From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Is there some point to Darcy's question?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:37:16 GMT

In article <34081@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.053414.781@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>(Kevin Darcy) writes: 
>
>>Above, you have FAILED to prove that the usage is "incorrect" except from the
>>point of view of the SSA and/or the IRS, neither of which agency is empowered 
>>to interpret the Constitution.
>
>I was proving incorrect usage by giving examples of how /z/e/f/s are
>excluded from being defined as persons in our legal system.  

To which "legal system" do you refer? The law is a complex, multi-faceted
entity. You've been snatching examples from one or two areas of law to try 
and prove a point in a completely different area.

>If you have some counterexample, please provide them.

People can be charged with assault and even murder in cases where they 
destroy fetuses against the wishes of the mother.

Fetuses can have inheritance rights, albeit contingent on birth.

>>You implied that the SSA and/or IRS definitions of personhood were relevant
>>to the abortion issue, IN SPITE OF the fact that those definitions do not
>>result in the infringement of anyone's rights. My contention is that the ONLY 
>>definitions of personhood which matter to this debate are the ones which DO 
>>result in an infringement of someone's rights. Do you agree or disagree with
>>my contention?
>
>They are relevant examples of how our legal system does not recognize
>/z/e/f/s as persons.  

Incorrect. They are only relevant examples of how the SSA and IRS fail to 
recognize z/e/f's as equivalent to "persons" for certain purposes. You can't 
generalize to the entire "legal system" from just those isolated instances.
There is no requirement that definitions used for one purpose in one executive
branch have to be consistent with definitions used for other purposes, or
in other executive branches, or in another branch of the federal government,
or for all purposes in all branches at all levels of legal jurisdiction. It 
just doesn't follow.

>I have to confess to having no idea why you are
>going on about infringement of rights and persons.  Five year old
>children, who are indisputably persons in our legal system, do not
>enjoy the right to use the body of their parents for survival that
>the pro-forced pregnancy camp wants to give to /z/e/f/s.
>Consequently, it is my point that personhood is irrelevant to the
>infringement of the right to BA except for the fact that those in the
>forced pregnancy camp seem to use non-personhood as a criteria for
>granting special rights that legal persons do not enjoy.

If fetal personhood is irrelevant and a false issue (and I AGREE with you on 
that), then why do you keep falling into the trap of arguing against it? And 
when you do, why do you keep introducing invalid examples of "legal 
personhood definitions" like tax exemptions and social security numbers? If 
you're going to argue personhood at all -- and I see no particular reason to 
do so -- at least try to make _valid_ points, okay?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism