Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights (Proof of Rights) Message-ID: <2037@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 21:23:17 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.2037 Posted: Mon Nov 4 21:23:17 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 08:54:29 EST References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> <2677@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 153 (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