From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is there some point to Darcy's question?
Date: 20 Dec 92 14:33:31 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec19.213716.16704@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes: 

>To which "legal system" do you refer? The law is a complex, multi-faceted
>entity. You've been snatching examples from one or two areas of law to try 
>and prove a point in a completely different area.
>
>People can be charged with assault and even murder in cases where they 
>destroy fetuses against the wishes of the mother.

Please provide specific cites to cases where someone was charged and
convicted.  

>Fetuses can have inheritance rights, albeit contingent on birth.

This does not provide a counterexample at all.  It seems to me that it
is you who is grasping at straws in trying to demonstrate that
/z/e/f/s have any significant recognition as persons in our legal
systems.

>Incorrect. They are only relevant examples of how the SSA and IRS fail to 
>recognize z/e/f's as equivalent to "persons" for certain purposes. You can't 
>generalize to the entire "legal system" from just those isolated instances.
>There is no requirement that definitions used for one purpose in one executive
>branch have to be consistent with definitions used for other purposes, or
>in other executive branches, or in another branch of the federal government,
>or for all purposes in all branches at all levels of legal jurisdiction. It 
>just doesn't follow.

If you think the generalization is false, please provide several
examples of instances where /z/e/f/s are given recognition as persons.
Hint: You will be better off dropping this argument, because while you
*may* be able to come up with isolated instances where somneone has
tried to make an argument that a viable /z/e/f/ is a person under
certain limited circumstances, the preponderance of evidence is that
they are not persons.  The SSA and IRS examples are not isolated
instances at all; consider that all-important question of citizenship
of which they are a subset.  I have no idea why you have taken up this
quest, but I can only suggest that you will make yourself look foolish
trying to make a credible argument that /z/e/f/s have any significant
legal status as persons in our legal systems.

>If fetal personhood is irrelevant and a false issue (and I AGREE with you on 
>that), then why do you keep falling into the trap of arguing against it? And 
>when you do, why do you keep introducing invalid examples of "legal 
>personhood definitions" like tax exemptions and social security numbers? If 
>you're going to argue personhood at all -- and I see no particular reason to 
>do so -- at least try to make _valid_ points, okay?

You seem to be getting awfully shrill here.  In what sense are IRS and
SSA definitions irrelevant?  I have now added the general definition
of citizenship, of which IRS and SSA are a subset: Is that irrelevant,
too?  The point of arguing with fetus fanatics who talk personhood is
to show that in a legal sense, claims like murder and personhood for
/z/e/f/s are factually incorrect.  They are also irrelevant, but
demonstrating that some fetus fanatic pushing these is both *factually
incorrect* and *raising irrelevant points* is more damning than either
alone.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion