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