From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is there some point to Darcy's question?
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:43:02 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <34484@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.011930.21668@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>(Kevin Darcy) continues insisting that /z/e/f/s are legal persons.  

LIAR! I've never argued that.

>>>>Fetuses can have inheritance rights, albeit contingent on birth.
>>>
>>>This does not provide a counterexample at all.  
>
>Becaus they have to be born, i.e. become persons, to get the rights.

It's a contingent right, but a right nonetheless. 

>>Why not? Your only "examples" of fetal NON-personhood, besides RvW itself, 
>>consist of administrative definitions. The inheritance example existed in
>>the Common Law even before abortion was criminalized. I think it's more
>>indicative of established legal principles than whatever happens to be the
>>bureaucratic definition of "person" in the SSA this week...
>
>And inheritance rights do not apply until after birth and legal
>personhood.  Regardless of whether I agree on which is more indicative
>of legal principles, both apply only after birth.

Wrong. The right applies BEFORE birth, but is contingent upon birth.

>>>If you think the generalization is false, please provide several
>>>examples of instances where /z/e/f/s are given recognition as persons.
>>
>>Refute the ones I've already provided first.
>
>You haven't provided any.

Then what were you arguing above? Are you in the habit of arguing against
nothingness? And, by the way, why did you delete the part about people being 
able to sue for the wrongful death of fetuses? No answer to that?

>>>The SSA and IRS examples are not isolated
>>>instances at all; consider that all-important question of citizenship
>>>of which they are a subset.  
>>
>>Wrong. They are not a "subset" of citizenship at all. The SSA could let
>>me give a social security number for my cat, the IRS could let me have a
>>tax credit for, say, solar heating panels or asbestos removal, and none of 
>>this would violate any Constitutional principles.
>
>Only persons are allowed social security numbers.  If your cat got
>one, it would be in error.  You cannot apply for one for your cat.
>You are starting to sound purposefully stupid.

And you are purposefully misreading my assertion. I didn't say that I could
run out right now and get a social security number for my cat; I said that
the SSA COULD LET ME give a social security number for my cat without 
violating the Constitution. Please address the assertion I made, not the
strawman assertion you prefer to refute.

>>As for citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment says that anyone who is born 
>>or naturalized is a citizen, but it doesn't say that those are the ONLY 
>>things that can be citizens, so if the INS wanted to grant citizenship to a 
>>tree, what do you suppose would be unconstitutional about it? 
>
>Your counterargument to me is that the INS might want to make a tree a
>citizen and that this would not be unconstitutional.  Don't you feel
>foolish even typing this?

Not nearly as foolish as I think you should feel because you can't answer
it. I'm doing the _reductio_ here, Stephen -- your _argumentum_ has become
the _absurdum_. Evade, obfuscate, wave your hands all you want. It's pretty
obvious to me, at least, that the "unconstitutionality" you've been claiming
simply doesn't exist.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion