Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!amd!amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!cmcl2!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: <2415@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 20:24:46 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2415 Posted: Thu Oct 24 20:24:46 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 03:47:57 EST References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 127 > 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