From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: How to Oppose the Freedom of Choice Act
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:05:21 GMT

In article <nq_y+-+@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>In article <bx#ym2d@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>Because some people still insist that developing children are not 
>>>>"persons", just as some people believed that African-Americans 
>>>>were not "persons". 
>>>And of course, I'm sure you're willing to provide some evidence for
>>>your assertion that some people did not believe that blacks were
>>>"people".
>>Hang on here. Doug used the correct terminology, and I'm pretty
>>sure that Taney in Dred Scott concluded essentially that blacks
>>were not persons. 
>
>"Essentially", Mr. Rescorla?
>
>>I believe his actually phrasing is "no rights
>>that a white man is bound to respect." While I disagree with
>>this analogy, I think that Doug's characterization of the black
>>slavery issue is pretty accurate.
>
>Perhaps it is, but you have provided no evidence of it.
>
>Really, Rescorla, for someone who has spent the last few days arguing
>that there is no basis to assume miscarriage in a Bible verse that
>carries very strong implications of it, I am quite surprised to see
>you suddenly embrace a vague recollection of equally vague wording
>as somehow being some sort of proof of a definite statement.
>
>I didn't ask if blacks had fewer rights than landed white males,
>that much is trivially obvious.  I asked if there were people who
>really, truly believed that blacks were not persons.  

Cathi, it ruled that blacks were not CITIZENS as the word is used in the 
Constitution. They therefore had no rights or protections, and for all 
intents and purposes weren't persons either. Eric may have spoken without
all of the facts at his disposal, but then you didn't present any facts of
your own. For my part, I offer the following:

	Dred Scott Case.  The case in which the United States Supreme Court
	held that descendants of Africans who were imported into this 
	country, and sold as slaves, were not included nor intended to be
	included under he word "Citizens" in the Constitution, whether
	emancipated or not, and remained without rights or priveleges 
	except such as those which the government might grant them.  Dred 
	Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L.Ed. 691.

	(Black's, Fifth Edition)

>Take "sentient
>human" as a working definition, if you like.  Did Dred Scott 
>conclude that blacks were of a different species?  Did the decision
>conclude that their brains were nonfunctional?

Straw man. Legally, a "person" is whatever the law cares to call a "person".
There's no need to snatch a random definition out of thin air, as you have
done here. The term is extremely fluid.

>For such a stickler for detail as you seem to be, your analysis
>of "pretty accurate" with no supporting evidence is startling,
>to say the least.

<Ahem>

>            who has her own suspicions as to why this claim was made

Is there something you wish to share with the rest of the class, Cathi?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion