From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:56:42 GMT

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:
> > 
> > 
> > RE: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
> > 
> > In article <28DEC92.21004829@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu 
writes:
> > 
> > > Do you know of any way to give rights to a fetus without taking away 
> > rights 
> > > from the pregnant woman?
> 
> > The question pre-supposes the conclusion that
> > 
> > 1) all rights by definition are inviolate
> 
> No it doesn't.  It clearly refers to a conflict and does not say anything
> about rights being inviolate.  Support your assertion, please.

No.  Heather is concerned about the taking away or violation of a mother's rights.  I see no problem with one set of rights overriding another.  My question is, "why ask the question, its irrelavent?"
>  
> > 2) the rights of the unborn child will automatically conflict with the 
> > 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.  
> 
> > 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.

> I hope that it is clearer for you now.
> 
> Dean Kaflowitz
> 
Dean -
I appreciate the sincerity of you response, and the lack of ivectives.  
You do miss my point, which I admit may not be clear.  I have been paying 
attention to t.a. for well over a year now and see these discussions rise 
and set over and over.  In the guise of rational discussion, language is 
used which implies, assumes and presupposes certain meanings.  If I, as an 
anti-abortion proponent answer these questions without first pointing out 
these implicit assumptions, I have lost the argument regardless of what I 
say.

For Heather to raise the question begs another:

Why is the discussion of conflict of rights relavent to the legalization 
of abortion?  We, as Americans, deal with the prioritization of rights as 
a matter of course without raising an eyebrow.  To raise the question 
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.

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.


-Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity