From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:25:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.122813.6410@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <BvB1A2.GM@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep28.185444.9832@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> >In article <BvAtuu.G96@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> >> In article <1992Sep28.153959.3058@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> >> >In article <BvAnLI.AvL@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> >> >> The essence is this:  rape/incest may alter the balance of rights
>> >> >> between woman and fetus, because it nullifies a "voluntary" acceptance
>> >> >> of obligations and because it may represent an extra burden to the woman
>> >> >> not present in the case of voluntary sex.
>> >> >
>> >> >Why is a woman, in your view, "obligated" to carry a pregnancy
>> >> >to term if she had sex voluntarily?
>> >> 
>> >> I have never stated that a woman is, in my view, "obligated" 
>> >> to carry a pregnancy to term if she had sex voluntarily.
>> >
>> >Well the implication of what you said above seems to me to clearly
>> >indicate that you believe a woman is obligated to carry a
>> >pregnancy to term if she has sex voluntarily.  Please clarify
>> >what you mean above when you speak of "nullify[ing] a
>> >'voluntary' acceptance of obligations..."  My understanding
>> >was that you believe voluntary sex is an implicit acceptance
>> >of an obligation to carry any resulting pregnancy to term on
>> >the part of the woman.
>> 
>> You deleted the following statements of mine (from the ">> >>" level):
>> 
>>   Your suspicions may arise from not having followed/seen all the arguments.
>
>In the first place, you described that paragraph as the "essence" of
>your argument.  In the second place, when I read what you wrote it
>seemed as if your descfription was correct.  In the third place,
>I asked you to clarify, and you could have clarified what you were
>saying.   Instead you give me this "You didn't read it right"
>response.  Look, do you have something to say?   How about saying
>it then.  If I read you wrong, correct me.


Let me repeat your statements:  "Why is a woman, in your view, ..."
"My understanding was that you believe..."

You have repeatedly attributed to me a belief system that I have
said is not inherently inconsistent.  I have never laid claim
to this belief system.

My major clarification was to point out that I am arguing about
consistency, not about the value of particular beliefs.  As it seems,
your response points out the importance of that clarification.


>>   AGAIN:  I am arguing whether this is *consistent* or not.
>>   Please avoid "you are advocating" responses, thanks.
>
>Consistent?  It is internally consistent, but I was addressing
>the underlying assumptions of your argument, which I think
>are incorrect.

Okay, this clarifies things immensely.  I am not arguing
the correctness (or value) of the underlying assumptions; 
I hold that a consistent view can be built upon them.

>  You can argue till you're blue in the fingers,
>but if your assumptions are wrong, the edifice crumbles.

Thus, the question of whether the edifice crumbles
reduces to whether you *believe* that voluntary sex
(even with contraceptives) implies an obligation, whether
you *believe* that a fetus is a person, whether you *believe*
that rights should be balanced against each other, etc.

I'm not interested in that part of the discussion, since
it seems a waste of time.

You ask:

>I ask for clarification and you tell me about
>the distinction between "a" and "the."  That's pretty
>valueless.  Do you want to be understood or not?

followed by what I think was already a greater clarification:

>> It may be clearer for you to read "any," but I stand by my choice 
>> of words --- especially because the context stipulates that
>> voluntary sex implies voluntary acceptance of obligations.
>
>Again, the assumption is one with which I disagree.

Good: we have found the problem: we are arguing different things.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh