From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 30 Dec 92 14:09:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <C01JMJ.Jt@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
> 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?"

First of all, try breaking your sentences at the end of the line.
Second, the response you provide has nothing to do with what you
said originally, which is right there for you to see, undeleted.
You say that she assumed a conclusion that rights are inviolate.
Clearly, if she is concerned with the potential conflicts and
aware that some rights may override others, she is aware that
rights may be violated.  So either you abandon your rather
insulting original position or defend it, but what you have just
written has nothing to do with your original.  Now, I see no
reason to insult Heather for being concerned, as you put it,
with "taking away or violation of a mother's rights."  Seems
perfectly reasonable to me.  While you may believe that it is
necessary, there is a differing opinion as to which rights ought
to be violated.  In point of fact, you are referring to non-
existing rights when you refer to rights of a fetus, which is what
Heather said when she spoke of "giving" rights to a fetus.
So far there is no such conflict because no such rights are
acknowledged.  (Rights are not given, but recognized.)  The question
is not at all irrelevant.  To say so is absurd.  How could the
question of a woman's rights versus a discovery of fetal rights
be irrelevant to the abortion debate, founded as it is on
the premise of a constitutional right to privacy, the notion
of a right to bodily autonomy, and the matter of how common
law and precedent recognize, if at all, fetal rights?  I don't
see where you get the idea that it is irrelevant at all.  Try
telling Justice Scalia that the conflict of rights is irrelevant
to the debate over the legality of abortion.
> >  
> > > 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.  

You claim that Heather assumed the conflict you describe, but Heather
asked a question regarding how rights can be granted in one area
without circumscribing rights in another.  There is no conclusion
assumed in her question, and she was asking about rights not yet
in evidence or acknowledged.  Now, when you say "the rights of the
unborn child will automatically..." it is a little ambiguous, and
I read it to say that an unborn child has certain rights.  Your
use of "will" is confusing the issue because you use present and
future tense without qualification.  Further confusing things is that
I assumed you understand that rights are not "accorded," but
recognized.  You don't give someone a right.  They possess a right
and the law recognizes that.

In any event, Heather has not assumed the conclusion you ascribe
to her.  She asks about potential conflicts (while also making the
same error of thinking that rights are given an entity).

> > > 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.

What does that have to do with what you said?  Heather did not assume
any conclusion that a pregnant woman has higher priority in her
rights than the fetus she carries.  Her question said exactly the
opposite, in fact, since she asks if it is possible to recognize
rights for a fetus without abbrogating rights for a pregnant woman.
This acknowledges that other rights could take precedence over
those of the pregnant woman.  If you have anything to say in
response to her question, please do so, but the insulting response
you provided earlier was useless and, to use your term, irrelevant.
You talked of her assuming a set of conclusions by her question
which she did not assume and which I have demonstrated she did
not assume.

I don't care one way or another whether Heather feels any remorse
over the status of the rights of fetuses.  Her question does not
indicate in any way whether she feels any such remorse.

> Dean -

Mr Kaflowitz to you, Mr Lebow.

> I appreciate the sincerity of you response, and the lack of ivectives.  

Try matching it.  You rode in here, guns blazing, and the postings
were very poorly thought out.  I chose to address this one, but
the poor quality of the logic and rhetoric is inherent in all
of the numerous postings I saw yesterday from you.  The insults
were gratuitous and numerous and I was hard-pressed not to match
you in them.  I did so only because I thought that avoiding them
would be more effective in demonstrating how poor and porous your
arguments were, and how badly muddled the thinking was.  I
chose the one involving Heather for a response because of the fact
that the entire premise of your posting was wrong, that Heather
had assumed a set of conclusions, and that this would best
demonstrate the muddled quality of your work.

> 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.

And since no such conclusions were assumed, you show that the
assumptions are all on your side.  Was your point unclear?
You stated clearly that you thought Heather had assumed a set
of conclusions by her question and I stated clearly that she
had done no such thing and then went on to demonstrate that.  Now,
in the paragraph above, you say that your point was that language,
and here I assume you mean Heather's language as well, is used
in talk.abortion that "assumes and presupposes certain meanings."
In other words, assumes conclusions.  I at a loss to see how I
missed your point.  Perhaps the point itself is a miss.

> For Heather to raise the question begs another:
> 
> Why is the discussion of conflict of rights relavent to the legalization 
> of abortion?

I have already addressed that.  I am not up to a civics lesson at
this point and this is already quite long enough.

> We, as Americans, deal with the prioritization of rights as 
> a matter of course without raising an eyebrow.  To raise the question 

This is false.  Eyebrows are raised and the questions are settled
usually only after much discussion.  Don't be absurd.  I suppose
Gideon v Arizona never raised an eyebrow?  I suppose most of the
cases before the Supreme Court were dealt with as a matter of
course without raising an eyebrow?  You are quite wrong.

> 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.

Your ipse dixit is showing.  I have a meeting in twenty minutes.
Repost just the paragraph above, since I haven't any archiving
facilities, and I'll explain to you just how such a decision as
you would have it would alter society.  In fact, I explained that
in the posting you are replying to here, but you deleted that
information.  But I will note that when abortion was illegal
previously at no time was there a recognized right to life
or anything else of a fetus and that the laws governing abortion
did not address that issue.

> 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.

Ah, since YOU see no difference.  And in that one sentence you
wave your wand and the person who has the fetus inside her disappears.
You're being childish and simplistic now, Mr Lebow.  Because you
see no difference, women are supposed to shut up and stop trying
to have rights over their own reproductive systems.  I am afraid I
do not in any way agree with you.

Oh, and as for Heather's question, how about you provide that answer
some time instead of constantly avoiding it.  I would think that,
if the conflict of rights were so easily disposed of and the
answer so trivial, you would be able to provide that answer, yet
all of your remarks so far have been based on avoiding that answer.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion