From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:28:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

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.

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

> To those, I add my earlier words from +this+ thread (25 Sep 1992):
> 
>   Whether this *SHOULD* be law is another question.

I know I didn't mention anything about whether it should be law,
so I have no idea why you evben bring it up.

> As for "nullifying a 'voluntary' acceptance of obligations,'
> the distinction between "a" and "the" is very important,
> and I chose those words specifically.  

I know several good shampoos that will help you with those
split hairs.  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?

> 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.

> Feel free to disagree with that stipulation.  Don't feel free to
> "accuse" me of holding that belief.  But the system of beliefs 
> is still consistent, whether you agree with it or not.

I haven't accused you of anything.  In fact, I was trying to get
a handle on just what you were trying to say.  Sorry if that
upsets you.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion