From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 4 Jan 93 13:32:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

Paul Lebow is now answering his own strawman argument.
He, curiously, deleted my demonstration of how he is
completely wrong in his statement of what Heather's
question assumed, and responds instead to his own
remarks of what Heather's question assumed.

In article <C05918.653@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
> In article <1992Dec30.140912.17346@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> > In article <C01JMJ.Jt@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) 
> writes:
> > > In article <1992Dec29.174828.20687@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> > > decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> > > > In article <C015n2.Ipw@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul 
> Lebow) 
> > > writes:
> > > > > The question pre-supposes the conclusion that
>  
> > > > > 1) all rights by definition are inviolate
> 
>  The common implication is that, 'Outlawing abortion takes away rights;
> therefore abortion should be legal.'  This can only be
> a justification if one accepts, in general that it is bad to 
> take away rights.  Otherwise why bring loss of rights up as 
> pro-abortion argument?

Here he answers his own remarks as though his statement that
the "question pre-supposes the conclusion" is accurate, which
I already showed it was not.
 
>  [Mr. Kaflowitz's long interpretation deleted] 

Well now, isn't that convenient?  A wave of the wand and all
those pesky arguments disappear.
> 
> > > > > 2) the rights of the unborn child will automatically  
> > > > >    conflict withthe mother.
> 
> > > > 
> > > > No it does not.  It clearly speaks of giving rights to a fetus
> > > > and asks how to do so without taking rights from the mother.  Your
> > > > remark speaks of existing rights.  Heather's clearly refers to rights
> > > > not yet provided. 
> > > 
> > > No, I am speaking of the rights that I feel SHOULD be accorded the 
> unborn.
> 
> Here the implication in the rhetorical question is that if the rights
> of the unborn child are no longer ignored, a crisis of mother-child 
> conflicts will result
>  
> [ DK's initial objection deleted]

And very conveniently, I might add, since you respond to yourself yet
again, as if I hadn't understood what you were saying, and just continue
on your merry way.  How very helpful to yourself, but your arguments
are still not addressing anything accurately.
> 
> > In any event, Heather has not assumed the conclusion you ascribe
> > to her.  She asks about potential conflicts (while also making the
> > same error of thinking that rights are given an entity).
> 
> When one raises the spectre of mother-child conflict, it raises unfounded
> images in the minds of many.  Fear tactic.

This is a non-responsive response from Mr Lebow.

> > > > > 3) the pregnant woman has, by definition, higher priority 
> > > > >    rights than others.
> > > > 
> > > > No, the question makes no statement whatsoever with regard to
> > > > priority.  It asks about a potential conflict. ...
> > > 
> > > Again, Heather is concerned about the MOTHER losing rights. 
> > > She seems to hold no remorse for the fact that the unborn 
> > > has effectively no rights.
> > 
> > What does that have to do with what you said?  Heather did not assume
> > any conclusion that a pregnant woman has higher priority in her
> > rights than the fetus she carries.....
> 
> Again, even if Heather did not assume it, the question implies it.

And this is yet another convenient answer.  The implication is not
anywhere to be found in the question.  You inferred it, but the
question does not imply it.  It is damaging to your argument to see
it otherwise, so you refuse to give up your grip on your poor
reading of the question.
>  
> My answer to Heather's question is, of course one can not recognize
> the rights of the unborn without limiting the undue rights of the mother
> as they now exist - by definition!  The mother can no longer effectively
> say -"kill my child, please".  The only way it could be otherwise 
> is if the unborn has lesser rights than the mother.

Which, if one were to agree with your statement here, shows that
Heather's question did not pre-suppose any higher priority for
a woman's rights than for a fetus's, else you could not make
your statement in answer to it.

> > And since no such conclusions were assumed, you show that the
> > assumptions are all on your side. 
> 
> I interpret words in the context of abortion debate.  If Heather chooses
> not to be sensetive to that, its her failure to communicate. 

That doesn't even make any sense.  Heather assumed no conclusions
as you described.  You assumed them for her and then argued
with your strawman, and continue to do so.  Pitiful.

> > Was your point unclear?
> > You stated clearly that you thought Heather had assumed a set
> > of conclusions by her question and I stated clearly that she
> > had done no such thing and then went on to demonstrate that. 
> 
> Again, I was careful to say, even in my initial response, that the 
> question has assumptions, a long rhetorical history.  Does Heather need
> your matter-of-fact assertion of her thoughts?

I don't care what Heather needs.  You are trying to impose a non-existent
set of assumptions on her question and argue with them.  Pure strawman.
The fact is, you've expended an enormous amount of energy arguing with
an argument that didn't exist until you made it up, and using Heather's
question merely as a point from which to make up your strawman
argument.

> > > We, as Americans, deal with the prioritization of rights as 
> > > a matter of course without raising an eyebrow.  To raise the question 
> > 
> > This is false.  Eyebrows are raised and the questions are settled
> > usually only after much discussion.  Don't be absurd.  I suppose
> > Gideon v Arizona never raised an eyebrow?  I suppose most of the
> > cases before the Supreme Court were dealt with as a matter of
> > course without raising an eyebrow?  You are quite wrong.
> 
> Well now, you've chosen to address an assumption I didn't make.  Of course,

Huh?  I addressed directly your statement.  You're seeing
assumptions all over the place that don't exist.  Your having
assumption hallucinations.

> rights are prioritized via a long laborious process.  But once that 
> prioritization has occured, we deal with it, we implement it.  Effectively there is no right to existance for the unborn child now.  Why would one
> feel compelled to search for an obviously impossible dream of magically
> having two mutually exclusive rights, the right to be killed and the 
> right to live, exist simultaneously? And you say this question has no
> rhetorical qualities?

Uh huh.  So, once the decision has been made, no more questions
are raised?  Gideon v Arizona is still causing enormous
difficulties with regard to rights of the accused versus needs
of society.  The Miranda decision goes one way and then the other,
depending on the makeup of the Supreme Court.  The question of
rights is very volatile.  Hardly as static as you would make it
out to be, and once a question is settled, it is only settled until
someone decides to challenge it.  Maybe I should indulge in that
civics lesson for you.
> 
> > ....
> > > implies that somehow the unborn child represents a special case,
> > > and therefore, making abortion illegal again would
> > > somehow force society to live by a new and bizarre set of rules.
> > > This is, of course, false.
> 
> > 
> > Your ipse dixit is showing.
> 
> .....
> >  But I will note that when abortion was illegal
> > previously at no time was there a recognized right to life
> > or anything else of a fetus and that the laws governing abortion
> > did not address that issue.
> 
> Not true, but Louisianna doesn't count.  Even if it were, so what.
> Do we forget about the time when blacks and women were denied 
> rights by the 'infallible' government.

I would respond to this, but you deleted the context (funny how you
holler about context elsewhere and then remove it here.  I was
talking about pre-existing laws regarding a right to life and
your erroneous remarks about what heather's question assumed (see,
I try to stick to the point).  You have here taken my remarks
about your statement out of context in order to make irrelevant
remarks about rights of women and African-Americans.
> > 
> > > Heather's question has an obvious and trivial answer: Take the case of 
> the 
> > > born child vs mother.  How does society deal with the rights of these 
> > > individuals now?  Since I see no difference between a born vs unborn 
> > > child, the same resolution of rights applies.
> > 
> > Ah, since YOU see no difference.  And in that one sentence you
> > wave your wand and the person who has the fetus inside her disappears.
> 
> Maybe in your mind she has, not in mine.  Speak for yourself, (or possibly Heather)

Non-responsive.
>  
> > Oh, and as for Heather's question, how about you provide that answer
> > some time instead of constantly avoiding it.  I would think that,
> > if the conflict of rights were so easily disposed of and the
> > answer so trivial, you would be able to provide that answer, yet
> > all of your remarks so far have been based on avoiding that answer.
> 
> To repeat:
> My answer to Heather's question is, of course one can not recognize
> the rights of the unborn without limiting the undue rights of the mother
> as they now exist - by definition! 

Why are they undue?


Dean Kaflowitz