics who want to live in it. If not, you MUST >>suffer the consequences. Is that what you're saying? Or are we really back >>to that old religious line "You had sex, you are obliged to 'take >>responsibility' and have a baby"? It sure sounds like it, but I can't be >>sure. > Both of those 'summaries' are bogus. Reread my statement carefully. Funny, that's what I got both re-readings. Or is there something else you're trying to say if not this? >>Fine, then put your money where your mouth is. Allow a woman the right to >>remove the fetus that she doesn't want in her body, and bring it to term >>in the "appropriate environment". And do with it what you will when it >>leaves that environment, and becomes an autonomous real life form, a human >>being. > It already IS a human being; asserting "It's NOT! It's NOT! It's NOT!" > does not make it otherwise. When the appropriate environment is in place > *and* is no more risky for the fetus than the womb, I will support letting > the parents choose between supporting the fetus in the womb and supporting > it in this environment. But for now you insist that the woman hold the fetus inside her? Why? And if I hear you claim that I'm doing the asserting one more time... > Roughly 99% of all abortions are performed to terminate pregnancies that the > parents could have CHOSEN to avoid. Some of the remaining abortions are done > to save the life of the mother, and most pro-lifers do believe in allowing > abortions to save the life of the mother. Rape/incest cases comprise a very > small fraction of all abortions; they are the hardest because *neither* the > mother or the child could have acted to avoid the pregnancy. There are many > pro-choice arguments which have some validity in rape/incest cases but not in > others, although their proponents intend them to apply to the general case. To which I say, "So?" Why is it bad to allow people to choose abortion out of choice rather than necessity? If you admit that it is "all right" to abort in the case of rape/incest, you have no case for claiming that it should be prohibited in cases where it is done out of choice. >>Believe what you like, but there's a real world out there. Part of >>the prerequisite for life is physical autonomy. > Yes, there is a real world out there, although you evidently don't want to > live in it. I don't accept this 'autonomy' argument with respect to dialysis > patients and the like; why should I apply a different standard to fetuses? Because the dialysis patients ARE physically autonomous. Their respiration functions, their voluntary nervous systems, their minds, all function independent of external support. They have a problem with one particular function of their bodies for which they need assistance. I fail to see why you insist that this makes them non-autonomous, since it doesn't seem to apply to patients with pacemakers or other artificial devices. How you can claim that I "lost" this argument is beyond me. >>Otherwise, it is analogous to a "virus", which is not considered life >>because it does not exist as life in an autonomous way. > More wishful thinking on your part. Go to school. Go directly to school. > Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200. When you have learned enough biology > to distinguish cells and multi-celled organisms from viruses, come back and > try using more reasonable arguments. Not to your school, please. Number of cells is IRRELEVANT to the argument. The fact remains that the reason viruses are not considered "life" (one of the reasons) is that it is non-autonomous. > Does anyone wonder now why I included a sentence debunking the fetus=cancer > myth? (I didn't think *anyone* would say that fetus=virus!) I guess you weren't prepared for it, so you just slough it off with an assertion. >>>That's funny. Not a single pro-lifer disagreed that the fetus is alive. >>>But I distinctly remember Sophie telling you that you shouldn't resort to >>>lies to 'prove' your point. >>It's not surprising that pro-lifers continue in their assumptions. I haven't >>heard negative comments from Sophie since the original article in this series >>that clarified my position. Perhaps she understands now that I am not >>telling lies. Perhaps you choose to think otherwise because ... > It's not surprising that pro-lifers have not adopted YOUR assumptions, since > they are extremely bogus. "Thou shalt believe because it is the word of Rich > Rosen" sounds an awful lot like religion to me. When I say something, I support it with some evidence, like the nature of the definition of life. When Newton doesn't like this because it interferes with his conclusions, he dismisses the particular premise that interfered with his conclusions as unimportant, or wrong (because WHO says so?), or not worth discussing. Or "that's just what Rich Rosen said". As if claiming that it's just me who claims this would make it easier to dismiss. >>>Sorry. The fact that we don't have extremely advanced technology today does >>>not mean that fetuses aren't human. Given that I would protect their lives, >>>and you would not, it is up to you to prove that they are not human. >>And I proved that they were not living by showing that they cannot live >>as physically autonomous entities. > You didn't prove anything. If you give a second-grade student a test, and > s/he flunks that test, you *cannot* conclude that all second-grade students > will flunk that test on the basis of that one trial. Then put your money where your mouth is or shut up. I proved my point. You just don't like the conclusion, so you'll use any vacuous method to discredit, to twist, or (as a last resort) to simply ignore the conclusion. You disgust me. >>A point which you skirt at every convenient opportunity, by saying "what >>about 7-monthers" (not applicable as far as abortion goes in any case) or some >>other dismissables. > *You* are the one skirting the issue. On the issue of seven-month fetuses > being human, you have clearly lost. This is a joke, right? Any time someone disagrees with him and produces arguments he can't answer, he says "you have clearly lost". This isn't an argument. This isn't even a joke. This is a waste of time. > Yet you refuse to admit that you are wrong. You go first. Especially since the evidence exists to support my position. > You claim that they are 'close' but 'not human' (when there is no > ground for calling them anything but human) Except for maybe physical autonomy, which you dismiss at whim because it interferes with your conclusion. > and try to change the subject at every opportunity. These tactics are known > as bad sportsmanship. I guess that means you're a bad sportsman. "Cheater" and "liar" are probably better words. As is "sore loser". > As I have mentioned before, the case of seven-month-old fetuses is relevant > to the case of younger fetuses; the difference between seven-monthers and > six-monthers is one of degree, not of kind. So the fact that seven-month- > fetuses are human does have bearing on the abortion issue because of what it > implies about younger fetuses. But you haven't proven their humanness. Can they survive autonomously? If you feel so strongly about it, then why subject women to nine months of pregnancy when only seven are necessary? >>>>The humane thing is to let tapeworms live, too. After all, don't they have >>>>rights, too? >>> Not very many rights in my eyes. Whatever species the tapeworm belongs to, >>> it doesn't have anywhere near the rights of Homo sapiens, or the rights of >>> chimpanzees for that matter. >> So let's concentrate on the rights of living human beings. > That's what I was doing until you started talking about the rights of > tapeworms. No, you were talking about the rights of fetuses. Talk about skirting!!! >>> the fact that >>> late-term-fetuses can survive outside of their mother's bodies shows just >>> how bogus it is to say that birth is the starting point of life. >> Not at all, it merely says that only at THAT point are we able to simulat >> the NECESSARY womblike environment to allow the fetus to develop to >> term and become autonomous. > What a load!!! If the machines can simulate the womblike environment, then > the fetus isn't dependent on the inside of another person's body, now, is it? No, but you're the one who claimed that dialysis patients aren't human if we insist (?) on physical autonomy as a criterion for lifehood. If you were willing to say that, then surely a fetus left in a complete supportive womblike environment (more than just dialysis) would surely be non-autonomous. I keep forgetting though, that you simply throw that criterion out because you don't like it. >>>And it raises obvious question: "if these fetuses are human, what makes >>>these others not human, if anything?" I don't see anything sufficient to >>>call them "subhuman". >>Your choice of word. They may qualify as potential homo sapiens once they >>are born, but since they are not physically autonomous (a necessary >>prerequisite) and thus not alive, well ... > You were saying "subhuman" in so many words. Why not be honest about it? You are saying that I was saying "subhuman" in so many words, when I wasn't. Why not be honest about what a base and manipulative propagandist you are? > They already *are* Homo sapiens; there is nothing "potential" about it (you > can't squirm out of this one since Homo sapiens is the species name). The > "physical autonomy" you keep raving about is clearly *not* a prerequisite > since we don't require it of dialysis patients. Since it also doesn't apply to people with artificial hearts, and with good reason (given earlier in this article). >>>>If you are seeking "hard proof", why not do what I suggested above: >>>>remove a fetus from a woman's body during the early part of pregnancy, nd >>>>do whatever you like to sustain it, and take responsibility for any >>>>grotesque deformities that occur, causing a barely functioning human at >>>>"term" (whenever and ifever "term" is, and if indeed it would be human at >>>>all). >>>I would not do this to a seven-month-old fetus, even though I know that such >>>fetuses can survive outside the womb, because the risk to the child outside >>>the womb is currently greater than the risk to the child inside the womb. I >>>suspect that any doctor with a proper sense of ethics would refuse to do >>>such an experiment if you approached him/her with it. >>Damn right! Partially because they know that EVEN for a 7-month fetus (as >>you admit), and certainly for one that hasn't been around as long, it is >>less than unlikely that the fetus would not survive into lifehood, and if >>it did it was likely to be terribly deformed. Obviously you are making a >>point for which you know that hard proof is unavailable, then scoffing it >>off by saying "it's unethical" to get it, thus you win. > Ethical doctors would also not recommend elective cosmetic surgery in which > the patient has a 25% chance of dying. Does this mean that such surgery is > impossible, especially if it had been used in non-elective cases? Of course > not!! But if the trend in such surgery (performed non-electively) was towards > making it safer and more widely applicable, it would not be bogus to note this > trend and suspect that someday the surgery might be performed electively. I didn't see any point in the last paragraph. What does this arbitrary point mean in relation to the subject at hand? You are evading the fact that you slough off the inability of the fetus to survive autonomously by saying "we can never find out because it's unethical". >>>>I'm not occupying an animal's insides for sustenance. Furthermore, if I >>>>was out there seeking my own food from animals, do I have a "right" to do >>>>this? Is the animal powerless from stopping me from using it for food? >>>We raise lots of animals each year to be slaughtered. And in large part, >>>they are powerless from stopping people from using them for food. >>Do they lack "rights" to fight back? Amazing that we choose cows and sheep >>to raise, not animals that WOULD fight back. Wonder why? Anyway, what is >>the point you're making? > You're confusing 'rights' and 'abilities' here: whether or not the animal > has the RIGHT to fight back is independent of its ABILITY to fight back. > You're the one who started off down this tangent. What is your point? The point I made at the very beginning: do I have a "right" to expect food from animals, or do they have the right to prevent me from using them as food? And why, in your opinion, does this not apply to women with fetuses inside of them? >>Sorry if this offends you, but when it comes down to it, you are treating >>human beings differently only because you are a human being, and you do so >>in self interest. All those organisms, from an objective sense, have as >>many rights as you do. It is only because we value our own species that we >>agree that certain rights of life be granted to human beings, to allow >>freedom from interference and harm from others exercising their "freedom" >>beyond the boundaries of non-interference. Those rights start with becoming >>a human being, a physically autonomous life form, and not before. > So you think that every animal has as many rights as you have. Why not > plants? If you believe that plants and animals have as many rights as you > do and that non-interference is everything (actually, it's non-attainable, > since you can't avoid affecting others), why aren't you sitting in a corner > slowly starving to death? Remember YOU'RE the one who distinguished between "rights" to fight back against being used as food and ability to do so. Why does a fetus have any more "right" to sustenance than you or I have to food? Do we have a "right" to sustenance? > Could it be possibly that animals and plants don't have as many rights as > you have? If so, this little foray has gained you nothing. Or do you think > that there are no rights at all? In this case, you don't have any reason > to protest *any* outcome to the abortion debate, since all stands have the > same validity, i.e. none. Nonsense. Rights are things "granted" by governments, basically meaning that the government will not allow interference with your native abilities (natural rights?) to do these particular things. In their absence, you have the "right" to do anything you are capable of doing. We "grant" human beings (each other) rights within the limits of non-interference. We "grant" rights to certain animals (e.g., pets, animals raised as food-- until slaughter, of course). What rights do fetuses have in this scheme? Surely they have rights if you assume they are human. But that's your end goal, isn't it? > And as I have mentioned before, everyone does not accept your bogus > definition of "human being". Which "bogus" definition is that? I'd venture that everyone doesn't accept your bogus definition either. So? What then do we base our decisions on? Popular consensus? Reasoned analysis? >>>Your right to control your body ends where the other human being you placed >>>inside it begins. >>Again with the assumed conclusion style of argument? Start again, please, >>and this time give a reasoned argument. > The argument > Human(FETUS) + Non_Interference => Abortion is wrong > has no more assumptions than the argument > not Human(FETUS) + Non_Interference => Abortion is right Great, thus I take it you agree with me that abortion is all right since you can't prove the fetus to be an autonomous human being? Yes? > You are asking us to accept "not Human(FETUS)" for reasons that basically > boil down to "I want not Human(FETUS) to hold" (what other reason could you > have for applying a different standard to dialysis patients than fetuses?). The fact that they're different in nature AND in degree by a longshot, perhaps? What's really clear is that YOU are INSISTING that we accept "Human(FETUS)" despite all evidence to the contrary, where humanity in the sense we are using implies independent autonomy. > Why might you want us to believe "not Human(FETUS)"? Why, so that we will > conclude "Abortion is right". Why might you want us to believe "Human(FETUS)"? Why, so that we will conclude "Abortion is wrong". The difference between us is that I provide some backing for my position that the fetus cannot function in an autonomous fashion and thus doesn't qualify as an independent living human being, whilst you just re-assert, twist my words, and dispose neatly of this point so as to allow you to reach your desired conclusion. That simple. > I find it very interesting that you evade any argument that might cause you > to conclude HUMAN(X) for any X for which FETUS(X) also holds. This says a > lot about who is doing "assumed conclusion"-style arguments. Perhaps because you have never offered such arguments, whilst I have offered (repeatedly!) the autonomy factor as support for my argument, which you blithely ignore. It sure does say a lot, my friend. Of course, you could re-list all your incredible substantive arguments one by one so that I can "evade" them "again". >>It's amazing how you have to keep going back to "late-term fetuses outside >>the womb", when that has no relevance to the abortion argument. The degree >>of dialysis support necessary varies from patient to patient. > Why do I keep going back to that argument? Because you continue to evade it. > A simple "I was wrong; logic does lead to the conclusion that seven-month-old > fetuses are human" will do; instead you continue to illogically maintain that > seven-month-old fetuses are "not human". Thomas Newton's definition of logic: agreement with the statements of Thomas Newton regardless of whether or not he backs up his position with evidence. >>>I notice that you have avoided saying outright whether or not a dialysis >>>patient is human, and have claimed that a late-term fetus is not a human >>>being even though it can live outside it's mother's body. >>The dialysis equipment is an external connection to the person's body, it is >>not that person's entire environment. And I said this. And I said that such >>a patient was human. So what are you trying to do in this argument now??? > What do you mean by 'entire environment'? The Shuttle astronauts depend upon > machines for their oxygen, water, etc. and they are human. 'But they do not > live there all the time', you might reply. So what if they did? It wouldn't > make them any less human. We're talking about reproducing an earth-like environment in space, a place where clearly humans are incapable of living on their own without such support. What on earth does this have to do with life on earth? Are you next going to drag in scuba equipment necessary to survive underwater? The earth is the natural environment for humans. If you are going to throw in assorted examples having nothing to do with natural environments for humans, then you are offering non-content examples. Why might this be? Am I "evading" again? Or are you? > For your information, fetal support equipment does not contain anything like > a computer to replace the fetus's brain. Huh? So? > What I am trying to get you to do in this argument is to make the entirely > logical concession that seven-month-old fetuses are human. Not 'close', > but 'human', just like the rest of us. By the definition of logic offered above. >>> 1) You are evading the question: Is a dialysis patient human? >> I already answered that in the affirmative. Your attempt to make it seem >> like I haven't to promote your position is typically abominable. > A source of confusion here is that I read and answered your last post on a > paragraph by paragraph basis, and you answered the question indirectly in > response to a later paragraph. A source of deliberate confusion here is your manipulative rhetoric designed to make it seem like I didn't answer the original question, like I said that fetuses were people, etc. Deliberate and unconscionable. >>> If your answer is YES, explain why you continue to say that late-term >>> fetuses are not human, in light of the standards that you set for other >>> human beings. >> I answered that above. And in my last article. And I refuse to do so again >> only to see you misquote or leave it out to your own ends. > All I see are 'points' that could as easily be used to call adults undergoing > medical treatment "not human". Taking these away in the name of consistency, > all that's left is a double standard. Easily indeed. If you wish to impose an incorrect double standard where there is none, in order to make your point. >>>2) In my response to the paragraph, I did not 'accuse' you of calling any >>>fetuses human. True, you earlier referred to fetuses as persons, but that >>>seems to be a case where you were being inconsistent. >>This is a lie on top of a further lie. Do you care to document this? I >>thought not. You ceased long ago to argue reasonably. I don't see why I >>should continue. > Did I say intentionally inconsistent? Maybe T.C. Wheeler was right when he > claimed that you have never admitted to any mistakes!! I think I understand > the flames about you on various nets a lot better now. Yet I still have no understanding of you. What difference does "intentionally consistent" or not make to your lying? Did you provide the documentation asked for? OF COURSE NOT!!! >>> I said that you were claiming that late-term-fetuses were "not human". How >>>else is one supposed to interpret >>> >>> close enough to being a living human being >>> Again, if you say that dialysis patients are not human, you will have one >>>hell of a fight on your hands. If you say that they are human, how can you >>>possibly justify calling late-term fetuses 'close enough' (which implies >>>that they are not quite human) rather than acknowledging their humanity? >>For a change, the implication you got out of this statement is correct. It >>is close enough to lifehood so that they can be weaned off of extreme >>supportive equipment and begin to live as autonomous beings. "Acknowledging >>their humanity"? Give me a break. Your words don't fit in my mouth. > Why do you continue to say 'close enough'? Are not adult humans sometimes to > be found using extreme supportive equipment? All I can see is that you don't > want to concede the point and have started acting in a much more emotional and > illogical way than you do when an argument is still up in the air. I don't see your point. "Concede"? On what basis? Recall that humans ARE autonomous creatures who may need some degree (perhaps extreme) of support. Can we say the same for fetuses prior to their achieving autonomy? (We, not you.) >>>If dialysis patients are human (and you haven't claimed that they aren't, or >>>answered my question), HOW can you claim that late-term-fetuses are anything >>>BUT human, even going by the 'criteria' that you have put into your posts? >>Because dialysis is one body function among many that requires external >>support, and because in most cases dialysis treatment is an intermittent >>affair. > But it is as critical as any other body function -- if it doesn't work and > you don't do something about it, you die. Is a crippled dialysis patient > less human than one who can walk because the former uses two machines and > the latter uses only one? If someone required continuous treatment, would > that make them not human? Imagine a totally paralyzed dialysis patient with no brain function and no independent autonomous circulatory or respiratory functions. What have you got? A virtual corpse. Now imagine an asthmatic needing respiratory aid. See the difference? > The law says the person is dead when brain death has occurred. In some > cases, where people have been in a coma, and the coma is expected to last > until death, and they are on supportive equipment, courts have allowed > hospitals/families to remove the supporting equipment in hopes that the > patient will die. Note *will die* rather than *because the patient already > is dead*. Net.abortion is not the place to discuss this issue in any great > detail. Note indeed. Is it not the place to discuss it because doing so will shed light on who is doing what type of arguing? *Will die* because *have lived*. > So you're insisting that the assumptions behind your definition of life must > be valid because you have decided to use your definition of life. A rather > circular argument, don't you think? MY definition? Yes, Thomas, I sat here and made it up without consulting the base of knowledge of biology. Poof! A definition. Out of thin air. You believe that, don't you? > Assertions because faulty evidence proves nothing. Bogus because the > fetus is biologically alive, and at least one of the assumptions that > you use in your definition of 'living' leads to contradictions. But is it physically autonomous? Of course not. You are more than willing to waive that requirement just as if you were nepotistically getting a job for a relative. Why you keep re-asserting that a dialysis patient is less autonomous than a person with an artificial heart (who is clearly quite autonomous) is beyond me. >>> But you have not provided any rational justification >>>of this position. "Newton, shut it" is not a rational justification. >>What follows was. "Newton, shut it" was just the words of a human being sick >>and tired of having his words twisted, his position manipulated, etc. > What's very interesting is that you start complaining about people twisting > your words and manipulating your position at about the same time you start to > lose some point of an argument in a big way. I'm under no delusions of being > singled out for this treatment. Now get the feathers. Again with this new definition of "lose"? How did I lose? By silencing you and putting you in a position where you have nothing else to say, I thus "lose"? Why not give some examples of the things you accuse me of rather making MORE bogus assertions. Your tactics of argument are worthy of only the lowest of slime, my friend. > Can't resist letting go with a final personal attack, can you? But you > can't hurt me by them, because I don't value your opinions that highly. There's only one person whose opinions you seem to value highly. This time for sure. My name's been dragged in the mud by this manipulator one too many times. I'm sure he will respond with more mudslinging, but I'll accept that as the last of it, and good riddance. -- "I was walking down the street. A man came up to me and asked me what was the capital of Bolivia. I hesitated. Three sailors jumped me. The next thing I knew I was making chicken salad." "I don't believe that for a minute. Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is La Paz." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/04/85)
Does anyone else read these long diatribes between Rosen and Newton, or those between Forsythe and Samuelson? When I see a posting that says 2% at the bottom, and I see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> and so forth, I skip the posting! I don't subscribe to net.flame, and I have no interest in reading pages of flames here. I find it neither useful nor interesting to read postings which do no more than impugn character and motives, argue semantics, and the like. These long point-counterpoint arguments could be handled with the R key instead of the F, gentlemen. Public displays of invective are in poor taste. charli
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (09/05/85)
Mr. Newton and Mr. Rosen: Enough already! Isn't 900 lines of "who-shot-John?" enough? How much longer do we have to wade through it? Why doesn't each of you restate the principles and assumptions upon which his argument rests? Then we would see that two people, both with sound arguments and relying on substantially the same facts, can reach opposite conclusions simply because their principles and assumptions differ radically. Surprise!! >> The evidence shows that seven-month-old fetuses are human, and yet you >> refuse to acknowledge that fact, choosing instead to say that they're >> 'close' and trying to drop the subject. [T. NEWTON] > > The "evidence"? Can the seven month old fetus live as an independent > autonomous entity the way a newborn infant can? Then why doesn't it? > If you really believe this to be true, then why force women to endure > nine months of pregnancy? Obviously you have scientific proof that the > fetus can be removed at seven months and be a full fledged autonomous > human being, so let's remove ALL the fetuses at seven months and save > the women the problems of an additional two months with a fetus inside her. > Ante up. [R. ROSEN] If Mr. Rosen is saying either that the seven-month fetus cannot be removed at seven months and be an autonomous human being, he is wrong. Before the days of sophisticated neonatal life-support equipment and techniques, premature babies of seven months' gestation did survive -- one of them works right here in my laboratory. All the fancy equipment did was increase the proportion of such babies that survive, although not to 100%. "Let's remove ALL the fetuses at seven months and save the women the problems of an additional two months with a fetus inside her"? If ALL such fetuses could be sustained (leaving aside the problem of cost), that might be a reasonable idea. But both Mr. Rosen and Mr. Newton know that whatever you call a seven-month fetus, "autonomous" vel non, "independent" vel non, "human being" vel non, some of them will survive immediate removal from the womb and some will not. It's a question of values, not facts. Mr. Rosen seems to think it's better to risk the death of the seven-month fetus (or to ensure its quick death with an abortion, if unwanted) than to burden the pregnant woman with an additional two months of pregnancy. Mr. Newton does not, and neither do I. > >>Damn right! Partially because they know that EVEN for a 7-month fetus (as > >>you admit), and certainly for one that hasn't been around as long, it is > >>less than unlikely that the fetus would not survive into lifehood, and if > >>it did it was likely to be terribly deformed. [R. ROSEN] Most of them can be saved, without any deformity. Call the Medical School at your local University, or the Neonatal Intensive Care ward at your local hospital, and ask what percentage of seven-month premature babies survive. I say it's way over 50%, but don't rely on me. Get the facts yourself. > Nonsense. Rights are things "granted" by governments, basically meaning > that the government will not allow interference with your native abilities > (natural rights?) to do these particular things. [R. ROSEN] R. Rosen??? Asserting that rights are things granted by governments? I thought that's Matt Rosenblatt's kind of talk!!! Make sure you specify whether you're talking about legal rights or moral rights, or we'll see another 500 lines of argument over where rights come from. > What rights do fetuses have in this scheme? [R. ROSEN] Governments do more than merely non-interfere with your native abilities (natural rights TO DO THINGS); they also protect your natural rights NOT TO HAVE THINGS DONE TO YOU, i.e., they protect the weak from the strong. If a government decides that the fetus has a right not to be killed, it will protect that right. The present Government (read, "Supreme Court") has decided that the fetus has no such rights, so fetuses have no legal rights. Right-to-lifers by definition believe that fetuses have a moral right not to be killed, so they seek to change the present Government to the point where the fetus will have a legal right not to be killed. They have already changed the President and most (but not 2/3) of the Senate, and one Justice. > Surely they have rights if you assume they are human. [R. ROSEN] The nice thing about rights being "granted by governments" is that governments do not have to follow Mr. Rosen's or anyone else's rules in granting rights. They can grant rights to the fetus even if it is not human. -------------- Seriously, neither of you is under a compulsion to reply to every single point his opponent makes. If you've stated your position, and your opponent has stated his, let the rest of us decide whose argument is sounder. What kind of light do comments like "bogus!" or "A lie on top of another lie" shed on the issue at hand? -- Matt Rosenblatt
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (09/05/85)
I have no desire to engage in extended name-calling sessions with Rich Rosen, so I will simply reply to the following argument: >> With slavery, the stake was 'as soon as we recognize blacks as human, a >> lot more people are going to be against slavery and slavery may become >> illegal'. > Blacks were not recognized as not-human, the law simply made it legal to > own humans as slaves. That's why the law mentioned nothing about race when > slavery was abolished. It also stated that no person should be discriminated > against due to race. It is clear that in neither case had it been assumed > that blacks were not human, at least not in the eyes of the law. " An equally durable myth is that Negroes, in contrast to peoples of other races, possess certain racial traits which uniquely fitted them for bondage, and which created in the South a lasting "race problem." As other defenses of slavery became increasingly untenable, ninteenth-century Southerners gave special emphasis to this racist argument. Doctors, scientists, and pseudo- scientists--phrenologists had a substantial following -- found a physiological basis for alleged temperamental and intellectual differences. Dr Samuel W. Cartrwright, of Louisiana, argued that 'the visible difference in skin pigmentation also extended to "the membranes, the muscles, the tendons, and . . . [to] all the fluids and secretions. Even the negro's brain and nerves, the chyle and all the humors, are tinctured with a shade of the pervading darkness." Dr. Josiah C. Nott, of Mobile, was the leader of a small group who carried racism to the extreme position of denying that Negros and whites belonged to the same species." The Peculiar Institution -- Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South Kenneth M. Stampp, 1956 The (bogus) claim that blacks were somehow inferior to whites was more and more important to slaveowners as time went on, and other arguments in favor of slavery lost ground. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/08/85)
> I have no desire to engage in extended name-calling sessions with Rich Rosen, > [NEWTON] This is news. And it is at odds with past experience. > so I will simply reply to the following argument: >>>With slavery, the stake was 'as soon as we recognize blacks as human, a >>>lot more people are going to be against slavery and slavery may become >>>illegal'. >>Blacks were not recognized as not-human, the law simply made it legal to >>own humans as slaves. That's why the law mentioned nothing about race when >>slavery was abolished. It also stated that no person should be discriminated >>against due to race. It is clear that in neither case had it been assumed >>that blacks were not human, at least not in the eyes of the law. > " An equally durable myth is that Negroes, in contrast to > peoples of other races, possess certain racial traits which > uniquely fitted them for bondage, and which created in the South > a lasting "race problem." As other defenses of slavery became > increasingly untenable, ninteenth-century Southerners gave special > emphasis to this racist argument. Doctors, scientists, and pseudo- > scientists--phrenologists had a substantial following -- found a > physiological basis for alleged temperamental and intellectual > differences. Dr Samuel W. Cartrwright, of Louisiana, argued that > 'the visible difference in skin pigmentation also extended to "the > membranes, the muscles, the tendons, and . . . [to] all the fluids > and secretions. Even the negro's brain and nerves, the chyle and > all the humors, are tinctured with a shade of the pervading darkness." > Dr. Josiah C. Nott, of Mobile, was the leader of a small group who > carried racism to the extreme position of denying that Negros and > whites belonged to the same species." "A small group who carried racism to the extreme position". NOT the mainstream line of thought, which DID in fact claim things like that which you mention above. Like blacks were "fit" for slavery and bondage. Which sounds a lot like "women are fit for housework and childbirth" (a statement that Matt Rosenblatt, who find feminism repugnant, might agree with). But it doesn't say squat about blacks being non-human. As you yourself said, that was an extreme position held by a small group. Contrast this with accepted notions among the scientific community about what is life and what is not, and direct application of those notions in a non-emotional or subjective way. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
vch@rruxo.UUCP (Kerro Panille) (09/09/85)
>If Mr. Rosen is saying either that the seven-month fetus cannot be removed at >seven months and be an autonomous human being, he is wrong. Before the days >of sophisticated neonatal life-support equipment and techniques, premature >babies of seven months' gestation did survive -- one of them works right >here in my laboratory. All the fancy equipment did was increase the >proportion of such babies that survive, although not to 100%. "Let's ... When I studied such things as neonatal research (as a sub-topic in a course), "although not to 100%" was a hell of an understatement. When the doctors were able to get a 30% survival rate (at the end of the second trimester), they were overjoyed. (prevoiusly, the survival rate was less than 3%) Any premature baby born before the start of the third trimester are not yet fully developed. (In the third trimester, the fetus is complete and simply gaining size and weight, no more development occurs) If a child is born before the third trimester, it's as good as dead. I belive that the survival rate of secord-trimester babies was less than 1%. -- Vince Hatem ---------------- A Bell Communications Research | UZI |----------|_ _ _\/ T Raritan River Software Systems Center | |----------| /\ & 444 Hoes Lane ---------------- ROGER GUTS T 4D-360 / /\ DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' Piscataway, NJ 08854 / / TIES (201) 699-4869 /-----/ ...ihnp4!rruxo!vch TRUE GRIT MYSTERIES - The detective series for those who NEVER eat quiche! (WARNING - MAY BE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBING TO HAMSTER LOVERS)
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/10/85)
> [Matt Rosenblatt] > Mr. Newton and Mr. Rosen: > > Enough already! Isn't 900 lines of "who-shot-John?" enough? How much > longer do we have to wade through it? Why doesn't each of you restate > the principles and assumptions upon which his argument rests? Then we > would see that two people, both with sound arguments and relying on > substantially the same facts, can reach opposite conclusions simply > because their principles and assumptions differ radically. Surprise!! > [Much omitted] > But both Mr. Rosen and Mr. Newton know that whatever > you call a seven-month fetus, "autonomous" vel non, "independent" vel non, > "human being" vel non, some of them will survive immediate removal from > the womb and some will not. It's a question of values, not facts. Mr. > Rosen seems to think it's better to risk the death of the seven-month > fetus (or to ensure its quick death with an abortion, if unwanted) > than to burden the pregnant woman with an additional two months > of pregnancy. Mr. Newton does not, and neither do I. > [Much omitted] > Seriously, neither of you is under a compulsion to reply to every > single point his opponent makes. If you've stated your position, and > your opponent has stated his, let the rest of us decide whose argument > is sounder. What kind of light do comments like "bogus!" or "A lie on > top of another lie" shed on the issue at hand? ----- Bravo Matt. It's a pleasure to read a posting from someone on the opposite side of the issue that I can wholeheartedly agree with. Not only that, but you have hit the nail on the head. Abortion IS a question of values, not facts. It is a sad choice between two evils, terminating the life of an embryo or fetus, and forcing a woman to bear an unwanted child to term. It is not a theological discussion of when life begins, or what name you call the fetus. Many of us have made this point many times, but the endless insoluble "when does human life begin" fights go on and on. Bravo again. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (09/11/85)
[Line eater fodder.] I suppose I *haf* to put in my two cents worth, I reckon, I guess. > >> I refuse to > >> treat a class of beings that once included myself as we treat germs or > >> bugs or worms. [MATT ROSENBLATT] > > > "You" were also once a sperm cell. And/or an egg? And/or inanimate > > matter. [RICH ROSEN] > > No. You know when a unique genetic entity comes into existence with the > genes that determine who "I" am. [MATT ROSENBLATT] > > > [The fetus] is an independent > > autonomous living being when it is capable of maintaining its own > > internal metabolism physically independent of other organisms. Obviously > > this does not include feeding, because all living organisms require > > sustenance. We are talking about physical autonomy and its importance > > as a criterion for independent life. At least I am. I'm not even sure > > you're listening. [RICH ROSEN] > > You missed my point. Of course all living organisms require sustenance. > But what does "independent" mean in this respect if the organism is > incapable of getting its own sustenance? In plain English, an infant > is as dependent as a bedridden adult on other people to bring it its > food. A tree is independent because it makes its own food; a wild > animal is independent because it finds and takes its own food. Neither > a fetus nor a human infant can survive without imposing on people in > one way or another. [MATT ROSENBLATT] I Disagree! Rich and Matt, *I* disagree with you both. (``Oh, no! Not yet *another* half-thunk point of view to wade through!'') 'Fraid so. Rich, I'll disagree with you first. I don't agree that dependency by the fetus is an important consideration in the abortion debate. If a human (adult, say) should be connected with another by some vital lifeline, surely the person that line was tied to would *not* be able to cut it on a whim. The fact that the fetus isn't built to live outside the womb until birth doesn't alter that situation. No, if the fetus were ``human'' in some important sense, then my conclusion would be that the fetus would have some rights, whether dependent on the mother or not. For me, therefore, the abortion debate comes down to this question: Is there a sense by which -- at the expense of the rights of the woman -- the fetus must be considered *human*? After long, careful thought on the subject, I can find no such compelling reason. Why must the reason be *compelling*? Because we're talking about subordinating the rights of one who is agreed by all to be a living, breathing, feeling and thinking, admittedly female :-), human being. And it is no minor subordination. Many, mostly males it seems, talk as if it is but a *small* matter for a woman to be forced to take the trouble and risk of carrying a fetus to term and delivering it. Many others, of course, see it as quite proper dues-paying -- on the woman's part -- for having led a ``loose life.'' (Need I say :-) ?) Many anti-abortionists speak about medicine as having somehow ``proved'' recently that ``new life begins at conception.'' This is incorrect; however I will discuss the question later. Some defending the pro-choice side of the argument, however, have taken the tactic of declaring the fetus is *not alive* at all. This is not only incorrect, it is ridiculous. *Of course* the sperm, egg, embryo, and fetus are all *alive*, according to generally accepted biological definitions of ``life.'' The question remains, are they ``human'' life -- and, if so, according to what meaning of the term ``human''? What ``human life'' means is subject to definition. If you don't believe this, Matt and Rich, why did Pope Paul III in 1537 feel the necessity to issue his papal bull *Sublimis Deus* which revealed the Indians of North and South America to be *human beings*, endowed with soul and reason? Clearly, *some* people didn't find Indians' humanity to be all that obvious! Getting back to the question of whether ``new life begins at conception,'' what biology and medicine *have* demonstrated over the last century or so is that there is *no new life* -- life began once, long ago, and all life today continues that thread, now spun out into many strands, in an unbroken and (hopefully) unending sequence. Life is continuous -- the life of the parents continues unabated in the offspring. What Determines You? > >> I refuse to > >> treat a class of beings that once included myself as we treat germs or > >> bugs or worms. [MATT ROSENBLATT] > > > "You" were also once a sperm cell. And/or an egg? And/or inanimate > > matter. [RICH ROSEN] > > No. You know when a unique genetic entity comes into existence with the > genes that determine who "I" am. [MATT ROSENBLATT] Unfortunately for this idea, Matt, your ``unique genetic entity'' does *not* determine who *you* are. The fertilized egg still has the ability to split into separate embryos or even to combine with another egg to produce a chimeric individual. If you had an identical twin, that twin would have the same identical DNA code as you do, but would he be you? If you were cloned, would the clone be you? The clear answer has to be ``no'' (I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, Matt), and the reason is that the brain, the memories, and the mind occupying it, in addition to the genes, have a great deal to do with who *you* are, Matt. Agreed, the fertilized human egg does have the *potentiality* of growing into a baby, a child, and ultimately an adult human. However, the individual sperm and egg carried just as much of that potentiality *before* their union, when they were just as living! So what if the chromosomes carried by the fertilized egg are composed of ``human'' DNA. Human DNA is not magical. Did you know, Matt, that human DNA is 99% identical to chimpanzee DNA? Are *chimpanzees* to be forbidden to have abortions because virtually all of the DNA being aborted would be *human*? So what that the ``genetic entity'' that you possess, Matt -- whether unique or not -- has just come into physical existence. At that moment it is still but a single quantity of the chemical substance deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), located within a single eucaryotic cell similar in all functional respects to an amoeba! What are you going to do, Matt, give it the right to vote? :-) Levity aside, the ``pro-life'' movement philosophically maintains -- nay, *demands* -- that this single non-sentient cell's ``human'' rights outway the rights of an adult human! Brave New World, Revisited Anti-abortionists -- as I recall, including you, Matt -- usually now talk about, ``Well, what if your parents had decided to abort *you* -- how would you feel then!'' And usually now the case studies are trotted forward, where so-and-so's parents toyed with abortion but didn't, and here he is, and boy, isn't he glad! This *ss-backwards- looking argument puts the cart before the horse, and is not a sensible guide to action. Naturally, humans *once they exist* psychologically want to be assured of their present existence! I'll try to illustrate with a parable. Suppose *Brave New World* arrives (I'm not recommending it), and society takes *all* of the sperm from a selected man, all of the eggs from chosen women, fertilizes the eggs *in vitro*, and incubates the embryos within *Brave New World*'s advanced artificial wombs. When the babies are ``born,'' they are deemed to owe their every waking moment to the State -- to repay the ``favor'' of their existence -- and the children march off happily-programmed to their lives as slaves or worse. Now if you were to engage one of these children of the New Age on the subject of the merits of ``old-style'' versus *Brave New World*'s style of reproduction, you might very well get the argument, ``But that sounds *very* immoral... Had *my* parents (so to speak) engaged in *that* inefficient process, virtually all my generation, almost certainly also including myself, would be worse than dead -- not just nonexistence -- *never* to have existed! I *like* existing! This is *evil*!'' 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! Now do these children from might-have-been *Brave New World* have the right to dictate to us, the parents, how *we* are to engage in reproduction? When they won't even (ever) exist to feel threatened by our not saving every last sperm and egg? And are we to be considered mass murderers just because we don't instantly set up a scheme such as *Brave New World*? I say *no*! And I doubt if too many so-called pro-lifers would agree to do it on ``their terms.'' 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! Defining Humanity -- Or, Murder Most Foul! I believe the net may be in *general agreement* on a matter that quite simply ``defines away'' the mass murder problem -- at least for the billions of wasted sperm and eggs every month. I do *not* consider defining our concept of ``humanity'' so as to not include unfertilized eggs and sperm to be a *bad thing*. Nearly everyone agrees that these ``people'' are just *too* potential for anyone to be unduly concerned about. (If any of y'all feels the need to go off yelling about *all* those murdered babies, though, you just feel free now... :-)) So, the crux of the debate comes down to precisely *where* the existence of human beings becomes ``real'' in whatever sense is deemed to be ``important.'' And what sense of ``humanity,'' pray tell, is important to the ``pro-lifers''? Why, the non-sentient *egg* is deemed so ``human'' that an adult human is to be forced -- by the *State* -- to stand down before it! It is here where the case is so clear-cut -- and ultimately so ridiculous -- that the anti-abortionists usually slowly give way, all the while fighting rear-guard actions with mouthings about ``slippery slopes.'' Yes, it *may* be all right, some will reluctantly agree, for a woman to use an I.U.D. (But only in cases of rape or incest... :-)) Anti-abortionists charge that allowing abortion on demand will lead inevitably to legalized killing of babies, children, the feeble-minded, and old people (next -- *us*). These are the ``slippery slopes.'' I say this could *only* happen if we as a society loose sight of what it really means to be *human*. On the contrary, I charge the so-called ``pro-life'' movement with inciting just such dehumanizing influences, with its single-minded insistence that the fetus has ``human rights'' -- during stages of development where the fetus manifests no more correspondence to characteristics we would consider ``human'' than certain organizations of chemicals -- which transcend the human rights of a living, breathing, thinking, feeling, human being -- the woman! The Nervous System and The Brain Fortunately, I think that society as a whole is smarter than the ``pro-life'' philosophy. For example, I think this is reflected in the growing acceptance of ``brain death'' rather than ``heart stop'' as an accurate indicator of when the ``person we knew'' has gone. *What* defines the ``human.'' This is the philosophical issue of all time, and we won't solve it today, but it seems clear that some essential part of what being *human* means, that which sets us apart from the animals, requires that the nervous system and the many-convoluted apparatus of the *brain* be present to support it. In particular, centuries of medical experience with accidents, disease, and surgery on brain and body have revealed that when a brain's *cerebral cortex* has been heavily damaged, all traces of a human personality go away and *never* come back. A modern development in brain physiology which has recently been heavily popularized is ``right/left brain asymmetry.'' As understood by the public, the left hemisphere of the brain is the seat of all intellectual and verbal tasks and the right hemisphere is the seat of emotion and visualization. This model of the brain is no doubt oversimplified, but the point is that *both* brain hemispheres are components of the cerebral cortex. Evolutionists sometimes say that ``the embryo recapitulates evolution'' in its development. The observed fact is that the embryos of many mammalian species closely resemble each other during development. Only towards the end of fetal development do changes occur that strongly fix the identity of a creature within its species, and the cerebral cortex is the *last* part of the brain to develop (``the last to evolve''; I won't argue the matter here). As the seat of all ``human'' emotional and intellectual abilities, if the cerebral cortex does not exist, or exists only in highly rudimentary form, human emotional, intellectual, even tactile experiences are *impossible*. Anti-abortionists, with the aid of their horror film *Silent Scream*, argue that the fetus feels *pain*, that it is, in fact, *tortured*, by even a relatively early (late first trimester, say) abortion. The line of thought goes this way: a (rudimentary) nervous system exists in the fetus by a certain stage -- ergo, when the fetus is aborted, it ``feels'' the procedure. This argument ignores the near certainty that even if ``the switchboard is lit up,'' there's no one ``manning the console.'' There is *no brain* early in fetal development, no destination to ``experience the pain'' from all those hypothetical pain signals. Without the human *experience* of pain, pain signals themselves are mere electricity, no more meaningful than the myriad of other messages traveling up and down the ``nervous'' system all the time. (Anyone who's been under general anesthesia knows that!) Matt, as I recall, in another article you ask (pardon me, I'm paraphrasing from memory): Shouldn't we give the fetus the ``benefit of the doubt''? What if someday we ``discover'' that they're *really human* and we've been *mass murderers*? I hope I've made it clear that what we ``discover'' about humanity is strongly affected by how we *define* humanity. Did you know, Matt, that early microscopists reportedly saw a ``little man'' riding within each sperm cell? What if we ``discover'' that they were right? Shouldn't we give sperm the ``benefit of the doubt'' and declare it murder to allow a single sperm to die? We might be saving the lives of billions of ``little men'' -- maybe even a few ``little women''! :-) And don't forget those children of *Brave New World* -- don't they deserve a little ``benefit of the doubt''? (I can hear Paul Zimmerman now: It was the evil *Damager-God* that designed human reproduction, so all those ``little men'' would die horribly, leaving a tiny remnant to live on to be tortured further. Quickly, we must construct *Brave New World* to stop this Holocaust and foil Damager-God! :-) [If this is obscure, read net.origins.]) That is what ``pro-lifers'' are doing, really. They are projecting a ``little man'' into the fertilized egg -- rather than into sperm, but otherwise it's a similar idea. There is no evidence whatsoever for ``little men'' within eggs -- and plenty of evidence that being ``human'' requires a *brain*! Yet, we are to give this non-sentient cell human rights, just for the ``benefit of the doubt,'' and it is to be *murder* when a woman attempts to use her body as she chooses! I suggest, Matt, that it's *much* more likely that *cattle* will be discovered worthy of ``human rights'' than a being lacking a brain. (And why don't *women* ever deserve the ``benefit of the doubt''?) Standard Definition of Humanity I am feeling my way here towards a new ``standard definition of humanity,'' a definition predicated on the *existence* of that organ humans depend on so heavily -- the *brain*, including the cerebral cortex -- together with a significant degree of electrical functioning within it. Lest anyone imagine I am setting a standard which consigns babies, feeble-minded, and senile alike to the trash can, let me reassure everyone that *all* postpartum members of the species homo sapiens (other than the ``brain dead'') automatically qualify. Pre-partum individuals, however, *will* qualify *when they have developed a brain*, including a cerebral cortex. So defined, just when *would* that line dividing ``potential'' from ``real'' humanity be crossed? I believe that most parents who are *at all* sensitive to the bright new personality suddenly plunked into their midst would agree that the formation of such a personality must have substantially *predated* birth. (I'm not being scientific here, I know, but science backs me up on this.) Coming from the other direction, as noted before the cerebral cortex is the last of the major developments by the human fetus. And it is *huge* -- when a baby is born, his or her entire body typically only weighs five or six times the weight of the brain! It is clear that the embryo's major developmental effort during the mother's third trimester is taken up with growing the brain and cerebral cortex. Only when *this* point has been reached, can we *honestly* suggest that a new human personality -- worthy of rights now and into the future -- exists and has taken root. I therefore come down on the side of those who would place *some* restrictions on abortion during the woman's third trimester (e.g., attempting to save the now-realized human form), but *no* restraint prior to the third trimester. Funny thing, this is similar to what the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision allowed, even encouraged. The discussion several times has gotten to a very personal, even anatomical, level. There, perhaps, it should rest for a moment -- close, personal, anatomical. We're talking ``privacy,'' here. ``Private parts,'' remember? We're talking about State intrusion into privacy, here. Anti-abortionists are fond of talking about the ``dozen years of deviance'' from the old time anti-abortionist religion, but they forget that all of our liberties have been steadily extended over the last two hundred years. Do they really yearn for the good ol' days when it was legal to own human chattel? One of the rights which has been added, by implication, to the U.S. Constitution by the Supreme Court is a trifling little matter of a ``right of privacy.'' Who among us will step forward to give up all of their ``right of privacy''? Surely, if that right means *anything*, it means the right to *control one's body*, one's own *private parts*. This was the judgment of Roe vs. Wade. (Hmmm... Maybe ol' Roe vs. Wade wasn't such a bad decision after all! :-)) Man and Her Emotions I've been talking a lot about intellect, now I'd like to talk for a moment about emotion. As mammals and as human beings we *love our children*. We are horrified when they are abused, and we wish and try to provide the best for them. As conscious beings we are fascinated by our origins, and twist our minds around hard questions like how consciousness could ever ``begin.'' And, I venture to say that *no* human concern carries as much emotional lightning as our reproduction. As a result, it's no wonder that questions of sex, birth control, and abortion raise such a clamor. However, the human maturing process involves steadily restricting our immediate emotional reactions in favor of the guidance of thought and reflection. Let me give an example of what I mean. A two-year-old acquaintance of mine observed her family's kitten attack a bird, and promptly ran screaming and crying to Mommy. Amid her tears, the little girl was was adamant that the cat had done a *very bad thing*, and couldn't possibly live with them any more. Now, as human beings grow up, we generally learn to appreciate the way the world works for cats, birds, and people, and forego oversimplified value judgments such as hating ``bad'' carnivores or loving ``good'' herbivores. We recognize that all creatures obey their basic natures, and all form an interdependent community. In case you think adults couldn't make this mistake, though, early in this century, before society was as cognizant of this deep interdependency, many ``bad'' wolves were exterminated so ``good'' deer could live undisturbed by them. The deer population boomed, and the weakened deer proceeded to starve in huge numbers. Moral: Sometimes the immediate emotional response is *not* appropriate, and actions based on emotions can make matters worse. *Of course* it's unpleasant to view the aftermath of even a medically-supervised abortion, and the ``pro-life'' movement has seen to it that we know just what it looks like. Most people don't like the ``back room'' of a butcher shop either, nor do they like to look over the shoulder of a surgeon. Blood and body parts are never pleasant. When we connect this bloody imagery with our reproduction, with destroying a being which, if allowed to, becomes the *baby we love*, then our hearts choke up and a part of us says, ``*No! Bad*!'' -- just like the little girl's feeling for the bird. For many people, that's enough for them. Any feeling as powerful as *that*, they judge, has just *got* to be their ``conscience speaking,'' and they accept this ``gut reaction'' uncritically. This emotional response is, I'm convinced, a major force behind the pro-life movement, and the reason it really thinks it *is* ``pro-life.'' Yet, I would recall the deer and the wolves -- a great many deer ended up extraordinarily miserable, sickly, and starving, as a result of the best intentions of human beings. (Another very large group within ``pro-life'' is simply and cold- bloodedly intent on dismantling the sexual and women's revolutions, by the traditional method of making women ``pay for their play'' -- keeping them barefoot and pregnant, and socially ostracizing them.) How many people out there really *remember* the ``good old days'' before Roe vs. Wade? *I* do. I remember thousands of women who *insisted* on the right to control their own bodies -- dying at the hands of *butchers*! ``Pro-lifers'' say, ``They deserved it! What about the *millions* of fetuses who are dying now versus far fewer back then!'' I reply, *women* have *brains* -- and feelings, and minds, and personalities! Prior to the third trimester, *fetuses* don't! Let's be real! As to whether the ``verdict of history'' will favor the pro-choice or the anti-abortion ``forces,'' I suggest that abortion is probably not one of history's major deciding points, but in the event, if history turns out written by *Brave New World*, then history will no doubt say whatever *Brave New World* wants it to. ---------------- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "A disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/11/85)
In article <1213@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >> [Matt Rosenblatt] >> Mr. Newton and Mr. Rosen: >> >> Enough already! >> [Much omitted] >> It's a question of values, not facts. >> >[Bill Tanenbaum] >Bravo Matt. >[omission] >Abortion IS a question of values, >not facts. It is a sad choice between two evils. Bravo Matt, and bravo Bill. I was about to decide that a reasonable discussion was impossible in this newsgroup and unsubscribe. Matt and Bill have given me reason to hope. Abortion is controversial, but we (or most of us) are rational adults, in theory able to discuss even controversial topics with reason and civility. I'm giving this newsgroup another chance. (But if I see another posting with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 2% at the bottom of my screen, that's it! If you want to argue with a single person in the group about some point of his argument, or insult and deride, please do it by mail.) charli
sas@lanl.ARPA (09/12/85)
> Bravo Matt. It's a pleasure to read a posting from someone on the opposite > side of the issue that I can wholeheartedly agree with. Not only that, > but you have hit the nail on the head. Abortion IS a question of values, > not facts. It is a sad choice between two evils, terminating the life of > an embryo or fetus, and forcing a woman to bear an unwanted child to > term. It is not a theological discussion of when life begins, or what > name you call the fetus. Many of us have made this point many times, > but the endless insoluble "when does human life begin" fights go on and on. > Bravo again. > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan Bravo to you Bill, I am glad to see someone on the *other* side say that it is "a sad choice between two evils". I am tired of hearing both sides ignoring the evils on the other side. Steve Smith
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/13/85)
> Rich, I'll disagree with you first. I don't agree that dependency > by the fetus is an important consideration in the abortion debate. > If a human (adult, say) should be connected with another by some > vital lifeline, surely the person that line was tied to would *not* > be able to cut it on a whim. The fact that the fetus isn't built > to live outside the womb until birth doesn't alter that situation. [McNEIL] First, there's a big difference between being tied to a machine for a small subset of life functions and being tied to A HUMAN BEING for all life support. Are the machine's rights in violation because the person is "using" it? Of course not. Are the woman's rights in violation if an entity is "using" her without her consent? > Why must the reason be *compelling*? Because we're talking > about subordinating the rights of one who is agreed by all > to be a living, breathing, feeling and thinking, admittedly > female :-), human being. And it is no minor subordination. > Many, mostly males it seems, talk as if it is but a *small* > matter for a woman to be forced to take the trouble and risk > of carrying a fetus to term and delivering it. Many others, > of course, see it as quite proper dues-paying -- on the woman's > part -- for having led a ``loose life.'' (Need I say :-) ?) Yes, because of the ease with which things are misconstrued here. But well said nonetheless. > Some defending the pro-choice side of the argument, however, > have taken the tactic of declaring the fetus is *not alive* > at all. This is not only incorrect, it is ridiculous. *Of > course* the sperm, egg, embryo, and fetus are all *alive*, > according to generally accepted biological definitions of > ``life.'' The question remains, are they ``human'' life -- > and, if so, according to what meaning of the term ``human''? > > What ``human life'' means is subject to definition. If you > don't believe this, Matt and Rich, why did Pope Paul III in > 1537 feel the necessity to issue his papal bull *Sublimis Deus* > which revealed the Indians of North and South America to be > *human beings*, endowed with soul and reason? Clearly, *some* > people didn't find Indians' humanity to be all that obvious! The fact was that if they had been using a serious scientific investigation (which shows that we are all of the same species) rather than ancient superstitions and prejudices, the definition would have been obvious. Furhtermore, the criterion of autonomy is an important one is determining whether an organism is a living organism or not. Spermatozoa and ova are alive and independent in the context of their environment (the testes and the ovaries). Are they human? Of course not. Partly because even if we reproduced parthenogenetically, the entity at that point is not capable of independent life in an environment appropriate for humans: "the open air", so to speak. Neither is the fetus until very late in the pregnancy. -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/13/85)
>>> Mr. Newton and Mr. Rosen: >>> Enough already! >>> It's a question of values, not facts. >>Bravo Matt. >>Abortion IS a question of values, >>not facts. It is a sad choice between two evils. >Bravo Matt, and bravo Bill. >I was about to decide that a reasonable discussion was impossible in >this newsgroup and unsubscribe. Matt and Bill have given me reason to hope. >Abortion is controversial, but we (or most of us) are rational adults, >in theory able to discuss even controversial topics with reason and >civility. I'm giving this newsgroup another chance. (But if I see >another posting with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 2% at the bottom of my screen, >that's it! If you want to argue with a single person in the group about >some point of his argument, or insult and deride, please do it by mail.) Gee, guys, I apologize deeply for seeing fit to defend my position and my name from certain malicious attacks. I promise I'll never do it again. And if someone in your future encounters smears what you have to say and twists it beyond recognition, expect an equally friendly statement about your self defense. If you found some problems with my original position, perhaps you might see fit to talk to me about those problems, where I might be wrong, and why. That is how discussion takes place. Not by vilifying people for speaking their mind. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (09/13/85)
For readers new to net.abortion, there are some who say a fetus is not a human life because it could not live on its own. Others, including me, believe that it's not important whether it could live on its own, it's human anyway. Moreover, many of them CAN live outside the womb, as evidenced by premature babies who survive. > >>If you really believe this to be true, then why force women to endure > >>nine months of pregnancy? Obviously you have scientific proof that the > >>fetus can be removed at seven months and be a full fledged autonomous > >>human being, so let's remove ALL the fetuses at seven months and save > >>the women the problems of an additional two months with a fetus inside her. > >>Ante up. [R. ROSEN] > > > Mr. Rosen seems to think it's better to risk the death of the seven-month > > fetus (or to ensure its quick death with an abortion, if unwanted) > > than to burden the pregnant woman with an additional two months > > of pregnancy. Mr. Newton does not, and neither do I. [M. ROSENBLATT] > > First of all, I never said that I held this position, which you tar me with > in a most malicious manner. What I *did* say is that if YOU truly believe > this position, then you should carry it through to its logical conclusion. > [R. ROSEN] Rather than rely on me to "tar" Mr. Rosen with holding any position, let him state what his position is himself. Suppose a woman is seven months pregnant and does not want to continue being pregnant. Does she have the right to risk the death of the fetus by removing it from her body? Does she have the right to ensure its quick death with an abortion? >>If Mr. Rosen is saying either that the seven-month fetus cannot be removed >>at seven months and be an autonomous human being, he is wrong. Before the >>days of sophisticated neonatal life-support equipment and techniques, >>premature babies of seven months' gestation did survive -- one of them works >>right here in my laboratory. All the fancy equipment did was increase the >>proportion of such babies that survive, although not to 100%. [ROSENBLATT] >When I studied such things as neonatal research (as a sub-topic in a course), >"although not to 100%" was a hell of an understatement. When the doctors >were able to get a 30% survival rate (at the end of the second trimester), >they were overjoyed. (prevoiusly, the survival rate was less than 3%) > >Any premature baby born before the start of the third trimester are not yet >fully developed. (In the third trimester, the fetus is complete and simply >gaining size and weight, no more development occurs) If a child is born >before the third trimester, it's as good as dead. I belive that the survival >rate of secord-trimester babies was less than 1%. [VINCE HATEM] OK. The second trimester ends at the end of the sixth month of gestation, which is the beginning of the seventh month. "Although not to 100%" was referring to a seven-month fetus, i.e., one at the end of the seventh month. All I said was that most of these do survive. If Mr. Hatem says the survival rate of second-trimester babies is "less than 1%," is he referring to the overall rate for everyone born between the end of the third month and the end of the sixth month, or the rate for those born at the end of the sixth month? If he is including spontaneous abortions during the first half of the second trimester, of course he will get a very low survival rate. However, a 30% survival rate at the end of the second trimester (i.e., the end of the sixth month) means that if the doctors try to save a six-month fetus, there is a 30% chance it will live. Abortion, legal through the end of the sixth month, usually ensures that the fetus will die (although sometimes the doctors botch it and the damned nuisance lives anyway). So in at least some cases, whether the fetus lives or dies is determined by its mother's wishes. That kind of life-and-death power is what is unacceptable to me. -- Matt Rosenblatt
john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (09/13/85)
[munch, munch] Well done, Mr. McNeill. In general, a well reasoned argument. However, I hope you have an asbestos suit, as I suspect the pro-lifers on the net are about to attempt to turn you into a lump of coal. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (09/13/85)
MICHAEL MCNEIL has posted a well-written, well-thought-out article. It is 448 lines long, though, so I will respond to only a few sections where I have something to say about our disagreement. > So what that the ``genetic entity'' that you possess, Matt -- > whether unique or not -- has just come into physical existence. > At that moment it is still but a single quantity of the chemical > substance deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), located within a single > eucaryotic cell similar in all functional respects to an amoeba! > . . . > Levity aside, the ``pro-life'' movement philosophically > maintains -- nay, *demands* -- that this single non-sentient > cell's ``human'' rights [outweigh] the rights of an adult human! You've got it! ITS right to live outweighs HER right to kill it. > Anti-abortionists -- as I recall, including you, Matt -- > usually now talk about, ``Well, what if your parents had > decided to abort *you* -- how would you feel then!'' I don't recall saying such a thing to anyone -- it's an _ad hominem_ argument that proves nothing. The Reverend Jesse Jackson, however, did write: ". . . I was born out of wedlock (and against the advice that my mother received from her doctor), and therefore abortion is a personal issue for me." ("How We Respect Life Is Over-riding Moral Issue," National Right to Life News, January, 1977) > Suppose *Brave New World* arrives (I'm not recommending it), > and society takes *all* of the sperm from a selected man, all > of the eggs from chosen women, fertilizes the eggs *in vitro*, > and incubates the embryos within *Brave New World*'s advanced > artificial wombs. > . . . > 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. > . . . > 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! Boy, do I have problems with this analogy! How does the government take ALL the sperm from a man, when his body is constantly generating new sperm cells? Even the Communists in Russia or Bolshevik China would have to lock up every man in the country, whereupon their "Brave New World" would promptly die of economic collapse. "Real, potential human beings"? Make up your mind -- are they real, or only potential? The whole problem lies in deciding when they become real. Natural. Natural. It's natural (and usually benign) for pregnant women to carry to term and give birth. It's not natural for every sperm cell, every egg, to give rise to an embryo, a fetus, and an individual. It takes force to kill the fetus. It would take force to establish the Brave New World control over germ cells in your analogy. In both cases, the force would be against nature. > Anti-abortionists charge that allowing abortion on demand will > lead inevitably to legalized killing of babies, children, the > feeble-minded, and old people (next -- *us*). These are the > ``slippery slopes.'' I say this could *only* happen if we as > a society loose sight of what it really means to be *human*. Maybe we already have lost sight. To see how it could happen, and has been known to happen, read the article by C. Everett Koop, M.D., starting on page 41 of Ronald Reagan's book, "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation" (Nashville, Nelson, 1984). > Fortunately, I think that society as a whole is smarter than the > ``pro-life'' philosophy. For example, I think this is reflected > in the growing acceptance of ``brain death'' rather than ``heart > stop'' as an accurate indicator of when the ``person we knew'' has > gone. And the "brain death" statutes define brain death in terms of the permanent cessation of electrical activity of the brain. So if such electrical activity begins in the fetus at 12 weeks' gestation, does that mean that such a fetus is then "brain alive" and entitled to be considered human? > Matt, as I recall, in another article you ask (pardon me, I'm > paraphrasing from memory): Shouldn't we give the fetus the > ``benefit of the doubt''? What if someday we ``discover'' > that they're *really human* and we've been *mass murderers*? > > I hope I've made it clear that what we ``discover'' about humanity > is strongly affected by how we *define* humanity. Did you know, > Matt, that early microscopists reportedly saw a ``little man'' > riding within each sperm cell? What if we ``discover'' that they > were right? Shouldn't we give sperm the ``benefit of the doubt'' > and declare it murder to allow a single sperm to die? How are we going to discover that? It's not there, and we know it. > That is what ``pro-lifers'' are doing, really. They are projecting > a ``little man'' into the fertilized egg -- rather than into sperm, > but otherwise it's a similar idea. There is no evidence whatsoever > for ``little men'' within eggs -- and plenty of evidence that being > ``human'' requires a *brain*! Who says they're projecting a "little man" into the fertilized egg? I haven't heard any pro-lifer argue in that way. And whether being "human" requires a brain is a matter of definition -- how can evidence affect a definition? Many who argue for abortion-on-demand in this net claim that the fetus is not human until birth, brain or no brain. Many who argue against abortion claim life begins at conception, brain or no brain. > Yet, we are to give this non-sentient > cell human rights, just for the ``benefit of the doubt,'' and it is > to be *murder* when a woman attempts to use her body as she chooses! Well, I have squawked in the past about fast-and-loose use of the word "murder," but basically, Yes, we are to give this non-sentient cell human rights -- at least the right not to be killed. > I am feeling my way here towards a new ``standard definition of > humanity,'' a definition predicated on the *existence* of that > organ humans depend on so heavily -- the *brain*, including the > cerebral cortex -- together with a significant degree of electrical > functioning within it. Who determines what a significant degree of electrical activity is? Keep on feeling your way. > We're talking about State intrusion > into privacy, here. . . . Who among us will step forward to give up > all of their ``right of privacy''? A worthwhile point. But we're not talking about giving up "all" of their right to privacy. It's only where the right to privacy comes into conflict with the right to life that we say privacy has to take second place. It's not an absolute right, you know: the state has a duty to interfere with someone who abuses his wife or children, even if stopping him requires invading the privacy of his home. > (Another very large group within ``pro-life'' is simply and cold- > bloodedly intent on dismantling the sexual and women's revolutions, > by the traditional method of making women ``pay for their play'' -- > keeping them barefoot and pregnant, and socially ostracizing them.) Who? Who is intent on doing such a thing? Why, people who don't believe these revolutions resulted in unalloyed good. That's not surprising. The American Revolution resulted in slavery continuing in North America long after it had been abolished in England. The French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror. The Russian Revolution led to the deliberate starvation of the kulaks. Even good revolutions often have bad effects. Are you going to argue that the sexual and women's revolutions have had no bad effects? Stopping one of the bad effects of the sexual and women's revolutions -- namely, abortion on demand -- will not "dismantle" those revolutions. > I remember thousands of women > who *insisted* on the right to control their own bodies -- > dying at the hands of *butchers*! ``Pro-lifers'' say, ``They > deserved it! Which pro-lifers say, "They deserved it"? They didn't deserve to die, any more than their fetuses deserved to die. ------- It's not the bloodiness of an abortion I object to -- childbirth is bloody, too. It's the needless snuffing out of a human life that I believe has already begun, certainly by the time the woman knows she is pregnant. Your arguments make sense, most of them, if we agree with your definitions and your values. I don't. -- Matt Rosenblatt ". . . I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed."
giaccone@rochester.UUCP (Tony Giaccone) (09/13/85)
[E.T.L.Y.S.B.]
Hi Folks,
My friend Ray Frank has been after me to post to the net for some time
now. I must say that I resisted up until now because I hadn't seen anything
that was worth the time and effort. Today I had to change my mind I finally
found something worth commenting on.
The article referenced above is probably one of the best I've seen
posted to this net in a long time ( I've been reading the net for about
the last two years). I think it elegantly and effectivly discusses the
points I find most relevant to the disscusion of abortion. It is one of
the few articles I've seen posted to this net that I wish I had written.
I strongly suggest that if you haven't read this article you do so now.
Michael McNeil presents a well thought out and presented case for abortion.
Even more amazing is the fact that he does so in a way which is neither
demeaning nor antagonistic. I hope we can see some discussion of the points
that are raised with out the usual flamage that these discusions usually
degenerate into.
Respectfuly
Tony Giaccone
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The programers national anthem is ARGHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Internet: giaccone@rochester.arpa
UUCP: {decvax, allegra, seismo, cmcl2}!rochester!giaccone
Phone: [USA] (716) 275-5365 work, 244-6221 home
USMail: Apt 2, 42 Vick Park B. Rochester NY 14607
Employer: Department of Computer Science; University of Rochester;
Rochester, NY 14627rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/16/85)
> For readers new to net.abortion, there are some who say a fetus is not > a human life because it could not live on its own. Others, including > me, believe that it's not important whether it could live on its own, > it's human anyway. [ROSENBLATT] Some people may say that rocks are human, and that the fact that they share little in common with humans is "not important, they're human anyway". What an amazing new way to reach conclusions: assume the conclusion to be correct, and ignore anything that stands in the way of doing that. ("new"?) >>> Mr. Rosen seems to think it's better to risk the death of the seven-month >>> fetus (or to ensure its quick death with an abortion, if unwanted) >>> than to burden the pregnant woman with an additional two months >>> of pregnancy. Mr. Newton does not, and neither do I. [M. ROSENBLATT] >>First of all, I never said that I held this position, which you tar me with >>in a most malicious manner. What I *did* say is that if YOU truly believe >>this position, then you should carry it through to its logical conclusion. >>[R. ROSEN] > Rather than rely on me to "tar" Mr. Rosen with holding any position, let him > state what his position is himself. I think that saying "what I did say was...", and following it with an explanation, IS in fact stating my position. You may choose to quote the word "tar" if you like, Matt, nonetheless it is appropriate based on the way you deliberately attributed something to me that was false, in order to deceptively win points in this argument. Saying that I should state my position myself, when in fact I already had, is another example of this. > Suppose a woman is seven months pregnant and does not want to continue being > pregnant. Does she have the right to risk the death of the fetus by removing > it from her body? Does she have the right to ensure its quick death with an > abortion? Is abortion at seven months even remotely within the scope of the law allowing abortions? A vacuous straw man of the shoddiest kind. >>When I studied such things as neonatal research (as a sub-topic in a course), >>"although not to 100%" was a hell of an understatement. When the doctors >>were able to get a 30% survival rate (at the end of the second trimester), >>they were overjoyed. (prevoiusly, the survival rate was less than 3%) >>Any premature baby born before the start of the third trimester are not yet >>fully developed. (In the third trimester, the fetus is complete and simply >>gaining size and weight, no more development occurs) If a child is born >>before the third trimester, it's as good as dead. I belive that the survival >>rate of secord-trimester babies was less than 1%. [VINCE HATEM] > OK. The second trimester ends at the end of the sixth month of gestation, > which is the beginning of the seventh month. "Although not to 100%" was > referring to a seven-month fetus, i.e., one at the end of the seventh month. > All I said was that most of these do survive. If Mr. Hatem says the survival > rate of second-trimester babies is "less than 1%," is he referring to the > overall rate for everyone born between the end of the third month and the > end of the sixth month, or the rate for those born at the end of the sixth > month? If he is including spontaneous abortions during the first half of > the second trimester, of course he will get a very low survival rate. > However, a 30% survival rate at the end of the second trimester (i.e., the > end of the sixth month) means that if the doctors try to save a six-month > fetus, there is a 30% chance it will live. Abortion, legal through the > end of the sixth month, usually ensures that the fetus will die (although > sometimes the doctors botch it and the damned nuisance lives anyway). So > in at least some cases, whether the fetus lives or dies is determined by > its mother's wishes. That kind of life-and-death power is what is > unacceptable to me. It is apparent that Mr. Rosenblatt is out to slowly but surely stretch the truth until it all fits in with his position. "OK, we *were* talking about seventh month fetuses, let's go back a month and assume the same thing. And again, and again... Until it is 'clear' that abortion is wrong." -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/16/85)
>>... the ``pro-life'' movement philosophically maintains -- nay, *demands* -- >>that this single non-sentient cell's ``human'' rights [outweigh] the rights of >>an adult human! [McNEIL] > You've got it! ITS right to live outweighs HER right to kill it. [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? And could you please explain them without resorting to diatribes about fetuses not being considered for possible abortion or other straw men. >>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! > "Real, potential human beings"? Make up your mind -- are they real, > or only potential? The whole problem lies in deciding when they > become real. 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. > Natural. Natural. It's natural (and usually benign) for pregnant women to > carry to term and give birth. It's not natural for every sperm cell, every > egg, to give rise to an embryo, a fetus, and an individual. It takes > force to kill the fetus. It would take force to establish the Brave > New World control over germ cells in your analogy. In both cases, > the force would be against nature. In what way could anything a human being does be deemed "against nature"? Are human beings disjoint and separate from "nature"? On what basis do you make such a claim? This argument has been used before to claim that homosexuality and a variety of other things are "wrong", because they are "against nature". Even though such a statement is blatantly self-contradictory. >>Anti-abortionists charge that allowing abortion on demand will >>lead inevitably to legalized killing of babies, children, the >>feeble-minded, and old people (next -- *us*). These are the >>``slippery slopes.'' I say this could *only* happen if we as >>a society loose sight of what it really means to be *human*. > Maybe we already have lost sight. To see how it could happen, > and has been known to happen, read the article by C. Everett Koop, M.D., > starting on page 41 of Ronald Reagan's book, "Abortion and the Conscience > of the Nation" (Nashville, Nelson, 1984). You mean read the words of someone who claims as you do that abortion represents the murder of a human being? Is a basis provided for proving that, or is it just asserted as you might do. -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (09/16/85)
[Eat away! You can't scare me, you Line Eater Monst...] I wanted to advertise my recently submitted article, for those of you who may have inadvertently or advertently skipped by it. > I almost didn't read your posting when I saw the 600+ line length, >however, I am very glad I did. I thought your posting one of the best >reasoned and most reasonable I have seen in a long time. (All this >means, of course, is that my line of thought closely parallels yours >and makes us both wonderful :-) > > Anyway, I thank you for the time and effort that went into your >posting. > > unixcorn (alias m. gould) The article in question is actually 448 some odd lines in length. Yes, that *is* long, and many may have skipped it for that reason. However, shortness is not necessarily a virtue (just look at many of the shorter articles submitted in this newsgroup for examples). One person flamed me without even having *read* the article. Please -- read it *then* flame me! The article hangs together as a unitary line of reasoning. In addition, to fully establish my conclusion, I felt it necessary to carefully discuss all the major arguments, pro and con, which are extant in the abortion debate. If the article <214@3comvax.UUCP> has scrolled off your news system by the time any of you read this, just send me mail and I'll happily forward it to you. Thanks for your consideration! ________________ Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/17/85)
Mr. McNeill has done a wonderful job in stating the pro-choice position. He has done this without falling into the trap of merely defining away the humanity of the fetus. There is one point that I think requires amplification. The extreme pro-life position of Matt Rosenblatt et. al. says that from the moment of conception the embryo deserves full legal status as a human being. A logical consequence of this position is that a woman who uses an I. U. D. or a morning after pill is guilty of premeditated murder. The penalty for premeditated murder is life imprisonment or death. O.K. YOU PRO-LIFERS, should I.U.D. users be sent to prison for life. If you say yes, your position is consistent, but your values are BARBARIC, in my opinion. If you say no, on what grounds do you do so. After all, murder is murder. The act is premeditated. The "victim", as you call it, is innocent. On what grounds do you argue for leniency? Could it be that killing an embryo is not as bad as killing a born human being?? If you can get yourself to come this far, you might realize that your moral absolutes are not so absolute as you thought. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/17/85)
>. . . The extreme >pro-life position of Matt Rosenblatt et. al. says that from the moment >of conception the embryo deserves full legal status as a human being. >A logical consequence of this position is that a woman who uses an >I. U. D. or a morning after pill is guilty of premeditated murder. >The penalty for premeditated murder is life imprisonment or death. >O.K. YOU PRO-LIFERS, should I.U.D. users be sent to prison for life. >. . . . Could it be that killing an embryo is not >as bad as killing a born human being?? If you can get yourself >to come this far, you might realize that your moral absolutes >are not so absolute as you thought. >-- >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan Speaking for one pro-lifer only, I would hold that "human life" in the sense indicated by your questions cannot begin until after the zygote has passed the point in development after which twinning, chimeras, and similar developmental anomalies become impossible. (I believe this coincides roughly with the time that the zygote should, if all goes well, implant in the uterine wall.) Therefore, I have no problem with forms of "contraception" that work by preventing the implantation of the zygote in the uterine wall. I would guess there are other pro-lifers who share my view in this, although the "majority view" among pro-lifers is, I believe, that human life in the sense you mean begins at conception. charli
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/18/85)
A response to Michael McNeil. I'm breaking this into parts, more or less along his divisions. >No, if the fetus were ``human'' in some important sense, then >my conclusion would be that the fetus would have some rights, >whether dependent on the mother or not. For me, therefore, >the abortion debate comes down to this question: Is there a >sense by which -- at the expense of the rights of the woman -- >the fetus must be considered *human*? After long, careful >thought on the subject, I can find no such compelling reason. > >Why must the reason be *compelling*? Because we're talking >about subordinating the rights of one who is agreed by all >to be a living, breathing, feeling and thinking, admittedly >female :-), human being. And it is no minor subordination. Your leaving one thing out here. We are generally talking about subordinating the right to *life* of the fetus to *other* rights of the woman. It makes no sense to even consider the question of whether or not the fetus has any rights apart from this most basic right. Neither can you assume that *any* right one human being has can take precidence over *all* the rights of another. >Many, mostly males it seems, talk as if it is but a *small* >matter for a woman to be forced to take the trouble and risk >of carrying a fetus to term and delivering it. Many others, >of course, see it as quite proper dues-paying -- on the woman's >part -- for having led a ``loose life.'' (Need I say :-) ?) Mostly males? Paul Torek keeps sighting a study every time this accusation is made that shows that most Americans who hold pro-life views are women. And why speak only of the risk of pregnancy? Is abortion risk free or even less risky by comparison? >Getting back to the question of whether ``new life begins at >conception,'' what biology and medicine *have* demonstrated >over the last century or so is that there is *no new life* -- >life began once, long ago, and all life today continues that >thread, now spun out into many strands, in an unbroken and >(hopefully) unending sequence. Life is continuous -- the >life of the parents continues unabated in the offspring. I think you are confusing the terms "human life" and "a human life". When speaking of whether a given individual has a right to have her life protected, it makes sense to discuss when that individual's human life began. >What Determines You? > >> >> I refuse to >> >> treat a class of beings that once included myself as we treat germs or >> >> bugs or worms. [MATT ROSENBLATT] >> >> > "You" were also once a sperm cell. And/or an egg? And/or inanimate >> > matter. [RICH ROSEN] >> >> No. You know when a unique genetic entity comes into existence with the >> genes that determine who "I" am. [MATT ROSENBLATT] > >Unfortunately for this idea, Matt, your ``unique genetic entity'' >does *not* determine who *you* are. The fertilized egg still >has the ability to split into separate embryos or even to combine >with another egg to produce a chimeric individual. If you had >an identical twin, that twin would have the same identical DNA >code as you do, but would he be you? If you were cloned, would >the clone be you? The clear answer has to be ``no'' (I hope I'm >not putting words in your mouth, Matt), and the reason is that >the brain, the memories, and the mind occupying it, in addition >to the genes, have a great deal to do with who *you* are, Matt. How does this in any way answer the question of whether or not those humans have the right to live? One, or two ... what does it matter? The point still stands that, from conception (or a similar event) a human or humans grow. The fact that Matt may have an identical twin or clone who is not "him" does not mean that Matt or the other are not human beings with a right to live. >Agreed, the fertilized human egg does have the *potentiality* >of growing into a baby, a child, and ultimately an adult human. >However, the individual sperm and egg carried just as much of that >potentiality *before* their union, when they were just as living! No, their potentuality did not exist apart from that union. The potential of the zygote does not depend on any other positive external event. There need be no further encouragment. Barring any interference (intended or otherwise) she will realize her potential. >So what if the chromosomes carried by the fertilized egg are >composed of ``human'' DNA. Human DNA is not magical. Did you >know, Matt, that human DNA is 99% identical to chimpanzee DNA? >Are *chimpanzees* to be forbidden to have abortions because >virtually all of the DNA being aborted would be *human*? By some measure it is 99% identical. Apparently the other 1% is very significant (like 1% of the national debt) otherwise chimps giving birth to mutated offspring who turned out to be humans would be a fairly common event. >So what that the ``genetic entity'' that you possess, Matt -- >whether unique or not -- has just come into physical existence. >At that moment it is still but a single quantity of the chemical >substance deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), located within a single >eucaryotic cell similar in all functional respects to an amoeba! >What are you going to do, Matt, give it the right to vote? :-) Because it can't have the right to vote, it ought not have the right to live either? This has sad implications for my 19 mo. old daughter. :-) >Levity aside, the ``pro-life'' movement philosophically >maintains -- nay, *demands* -- that this single non-sentient >cell's ``human'' rights outway the rights of an adult human! Why "outwheigh"? Why not "equal"? It is an accepted fact that certain rights I may have do not outweigh your right to live. (Continued) -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/18/85)
>Standard Definition of Humanity > >.. >So defined, just when *would* that line dividing ``potential'' >from ``real'' humanity be crossed? I believe that most parents >who are *at all* sensitive to the bright new personality suddenly >plunked into their midst would agree that the formation of such >a personality must have substantially *predated* birth. (I'm not >being scientific here, I know, but science backs me up on this.) > >Coming from the other direction, as noted before the cerebral >cortex is the last of the major developments by the human fetus. >And it is *huge* -- when a baby is born, his or her entire body >typically only weighs five or six times the weight of the brain! >It is clear that the embryo's major developmental effort during >the mother's third trimester is taken up with growing the brain >and cerebral cortex. Only when *this* point has been reached, >can we *honestly* suggest that a new human personality -- worthy >of rights now and into the future -- exists and has taken root. Here you seem to switch back from the quality of the brain's functioning to it's quantity (existence and size). What would you say against the argument that a newborn has about the same personality and sentience level as a goldfish? ("They EAT goldfish [Alive, even!] don't they?" :-)). Certainly it has less than the family dog. So why does it rank so much higher according to your criteria? Or does it? Another question: You seem to advocate the drawing of a general line and six months gestation. But shouldn't you have to consider each individual fetus? How large does the brain have to be? What if some cross the dividing line sooner than others or the doctors are wrong in there calculations? You are not playing with a dividing line of little consequence. It is the line between life and death of some human beings at the hands of others. If we expect to have that line maintained by more than just asthetics, economics and such, it has to be anchored to a undisputable unique event. An event not defined with criterion that may just as easily apply (where it not for asthetics) to other groups of human beings. >I therefore come down on the side of those who would place *some* >restrictions on abortion during the woman's third trimester (e.g., >attempting to save the now-realized human form), but *no* restraint >prior to the third trimester. Funny thing, this is similar to what >the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision allowed, even encouraged. Which restrictions are "some"? >The discussion several times has gotten to a very personal, even >anatomical, level. There, perhaps, it should rest for a moment -- >close, personal, anatomical. We're talking ``privacy,'' here. >``Private parts,'' remember? We're talking about State intrusion >into privacy, here. Anti-abortionists are fond of talking about >the ``dozen years of deviance'' from the old time anti-abortionist >religion, but they forget that all of our liberties have been >steadily extended over the last two hundred years. Do they really >yearn for the good ol' days when it was legal to own human chattel? In our advance in human rights there have been many setbacks. (e.g. Dred Scott). I consider Row vs Wade to be one of those. These are "the good ol' days". >One of the rights which has been added, by implication, to the U.S. >Constitution by the Supreme Court is a trifling little matter of a >``right of privacy.'' Who among us will step forward to give up >all of their ``right of privacy''? Surely, if that right means >*anything*, it means the right to *control one's body*, one's own >*private parts*. This was the judgment of Roe vs. Wade. (Hmmm... >Maybe ol' Roe vs. Wade wasn't such a bad decision after all! :-)) It certainly was a bad decision. [An important book on this subject is _A Private Choice: Abortion in America in the Seventies_, by John T. Noonan Jr., The Free Press, 1979]. Some who were in favor of abortion rights, nevertheless called it an "act of raw judicial power". The Court should not be in the business of adding anything to the Constitution (that is the perogative of the representative legislative branch). The question of whether or not a "right to privacy" implied in the Constitution is highly debatable. Row is a prime example of "judicial activism". There is plenty of evidence that Justice Brennan deliberately worded decisions on cases prior to Row in order to provide a more favorable basis for the upcoming abortion cases. [See _The Brethren_, by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, Simon & Schuster, 1979, pp. 175-176,234]. People certainly have a right to a certain amount of privacy, but not an absolute right; especially where the lives of others are concerned. Read the amendments to the Constitution and see if any such right is mentioned. The Court extrapolated it from other amendments and then defined it to include abortion. The problem with the "right to privacy" is that it has no specific legal definition. What *does* the right to privacy really mean? No one is really saying, it was just an expedient to grant a right to abortion. Row vs Wade was the ACLU's way of ramming their desires through the Court, even at a time when the national concensus was 80% against abortion on demand. Why didn't they try to get an amendment to the Constitution passed? The argument is strong that the Court greatly overstepped it's power (usurping that of the legislative branch) with Row vs Wade. (Continued) -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/18/85)
>Man and Her Emotions > [ I have deleted an analogy about the cat and the bird to save some space.] >*Of course* it's unpleasant to view the aftermath of even a >medically-supervised abortion, and the ``pro-life'' movement has >seen to it that we know just what it looks like. Most people don't >like the ``back room'' of a butcher shop either, nor do they like >to look over the shoulder of a surgeon. Blood and body parts are >never pleasant. When we connect this bloody imagery with our >reproduction, with destroying a being which, if allowed to, becomes >the *baby we love*, then our hearts choke up and a part of us says, >``*No! Bad*!'' -- just like the little girl's feeling for the bird. Obviouly mere asthetics don't make right and wrong. But it's hard to get people to do something about things that are *wrong* unless they see them. Show them Aschwitz and you have accomplished more than just telling people about it. I think your analogy was flawed in one respect: A cat is not a moral being. Human's are. Nothing an animal does is right or wrong from a moral point of view. You can't extent this to humans. >For many people, that's enough for them. Any feeling as powerful >as *that*, they judge, has just *got* to be their ``conscience >speaking,'' and they accept this ``gut reaction'' uncritically. >This emotional response is, I'm convinced, a major force behind >the pro-life movement, and the reason it really thinks it *is* >``pro-life.'' Yet, I would recall the deer and the wolves -- >a great many deer ended up extraordinarily miserable, sickly, >and starving, as a result of the best intentions of human beings. Perhaps it's pointless to argue here. I agree that emotions are not to be the foundation of moral right and wrong. I would differ with you as to the extent that emotions play as the foundation of the pro-life view (especially my own view). >(Another very large group within ``pro-life'' is simply and cold- >bloodedly intent on dismantling the sexual and women's revolutions, >by the traditional method of making women ``pay for their play'' -- >keeping them barefoot and pregnant, and socially ostracizing them.) What movement is this? I'm supprised I missed it if it is "very large". Also, I hope you can back up your accusations. You might be interested in another brand new book a group within the pro-life movement: _Pro-life Feminism_, Gail Grenier Sweet, ed.; Life Cycle Books, 1985. >How many people out there really *remember* the ``good old days'' >before Roe vs. Wade? *I* do. I remember thousands of women >who *insisted* on the right to control their own bodies -- >dying at the hands of *butchers*! ``Pro-lifers'' say, ``They >deserved it! What about the *millions* of fetuses who are >dying now versus far fewer back then!'' I reply, *women* >have *brains* -- and feelings, and minds, and personalities! >Prior to the third trimester, *fetuses* don't! Let's be real! > >As to whether the ``verdict of history'' will favor the pro-choice >or the anti-abortion ``forces,'' I suggest that abortion is >probably not one of history's major deciding points, but in the >event, if history turns out written by *Brave New World*, then >history will no doubt say whatever *Brave New World* wants it to. How do you know that it hasn't happened with the bit of history you remember. The following is excerpted from an article I posted last December: *Maternal death due to illegal abortions before Row vs. Wade were greatly *exaggerated by groups like NARAL. Dr. Bernard Nathanson (NARAL cofounder) *has said in "Aborting America" that they deliberately lied to the press *and their claims were given wide and uncritical support. The Encylclopedia *of Criminal Law and Justice gives an estimated figure of 8000 deaths per *year in 1958 (I think) without citing any source. * *However, in Sept. 1967 the International Conference on Abortion was held *in Wash. DC. Its participants included doctors, lawyers, theologans, *sociologists, and ethicists representing different views. A book based *on the proceedings was published called "The Terrible Choice: The *Abortion Dilemma" (Bantam, 1968). It says the following about deaths from *abortion (p. 43): * * If the number of abortions performed is difficult to come * by, the number of deaths resulting from abortion is eaiser * to obtain. As one conference participant, Dr. Christopher * Tietze, pointed out, those who die from abortion do so mainly * as a result of hemorrage or infection. In either circumstance * they are likely to be seen in a hospital, where the condition * will be diagnosed. Those who die on arrival in hospitals, * or shortly thereafter, usually undergo autopsies. * * In summarizing the discussions of the medical panel, Dr. * Andre' Hellegers, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology * at Georgetown Univ. reported that in 1964 there were a * total of 247 known deaths from abortion in the U.S. In * 1965 there were 235. These figures include death from * spontaneous miscarriages, legal therapeutic abortions and * illegal abortion. The question may be raised how many * women actually die from abortion with the fact going un- * recognised or unreported. Obviously, an accurate assessment * of this is impossible. * * These statistical inadequacies emphasize the extreme care * with which *all* available figures should be used. But * despite these problems, all the doctors [there were 15] * at the International Conference on Abortion reached a * consensus that a total of 500 abortion deaths per year * would be a reasonable figure--based on the current data. * *Page 47 has a table for the 1965 figures (latest available then) *broken down by state and race (White/Non-white). New York had *the most reported deaths (23 white 26 non-white). California *was next which also had the biggest difference between white *and non-white (25 white 14 non-white). The table can be found in *"Vital Statisics of the United States" Vol. 2 Part B. * *I don't think the doctors at this conference would have called *abortion a major cause of death among women. Even in 1968, four *years before the Row vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton decisions. As to *where figures of 8000 to 10,000 deaths per year came from, well, *I can only accept Nathanson's explanation for that. I quoted it *a few months back. He also made the point that, should abortion *be made illegal overnight, there wouldn't necessarily be a *return to the back-alley coathanger abortion. Abortion technique *was revolutionized about the same time the laws were. Even a *person with little training can operate a suction currette (not *a very hard device to hide) with "remarkable saftey". * *I know that just one woman dying from an abortion is too many as *is one who dies from drug abuse or alchololism or any situation *caused by desparate conditions in life. One answer might be to *make these all legal and safe. Another might be to try to relieve *the desparation. A while back Paul DuBois cited some sources to *indicate that illegal abortion had not been reduced in countries *that have legalized abortion. For various reasons they still go *on. The primary one is probably money and the answer to that, *proposed by many is that tax money be used. Will that help the *poor be less poor? Not necessarily, but it will make them fewer *in number. The fact that a large proportion of these poor are *minority groups and those in third world countries makes me wonder *if this is the right way to approach the problem. * *Also, I'm not sure that the complications from legal abortions *are insignificant. Such complications (perforated uterus, sterility, *miscarrage to name a few) are often diagnosed some time after the abortion *and are treated as a problem separate from the abortion. Can anyone cite *any studies on the rate of uterine cancer, sterility, abnormal births or *such among women who have had abortions vs those who haven't? You chide pro-lifer's for their emotional response to the abortion issue. Well, I don't think you have gone very far in showing that much of that emotion isn't justified. The pro-choice movement has used, and continues to use emotional and deceptive tactics to get it's way. But that seems to have gone unnoticed by their sympathizers. Now that the status quo is the way they want it, let's all play fair, huh? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (09/18/85)
>>You've got it! ITS right to live outweighs HER right to kill it.[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?[R. 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? > 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! [M. 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. [M. 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] 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
bird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells) (09/18/85)
In article <1674@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >First, there's a big difference between being tied to a machine for >a small subset of life functions and being tied to A HUMAN BEING for >all life support. Are the machine's rights in violation because the >person is "using" it? Of course not. Are the woman's rights in violation >if an entity is "using" her without her consent? Her rights are not in violation if she put the entity there. >The fact was that if they had been using a serious scientific investigation >(which shows that we are all of the same species) rather than ancient >superstitions and prejudices, the definition would have been obvious. >Furhtermore, the criterion of autonomy is an important one is determining >whether an organism is a living organism or not. Spermatozoa and ova >are alive and independent in the context of their environment (the testes >and the ovaries). Are they human? Of course not. Partly because even >if we reproduced parthenogenetically, the entity at that point is not >capable of independent life in an environment appropriate for humans: >"the open air", so to speak. Neither is the fetus until very late in >the pregnancy. >-- >"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day > to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human > being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Why is autonomy so important in determining if it is alive? I have never heard this before reading your postings. And when I use scientific reasoning I come to the conclusion that the fetus is alive. I would like to see some source references to back you up because I have only seen you make these claims. Brian Wells James 1:5
king@kestrel.ARPA (09/20/85)
In article <226@3comvax.UUCP>, michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes: > A pair of siamese twins are born. Initially considered unseverable, > they grow to adulthood. Finally, surgical developments arrive which > will allow *one* of the twins to survive separation, but the other > (due to sharing of his liver, say) would die. Do you claim, Rich, > that the twin who would survive separation could, legally or morally, > *force* his brother to accept surgery that would result in his death, > simply because his brother is ``using'' his body without his consent? Excellent example. EXCELLENT example. No, I would feel sort of funny about sacraficing one twin. So would a lot of people. They perform exactly this sort of surgery on newborn Siamese twins all the time. Surgeons who succeed at saving one are almost uniformly applauded. I have never heard a right-to-lifer complain. -dick
quint@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Amqueue) (09/21/85)
In article <11232@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> In article <998@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: >> but the fact remains that China will >> probably successfully curb the worst overpopulation in the world, while >> ours gets worse. If the US were to ban abortion, thus increasing our >> population, they would consider it equally as immoral as their methods >> of controlling population. >> >> -- >> Charles Forsythe >> CSDF@MIT-VAX > >Well your colors are out and flying high. You have declared above that >abortion is a method of controlling population, in addition to getting rid >of unwanted pregnancies. I shudder when I think of what you have said. Do >you feel reasonably special or fortunate or even lucky that you were not >singled out before birth to do your part in controlling population? Mister Forsythe has merely stated a fact: The Chinese are using abortion to curb their population. You are using loaded words to skew his statement, implying that he approves, which may or may not be the case. In the above quoted article, I see nothing to imply that he approves of China's methods of population control. The fact remains that if you kill off some of your population, be it through abortion, war, genocide, or rampant violence in the streets, you will have less people around. I personally think that the extremes that China is going to are unfair, but then I am not faced with the choice of killing of 90% of the next generation, or watching a significant percentage of *everyone* dying of starvation. Whether or not there are ways to prevent it, there is most probably no *immediate* way, and these children are likely to die anyway (or so I have understood from the various statistics that have been bandied about regarding this policy). What they have sounds like a classic lifeboat situation... not everyone can fit in the lifeboat. Until you have been in a position where you *MUST* make a decision about who lives and dies, dont criticize other's decisions... you do not know the stresses or the bases for it (and I include cultural biases and bases in that concept). Can anyone clean up the mud that has been slung? /amqueue
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/23/85)
>>>You've got it! ITS right to live outweighs HER right to kill it.[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?[R. 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? [ROSENBLATT] Not assume. I've said this time and again: if society has rights over you and your person, if society is more important than individuals, than if society "decided" that we as human beings were getting in the way of the smooth running of society (as we often do), then it would have the "right" to get rid of us all. And thus have no humans left in "society". Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? Furthermore, as I have said before, saying "these are my values" is not enough. A Nazi can proclaim "these are my values", but we can show rationally where those values are founded on lies, falsehoods, and anit-human ideals. Why don't we go to the root of YOUR values and see what they're founded on? >>>> 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! [M. 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. [M. 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] > Does Mr. Rosen have information not privy to the rest of us net.abortion > readers that justifies referring to Michael McNeil as "Mr. McNeil"? You mean the name "Michael"? What are you saying? That he should be called "Miss McNeil"? (I know you despise people wishing to refer to themselves as "Ms.") Is Michael a rare example of a woman with the name Michael (there are a few I can think of)? I think I would heard from a Ms. McNeil complaining about my mistitling her if this were the case. What information are you talking about that I am "privy" to? If you are claiming that I said that he made up his mind and you don't see why, or you don't see why I say you misquoted him, read what he said again. And answer the question, my friend. What is the purpose of your evasion of that question? -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/23/85)
>>First, there's a big difference between being tied to a machine for >>a small subset of life functions and being tied to A HUMAN BEING for >>all life support. Are the machine's rights in violation because the >>person is "using" it? Of course not. Are the woman's rights in violation >>if an entity is "using" her without her consent? > Her rights are not in violation if she put the entity there. She "put"? How quaint. Do you anti-choicers ever tire of the "you fucked around, so suffer" argument? I have. It's irrelevant to the issue (you don't like what she [and apparently someone else?] did, so you feel that "consequences" should be "suffered") and pointless. If I write a program and it has a bug in it and it ravages through everyone's files and starts destroying them all, am I (and is my installation) obliged to let it run because "I submitted the job"? Or can we take steps to stop the program from completing? The ball is in your court to show why the woman doesn't have that same option, and you have continuously (as a group) failed to do so. > Why is autonomy so important in determining if it is alive? I have > never heard this before reading your postings. And when I use scientific > reasoning I come to the conclusion that the fetus is alive. I would like > to see some source references to back you up because I have only seen you > make these claims. Why is metabolism important in determining whether something is alive? Or respiration? Or reproductive capability? Is this the Brave New World in which if you don't like the definition of something you just change it around? Read up on viruses, my friend, and find out how they are distinguished from living things. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (09/23/85)
> There is one point that I think requires amplification. The extreme > pro-life position of Matt Rosenblatt et. al. says that from the moment > of conception the embryo deserves full legal status as a human being. > A logical consequence of this position is that a woman who uses an > I. U. D. or a morning after pill is guilty of premeditated murder. > The penalty for premeditated murder is life imprisonment or death. > [BILL TANENBAUM] A while ago, I took issue with Ken Arndt (who generally speaks the straight truth about abortion -- where are you, Ken?) over his use of the technical legal term "murder" to describe abortion. Our legal system has come a long way from the Old English common law under which every killing was murder. All victims are NOT equal; all circumstances are NOT equal, and the people, through their elected representatives in all 50 states, have the right to define murder and other crimes as they see fit, subject only to the limits imposed by the U.S. Constitution and their State constitutions. Abortion was never defined as "murder" -- it was a separate crime with its own penalties. If I were a legislator considering a bill outlawing abortions, I would want to vary the penalty, depending on whether the woman knows she is pregnant at the time she kills her embryo/fetus, and depending on whether it is the woman herself who attempts abortion (women were almost never prosecuted under the old anti-abortion laws), or a professional abortionist. Precedent? Sure: One of the aggravating circumstances in the presence of which the U.S. Supreme Court allows the States to impose the death penalty is "murder for hire," the case of the professional "hit man." **NB: MATT ROSENBLATT IS OPPOSED TO THE DEATH PENALTY FOR ANY CRIME, EVEN BY HIT MEN! DON'T ANYONE MISQUOTE THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE TO SAY THAT MATT ROSENBLATT ADVOCATES THE DEATH PENALTY FOR OPERATORS OF ABORTION CLINICS OR THEIR STAFF! ** I believe that the user of an IUD or morning-after pill would lack the "specific intent" (another technical legal term) required to make out a case of murder. -- Matt Rosenblatt
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (09/24/85)
> 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? [ROSENBLATT] I think you got it right. The abortion issue is a clash between two sets of moral values. However, I think the positions of the pro-lifers and pro-choicers are asymmetrical. Whereas the anti-abortionist are trying to impose their moral code on the pro-choice side, the pro-choice side does not attempt to coerce the other side to conform to its moral code. I think that in some (Red China?) countries the governments are trying to force women to have abortions against their will. They justify their act by the needs of population control. Such a coercive approach is symmetrical to the pro-lifer approach. In both cases, we have a moral standard that denies a woman control of her body. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/26/85)
>Why is metabolism important in determining whether something is alive? >Or respiration? Or reproductive capability? Is this the Brave New World >in which if you don't like the definition of something you just change >it around? Read up on viruses, my friend, and find out how they are >distinguished from living things. [Rich Rosen] I'm not sure why I'm responding to this. Rich seems to have made up his mind and doesn't care to be confused by the facts. Metabolism, respiration (at the cellular level), and reproductive capacity are all criteria considered by biologists in determining whether something is alive. There are other criteria (e.g., cell structure). By some of these criteria, viruses are a unique (and fascinating) form of life. By others, viruses are a unique (and still fascinating) form of non-life. Of course, by biological criteria, sperms, ova, and organs may also be alive, but they are not, in biological terms, separate organisms. By any biological criteria of life with which I am familiar, a fetus is alive, and is an organism separate and distinct from the mother. I do not believe that science is capable of providing moral or ethical decisions. It only provides information. You may not agree with me on the implications of the information, on how we should act in light of it. But please, before you say something stupid, look up the facts. Base your argument on them, not on ad hominem attacks, appeals to emotion, or the like. charli
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (09/26/85)
>>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? [ROSENBLATT] > Not assume. I've said this time and again: if society has rights over you > and your person, if society is more important than individuals, than if > society "decided" that we as human beings were getting in the way of the > smooth running of society (as we often do), then it would have the "right" > to get rid of us all. And thus have no humans left in "society". Doesn't > make a lot of sense, does it? Furthermore, as I have said before, saying > "these are my values" is not enough. A Nazi can proclaim "these are my > values", but we can show rationally where those values are founded on lies, > falsehoods, and anit-human ideals. Why don't we go to the root of YOUR > values, and see what they're founded on? 1. Just because society has some rights over you and your person, it does not follow that society has all rights, including the right to get rid of you. 2. I never said that society is more important than individuals. 3. I believe that the main justification for the existence of "government," the organized regulator of "society," is to protect the weak from the strong. And I believe that society's right to protect the weak from the strong very often will interfere with the individual rights of the strong. For example, protecting the weak fetus interferes with the privacy rights of the rela- tively stronger pregnant woman and her abortionist. 4. And where did I get the idea that protecting the weak from the strong is a good idea? For one thing, it's common sense -- I don't want someone stronger than me clobbering me or my family. For another thing, consider the following quote, not for any real or imagined authority of its source, but as a policy statement, on its own merits: "Is not this the fast that I have chosen? To loose the fetters of wickedness, To undo the bands of the yoke, And to let the oppressed go free, And that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, And that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, And that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?" -- Isaiah 58:7-8 Sure, the Nazi's values are founded on lies, falsehoods, and anti-human ideals. But what about the above verses? Are they, too, to be considered lies, falsehoods, and anti-human ideals? Where's the falsity in protecting the weak from the strong? 5. The question is not whether society will interfere with the rights of individuals to protect the weak from the strong, but to what extent. That is what the net.abortion debate is all about. You can argue that the fetus is not an "individual" deserving of "protection," and that is what you do argue. But that's a value judgment on your part, and I'm sure you define "individual" in such a way as to exclude the fetus. 6. Your worry about what society might do if it decided that we as human beings were getting in the way of the smooth running of society rings a bell, however: According to the pro-choicers, if a woman decides that her fetus is getting in the way of the smooth running of her life (e.g., would set her back 5-10 years), then she would have the "right" to get rid of it. -- Matt Rosenblatt
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (09/28/85)
[Help! Angry villagers chained me to this rock! Don't leave me here...] > >>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! On the other hand, Matt, if you simply point to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for your "proof" that freedom of speech exists, then I am equally free to refer to Roe vs. Wade for my "proof" in the human right to control one's body (otherwise known as the right to personal privacy). What *are* "human rights," anyway? Aren't they really just general guidelines, painfully arrived at throughout history, for allowing people their individual dignity and sovereignty? Not only are "human rights" intended to be *humane*, but they are also a measure of the status of tyranny. When accepted "human rights" are violated by a government, then the theory of our society has been that the people have a right, nay even a *duty*, to throw off the tyranny and reclaim their rights. "Pro-lifers" will say that that is precisely what they're doing -- rebelling against the tyrannical suppression of the fetus's rights. Unfortunately for this idea, and for sentiments expressed in this newsgroup such as how "the rest of us will be next," few fetuses are out on the barricades fighting for their own rights. All the "pro-lifers," in this newsgroup anyway, seem to have been *born*! Of course, this same argument could also be raised against people who object to infanticide -- i.e., "if the babies don't object, why should you?" There is a crucial difference -- babies are capable, if not of political lobbying, at least of *experiencing* the denial of their rights -- right then, not "later providing they grow up." Fetuses at an early stage can experience nothing! How can *their* rights be violated, except in the never-never-land, circular sense of arguing that if they *had* lived, then they shouldn't have died? No fetuses *experience* the denial of their rights through legalized abortion. On the other hand, if abortion were outlawed, *plenty* of women would experience their rights being violated, all the way from *merely* being forced to carry a fetus for nine months and deliver it, up to the non-negligible possibility of *death* due to complications of pregnancy or the butchery of an illegal abortion. No, the only persons whose rights are violated in the abortion debate are women! The denial of women's rights is so extreme, were the "pro-life" dream ever realized, that if I were a woman (maybe even if I'm not) it would *warrant* a revolt. Let a few "pro-lifers" *experience* the "blood in the streets" that they're telling us is already there! The blood *would* be there -- for *women* -- if they were forced to go back to the back alleys for their freedom. Let them bring this bloodbath to "pro-lifers" -- then we'll see how they (and the rest of us) like it. At least the women would be fighting to protect their *own* rights! > > 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. 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. > 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? -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Who knows for certain? Who shall here declare it? Whence was it born, whence came creation? The gods are later than this world's formation; Who then can know the origins of the world? None knows whence creation arose; And whether he has or has not made it; He who surveys it from the lofty skies, Only he knows -- or perhaps he knows not. *The Rig Veda*, X. 129
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/29/85)
> > [Bill Tanenbaum] > > There is one point that I think requires amplification. The extreme > > pro-life position of Matt Rosenblatt et. al. says that from the moment > > of conception the embryo deserves full legal status as a human being. > > A logical consequence of this position is that a woman who uses an > > I. U. D. or a morning after pill is guilty of premeditated murder. > > The penalty for premeditated murder is life imprisonment or death. >------- > [Matt Rosenblatt] > A while ago, I took issue with Ken Arndt (who generally speaks the straight > truth about abortion -- where are you, Ken?) over his use of the technical > legal term "murder" to describe abortion. Our legal system has come a long > way from the Old English common law under which every killing was murder. > All victims are NOT equal; all circumstances are NOT equal, and the people, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > through their elected representatives in all 50 states, have the right to > define murder and other crimes as they see fit, subject only to the > limits imposed by the U.S. Constitution and their State constitutions. > Abortion was never defined as "murder" -- it was a separate crime with > its own penalties. ----------- Forget about what is NOW legal or illegal. If you feel that premeditated abortion SHOULD BE a distinct crime from premeditated murder, you must agree that the fetus, at least in its earlier stages, should be legally a distinct entity from a post-birth human being. If you feel this way, I was mistaken in saying that you took the extreme pro-life position. However, you can then no longer use "the fetus is a human being" as your sole justification for outlawing abortion. We all agree that, if the fetus had the same legal standing as a post-birth human being, that abortion would be legally murder. Since you have denied this full legal status to the fetus, you must justify why you would grant the fetus sufficient partial legal status to make abortion a crime. You must state the values which compel you to this belief, and why they are so overriding that you feel you should have the right to impose your belief on all women. Extreme pro-lifers do not have to do this, since their granting of full human status to the fetus makes their other positions follow logically. All I can say to the extreme pro-lifers is that, in my opinion, their values are badly distorted, however consistent their logic may be. > If I were a legislator considering a bill outlawing abortions, I would want > to vary the penalty, depending on whether the woman knows she is pregnant > at the time she kills her embryo/fetus, and depending on whether it is the > woman herself who attempts abortion (women were almost never prosecuted > under the old anti-abortion laws), or a professional abortionist. > > I believe that the user of an IUD or morning-after pill would lack the > "specific intent" (another technical legal term) required to make out > a case of murder. > -- Matt Rosenblatt -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (10/01/85)
[*Ohhhh*, yoooouuu'll *never* catch me, you Line Eater Monster, yo...] KEY: > > Me > Rich Rosen "Matt" = Matt Rosenblatt > > What "human life" means is subject to definition. If you > > don't believe this, Matt and Rich, why did Pope Paul III in > > 1537 feel the necessity to issue his papal bull *Sublimis Deus* > > which revealed the Indians of North and South America to be > > *human beings*, endowed with soul and reason? Clearly, *some* > > people didn't find Indians' humanity to be all that obvious! > > The fact was that if they had been using a serious scientific > investigation (which shows that we are all of the same species) rather > than ancient superstitions and prejudices, the definition would have > been obvious. Furhtermore, the criterion of autonomy is an important > one is determining whether an organism is a living organism or not. Proper *definition* of "human life" is necessary to pick out the relevant from the irrelevant among all the myriad of characteristics which we collectively identify as "human." The very facts that "pro-lifers" use to support their conclusion -- e.g., that the egg contains human DNA, that it grows up into a human being, indeed our knowledge that the egg even *exists* -- stem from serious scientific investigations. Matt et al. [<- note correct usage everybody!] use these facts to argue that the fertilized egg deserves human rights! And, to an initial extent, they are right, and you are wrong, Rich. (Sorry.) Because the fertilized egg *is* a member of the human species -- it is biologically alive, it contains human DNA, and it is functionally similar to the many billions of cells that compose the human being it will later become. Your criterion of "autonomy" is not one that biologists use. Even parasites are considered to be living things! So what if, at this stage in its life, the egg must live in the environment of the womb, rather than "the open air" and sunlight we adults enjoy. Where the egg *lives* does not affect its status as "life." All these are results from "serious scientific investigation," Rich, as you should know. However, you then state: > Spermatozoa and ova are alive and independent in the context of > their environment (the testes and the ovaries). Glad you now agree with me, Rich. But why are you contradicting what you just said? (Spermatozoa and ova depend on the testes and ovaries for sustenance, while eggs are "alive and independent in the context of their environment" -- the womb). You go on to say: > Are they human? Of course not. Partly because even if we > reproduced parthenogenetically, the entity at that point is > not capable of independent life in an environment appropriate > for humans: "the open air", so to speak. Neither is the fetus > until very late in the pregnancy. Your "autonomy" criterion, the requirement that the entity be "capable of independent life in an environment appropriate for humans" *is*, I maintain, a *definition* for "humanity." Since this particular definition ignores the fact that living things can live in many quite different environments, it is not a *scientific* definition for humanity. In fact, it is rather circular: "Humans are creatures which live in an environment appropriate for humans." (Incidentally, I hold out the hope that someday humans from Earth will contact intelligent life elsewhere, and we will be *able* to accept their basic "humanity," and not, say, serve them up for dinner. This would be rather hard if "humanity" is *defined* as "breathes oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere at 25 degrees C.," etc.) No, what we need to be able to do with a definition of humanity is to separate the wheat from the chaff, to discard those accurate but irrelevant indicators we have heretofore associated with humanity from those that have real relevance to the question of whether a being should be considered "human," deserving of "human rights." When we look at available societal definitions for when humanity begins, what do we find? Let's look at just a *few* possibilities. 1. Many peoples of the past regularly practiced infanticide, then in most cases proceeded to humanely and lovingly bring up the babies they allowed to live. "Humanity," as far as *these* people were concerned, somewhat *followed* birth. 2. In the law of the United States at present, some form of "humanity" for the fetus begins at the third trimester. 3. The Catholic Church long held that "humanity" arrived at the "quickening," which does not occur until well into the pregnancy. 4. Some in this newsgroup have been observed to argue that abortion should be allowed for a time following fertilization, due to the egg's (temporary) ability to fission into multiple individuals. 5. Matt and other "pro-lifers" place "humanity" in the fertilized egg because, for example, Matt feels that any being with his own "unique genetic entity" (which may or may not actually *be* unique), any being which as he put it "once included myself," simply *has* to be regarded as "human," to be protected by law. 6. *Brave New World*ers in my original article similarly regarded all individual human sperm and ova as "human," because they also bear the "unique genetic entity," they also "once included myself," they also are just as living, etc. ("Pro-lifers" will yell, "That's ridiculous! The cases are *not* similar!" ;-)) You, Rich, argue that a "human being" must be "autonomous" and must live in an oxygen atmosphere. And so on, and so on. Etc., etc. Can't you, can't everyone, see that these criteria are all basically *identical*? They are *all equally arbitrary* -- drawn almost, one might say, at random from the great bazaar of characteristics which humans do generally share, but frequently much other life shares too. One person says, "I take *this* to be human." A second person states, "No, *that* is human!" A third person declares, "You're *both* wrong. *This* is what being *human* means! (Moreover, *you're* a murderer!)" As I mentioned in my previous article, *what is human* is the philosophical issue of all time! We're not going to solve this problem to everyone or even most peoples' satisfaction. Given this fundamental disagreement, how can we arrive at a practical guideline that results in the least hurt done to the fewest "people"? Is there *any* criterion which can sensibly and *scientifically* be selected? I believe a non-arbitrary, scientific criterion for humanity *can* be found -- at least for those willing to search for it. Let's consider what properties such a human definition might possess. The first conclusion that I think we can *definitely* reach is that a sensible definition for humanity does *not* include "humans are living entities which may someday develop into adult human beings." This definition for humanity, often cited by "pro-lifers" -- see, for example, Matt's "once included myself" criterion -- must be dismissed, precisely because the unfertilized egg and sperm share this property. Virtually no one wants to give them "human rights." In my judgment, allowing this criterion would lead inevitably to a nightmarish society such as the *Brave New World* of my article. Briefly, eggs and sperm are "human," and since these beings die in huge numbers during ordinary human reproduction, all engagers in this "inefficient and animalist" process are *mass murderers*. Sperm and eggs must be treasured and incubated within the State's artificial wombs, so all may be saved and mature as human beings, incidentally after having been thoroughly conditioned as they grow up by the State. (I'll not discuss technical issues regarding the feasibility of this process here in this article. All flamers on low/standby, please!) The point is that one cannot require the "humanity" of fetuses, embryos, or fertilized eggs for this reason without also requiring humanity for sperm and ova. Is this what you "pro-lifers" really want to do? If not, you'd better come up with *another reason*. No, if we want a scientific, that is, a rational and non-arbitrary definition for when "humanity" and therefore "human rights" should begin, we must throw away the extraneous rationales exhibited within the definitions of humanity cited above. Just as Pythagoras, in order to prove his theorem regarding right triangles, had to make direct use of a basic property of right angles (i.e., four turns and you're back where you started), for us to find a practical definition which "results in the least hurt done to the fewest people," we must make *use* of this premise to arrive at our answer. In other words, who is or could be *hurt* by the alternative social situations of abortion being legal or illegal? "Pro-lifers" would say, "Millions of fetuses are dying horribly now. If abortion were illegal, a few thousand women might die -- as they attempted to *murder* their babies! -- in botched abortions. The requirement of minimum *hurt* obviously favors saving the fetuses who are dying!" There is a major problem with this point of view, and that is to be "hurt" requires a substantial amount of sophistication. Fetuses at an early enough stage in the pregnancy (when abortions ought to be performed, if they are to occur at all) do not have the nervous system and brain -- therefore, *mind* -- to experience being "hurt" in anything like a "human" way. And I don't mean just the physical experience of *pain* (one could always anesthetize the fetus prior to aborting it if that were all there were to it), but more importantly the special poignance we associate with "snuffing out" a being which has a mind, is capable of experience and feeling, and has attained a near human level of sophistication and complexity. However, it must be the degree of sophistication the entity possesses *then* -- not what it may have later when it grows up. Remember, we must rule out future capabilities -- eggs and sperm *also* grow up to become people. So just how sophisticated *is* the fetus early on in a pregnancy? Well, after fertilized eggs grow beyond their "protozoan" stage, for a goodly period of time the creatures fetuses most closely resemble anatomically and physiologically are certain types of *worm*. Now, I don't want to put down worms -- they're perfectly fine creatures. But should an adult human be required to let a *worm* dominate her life for the better part of a year? That's a heavy penalty for a person, never convicted of any crime, to be required to pay! When millions of unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring, and worm-like deaths are weighed against the death of even *one* thinking, feeling, caring *woman* -- I know where *my* balance lies. Millions times nothing is still nothing -- a woman, to coin a phrase, is infinity. Pro-life's "balance" is simply a prescription for *genocide* against women! -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm ... Were we to meet with a Creature of a much different Shape from Man, with Reason and Speech, we should be much surprised and shocked at the Sight. For if we try to imagine or paint a Creature like a Man in every Thing else, but that has a Neck four times as long, and great round Eyes five or six times as big, and farther distant, we cannot look upon't without the utmost Aversion, altho' at the same time we can give no account of our Dislike... For 'tis a very ridiculous Opinion, that the common People have got, that 'tis impossible a rational Soul should dwell in any other Shape than ours... This can proceed from nothing but the Weakness, Ignorance, and Prejudice of Men. Christianus Huygens, *New Conjectures Concerning the Planetary Worlds, Their Inhabitants and Productions*, c. 1670
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/01/85)
In article <690@ihu1m.UUCP> jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes: >I think you got it right. The abortion issue is a clash between two sets of >moral values. However, I think the positions of the pro-lifers and >pro-choicers are asymmetrical. Whereas the anti-abortionist are trying >to impose their moral code on the pro-choice side, the pro-choice side >does not attempt to coerce the other side to conform to its moral code. I don't see why this makes any difference. To make the pro-life analogy for a moment (equating aborting mothers with rapists and fetuses with the victims), we get a situation which is equally assymetrical. Charley Wingate
barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (10/01/85)
Reading Michael McNeil's 'latest' article has jogged a quick by-thought.
I *THINK* (and you'll correct me if I'm wrong) I've suddenly realized what
many "pro-lifers" seem reluctant to admit is a central pillar of the
"humanity" argument.
PREMISE: It seems to me that most of the pro-lifers are arguing from
a moral standpoint steeped in their religion, generally Christian. However,
before people start flaming, note the following from the keyboard of
Poul Anderson (*The Queen of Air and Darkness*):
"...oh, I suppose," [Barbro said,] "it's just something left
over from my outway childhood, but do you know, when I'm under
them I can't think of stars as balls of gas, whose energies have
been measured, whose planets have been walked by prosaic feet.
No, they're small and cold and magical; our lives are bound to
them; after we die, they whisper to us in our graves."
"Emotionally, physics may be a worse nonsense," [Sherrinford
responded.] "And in the end, you know, after a sufficient number
of generations, thought follows feeling. Man is not at heart
rational. He could stop believing the stories of science if
those no longer felt right."
MAN IS NOT AT HEART RATIONAL. Although many of us would stringently
deny it, our decisions are as often (or more) based on emotional/subconscious/
*superstitious* reactions rather than 'logical scientific enquiry.' (And
even the latter oft' stems from an EMOTIONAL need to place order -- yea, even
Law -- in the Universe.)
The abortion argument fights greatly in the emotions. We may quote science,
but the decision (pro- or against abortion) is not born of science but of
values -- which are born of deep seated emotion. Now, I don't want to
get into a philosophical/psychological argument here (besides, this
discourse is based on *my* world view; I freely admit I might be *wrong*)
(there's a lot of years of trying to make sense of the world behind this --
more detailed explanations can be made available upon mail-request (though
I don't expect any)). I digress, excuse me.
Now, a lot of the abortion argument pivots around the "humanity of the fetus"
(justly, I might add). I agree with Michael McNeil, the demarcation
of "Human" is a seemingly arbitrary one -- although we would all deny it. We
want life to be clearer cut than that (and to some it is, apparently). But
even an arbitrary demarcation has guidelines, and I have heard three major ones
used in the past discussions:
1. Potential -- the fetus, left to its own devices and barring
unforeseen complications, will become a human being and nothing
else.
2. Autonomy -- the fetus cannot survive outside the mother's womb,
ergo is not alive -- more to the point, is not *human* alive.
3. Sentience/Self-Awareness -- when does it begin?
In our secular society, it is the brain which is observed to make us fully
human. Our degree of Sentience sets us apart from the rest of the animal
kingdom even more so -- within our emotional criterions, admitted or not --
than the sheer physical similarities of *Homo sapiens*. Of course, it doesn't
stop here, but here I will pause. As I said, it is our secular society
which chooses Sentience as a criterion. Before we were so secular, there
was another criterion (which, I believe is related). Thank you, Michael, for
the quote to illustrate my point.
... Were we to meet with a Creature of a much different Shape
from Man, with Reason and Speech, we should be much surprised and
shocked at the Sight. For if we try to imagine or paint a Creature
like a Man in every Thing else, but that has a Neck four times as
long, and great round Eyes five or six times as big, and farther
distant, we cannot look upon't without the utmost Aversion, altho'
at the same time we can give no account of our Dislike... For
'tis a very ridiculous Opinion, that the common People have got,
that 'tis impossible a rational Soul should dwell in any other
Shape than ours... This can proceed from nothing but the
Weakness, Ignorance, and Prejudice of Men.
Christianus Huygens, *New Conjectures Concerning the
Planetary Worlds, Their Inhabitants and Productions*,
c. 1670
"For 'tis a very ridiculous Opinion ... that 'tis impossible a rational
*Soul* should dwell in any other Shape than ours..." The definition
of humanity was built upon the possession of a Soul! Admittedly, there are
a lot of you who don't believe in Souls, and I'm not implying that you
should (although I do). Instead, I am attempting to illuminate the elements
of a choice, with the (vain) hope that some rational discussion, some
mutual understanding, may ensue.
To my point ["At LAST," you who have stayed with me this far >thank you!<,
breathe]: we argue and argue where Sentience/Self Awareness begins in the
fetus. *Science*, I believe, says sometime late in the second trimester,
many pro-lifers argue earlier. I do not know, but I think, more than
physical form of the fetus, the pro-lifers fear for the *soul*, the
individual breath/spark of Creator-given Life -- indeed, that part of us
that makes us Human/Children in the Creator/Parents' eyes. This intangible
part of existence, when does it arrive? With sentience? Before sentience?
And what happens to that soul, never given a chance to Live?
You that don't believe in such things are poised over your keyboards, ready
to napalm this pseudo-religious drivel. But before you Flame, REALIZE that
the possession of a soul is a very IMPORTANT, nay CRITICAL, aspect of many
people's self- and world-view.
I did not intend to make an earth shattering point -- indeed, I fear I
confused the issue rather than clarify it. (Forgive me, as you have all
discovered, I tend to run off at the keyboard sometimes -- "just indulge
her, it will pass" ("maybe").) But I believe an understanding of the
mechanics of another person's position is helpful in any discussion.
Thank you to those who have made it this far.
Barb* Jernigan
* short for Barbara, descended, some
say, from Barbarian, which means strange.
If the name fits, wear it! ;-)rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/04/85)
>>I think you got it right. The abortion issue is a clash between two sets of >>moral values. However, I think the positions of the pro-lifers and >>pro-choicers are asymmetrical. Whereas the anti-abortionist are trying >>to impose their moral code on the pro-choice side, the pro-choice side >>does not attempt to coerce the other side to conform to its moral code.[YOSI] > I don't see why this makes any difference. To make the pro-life analogy for > a moment (equating aborting mothers with rapists and fetuses with the > victims), we get a situation which is equally assymetrical. [WINGATE] Another equally interesting analogy compares anti-abortionists with airplane pilots and pro-choice people with hair stylists. Yosi wasn't making an analogy. He was stating a fact. The fact that you would make use of a startlingly inappropriate and arbitrary analogy in an attempt to rebut Yosi's point, frankly, does not surprise me anymore. The lengths (depths?) to which you go! ... -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
bird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells) (10/04/85)
In article <1765@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>First, there's a big difference between being tied to a machine for >>>a small subset of life functions and being tied to A HUMAN BEING for >>>all life support. Are the machine's rights in violation because the >>>person is "using" it? Of course not. Are the woman's rights in violation >>>if an entity is "using" her without her consent? > >> Her rights are not in violation if she put the entity there. > >She "put"? How quaint. Do you anti-choicers ever tire of the "you fucked >around, so suffer" argument? I have. It's irrelevant to the issue (you >don't like what she [and apparently someone else?] did, so you feel >that "consequences" should be "suffered") and pointless. If I write a >program and it has a bug in it and it ravages through everyone's files >and starts destroying them all, am I (and is my installation) obliged to >let it run because "I submitted the job"? Or can we take steps to stop >the program from completing? The ball is in your court to show why the >woman doesn't have that same option, and you have continuously (as a group) >failed to do so. No, Rich, I don't tire of the argument. And I am not as unsympathetic and insensitive as you imply. I believe in preventing unwanted pregnancies not aborting them. I also believe in helping people with the alternatives to abortion, because I believe the fetus is alive and I value that human life. To answer your questions, you are not obliged to let that program run, you may take steps to stop the program from completing. A woman is not a computer, a baby is not a program, a developing fetus does not go through a woman's body destroying her parts. Furthermore, the computer is not alive, and by means of backup media, the system can be restored to the state prior to when your program went around doing the destruction. I contend that the program/computer-baby/woman analogy does not fit for the above reasons. >> Why is autonomy so important in determining if it is alive? I have >> never heard this before reading your postings. And when I use scientific >> reasoning I come to the conclusion that the fetus is alive. I would like >> to see some source references to back you up because I have only seen you >> make these claims. > >Why is metabolism important in determining whether something is alive? >Or respiration? Or reproductive capability? Is this the Brave New World >in which if you don't like the definition of something you just change >it around? Read up on viruses, my friend, and find out how they are >distinguished from living things. >-- All I asked was a simple question. I am still waiting for an answer. I did not change any definitions. In fact I didn't even give a definition. I will read up on viruses if you read up on fetuses and see how they are distinguished from viruses. Brian Wells ____________________________________________________________________________ James 1:5
dave@circadia.UUCP (David Messer) (10/05/85)
> ... > Now, a lot of the abortion argument pivots around the "humanity of the fetus" > (justly, I might add). > ... > Barb Jernigan It seems rather clear to me. There is obviously not a concensus as to the humanity of the fetus. Since this disention exists we should choose a course that will produce the least damage if we are wrong. It seems to me (and I can see the flames coming...) that the damage caused to the fetus is greater, if abortion is allowed and it turns out later that the fetus is human, than the damage caused to the mother if abortion is not allowed. We should, therefor, not allow abortion until we can get a concensus. -- Dave Messer ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!circadia!dave
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/05/85)
[Rich, I thought you swore never to reply to me] In article <1842@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>I think you got it right. The abortion issue is a clash between two sets >>>of moral values. However, I think the positions of the pro-lifers and >>>pro-choicers are asymmetrical. Whereas the anti-abortionist are trying >>>to impose their moral code on the pro-choice side, the pro-choice side >>>does not attempt to coerce the other side to conform to its moral code. >>> [YOSI] >> I don't see why this makes any difference. To make the pro-life analogy >> for a moment (equating aborting mothers with rapists and fetuses with the >> victims), we get a situation which is equally assymetrical. [WINGATE] >Another equally interesting analogy compares anti-abortionists with airplane >pilots and pro-choice people with hair stylists. Care to make an argument? The whole point of the matter is that the analogy I stated holds in fact if the "pro-life" arguments are correct. I would prefer to choose a moral position because it is correct, rather than because it is less strong. SUre, minimizing coercion is a valid goal of morality. But it isn't an all-overriding principle. >Yosi wasn't making an analogy. He was stating a fact. The fact that you >would make use of a startlingly inappropriate and arbitrary analogy in an >attempt to rebut Yosi's point, frankly, does not surprise me anymore. The >lengths (depths?) to which you go! ... Well, I have to confess that I chose that particular analogy because I knew someone would take holy offense against it. So to carry it through, transfer Yosi's statement to the question of making rape illegal (with all the appropriate penalties). Now Yosi's statement applies just as well there. One choice of action is coercive, and the other is not. But is anyone seriously going to argue for the less coercive course, especially on that basis? Hardly. The whole question of coercion is driven by the principle moral dilemma. We put rapists in jail in spite of the coerciveness of that action because we would rather discourage rape. Now, taking Yosi's statement back to its original setting, I think it should be clear that the same principle obtains. Sure, if there are no moral objections to abortion (or they are sufficiently small) then the non-coercive position should win. But there ARE strong moral objections, and so the question can only be resolved on the grounds of those questions. Charley Wingate
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/07/85)
> 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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/08/85)
>>Do you anti-choicers ever tire of the "you fucked >>around, so suffer" argument? I have. It's irrelevant to the issue (you >>don't like what she [and apparently someone else?] did, so you feel >>that "consequences" should be "suffered") and pointless. If I write a >>program and it has a bug in it and it ravages through everyone's files >>and starts destroying them all, am I (and is my installation) obliged to >>let it run because "I submitted the job"? Or can we take steps to stop >>the program from completing? The ball is in your court to show why the >>woman doesn't have that same option, and you have continuously (as a group) >>failed to do so. > No, Rich, I don't tire of the argument. And I am not as unsympathetic > and insensitive as you imply. I believe in preventing unwanted pregnancies > not aborting them. I also believe in helping people with the alternatives > to abortion, because I believe the fetus is alive and I value that human > life. > To answer your questions, you are not obliged to let that program > run, you may take steps to stop the program from completing. A woman is > not a computer, a baby is not a program, a developing fetus does not go > through a woman's body destroying her parts. Furthermore, the computer > is not alive, and by means of backup media, the system can be restored to > the state prior to when your program went around doing the destruction. > I contend that the program/computer-baby/woman analogy does not fit for > the above reasons. It never ceases to amaze me. You defuse one argument used by anti-abortionists (e.g., that the fetus is an autonomous living human being) and they automatically switch to another one that had been debunked much earlier, like this one. The point is, this argument ALONE is not (for the reasons I outlined) sufficient. How do you all keep in sync as to which argument is "in vogue"? :-? Without some other supporting argument, this perspective of "you fucked around so suffer" is baseless. Even WITH a supporting reason (which I have yet to see) it adds nothing to any other argument. It merely shows the desire of its users to punish those nasty horrible people who do things that they don't like. But it does not shock me to see people returning to it when there is so little else to turn to. >>> Why is autonomy so important in determining if it is alive? I have >>> never heard this before reading your postings. And when I use scientific >>> reasoning I come to the conclusion that the fetus is alive. I would like >>> to see some source references to back you up because I have only seen you >>> make these claims. >>Why is metabolism important in determining whether something is alive? >>Or respiration? Or reproductive capability? Is this the Brave New World >>in which if you don't like the definition of something you just change >>it around? Read up on viruses, my friend, and find out how they are >>distinguished from living things. > All I asked was a simple question. I am still waiting for an > answer. I did not change any definitions. In fact I didn't even give > a definition. I will read up on viruses if you read up on fetuses and > see how they are distinguished from viruses. So nice to be working from the conclusion. When you leave out autonomy and blithely claim "why is it important", you are changing the definition. I would hope that is a simple enough answer. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/08/85)
> > [Me, to Matt Rosenblatt] > > Forget about what is NOW legal or illegal. If you feel that premeditated > > abortion SHOULD BE a distinct crime from premeditated murder, you must > > agree that the fetus, at least in its earlier stages, should be legally > > a distinct entity from a post-birth human being. If you feel this way, > > I was mistaken in saying that you took the extreme pro-life position. ----- > [Matt Rosenblatt] > I would outlaw all abortion except to save the mother's life. Isn't that > extreme enough for Mr. Tanenbaum? ----- No. The extreme position I was referring to was that abortion should be considered murder, not just another crime. ----- > > However, you can then no longer use "the fetus is a human being" as your > > sole justification for outlawing abortion. We all agree that, if the > > fetus had the same legal standing as a post-birth human being, that abortion > > would be legally murder. ----- > It may be that Mr. Tanenbaum is arguing from a hidden premise, namely, that > all human beings are entitled to the same legal rights. If one holds that > premise, then by treating fetus-killing as a different crime from killing > an already-born human being, society was admitting that the fetus was not > a full human being. It will come as no surprise to readers of this net > that Matt Rosenblatt does not hold this premise. Distinctions based on > birth are part of the American legal system. [Examples omitted] ----- Not quite. My premise was only that the willful destruction of the life of an innocent full legal human being is legally murder. That, indeed, is equivalent to the legal DEFINITION of murder. Therefore, if fetus killing is a lesser crime than murder, then the fetus is not legally a full human being. ----- > > Since you have denied this full legal status to > > the fetus, you must justify why you would grant the fetus sufficient partial > > legal status to make abortion a crime. You must state the values which > > compel you to this belief, and why they are so overriding that you feel you > > should have the right to impose your belief on all women. ----- > I've stated these values several times on net.abortion. I believe the fetus > is innocent human life, whose preservation outweighs all other considerations > on the part of the woman except the preservation of her own life. ----- Yes, you have stated this value. But by stating that you feel fetus-killing should not be considered legal murder, you have deprived the fetus of its legal status as a full human being. It is then still necessary to define a post-conception point at which the fetus gains its full legal humanity, i.e. its destruction becomes legal murder. The whole crux of the most often stated pro-life argument is that conception is the most well-defined point to make this distinction. You, and other pro-lifers who believe abortion should be a lesser crime than murder, have thrown away this argument. Yet you still use this argument, not realizing its inconsistency with your position. If the fetus is an innocent human being, why should abortion not be murder? If the fetus is not an innocent human being, what is the legal meaning of the phrase "innocent human life" you keep using to justify your position? -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/08/85)
> [Dave Messer] > It seems rather clear to me. There is obviously not a concensus as > to the humanity of the fetus. Since this disention exists we should > choose a course that will produce the least damage if we are wrong. > > It seems to me (and I can see the flames coming...) that the damage > caused to the fetus is greater, if abortion is allowed and it turns > out later that the fetus is human, than the damage caused to the > mother if abortion is not allowed. > > We should, therefor, not allow abortion until we can get a concensus. ------- Nonsense. First of all, the question is not whether the fetus is human. Of course a human fetus is human. What is it, a chicken? The question is whether the fetus is a HUMAN BEING, or only a POTENTIAL HUMAN BEING. Second, and more important, the question of whether the fetus is or is not a human being is not a scientific question, but a matter of semantics. There are no missing relevant facts which would allow it to "turn out" later that the fetus is or is not a human being. You state your precise definition of the term HUMAN BEING, and I will tell you RIGHT NOW whether or not the fetus is a human being according to your definition. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (10/09/85)
Congratulations, Mr. McNeil, on another well-thought-out article. As before, however, I feel constrained to disagree with you. > When we look at available societal definitions for when humanity > begins, what do we find? Let's look at just a *few* possibilities. . . . > 5. Matt and other "pro-lifers" place "humanity" in the fertilized > egg because, for example, Matt feels that any being with his > own "unique genetic entity" (which may or may not actually *be* > unique), any being which as he put it "once included myself," > simply *has* to be regarded as "human," to be protected by law. > 6. *Brave New World*ers in my original article similarly regarded > all individual human sperm and ova as "human," because they > also bear the "unique genetic entity," they also "once included > myself," they also are just as living, etc. ("Pro-lifers" will > yell, "That's ridiculous! The cases are *not* similar!" ;-)) > [M. MCNEIL] I won't yell, "That's ridiculous!" I'll just point out that unlike the people who define humanity according to 1-5 above, the people who define humanity according to 6 exist only in Mr. McNeil's *Brave New World* hypothetical. Moreover, the sperm contains only a part of the zygote's genetic identity, as does the egg. > Can't you, can't everyone, see that these criteria are all basically > *identical*? They are *all equally arbitrary* -- drawn almost, one > might say, at random from the great bazaar of characteristics which > humans do generally share, but frequently much other life shares too. > One person says, "I take *this* to be human." A second person states, > "No, *that* is human!" A third person declares, "You're *both* wrong. > *This* is what being *human* means! (Moreover, *you're* a murderer!)" > [M. MCNEIL] Well spoken, Mr. McNeil! > The first conclusion that I think we can *definitely* reach is that > a sensible definition for humanity does *not* include "humans are > living entities which may someday develop into adult human beings." > This definition for humanity, often cited by "pro-lifers" -- see, > for example, Matt's "once included myself" criterion -- must be > dismissed, precisely because the unfertilized egg and sperm share > this property. Virtually no one wants to give them "human rights." > In my judgment, allowing this criterion would lead inevitably to a > nightmarish society such as the *Brave New World* of my article. > [M. MCNEIL] As I said above, I don't accept this equation of "humanity" for the egg or sperm with humanity for the fertilized egg. No one in the real world is advocating giving sperm or egg human rights. And if by "this criterion" Mr. McNeil means "once included myself," specifically, humanity for the fertilized egg -- why, allowing this criterion would lead to nothing more nor less than the outlawing of abortion on demand -- which is what 58% of Americans polled by Newsweek (Jan. 14, 1985) favor. > In other words, who is or could be *hurt* by the alternative social > situations of abortion being legal or illegal? "Pro-lifers" would > say, "Millions of fetuses are dying horribly now. If abortion were > illegal, a few thousand women might die -- as they attempted to > *murder* their babies! -- in botched abortions. The requirement of > minimum *hurt* obviously favors saving the fetuses who are dying!" > [M. MCNEIL] So far, so good. > There is a major problem with this point of view, and that is to > be "hurt" requires a substantial amount of sophistication. [M. MCNEIL] And to be "killed" does not. Therefore, early-term embryos can be "killed" without being "hurt," even though they are "human." I submit that this is another example of what pro-choicers have to do to the generally accepted meaning of words in order to justify what they want to be able to do to the fetus. Just as "natural" has to be redefined to exclude the mother's support of her fetus during pregnancy, "hurt" has to be redefined so a fetus can be killed without being hurt! Hippocrates, whose oath for physicians included the pledge, "I will not give a woman a pessary to cause abortion," as well as the men (yes, men) whose legislation outlawed abortion on demand in all 50 states before 1973, used words in their common, everyday meanings. > So just how sophisticated *is* the fetus early on in a pregnancy? > Well, after fertilized eggs grow beyond their "protozoan" stage, for > a goodly period of time the creatures fetuses most closely resemble > anatomically and physiologically are certain types of *worm*. [M. MCNEIL] The fetus at X minutes' development looks just like a human being at X minutes' development is supposed to look. There is no "little man" inside the fertilized egg -- the fertilized egg IS the "little man." > When millions of unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring, and worm-like deaths > are weighed against the death of even *one* thinking, feeling, caring > *woman* -- I know where *my* balance lies. Millions times nothing is > still nothing -- a woman, to coin a phrase, is infinity. Pro-life's > "balance" is simply a prescription for *genocide* against women! [MCNEIL] Even if pro-lifers were actively planning to shoot to death a thousand women a year, that would not be "genocide." Genocide would be the effort to wipe out ALL women. I object to the misuse of the word. -- Matt Rosenblatt
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (10/09/85)
> > 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
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (10/09/85)
[ *** 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
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (10/09/85)
> My premise was only that the willful destruction of the life > of an innocent full legal human being is legally murder. That, indeed, is > equivalent to the legal DEFINITION of murder. Therefore, if fetus killing > is a lesser crime than murder, then the fetus is not legally a full human > being. [BILL TANENBAUM] The common-law definition of murder that I remember does not use the words "innocent full legal." Murder is the willful killing of another with malice aforethought and without justification or excuse. The common law did not need to spell out that "another" refers to a human being, because judges and juries were men of common sense who would not waste time trying the killer of a horse for murder. If fetus-killing is a lesser crime than murder, that just means the fetus's right to life is guarded by a lesser sanction than the already-born human being's right to life. Example: In many States, the killing of a uniformed policeman on duty can bring the death penalty under circumstances where the killing of a civilian can bring at most imprisonment. Does that mean that the legis- lators who enacted these penalties, almost all of them civilians, believe that they are less fully, legally human than a uniformed police officer? What society does when it really feels a practice is evil is increase the sanctions against that practice, in order further to discourage it. Abortionists before 1973 were never considered mere lawbreakers in the same category as a traffic speeder or a tax evader. There was a real stigma attached to doctors who did abortions, as well as a possible jail term. There still is a stigma -- why do you think abortion-clinic personnel don't like right-to-lifers telling the world what they do for a living? Now, suppose abortion is re-criminalized. What is to be done with the "back-alley" practitioners who will attempt to perform abortions, killing fetuses and risking women's lives? If society is serious, we can't just wink at them as we wink at bookies and pot pushers and prostitutes who -- we say -- aren't REALLY doing anyone any harm. We'll have to go after them the way we go after murderers, rapists and arsonists: Make a serious police effort to track them down, and enact penalties strong enough to deter most of them (NOT THE DEATH PENALTY -- REMEMBER, MATT ROSENBLATT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE DEATH PENALTY.) If enforcement and penalties used against abortion equal in severity those used against murder, it should make no difference whether or not we construe the term "murder" to include abortion. -- Matt Rosenblatt
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/10/85)
Mr. Wingate, Yosi was not making any sort of analogy. He was stating a fact. It was you who threw in a superfluous and arbitrary analogy for no understandable purpose other than perhaps to cloud the issue, of which I admit you are a learned master. -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
dave@circadia.UUCP (David Messer) (10/11/85)
> > [ME] > > It seems rather clear to me. There is obviously not a concensus as > > to the humanity of the fetus. Since this disention exists we should > > choose a course that will produce the least damage if we are wrong. > > > > It seems to me (and I can see the flames coming...) that the damage > > caused to the fetus is greater, if abortion is allowed and it turns > > out later that the fetus is human, than the damage caused to the > > mother if abortion is not allowed. > > > > We should, therefor, not allow abortion until we can get a concensus. > ------- > Nonsense. First of all, the question is not whether the fetus is human. > Of course a human fetus is human. What is it, a chicken? The question > is whether the fetus is a HUMAN BEING, or only a POTENTIAL HUMAN BEING. > Second, and more important, the question of whether the fetus is > or is not a human being is not a scientific question, but a matter > of semantics. There are no missing relevant facts which would allow > it to "turn out" later that the fetus is or is not a human being. > You state your precise definition of the term HUMAN BEING, and I will > tell you RIGHT NOW whether or not the fetus is a human being according > to your definition. > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan You miss the point; I admit to the fact that different people have different opinions regarding the status of a fetus. Therefor, my solution is to minimize damage until we decide (if ever). -- David Messer UUCP: ...ihnp4!circadia!dave FIDO: 14/415 (SYSOP)
pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) (10/16/85)
In article <1334@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >Yes, you have stated this value. But by stating that you feel fetus-killing >should not be considered legal murder, you have deprived the fetus of its >legal status as a full human being. It is then still necessary to define >a post-conception point at which the fetus gains its full legal humanity, >i.e. its destruction becomes legal murder. The whole crux of the most often >stated pro-life argument is that conception is the most well-defined point to >make this distinction. You, and other pro-lifers who believe abortion should >be a lesser crime than murder, have thrown away this argument. Yet you >still use this argument, not realizing its inconsistency with your position. >If the fetus is an innocent human being, why should abortion not be murder? >If the fetus is not an innocent human being, what is the legal meaning >of the phrase "innocent human life" you keep using to justify your position? >-- >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan If you have a child under the age of 18 you may legally take this child over your knee and spank it. If you cause injury to the child the state of IL (but not the child) may bring charges of child abuse against you. If the child is over 18 and you spank them they can bring charges of assault and battery against you. Does that mean that before 18 that child does not have "legal status as a full human being"? Pro-life people have never said that there is no difference between a child and fetus. Only that there is not enough difference to justify killing it on demand. Anyway, my dictionary defines murder as killing (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice. I don't think any women that has an abortion believes that she is killing a human being. There is no intent, no malice (malice is defined as the desire to see another suffer). I don't think any woman would want to see her child or fetus suffer. (unless she is a sickie) Manslaughter on the other hand is defined as the killing of a human being without express or implied malice. We still need to agree on when a fetus is a human being, but I think that by the third trimester (at least) the term manslaughter (womenslaughter?) applies. -- Of course I could be wrong. siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk
pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) (10/16/85)
In article <1335@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >Nonsense. First of all, the question is not whether the fetus is human. >Of course a human fetus is human. What is it, a chicken? The question >is whether the fetus is a HUMAN BEING, or only a POTENTIAL HUMAN BEING. My dictionary (I like my dictionary :-) defines human (noun) as a human being. So I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make. Perhaps you are using human (adj)? That would not fit into the context of your sentence "What is it, a chicken?". >Second, and more important, the question of whether the fetus is >or is not a human being is not a scientific question, but a matter >of semantics. I think the question of the humanity of the fetus should be a matter of science. If we let it be a matter of semantics then we can call anything we like human and anything we don't like non-human. This has been done too often in the past (e.g. Blacks, Jews). >There are no missing relevant facts which would allow >it to "turn out" later that the fetus is or is not a human being. I can think of no other scientific definition (my dictionary failed me :-( then a member of the genus homo sapiens. >You state your precise definition of the term HUMAN BEING, and I will >tell you RIGHT NOW whether or not the fetus is a human being according >to your definition. >-- >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan You needn't. It is. -- Of course I could be wrong. siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/18/85)
>>> 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. Rather ironic that you chose to omit the entire section in which I showed how this tears a hole right in the middle of your argument. If you intend to say that there is no such right, then the fetus has even less right to its own body than the woman whose body it occupies, since it takes from that other body without consent. In either case, I found it very interesting that you blithely left out the section in which I explained that to ignore the existence of that right is to make any arguments you might have about abortion worthless, because by such reasoning anyone could just claim that the fetus doesn't have the right to control its own body. > I believe the right to control one's own body is not absolute. Can I translate this to mean YOU choose the cases where it doesn't hold arbitrarily? Or do you have some clear logical distinction to make? > 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. Obviously the former and not the latter of my two possible choices above is true. I'm not even going to bother with the second half of the article (regarding Rosenblatt's claims about what McNeil said) since I think the point has been made, and since it seems from the state of the latter portion of his article (ending in midsentence followed by a good chunk of my article) that he didn't really reply to it as intended. -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights (Proof of Rights) References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> >>> 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. Rather ironic that you chose to omit the entire section in which I showed how this tears a hole right in the middle of your argument. If you intend to say that there is no such right, then the fetus has even less right to its own body than the woman whose body it occupies, since it takes from that other body without consent. In either case, I found it very interesting that you blithely left out the section in which I explained that to ignore the existence of that right is to make any arguments you might have about abortion worthless, because by such reasoning anyone could just claim that the fetus doesn't have the right to control its own body. > I believe the right to control one's own body is not absolute. Can I translate this to mean YOU choose the cases where it doesn't hold arbitrarily? Or do you have some clear logical distinction to make? > 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. Obviously the former and not the latter of my two possible choices above is true. I'm not even going to bother with the second half of the article (regarding Rosenblatt's claims about what McNeil said) since I think the point has been made, and since it seems from the state of the latter portion of his article (ending in midsentence followed by a good chunk of my article) that he didn't really reply to it as intended. -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/18/85)
> [ *** 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
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (10/24/85)
[poisoned line -- eat at own risk.] > > ... the question of whether the fetus is or is not a human being is > > not a scientific question, but a matter of semantics. There are no > > missing relevant facts which would allow it to "turn out" later that > > the fetus is or is not a human being. You state your precise > > definition of the term HUMAN BEING, and I will tell you RIGHT NOW > > whether or not the fetus is a human being according to your definition. > > > > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan > > You miss the point; I admit to the fact that different people > have different opinions regarding the status of a fetus. Therefor, > my solution is to minimize damage until we decide (if ever). > > David Messer UUCP: ...ihnp4!circadia!dave > FIDO: 14/415 (SYSOP) Wonderful, isn't it? *Unlimited* "benefit of the doubt" for the fetus -- regardless of the degree of (or lack of) its development. *Zero* capability (ever) to "minimize damage" to *women*. Now why do you suppose that women never get the benefit of the doubt, hmm? Perhaps because there's *no doubt* that women are human? -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm And with an awful, dreadful list Towards other galaxies unknown Ponderously turns the Milky Way ... Boris Pasternak
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (10/25/85)
> 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 talk- > ing 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. [RICH ROSEN] We're getting closer to agreement here, believe it or not. Yes, I give the woman *a* right (not *the* absolute right) to prevent the fetus from doing things to her body. Then I weigh what the fetus does to HER body against what she would do to ITS body by aborting it. In the case where the fetus would kill the pregnant woman, I go along with abortion. Otherwise, the relative seriousness of the things done by another to one's body moves me to assert that the fetus's claim to life outweighs the woman's claim to be free from pregnancy. >> [Assorted ad hominem insults & name-calling], followed by: [ROSENBLATT] >Odd that he asserts that there were "assorted ad hominem insults & name- >calling, 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 [R. ROSEN] Nope. It's because readers of the net can look up the article in question and decide for themselves what Mr. Rosen said, and whether they think it amounted to "ad hominem insults & namecalling." Surely no one expects me to excerpt bad language about Matt Rosenblatt and reprint it! > 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. [R. ROSEN] Any of you readers who don't know what Matt Rosenblatt thinks of materialism, liberalism, and feminism haven't been paying attention. > 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. [R. ROSEN] If feminism is not that, then what is it? There are labels for beliefs that I like, and labels for beliefs that I don't like. How does "emptiness" follow from the use of a label? Also, does Mr. Rosen admit the possibility that "equal rights" and "freedom" might conflict in a particular case? What about the 19-year-old gynecological surgery patient at Washington Hospital Center a few years back whose parents had to hire a private-duty nurse for her after the "equal-rights" hospital refused to honor her request for a female nurse? And what if her parents hadn't had the money? What would have become of her "human dignity and freedom" then? > 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). [R. ROSEN] Starting with the last assertion first: If the freedom of the individual could not be *limited* (not "pre-empted") by the needs of society, there would be no laws at all. Captain Video fought for "Justice, Truth and Freedom throughout the Universe." Superman fought for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way." Disgusting behavior, such as running naked down Bloomfield Avenue, is banned because it is un-Ivy. And people get one day off from work every week, whether the boss likes it or not, as a relic of the "Judaeo-Christian ethic" upon which our society was founded. What kind of "society" would it be if parents could abandon infants to die, in pursuit of the parents' "freedom"? Even the animals in the jungle do better than that! As to the other assertions: If two people are different, WHY are they different? I realize this makes sense only to those who believe there is some purpose to existence. If the purpose of life is to ENJOY, then the fact that two people are different might indicate that they are to enjoy different things. If the purpose of life is to GET ALL YOU CAN, then differences are important to the amount you can "get." And the same goes for nobler "purposes" that one can hypothesize for our existence on Earth. And one of us doesn't have the right to decide for another what the other's "purpose" is, by killing him. So one extreme position could be that any difference whatever between two persons should cause a difference in their rights. But I see no warrant for this extreme position. The same goes for the other extreme, that differences among people should be ignored when society makes up rules and responsibilities. Do we want the same standard of care applied to a surgeon as to a paper-hanger? Do we want to eliminate father-son dinners and mother-daughter teas? Do we want a born foreigner to have the same right as a native American to become President? Rather than posit equal rights as an absolute principle, and Devil take all other values that we cherish, what we ought to do is look at each case with a view toward what equality in that case would mean. That's why it's easy for me to support equal employment opportunity, and also easy for me to reject abortion on demand as a means of ensuring that a woman has the same right as a man to conceive a child and avoid responsibility for it. >> 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. [M. ROSENBLATT] > 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?) [R. ROSEN] Document the hurtful consequences of liberalism, materialism, and feminism! In net.abortion, yet! WHOLE BOOKS have been written about this topic, of which two of the best are: Children Without Childhood, by Marie Winn (1982), and Idols for Destruction, by Herbert Schlossberg (1983). Go read the books and find out who is being hurt? LITTLE CHILDREN, THAT'S WHO -- victims of feminism. THE POOR -- victims of liberalism. THE PEOPLE OF BOLSHEVIK RUSSIA AND CHINA AND THEIR SLAVE EMPIRES -- victims of dialectical materialism. -- Matt Rosenblatt
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/30/85)
>> 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. [RICH ROSEN] > We're getting closer to agreement here, believe it or not. Yes, I give the > woman *a* right (not *the* absolute right) to prevent the fetus from doing > things to her body. Then I weigh what the fetus does to HER body against > what she would do to ITS body by aborting it. In the case where the fetus > would kill the pregnant woman, I go along with abortion. Otherwise, the > relative seriousness of the things done by another to one's body moves me > to assert that the fetus's claim to life outweighs the woman's claim to > be free from pregnancy. [ROSENBLATT] Yet it is clear that at points preceding viability of the fetus, it does not ipso facto have the rights to usurp a woman's body, any more than a virus or parasite does, PRECISELY because it cannot exist autonomously. Note how courts have consistently brought up the issue of viability when it came to judging whether the destruction of a fetus was to be deemed murder or homicide or not. >>> [Assorted ad hominem insults & name-calling], followed by: [ROSENBLATT] >>Odd that he asserts that there were "assorted ad hominem insults & name- >>calling, 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 [R. ROSEN] > Nope. It's because readers of the net can look up the article in question > and decide for themselves what Mr. Rosen said, and whether they think it > amounted to "ad hominem insults & namecalling." Surely no one expects me > to excerpt bad language about Matt Rosenblatt and reprint it! But one WOULD expect (if you were a sincere debator and not merely a manipulator) that you WOULD want to mention (and perhaps rebut) statements regarding the bogus assumptions of your beliefs about things like feminism (which is what that "name calling" actually consisted of!). This technique that Rosenblatt uses is a common one in use by fascist manipulators: assert the presence of "evidence" in a place where you hope people will not bother to look. And repeat the assertion often enough so that... Etc. >> 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. [R. ROSEN] > Any of you readers who don't know what Matt Rosenblatt thinks of materialism, > liberalism, and feminism haven't been paying attention. Or aren't interested in presumptive baseless opinions. >> 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. [R. ROSEN] > If feminism is not that, then what is it? There are labels for beliefs > that I like, and labels for beliefs that I don't like. How does "emptiness" > follow from the use of a label? Also, does Mr. Rosen admit the > possibility that "equal rights" and "freedom" might conflict in a > particular case? What about the 19-year-old gynecological surgery > patient at Washington Hospital Center a few years back whose parents > had to hire a private-duty nurse for her after the "equal-rights" > hospital refused to honor her request for a female nurse? And what > if her parents hadn't had the money? What would have become of her > "human dignity and freedom" then? By your reasoning they would have been equally obliged to "honor" her request for a WHITE nurse. "Freedom" to be bigoted, prejudiced, or hateful is not covered under any list of freedoms I know, especially when such "freedom" interferes with other people's lives. >> 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). [R. ROSEN] > Starting with the last assertion first: If the freedom of the individual > could not be *limited* (not "pre-empted") by the needs of society, there > would be no laws at all. Captain Video fought for "Justice, Truth and > Freedom throughout the Universe." Superman fought for "Truth, Justice, > and the American Way." Disgusting behavior, such as running naked down > Bloomfield Avenue, is banned because it is un-Ivy. Un-Ivy? "Disgusting"? Thank you for showing whose beliefs and moral codes are based in reason and whose are based on "likes", "dislikes", prejudices, and baseless opinions. > As to the other assertions: If two people are different, WHY are they > different? I realize this makes sense only to those who believe there > is some purpose to existence. Assuming a purpose means assuming an intender who created purposefulness, and that is of course an unwarranted assumption. > If the purpose of life is to ENJOY, then the fact that two people are > different might indicate that they are to enjoy different things. If the > purpose of life is to GET ALL YOU CAN, then differences are important to the > amount you can "get." And the same goes for nobler "purposes" that one can > hypothesize for our existence on Earth. And one of us doesn't have the right > to decide for another what the other's "purpose" is, by killing him. That's called non-interference morality. Pure and simple. > So one extreme position could be that any difference whatever > between two persons should cause a difference in their rights. > But I see no warrant for this extreme position. Yet you use it at every turn, to justify anti-feminism, anti-abortionism, etc. > The same goes for the other extreme, that differences among people should > be ignored when society makes up rules and responsibilities. Do we want > the same standard of care applied to a surgeon as to a paper-hanger? > Do we want to eliminate father-son dinners and mother-daughter teas? > Do we want a born foreigner to have the same right as a native > American to become President? Why not? Care to elaborate? > Rather than posit equal rights as an absolute principle, and Devil take > all other values that we cherish, what we ought to do is look at each > case with a view toward what equality in that case would mean. That's > why it's easy for me to support equal employment opportunity, and also > easy for me to reject abortion on demand as a means of ensuring that > a woman has the same right as a man to conceive a child and avoid > responsibility for it. It's easy for you to hold a lot of your positions, Matt. Coming from the assumptions that you come from. You don't "like" what equality would "mean" (it cuts into something you want or like), so you dismiss it. How quaint. >>> 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. [M. ROSENBLATT] >> 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?) [R. ROSEN] > Document the hurtful consequences of liberalism, materialism, and > feminism! In net.abortion, yet! WHOLE BOOKS have been written > about this topic, of which two of the best are: ... ... ... Anybody can name a book to support their position. Because books have been written to support just about everything, because publishers will publish just about anything they think will make money. So your naming of books is irrelevant. Especially in light of the fact that you failed to state what knowledge you learned from those books that led you to your opinion (or did your opinion lead you to the books?). Did you just read the conclusion and say "Ah, the author has great insight!"? You show no reason to think otherwise, judging from your lack of response to the questions asked. > Go read the books and find out who is being hurt? LITTLE CHILDREN, THAT'S > WHO -- victims of feminism. THE POOR -- victims of liberalism. THE > PEOPLE OF BOLSHEVIK RUSSIA AND CHINA AND THEIR SLAVE EMPIRES -- victims > of dialectical materialism. Let's try to look at this ranting in a serious way. Children suffer because of feminism. NOT because their fathers go to work, but because their mothers do. By Matt's reasoning (in which you can state that someone isn't "equal" if doing so causes you harm), we can simply claim that women "shouldn't" be treated equally, because doing so would cause problems. NOT because they're not equal, mind you, no need to mess things up with facts. Solely because doing so would cause problems. The way denying that black people should be kept as slaves (and treated unequally) would be wrong because of the problems it would cause to do this. The vestiges of that horrible "liberalism" (and whatever else Matt doesn't like). Matt's is the battelecry of those who say "go back to the old ways, not these new ways that are more equitable and fairer but cause problems for the status quo, which must change to adapt to the termination of unequal treatment for some classes of people". And a vacuous and empty battlecry it is. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (11/01/85)
ng, even as Matt Rosenblatt has HIS own ideas of right and wrong upon which HE thinks the law should be based. So, let's try an example: How would this sound on the evening news: "The white winner of the New York Marathon today was XYZ. The black winner was ABC, whose time was 31.8 seconds faster than that of any previous black winner." Maybe in South Africa, a news story like that would go over; maybe in 1955 Mississippi; but not in today's America. So how come our backs don't go up when we hear about the "men's winner" and the "women's winner"? After all, everyone ran together, black and white, men and women. Does anyone, does Mr. Rosen, does even Andrea Dworkin, advocate abolishing separate competition for men and women in favor of a single absolute standard of running excellence? If not, it shows that we still value SOME distinctions based on sex. And among those distinctions, I would suspect, is the right of a 19-year-old gynecological patient to have a female nurse if she wants one. The Supreme Court's invalidation of laws against abortion was purportedly made on the basis of the right to privacy. Is the need for enforced equality of the sexes so absolute that it outweighs even the right to privacy? Is equality EVER incompatible with "human dignity and freedom"? (I ask for the second time.) > > So one extreme position could be that any difference whatever > > between two persons should cause a difference in their rights. > > But I see no warrant for this extreme position. [M. ROSENBLATT] > Yet you use it at every turn, to justify anti-feminism, > anti-abortionism, etc. [R. ROSEN] No, not with respect to "any difference whatever." As an anti-feminist, I believe that sometimes, in some situations, your rights and responsibilities should be influenced by your sex. In respect to abortion, however, I repudiate the idea that the right to life should depend on the difference between "not born yet" and "born already." > > The same goes for the other extreme, that differences among people should > > be ignored when society makes up rules and responsibilities. Do we want > > the same standard of care applied to a surgeon as to a paper-hanger? > > Do we want to eliminate father-son dinners and mother-daughter teas? > > Do we want a born foreigner to have the same right as a native > > American to become President? [M. ROSENBLATT] > Why not? Care to elaborate? [R. ROSEN] A surgeon has to have a license, because of the harm that an incompetent surgeon could do to people's health. The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in 1936 that it is unconstitutional to require a paperhanger to obtain a license. What real harm could he do if he were incompetent? There is a special bond that exists between a father and his son, and between a mother and her daughter, EVEN AS there is a special bond that exists between a father and his daughter, and between a mother and her son. If people decide to organize a father-son dinner to build on this bond, who is the State or anyone else to stop them on the grounds of "sex discrimination"? Must a feminist organization whose members all share the common bond of being female admit men if its members don't want to? We don't want a foreigner to come here at the head of his army and usurp the office of President. Even if (chas v'sholom) we were to lose a war, or the British were to come back and burn Washington for a second time, the conqueror could not claim legitimacy, because the Constitution forbids him from becoming President. (What on Earth does this all have to do with abortion rights?? Do I have to take up everyone's time just to "elaborate" at Rich Rosen's request? If I keep doing so, how long will it be before readers press the "n" key every time they see an article by Matt Rosenblatt?) >> Go read the books and find out who is being hurt? LITTLE CHILDREN, THAT'S >> WHO -- victims of feminism. THE POOR -- victims of liberalism. THE >> PEOPLE OF BOLSHEVIK RUSSIA AND CHINA AND THEIR SLAVE EMPIRES -- victims >> of dialectical materialism. [M. ROSENBLATT] > Let's try to look at this ranting in a serious way. Children suffer > because of feminism. NOT because their fathers go to work, but because > their vmothers do. [R. ROSEN] Did I say that?? Marie Winn's "Children Without Childhood," based on interviews with real children, demonstrated that children are hurt by divorce and by not having a parent at home. Mrs. Winn herself wrote that just because children need a parent at home, there is no reason that parent has to be the mother. Feminist lobbying has changed the divorce laws to make divorce much easier -- see the recent issue of U.S. News and World Report for a report on how women and children have suffered from this development. Feminism has also led to a rise in the number of two-earner families, with no one at home to watch the children. The FACT is that the consequences of feminism have hurt innocent children. I personally know several women and children who have been hurt -- oddly enough, the men have managed to come out of it with a whole coat. When I read a book, and the author's statements agree with what I have seen in the real world, THEN I will go along with those statements. I cannot agree with everything Dr. Schlossberg writes in "Idols for Destruction," because his is a Christian (i.e., New Testament) as well as biblical (i.e., Hebrew Bible) outlook on the world. Nevertheless, his arguments about how Western society has made idols out of Power, Religion, Mammon, etc. ring true because they jibe with what I have seen in the world. Therefore, I can cite him as an authority on the evil effects of materialism and liberalism. But if anti-feminism is only tangential to the abortion issue, anti- materialism and anti-liberalism are totally out of the arena. This is no place to recount such arguments. If I see an argument based on materialism or liberalism, I will point out that that argument is so based, and explain why the particular materialist or liberal assumption used to support the argument does not hold water. -- Matt Rosenblatt
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (11/04/85)
>> Captain Video fought for "Justice, Truth and >> Freedom throughout the Universe." Superman fought for "Truth, Justice, >> and the American Way." Disgusting behavior, such as running naked down >> Bloomfield Avenue, is banned because it is un-Ivy. [MATT ROSENBLATT] > Un-Ivy? "Disgusting"? Thank you for showing whose beliefs and moral codes > are based in reason and whose are based on "likes", "dislikes", prejudices, > and baseless opinions. [RICH ROSEN] This is a part of Mr. Rosen's article to which I did not respond earlier, so I will respond now: Why does anyone think the pro-lifers go around carrying photographs of bloody, dismembered fetuses? Because they're DISGUSTING, that's why! Blood and guts are bad enough when you look at surgery done to SAVE lives, but when the doctor, sworn to preserve life, becomes a killer, then the blood and guts are as disgusting as when the local "slasher" produces them. The intent of the pro-lifers is to get the prospective abortion patient to realize how disgusting abortion is, and change her mind. The intent of the pro-lifers is to get the legislature to realize how disgusting abortion is, and stop funding it. And the intent of the pro-lifers is to get the Supreme Court to realize how disgusting abortion is, and overturn Roe v. Wade. Lots of things are banned because they are disgusting, it is not _ultra vires_ for Americans to ban these things, and abortion ought to be one of them. As to un-Ivy: Yale football players will do anything within the rules of the game to beat Princeton, but they will not bring a knife to the Yale Bowl with which to cut up Princeton blockers who interfere with their precious "right" to score touchdowns. "Ivy" isn't just wearing a tweed jacket, sipping sherry, and smoking a pipe. "Ivy" is FAIR PLAY. You play football, you're assuming the risk of a broken leg and having to sit out the rest of the season. You make love, you're assuming the risk of a pregnancy and having to give the fetus a chance to live. It's not SPORTING, it's not FAIR PLAY, to kill an unborn baby in it's mother's womb, the one place in the world where it ought to be safest. Killing it before it's had a chance to be born is like elbowing a basketball player on the sidelines, before he's had a chance to put the ball into play. Most women are Ivy in this respect. Most women don't have abortions, even though they are legal. Most women aren't about to call in a BUTCHER to slice and dice a future student at Harvard, or Vassar, or Pembroke, or Cornell. But the referee has to enforce the rules of fair play for everyone, not just those who choose to play by them. -- Matt Rosenblatt ---------------------- "A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO AN ABORTION BECAUSE I WANT THE RIGHT TO GET RID OF THIS PROBLEM!! All the rest is smoke. If this value system prevails don't complain when they come for YOU." -- Ken Arndt
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/05/85)
(The beginning of Matt's article was somehow missing, but given his usual train of thought throughout, it should be typically easy to debunk what he has to say, as full of bogus assumptions as it is. > The Supreme Court's invalidation of laws against abortion was > purportedly made on the basis of the right to privacy. Is the > need for enforced equality of the sexes so absolute that it > outweighs even the right to privacy? Is equality EVER incompatible > with "human dignity and freedom"? (I ask for the second time.) And the simple answer is (of course) no. It is up to you to provide an example, sans your usual precious presumptions, in which the rights of an individual are outweighed by someone else's "right" to treat them in an unequal fashion. >>> So one extreme position could be that any difference whatever >>> between two persons should cause a difference in their rights. >>> But I see no warrant for this extreme position. [M. ROSENBLATT] >> Yet you use it at every turn, to justify anti-feminism, >> anti-abortionism, etc. [R. ROSEN] > No, not with respect to "any difference whatever." As an anti-feminist, > I believe that sometimes, in some situations, your rights and > responsibilities should be influenced by your sex. And of course your only basis for insisting that one's rights are determined by what sex you are (any other classifications and criteria you might want to add) are your personal desire to have that conclusion be true. Of course, you have never supplied any reason why one group is entitled to less rights than another, though you repeatedly cloud your bigoted attitudes in platitudes. > In respect to abortion, however, I repudiate the idea that the right to life > should depend on the difference between "not born yet" and "born > already." Excepting (of course) the fact that one represents non-viable entities and the other represents living viable entities. (Odd that you NEVER responded to that whole set of articles on that particular subject. Do you avoid responding when the evidence is so clearly against you that it doesn't even offer the possibility of being flatulently manipulative? > There is a special bond that exists between a father and his son, and > between a mother and her daughter, EVEN AS there is a special bond that > exists between a father and his daughter, and between a mother and her > son. If people decide to organize a father-son dinner to build on this > bond, who is the State or anyone else to stop them on the grounds of > "sex discrimination"? Must a feminist organization whose members all > share the common bond of being female admit men if its members > don't want to? Pardon my French, but who the fuck are you to define a specific set of types of bonds appropriate to particular parent-child realtionships where particular genders are involved? How the hell would you know if a bond between a mother/father and daughter/son is characteristic of your particular phrenological genotypes? It's amazing the bizarre lengths you will go to to "justify" your bogus prejudices. > We don't want a foreigner to come here at the head of his army and > usurp the office of President. That has as much to do the question you asked (should a foreigner be allowed to be president?) as (to quote a phrase I am sure will irritate your (in)sensibilities) fish have to do with bicycles. > Even if (chas v'sholom) we were to > > lose a war, or the British were to come back and burn Washington for > a second time, the conqueror could not claim legitimacy, because the > Constitution forbids him from becoming President. (What on Earth does this > all have to do with abortion rights?? Do I have to take up everyone's > time just to "elaborate" at Rich Rosen's request? If I keep doing so, > how long will it be before readers press the "n" key every time they > see an article by Matt Rosenblatt?) You know, it is becoming apparent that you and your positions are so full of shit that they can be smelled round the net. If you don't have the evidence, the reasoning, the facts to support your ridiculous propositions of bigotry, hatred, and knownothingism, please don't try to justify that knownothingism by saying "aw, gee, do I *have* to elaborate and explain JUST because someone asks me to?" (I'm sure plenty of people already live up to your expressed fears.) >>> Go read the books and find out who is being hurt? LITTLE CHILDREN, THAT'S >>> WHO -- victims of feminism. THE POOR -- victims of liberalism. THE >>> PEOPLE OF BOLSHEVIK RUSSIA AND CHINA AND THEIR SLAVE EMPIRES -- victims >>> of dialectical materialism. [M. ROSENBLATT] >> Let's try to look at this ranting in a serious way. Children suffer >> because of feminism. NOT because their fathers go to work, but because >> their vmothers do. [R. ROSEN] > Did I say that?? No, in fact you didn't say anything! You just stated some names of books as if the names of books are enough evidence to make us all see your "light". > Marie Winn's "Children Without Childhood," based on > interviews with real children, demonstrated that children are hurt > by divorce and by not having a parent at home. Mrs. Winn herself > wrote that just because children need a parent at home, there is no > reason that parent has to be the mother. OK. I take it YOU see it otherwise? Could you please SAY something rather than vacuously insinuating your positions? > Feminist lobbying has changed the divorce laws to make divorce much easier -- > see the recent issue of U.S. News and World Report for a report on how women > and children have suffered from this development. What really gets my goat is your fatuously expressing concern for the poor women and children, as if that were the reason for your oft expressed distaste for women and feminism (as with your equally fatuous claims about the history of rape laws). Some facts might be in order from you. But more importantly, can you explain HOW equalization of freedoms hurts people? (And loss of exploitatory privileges is not hurt...) > Feminism has also led to a rise in the number of two-earner families, with > no one at home to watch the children. The FACT is that the consequences of > feminism have hurt innocent children. The "FACT"? Or (as usual) your opinion? You know what else feminism has given rise to? Child care? Maternity AND paternity leaves? Flexibility of working hours for working parents? I leave it to you to explain (maybe this time?) how your notion of "because it was ALWAYS that way, even though that way is discriminatory, it should go back to being that way" holds any water. > I cannot agree with everything Dr. Schlossberg writes in "Idols for > Destruction," because his is a Christian (i.e., New Testament) as > well as biblical (i.e., Hebrew Bible) outlook on the world. > Nevertheless, his arguments about how Western society has made > idols out of Power, Religion, Mammon, etc. ring true because > they jibe with what I have seen in the world. Therefore, I can cite > him as an authority on the evil effects of materialism and liberalism. He's right about some things, therefore he's right about others, because that's a convenient way to form opinions. Please, let's get back to facts. Your opinions (not facts by a long shot) are based on your desire to believe that certain people are less worthy of rights than you are. You and Don Black should form a club. >> But if anti-feminism is only tangential to the abortion issue, anti- >materialism and anti-liberalism are totally out of the arena. This >is no place to recount such arguments. If I see an argument based >on materialism or liberalism, I will point out that that argument >is so based, and explain why the particular materialist or liberal >assumption used to support the argument does not hold water. Like you've tried to do before? By stating vacuous opinions? Believe me, I'll be there to show your opinions for what they are. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/06/85)
>>> Captain Video fought for "Justice, Truth and >>> Freedom throughout the Universe." Superman fought for "Truth, Justice, >>> and the American Way." Disgusting behavior, such as running naked down >>> Bloomfield Avenue, is banned because it is un-Ivy. [MATT ROSENBLATT] >> Un-Ivy? "Disgusting"? Thank you for showing whose beliefs and moral codes >> are based in reason and whose are based on "likes", "dislikes", prejudices, >> and baseless opinions. [RICH ROSEN] > This is a part of Mr. Rosen's article to which I did not respond earlier, > so I will respond now: Why does anyone think the pro-lifers go around > carrying photographs of bloody, dismembered fetuses? Because they're > DISGUSTING, that's why! Blood and guts are bad enough when you look > at surgery done to SAVE lives, but when the doctor, sworn to preserve > life, becomes a killer, then the blood and guts are as disgusting as > when the local "slasher" produces them. The intent of the pro-lifers > is to get the prospective abortion patient to realize how disgusting > abortion is, and change her mind. The intent of the pro-lifers is to > get the legislature to realize how disgusting abortion is, and stop > funding it. And the intent of the pro-lifers is to get the Supreme > Court to realize how disgusting abortion is, and overturn Roe v. Wade. > Lots of things are banned because they are disgusting, it is not > _ultra vires_ for Americans to ban these things, and abortion ought to > be one of them. [ROSENBLATT] Care to list any of those things that are banned because they are disgusting? And to demonstrate why your standards of disgust are to be adhered to by others? Do they include eating sushi? (Uggh, gross, gag me with a tuna, ban it, it's disgusting!) Noisy raging horrible rock and roll music? Homosexuality? Househusbands with wives who work? Anything else I've left out? Your illusion that what disgusts you is "wrong" and worth banning is one you share with other "enlightened" religious fanatics. But most of all, you've finally shown how completely without rational grounds your opinions really are. You cannot argue for your position rationally, so you MUST resort to disgusting people, vacuous manipulative emotional rhetoric. You need look no further than Gary Samuelson to find another fine example of this right in this newsgroup. Why not, by your same logic, ban birth as well! After all, if I carried around pictures of a child being born, some people might find the process "disgusting", right? (Tell me, honestly, that last paragraph of yours actually made my point so well I'm in shock: are you actually another Ray Frank, going overboard to satirize pro-life positions?) > As to un-Ivy: Yale football players will do anything within the rules > of the game to beat Princeton, but they will not bring a knife to the > Yale Bowl with which to cut up Princeton blockers who interfere with > their precious "right" to score touchdowns. "Ivy" isn't just wearing > a tweed jacket, sipping sherry, and smoking a pipe. "Ivy" is FAIR PLAY. > You play football, you're assuming the risk of a broken leg and having > to sit out the rest of the season. You make love, you're assuming the > risk of a pregnancy and having to give the fetus a chance to live. It's > not SPORTING, it's not FAIR PLAY, to kill an unborn baby in it's mother's > womb, the one place in the world where it ought to be safest. Killing it > before it's had a chance to be born is like elbowing a basketball player > on the sidelines, before he's had a chance to put the ball into play. > Most women are Ivy in this respect. Most women don't have abortions, > even though they are legal. Most women aren't about to call in a > BUTCHER to slice and dice a future student at Harvard, or Vassar, or > Pembroke, or Cornell. But the referee has to enforce the rules > of fair play for everyone, not just those who choose to play by them. And thank you again for showing that you simply HAVE no rational argumentative abilities, that you MUST resort to big lie techniques and vacuous manipulative rhetoric! The Yale front four is analogous to a woman who engages in "fair play" by not having an abortion? Is this an attempt at humor? Actually, it serves no better in that function than it does in the function of a rational argument. Not "sporting"? By what standards? By standards in which your particular conclusions have already been assumed to be "unsportsmanlike conduct", of course. > "A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO AN ABORTION BECAUSE I WANT > THE RIGHT TO GET RID OF THIS PROBLEM!! All the rest > is smoke. If this value system prevails > don't complain when they come for YOU." > -- Ken Arndt Your hero? (I guess I was right about my speculation about you above. :-? ) Compare this to "A WOMAN HAS *NO* RIGHT TO AN ABORTION BECAUSE *I* DON'T WANT HER TO, BECAUSE ALTHOUGH I CANNOT SHOW THE FETUS SO ABORTED TO HAVE BEEN A VIABLE LIFE-FORM, I FIND IT 'DISGUSTING', BY MY ARBITRARY STANDARDS, AND THUS IT IS WRONG!" Indeed, all the rest beyond this statement is smoke. If THIS value system prevails, don't complain when they decide that other personal rights of yours should just GO... -- And now, a hidden satanic message: _ 9L|^6| _ W6Vn|na| 622 Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr