From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:23:32 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# |> skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
# |> # Analogies are not equalities.  An apple is analogous to an orange in
# |> # that both are round.  If we are considering what will happen to each
# |> # when they are placed on an inclined plane, the analogy is proper.  If
# |> # we are considering taste, then the analogy certainly fails.  It is
# |> # important to note that pointing out that apples and oranges differ in
# |> # color does not preclude reaching conclusions based on their analogous
# |> # shapes.
# |> 
# |> Oh, forgive me -- *I* thought you were trying to make a point with
# |> your analogy.  Now that it's clear that you are simply playing a game
# |> of concentration, making analogies just for the sheer joy of it, I
# |> suppose that clears a few things up.
# |> 
# |> Several posters, myself included, have explained why we think the
# |> analogy isn't useful for aiding in the development of public policy.
# |> Was there some other reason you trotted out this analogy?  Is it a
# |> simple argument for moral persuasion?  Are you trying to practice the
# |> art of dialectic?  Are you trying to bait flames like this one?  What?
# |> 
# |> If all you want is for someone here to give you a gold star for
# |> thinking for yourself, I suppose there isn't much room for argument,
# |> is there?  You drew an analogy.  What are we supposed to do with it?
# 
# Your supposed to realize that the analogy shows that there is precedent
# in U.S. law for protection of the weak and underrepresented.

That wasn't what Mr. Skinner was trying to say.  If it was, I have
faith he would have said -- he seems pretty pedantic.  Furthermore, I
saw no indication that Mr. Skinner only intended his remarks for a
U.S. audience -- the distribution was `world.'

#                                                              *If* the
# fetus is a person, then it would not be unprecedented for the states to
# pass a law protecting it or for a constitutional amendment to be passed
# protecting it.

You mean, if fetal personhood is recognized by the U.S. federal
government, then it would not be unprecedented...  Otherwise, I have
no argument with you here.

#                If personhood is in doubt, it is still not
# unprecedented as many states prohibited slaves while the slaves'
# personhood was still in doubt.

Ah, but the personhood of slaves was not under much contest.  It
wasn't the primary focus of the debate over slavery.  The debate was
over whether people could be enslaved, not whether the enslaved were
people.

Furthermore, the personhood of fetuses is not under much contest
either.  Pro-abortion-rights advocates are typically either
uncompromising on their position that fetuses are definitely not
people, or they assert that fetuses should be considered fetuses --
neither person, nor property, but a third class with some of the
characteristics of both -- at least as far as public policy goes.
Anti-abortion-rights advocates are typically quite willing to
compromise the idea that fetuses should be considered persons with
individual human rights to life, liberty and property.  How many
pro-lifers can you identify that would demand that miscarriages should
be investigated by the police like any other `homicides?'

You're getting the argument all confused with noise about fetal
personhood and distractions designed to draw attention away from the
fact that the anti-abortion-rights movement is entirely a backlash
against feminism and a vehicle for the acquisition of power for the
religious right wing.  It simply ain't about saving fetuses from the
gruesome fate of vacuum aspiration -- it's about political power.

#                                 Whether or not it was correct for the
# states to abolish slavery while the slaves' personhood was still in
# doubt was premature or wrong, it was done and sets legal precedent.

So, what's yer point?  That a dubious argument for the existence of a
legal precedent compels action?

# However, I can see from your attitude that you have no desire for
# constructive debate concerning this issue.  You may now continue to
# flame at the mouth.

Ayup.  Chalk it up to my bad attitude.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
| J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |                           -- Mark Twain
+---------------------------+