Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: A little light humor. Or, perhaps, tragedy.
Message-ID: <927@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Sep-84 20:17:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.927
Posted: Wed Sep 12 20:17:50 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 01:53:18 EDT
References: <277@uwmacc.UUCP> <919@ut-ngp.UUCP> <98@rlgvax.UUCP>
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 81
> > The last quote is not analogous to the first two. The first two
> > quotes condone attacks made on people who have done nothing to their
> > attackers. The last quote condones the action of a person who chooses
> > to recover control of her property (namely her body), which has been
> > appropriated by another being for its own purposes.
> > --
> > Ken Montgomery
>
> Ah, yes, quite so. It takes a long time for some to realize
> where babies come from, doesn't it?
Attempts to assassinate my character do not even address my point,
not to mention refuting it. BTW, Otis, I know where babies come from;
what does that have to do with my point about property rights?
> Exactly what is this "other being" that is spoken of, that takes
> over a body of a "person" for "it's own purposes", apparently
> trespassing on "her property". What is this "other being" that
> it requires that infringed person to abort it, in order to regain
> "control."
I think it was clear enough that I meant "other being" to mean
zygote/embryo/fetus/. I used the
term "other being" to gain a measure of defamiliarization which
I thought would help prevent knee-jerk emotional reactions.
(Obviously it didn't. :-))
Unfortunately, I used the phrase "recover control" in a rather
imprecise manner. Obviously the woman's right to abort the baby
derives from her right to control her body. By "recover control",
I meant that she should be able, if she so desires, to forbid any
particular use of her property, and that she should be able to
enforce her choices, even if that means denying aid to another.
> I presume it means this-- "Other being:" a growth, that if left
> unchecked will become another place-setting;
I presume that by "place setting" you mean that the baby will have to
be fed. Once again, this is irrelevant to my point.
> "Person:" a human
> sans umbilical-cord,
Why does the distinction between person and non-person matter?
Either way, the "other being" has no right to use the woman's body
if she doesn't want it to.
> that happens to consider itself a female;
No, Otis, a person is or is not female; opinions have nothing
to do with it.
> "Her property:" something that can be bought, sold, transferred,
> neglected;
The key word here appears to be "neglected"; but I don't believe that
I understand the connotation. Are you claiming that it is reasonable
for one person to force his/her definition of the right way to handle
personal property on another person?
> "Control:" something required only in the event of
> pregnancy.
> --
> ..{ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett
This statement is completely out in left field. I guess it means that
the human body is just "supposed to know" what to do and when. Is this
actually a claim that I don't need to have control of my body in order,
for instance, to type this followup? (Or maybe rlgvax!plunkett just
likes to twist the meanings of words. :-))
BTW, the mail system claims that someone named "Bob Fay" sent me a
letter. Unfortunately, this letter was so badly truncated that it
didn't even have a subject line; please re-send your letter (and
make sure to protect it from the line-eater).
--
Ken Montgomery
"Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]