Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!matt
From: matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt )
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights (Proof of Rights)
Message-ID: <1862@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1862
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Oct-85 05:31:58 EDT
References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> <998@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1597@pyuxd.UUCP> <1095@brl-tgr.ARPA> <214@3comvax.UUCP> <1476@brl <238@3comvax.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 85

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