From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 24 Jan 93 22:37:38 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1993Jan24.182831.4886@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.072401.22786@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes ...
>>> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>>In order to have bodily autonomy, it is first necessary to be a
>>>>>person. 
>>>>
>>>>This is a ridiculous statement. All living organisms have varying degrees 
>>>>of bodily autonomy. Only some of those organisms have their bodily 
>>>>autonomy legally protected.
>>>>
>>>Since this is talk.abortion Kebbin, it should be self evident to any
>>>thinking person that the bodily autonomy mentioned is specifically
>>>that of a person, and legally protected. But if it'll make you happy,
>>>here:
>>>In order to have bodily autonomy, as it relates to legal protection
>>>and the issue of abortion, it is first neecessary to be a person.
>>
>>Which leads to the inevitable question: what is it about birth that
>>turns a fetus into a person?
>>
>Which can be argued into eternity, since 'personhood' is a state which
>has a different meaning to each of us.

I.e. fetal personhood arguments are a dead end.

>>The legal argument isn't a useful one, as it can be argued that laws
>>protect existing rights, and don't create rights.
>>
>I'm notarguing law, am I?

"...as it relates to legal protection..."

And the answer to your question is... <ding> <ding> <ding>...

	"YES, you idiot, you _are_ arguing law, even if you don't admit it!"

>>The biological arguments are not relevent to the personhood issue (or
>>at least, haven't been shown to be).  The the fetus is inside another
>>person doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a person.  As far as I've
>>been able to tell, that alone it not enough to determine or prevent
>>personhood.
>>
>Rather depends on your definition of 'person' doesn't it Ray? Mine
>happens to include a certain minimum level of self-support not
>possible within the womb.

Okay, fine. Now please state why YOUR definition, as opposed to other, 
competing definitions, should be the one upon which we base our social
legislation (or lack of same).

>>>Happy now Kibble?
>>>My language may have been 'loose' Kebin, but at least I'll correct it.
>>>Are you now ready to admit that you were incorrect in your usage of the
>>>word 'schizophrenia' instead of 'mpd'? If not, you are simply
>>>displaying your hypocrisy again.
>>
>>Is this in any way relevent?  Or are you just resorting to a pointless
>>ad hominem attack?
>>
>It's relevent to another thread, ...

But not THIS thread. Please try to stay on-topic.

							- Kevin

"kevin, you've often argued in favor of abortion restrictions."
				James G. Keegan Jr., keegan@acm.rpi.edu
				Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:55:40 GMT
				<t9g20dp@rpi.edu>

"for years, i've been arguing that you wanted to
 restrict women's right to terminate a pregnancy."
				James G Keegan Jr, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com
				1 Jan 93 03:48:14 GMT
				<1993Jan1.034814.1823@crd.ge.com>

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?                                                                              ?
? "i haven't seen kebbie argue for legislation."                               ?
?				James G Keegan Jr, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com       ?
?				2 Jan 93 00:32:23 GMT                          ?
?				<1993Jan2.003223.3588@crd.ge.com>              ?
?                                                                              ?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

"sure you do, kevin. you argue against women's right
 to terminate a pregnancy quite frequently."
				James G Keegan Jr, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com
				2 Jan 93 14:54:05 GMT
				<1993Jan2.145405.947@crd.ge.com>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion