From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:58:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.140912.17346@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 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:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 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?
> > > > >


Without repeating the long pondorous lecture on manners and consistancy
given by Mr. Kaflowitz, I will try to readdress the objections to my 
comments on Heather's (if I may be so bold) question.  It also has to 
be understood that, despite your wishes to the contrary, questions like Heather's do not exist in an intellectual vacuum.  They exist in a 
pre-existing context which, I feel, is my obligation to point out.
I agree that the contention of rights is an extremely important issue
in a society where abortion is illegal.  But, to use the difficulties
of this issue as a basis for deciding the merrits of legal abortion, which
is what is usually implied by the question, is irrelevant.  The framers
of the constitution didn't pick and choose which rights to recognize based
upon their ease of enforcement.  So, if Heather was really trying to visualize 
the workings of a society where abortion is outlawed, then my comments
may not apply to her.  If one is going to use a common rhetorical question
in a non-rhetorical manner without qualification don't expect the response
to match your private interpretation.

If you discount the enourmous power that implication, as opposed to logic, 
has in persuasiveness, then there is no basis for discussion.

> > > 
> > > > The question pre-supposes the conclusion that
 
> > > > 1) all rights by definition are inviolate

 The common implication is that, 'Outlawing abortion takes away rights;
therefore abortion should be legal.'  This can only be
a justification if one accepts, in general that it is bad to 
take away rights.  Otherwise why bring loss of rights up as 
pro-abortion argument?

 [Mr. Kaflowitz's long interpretation deleted] 

> > > > 2) the rights of the unborn child will automatically  
> > > >    conflict withthe 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.

Here the implication in the rhetorical question is that if the rights
of the unborn child are no longer ignored, a crisis of mother-child 
conflicts will result
 
[ DK's initial objection deleted]

> 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).

When one raises the spectre of mother-child conflict, it raises unfounded
images in the minds of many.  Fear tactic.


> 
> > > > 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.....

Again, even if Heather did not assume it, the question implies it.
 
My answer to Heather's question is, of course one can not recognize
the rights of the unborn without limiting the undue rights of the mother
as they now exist - by definition!  The mother can no longer effectively
say -"kill my child, please".  The only way it could be otherwise 
is if the unborn has lesser rights than the mother.

> 
> 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. 

[somewhat pompous admonition and condescending explanation of
Heather's words -  left out. ] 
> 
> > 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. 

I interpret words in the context of abortion debate.  If Heather chooses
not to be sensetive to that, its her failure to communicate. 

> 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. 

Again, I was careful to say, even in my initial response, that the 
question has assumptions, a long rhetorical history.  Does Heather need
your matter-of-fact assertion of her thoughts?


> 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 relevant 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.

Well now, you've chosen to address an assumption I didn't make.  Of course,
rights are prioritized via a long laborious process.  But once that 
prioritization has occured, we deal with it, we implement it.  Effectively there is no right to existance for the unborn child now.  Why would one
feel compelled to search for an obviously impossible dream of magically
having two mutually exclusive rights, the right to be killed and the 
right to live, exist simultaneously? And you say this question has no
rhetorical qualities?

> ....
> > 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.

.....
>  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.

Not true, but Louisianna doesn't count.  Even if it were, so what.
Do we forget about the time when blacks and women were denied 
rights by the 'infallible' government.
> 
> > 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.

Maybe in your mind she has, not in mine.  Speak for yourself, (or possibly Heather)

> 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. 

Putting words in my mouth again.  

> I am afraid Ido 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.

To repeat:
My answer to Heather's question is, of course one can not recognize
the rights of the unborn without limiting the undue rights of the mother
as they now exist - by definition! 

> 
> Dean Kaflowitz

-Paul
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52817 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1327