Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:09:56 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      "Uncl" is for "unclear"?

Since Robert now at least seems to admit that it is important
for him to make an argument, I will reply after all. (fanfare)

The posting is very long. I summarize the status of the
disputes at the bottom, and I also give honorable mention
to both Kerry and KAT, and at last try to re-raise the
original point that was at issue.

I am going to abstract from Robert's last posting a summary
of what is at issue between us. Unfortunately, a good deal
of what is at issue is what exactly was said, by me and by him,
in previous postings.

First issue. I say that by asserting without argument that
his National Review article would not be "irrelevant to the
victim of the execution" Robert is begging the question at
issue, which is whether an abortion is an "execution" or not.

In reply, here is what Robert says.

>The mentality that condones killing innocents is incapable of admitting
>or even understanding the tragedy of abortion.  You say that a baby, only
>inches from daylight, can be summarily executed by shoving scissors through
>its head and this is entirely acceptable.  I find it both sad and sickening
>that anyone could say such a thing.  Your attitude embodies exactly what
>must have been present in the death camps.  No, I'm not calling you a
>Nazi.  I am saying that without a moral basis it would be only a small
>step to become one.

Ah. So Robert is not calling me a Nazi. He is saying that I am the
moral equivalent of a Nazi. So I suppose that while he agrees
that it might be bad form to call one's interlocutors "Nazis" it is
acceptable to say that they are the moral equivalents of Nazis.

I note, however, that Robert did not actually answer the point
I made. I said that he was begging the question by assuming what was
at issue. In response, he explains in more detail what his feelings
about me are. And he AGAIN begs the question by assuming that a fetus
is the same thing as a "baby."

Second issue.

>>2. I asked why, according to you, it is "undeniable" that the fetus
>>is the "same person" as the resulting child. You refused to answer.

But according to Robert,

>I *did* answer, you just didn't like it and made an asinine attempt to
>dodge my reply by purposely employing *faulty* logic.  Even I was
>surprised by this feeble tactic.

For the record, I will reproduce the relevant posting.

[me]
|>Why is that "undeniable"? I deny it.

And now follows the entirety of what Robert said in that post:
[I delete the quotation of MY posting, for Ellen's sake.]

   [...]

   >Irrelevant to you perhaps, but not to the victim of the execution.

   [...]

   >When I first joined this list I made the mistake of calling you stupid.
   >I have since found that accusation to be a little hasty.  You are indeed
   >highly intellectual and deserve to be recognized as such.  However, I
   >wonder at what cost you achieved your academic prowess.

   >I have nothing in my existence with which I can relate to your last
   >statement.  Upon reading it, I simply felt sorry.  Humanity hasn't
   >really traveled very far from Auschwitz.

[...]

   >A damaged X remains a damaged X.

   >---Robert

So, which of those responses was supposed to explain why your claim
was undeniable?
I can't find anything in the response that I can construe as support
for the claim of "undeniability."
I conclude that Robert mis-remembered his answer to me.
I now ask him again to explain why he thought his claim, that
a baby is a fetus, is undeniable.

Third issue.

>>3. I asked whether there was any actual argument you had that a
>>fetus is a person at all. You refused to answer.
>
>Not so.  You denied the "same person" argument and based upon that denial
>saw no problem with killing a child.  Then you asked, "So, what's your
>argument?".  I chose not to argue with your denial.

First of all, I did not deny any "same person" argument. I don't even
know what the argument is supposed to be. As far as I can tell, you
haven't made ANY argument. (Perhaps Robert is confusing a brute
and unsupported claim with an argument?)

Second, I did not say that I saw no problem with killing a child. I said
I found it acceptable to kill a fetus under some circumstances. Once
again, Robert begs the question at issue.

>If you really want me to substantiate the personhood of an unborn child, I
>refer you to "G"od only knows how many previous posts I've made on that
>particular issue.  However, I am quite excited at the prospect of repeating
>it all again.  Your choice.

You have sent dozens of posts on abortion. But I don't know of a single
argument you have given to support your view that fetuses are children.
I do recall your earlier comparison of pro-choice advocates to
Nazis. And I do know that you often, maybe always, include a remark
about abortion in your sig. If you think those are arguments, you
are deeply mistaken.

So, if it is my choice, I would like you to offer at least one argument
that fetuses are children.

Fourth issue.

>>4. I asked what principle you used to infer from "a damaged
>>fetus results in a damaged child" the conclusion "the child is
>>the fetus." You gave no principle.
>
>No, actually you didn't.  Instead, you came up with the asinine response
>I alluded to just above.  You remember, the marvelous X = Y principle.

Again, Robert is wrong about what was contained in earlier posts.
I did, in fact, ask what principle he had used. Here is the quotation.

>Or, I am willing to discuss whatever principle Robert wants to offer
>in its place as an interpretation of his mysterious statement.

Finally, Robert says this:

>a fetus is a child, try simple observation.  I still contend that
>if removing an appendage from the fetus results in a child without
>that same appendage, the connection is all too obvious.  That is except
>for those who feel threatened by admitting to the wanton destruction of
>20+ million children.  I suppose in your shoes, I would stick to my
>argument rather than owning up to my culpability.

Again, the best I can make of this is the following.
Robert says that IF removing an appendage from the fetus results
in a child without that same appendage, the connection is all too
obvious. I assume he means that it obviously follows that the child
is identical to the fetus. If that is not what he means, then I
don't know what he means.
If it IS what he means, then he is simply wrong. It doesn't follow
at all. KAT and Kerry have posted examples that show that the
fact that damaging one thing results in damage to another, it
clearly does not follow that the first thing is identical to
the second.

By the way, I ought to acknowledge that both K's gave good
examples. I'd have to say that my personal favorite was
Kerry's chromosome example, since it has the most salient
similarity to the inference Robert tried to draw.

To summarize:
First, in reply (sort of) to my claim that Robert was begging
the question, he only explained in more details what feelings
arise in him as a result of contemplating my moral fiber.
Second, though Robert claims to have explained why it is
undeniable that an abortion is equivalent to a murder, he
has not explained it.
Third, though Robert claims to have given some argument that
fetuses are children, I know of no such argument that he has
given. If he wants to (a) point out exactly where he gave
such an argument, or (b) make one now, I will be pleased.
Fourth, though Robert denies that I ever asked him to state
a principle connecting the damage of a fetus to the claim
that the fetus is identical to the resulting child, I did
in fact ask him to state one.
And last, Robert seems to have endorsed the exact principle
which I suggested as an interpretation but was unwilling
to attribute to him. That principle was ably showed to be
fallacious by KAT and Kerry, whom I commend for their wisdom.

As promised, I shall now try to re-raise the original issue.

The question is whether it is consistent to believe at once
that it is wrong to damage a fetus in a way that results in
damage to a child, and at the same time that it is not wrong
per se to abort a fetus.
I have explained why it is consistent. Since then several
other posters have also explained.

So perhaps we should simply ask Robert to explain why he
thinks it is inconsistent.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU