NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/legal/21640

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 12.1 KB

Xref: sparky misc.legal:21640 alt.abortion.inequity:6112 talk.abortion:52649
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!olivea!sgigate!sgi!wdl1!bard
From: [e-mail] (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property?
Keywords: Property rights, abortion, compensation for involuntary loss...?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 06:23:13 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Lines: 263

Jeez.  What a weird thread.

[e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
# [e-mail] (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# >You have some serious cross-posting habits, Mr. Steeves, but I'll
# >play.
#
# >[e-mail] (Will Steeves) writes:
# ># [e-mail] (J H Woodyatt) writes...
# ># JHW> Here.  Play with this:
# >#
# ># JHW> Frozen embryos.  While in transit through another sovereign nation,
# ># JHW> they are taken into custody by agents of that foreign nation, wherein
# ># JHW> they expire as a result of mistreatment.  Since embryos are persons,
# ># JHW> and therefore *not* property under U.S. law, the foreign nation is
# ># JHW> `responsible' for the death of those `persons' rather than the
# ># JHW> destruction of property
# >#      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# >#
# ># Ah, so you *would* consider embryos as property, then?
#
# >Really, Mr. Steeves, brush up on your reading comprehension.  I did
# >not imply that.  Allow me to clear things up for you though... in my
# >view, zygotes/embryos/fetuses/etcetera present a difficult problem in
# >that we pathetic humans have a bad tendency to classify everything
# >that isn't a person as property, either private or (get this, it's a
# >gas) public -- meaning something that isn't a person is either owned
# >by someone, some group or by everybody.

[All of the above is left in because it is context for what follows,
though it won't immediately appear that way.]

# Funny you should talk this way, Woodyatt.  When I took Loomis to
# task for calling a group of women "chicks," you chimed in with the
# solemn pronouncement that his words are evidence of "institutional
# sexism".  I then asked indirectly whether you regarded Mr. Loomis
# to be an institution.  According to the above paragraph, it would
# appear (correct me if I am wrong) that you do not.

Hard to say.  You came at me from another planet with the question
about whether I thought Mr. Loomis was an institution.  I replied with
a short, ``of course not -- whaddya nuts?'' at the time.  My answer
has certainly not changed substantially.

#                                                    So, now I have
# some questions for you.

Shoot.

# 1. Was Mr. Loomis guilty of sexism (however mild) in his word usage?

So mild as to be negligible.  I'm guilty of the same kind of sexism
every time I call you a petulant bastard.  Sue me for sexual
harassment now.

# 2. If not, would you say he is a victim of institutional brainwashing
# as to what are the acceptable ways of referring to women?  (BTW later
# on he said "chick" = "hot babe", another term which I consider to be
# evidence of sexism on the part of the person using it.)

I don't care to split short and curlies with you Mr. Nyikos.  You're a
pedantic git -- and coming from *me* that says something about you --
so you'll have to settle for this:  yes and no.

Are you expecting that I think he's any different from anyone else in
that regard?

# 3. Or is it the case that Mr. Loomis is so Politically Correct that
# he can use any word about women that he pleases without any taint
# of sexism clinging to him?

Mr. Loomis is far from being `politically correct' by anyone's
definition, I think.

# Your continuation also suggests that you do not view Mr. Loomis as
# an institution:

What fresh hell is this?

# >  Some humans have a terribly
# >bad habit of depersonalizing other humans (live *born* humans) so that
# >they may be considered property, but by and by we're arriving at a
# >stage in our development where most of us don't think of living,
# >breathing, born, human persons as potentially someone's property.
#
# Fetuses are living, and they breathe amniotic fluid.  They swallow it, too.

You will note that the word `and' is implied in the list of
qualifications above.  Of course, perhaps you won't.  You're not a
linguist.  Your field is, what?, set topology or some such weirdness?

# And pro-choicers in talk.abortion do classify them as human.  Not
# persons, of course: that is a trait of pro-lifers, of which I am an
# atypical example because I consider personhood as coinciding with the
# onset of sentience.

Are you purposely ignoring the word `born' in the sentence above for a
reason?  Damn, you're a kick, Mr. Nyikos.

I simply don't grok the message you're trying to communicate here.

# BTW did my "Neuroscientist(s) versus the World-Enigma" pair of posts ever
# make it to your boards?

Yes.  But I don't remember what you wrote in it.  I *did* think the
subject line made a good name for a rave music label.

#                         There I talk lots about embryonic/fetal
# development, at least in Part 2.  It was cross-posted to sci.bio as well
# as talk.philosophy.misc.

Where I'm sure no one disagrees that it belonged...

#                          There I argue that there is a *prima facie* case
# for considering any fetus (= developing human past the eighth week beyond
# fertilization) to be sentient.

Who cares?  You looked up sentience in a good dictionary lately?  My
cat is sentient.  I have *plants* that exhibit more complex behavior
than an eight-week-gestation fetus.  What's yer point?

# >Myself, I think that inventing a third class of objects just for
# >zygotes/embryos/fetuses/etcetera that is neither `property' nor
# >`persons' is the most difficult, but perhaps the most prudent course
# >of action.
#
# With this, at least, I am in tentative agreement.  What with the 14th
# amendment, and the unwillingness of the Supreme Court to classify any
# unborn (even those more advanced in development than many born children)
# as persons, I think such a third category is badly needed.

Heh.  But if you could pack the court...

We do not agree on this in principle.  (By the way, Mr. Nyikos -- the
14th amendment doesn't prevent the law from considering the unborn to
be persons; it merely prevents them from being citizens.)

# >In the absence of precedent set by the courts, I think what we
# >currently have is a situation where frozen embryos are currently
# >considered to be property, and that's certainly better than
# >considering them persons.
#
# Here, on the other hand, I disagree.

Of course you do.  You'd like to see them considered citizens as well
-- with apparently total disregard for the monkey wrenching of the law
and, by extension, society at large, such a change would create.  (Oh,
I suppose you might be devious enough to support such a change knowing
full what heinous developments would come of it, but your postings
here do not reflect the kind of truly diabolical insanity that would
require.)

# ># This wasn't meant to be taken as a flame ; I'm just curious as to why
# ># you would want to admit this, while many other "Pro choice" people
# ># have stayed clear of using terminology such as this, perhaps out of
# ># fear of being flamed by "pro-lifers" who might accuse them of
# ># believing potential children as merely someone's property.
#
# >I have little trouble with this concept.
#
# May I quote you when the debate over the woman's right to dispose of
# her aborted little one's body parts comes under heavy discussion?

Yeah, write down the article number and everything.  When someone asks
if you know anyone who has little or no trouble with the concept of
the law considering unborn children as the property of their mother
rather than as persons, you can pipe right in with the name James
Woodyatt.  I'll admit to it.  I have little trouble with this concept.

Why do I expect you will misquote me, though?

# >  I can deal with the idea
# >that anything that isn't a person can be property.  I can deal with
# >flames from pro-`life'rs too.  Fact, it's one of my hobbies.
#
# So I've noticed.  Note that I am no longer ignoring you.  Did my follow-up
# to your *pout* post ever make it to your boards?  [Steve Matheson suggested
# I turn in my netserver to Sears for a refund.  It's been mute, deaf-mute,
# and deaf by turns.]

I don't recall said post, nor any post from you that might meet your
description.

# >It's coming to grips with the idea that *nothing* is private property
# >that takes work, but that's another thread entirely.
#
# "Private property is theft"--Communist Manifesto

<snicker>  Really?  I'll have to go buy a copy and look it up.  What
page was that on?  <smirk>

# Another question (I'm full of them today), this one directed at
# unregenerate Marxists and Babeufians: From whom did the mother steal
# the z/e/f inside her?  [Yet another argument for that third category! :-)]

Are you sure you wouldn't rather ask me?  The people you're directing
this question at are probably not reading this thread.  While you're
at it, why don't you ask them from whom the mother stole its body?

What's yer point?  (Oh, and is that *all* Babeufians, or just the
unregenerate ones?)

# >Yeah, I see where you're going -- so I'll just yank on the chain
# >labelled `joint ownership?' and pull you back into the real world.  I
# >remind you that ownership is not the same as custody, and in the case
# >of an embryo in a woman's womb (should we agree for the sake of argument
# >to consider it `property') any claim a man might make to joint
# >ownership is inherently suspicious.
#
# Well, he can't very well take custody of it yet, can he now?

Glad *somebody* besides me in this thread remembers that niggling
little fact.

# ># I realise that this is a Devil's Advocate argument, but I should say
# ># right from the start that I consider it absolutely invidious to
# ># consider unborn persons as property,
#
# >Heh.  I consider it an egregious fallacy to consider `unborn persons'
# >to be anything other than an oxymoron.
#
# Not even when they are overdue,eh?  There's a pretty kettle of fish for
# you: it's an egregious fallacy, by Woodyatt Logic, to consider as an
# unborn person a "fetus"
# which was conceived at the same time as a two-week-old full-term baby,
# and which might even be a "bruiser" [popular Lamaze class term] outweighing
# said full-term baby 2-to-1.
#
# Woodyatt Logic is not to be confused with Aristotelian logic, mathematical
# logic, symbolic logic, or *any* halfway reasonable form of logic.

Did you think you were pointing out a flaw?  Contemplate the word
`oxymoron' Herr Doktor.  Think on it really hard.  When you're done,
dereference that infinitive phrase and ponder it's relation to the
word `fallacy.'  I expect the only way you'll be able to find my logic
unreasonable is to trace it down to my refusal to cooperate and adopt
your narrow, fundamentalist view of what the distinguishing qualities
of personhood are.

# >+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
# >| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
# >| [e-mail] |  preparing for itself.''
# >+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain
#
# Too bad the disciples of Marx, including Lenin and Mao Zedong (old
# spelling: Tse-Tung), did not heed these words of Mark Twain.

Well, considering that the disciples of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas
Jefferson haven't either, your remark comes off as fairly silly.
Maybe you'll have better luck with my new .signature.

(Hee hee, the `old spelling' indeed.)


--
+---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
| J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
| [e-mail] |                           -- Mark Twain
+---------------------------+

P.S.  Don't try to redbait me, Mr. Nyikos.  It won't work, you'll
make people think you're even more mildewed than you are, and I'll be
forced to lead you down one of my favorite garden paths.