NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/58509

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 7.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Jan 1993 13:44:32 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sahara.cs.utexas.edu

(Geez, the replies come quick.  I just posted this two hours ago!  t.a
is becoming a full time job....:-) )

Anyway, Amy is working on my consistency of terms now.  That's a good way
to go; I and many other posters have trouble keeping our terms defined, so
I appreciate your acting as referee here.  (_Somebody's_ gotta keep me in
line...)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Amy Lenox) writes:
>A request to Paul Brinkley to leave in attributions so that when someone
>quotes his articles someone like PHoney doesn't screw up on the reading
>of such.

Thanks to this %$@#%^ newsreader (trn), I can't post anything that has more
quoted text than what I add.  It's a great idea, but when I'm trying my best
to keep the relevant parts of the article in one place, for the sake of new
readers who jump into the middle of a thread, the only thing I can do is
either retype the quotes by hand, paraphrase them (which provides a filter
my opponent didn't agree to), or delete the attributions.  I _did_ at least
put how many ">"s each of us had before his or her quotes.  I'll try to
find a way around it...

>I still don't mark deletions.
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>>
>>Amy Lenox writes:
>>>...Not only that, once you establish some sort of rights or state interest,
>>>then one argues conflicting rights - something you fail to address.
>>
>>Now we're starting to move from emphasis on civil rights/liberties to a
>>more legal-wise discussion.  Unfortunately, I'm not extremely familiar with
>>legal terms or processes, in that I am not a law major.
>
>Actually we haven't moved from the rights/liberties discussion since
>the establishment of rights/liberties of the z/e/f is still in
>question.  It may not be a question for you, Paul.

It's still a question to me, with the evidence on hand so far leading me to
believe that a z/e/f is entitled to rights/liberties has set forth in the
U.S. Constitution.  I've said before that this is an arguable point, as I
can't prove conclusively (mathematically?) that z/e/fs _are_ entitled, or
that they aren't.

>...But since you
>are proposing changes to the legal system, you should understand
>the legal ramifications of what you argue and be able to support
>it with arguements grounded in "legalities".

Understood.  At first this seemed to be a moral/ethical type discussion; my
posts seem to have steered it into the legal arena for the time being.  I
suppose someone ought to change the thread title....any ideas, Amy?
Adrienne?

>>I was up until now under the impression that any human life _was_ a state
>>interest, from what I know of it.  If you could specify exactly what a
>>state interest entails, I would be happy to try to address it.
>
>Let us be very careful with terminology here, Paul.  You use the phrase
>"human life".  Is that supposed to be the same as a person, IYO?  Or is
>equivalent to human cellular respiration?  Or something else?  If you
>equate "human life" to a person, note that the US does not currently
>recognize a z/e/f as a person* and you must argue against the status quo.
>Terminology can mess people up later so it is better to clarify things
>before moving on.  The next questions might explore what you think a
>person is, what is deserving of rights, etc...  I'd say it would be
>foolish to go forward without knowing what you are saying.
>
>* i.e. an entity deserving or possessing rights

I must agree with what you just wrote.  To be truthful, I had been using the
terms "human life", "person", and "American citizen" interchangeably, with
relative impunity, until you blew the whistle on me.  I shall try to be
more careful in the future.  I think, though, that it may be wise to define
terms under a different thread, if that's okay.

Now I shall deal with this "threat" thing I brought up.  (Fabricated,
whatever you wish to call it.  :) )  I hope the following will help prevent
any mistakes with attributions...

Adrienne Regard's quote:

>>>>>Now, before you jump into that one with both feet, ask yourself if ANYBODY
>>>>>EVER gets to use my body without my consent.
>>>>>
>>>>>The answer, Paul, is "no".

my (Paul Brinkley's) response:

>>>>I hope this is not intended as a threat.

Amy Lenox's query about my response:

>>>Could you explain why you might think of this as a threat?

my (Paul Brinkley's) explanation of the response:

>>The statement is similar to one used by some women as a firm indication of
>>their position on the issue.  Over time, it often become a statement of
>>belligerence and defiance, and has the effect of raising emotions over the
>>boiling point.

Amy Lenox's rebuttal to the explanation:

>That is not like any definition of threat that I've seen.  Are you
>assuming that statements like these may lead to physical harm?  It
>would be reaching to assume any such thing, IMO.  Being emotionally
>harmed by having one's poor arguments ripped to shreds notwithstanding.
>Emotions can be raised from time to time.  I certainly did not read
>any emotional messages in what Adrienne wrote.  Perhaps you could
>address the question I posed earlier and come up with some examples
>in the US legal system that contradict Adrienne's statement.  I believe
>she was trying to point this out to you but you seem to wrap yourself
>up in accusations of emotionalism without addressing the point.

I'm sorry if you see me as accusing her of emotionalism.  I indicated as
much in my quote (found below); I don't want to accuse her or anyone else
of anything, especially in public.  Objectively read, I don't see it as a
threat, either.  My response was based on a subjective analysis of what
I presumed to be the tone of her post, coupled with what I have read,
heard, and watched about the abortion issue.  In that light, I wish I
hadn't posted it.  It blew this thread up way beyond what I had
planned.  So once again, I won't bring this part up again unless asked.
And I'm less willing now to bring it up even if I am.

>>I hope my reply didn't aggravate the condition, and I don't want to accuse
>>Adrienne of anything.  I won't bring this part of my post up again unless
>>asked.
>
>I only ask that you address her point.

Understood.  I only felt it necessary to make clear that I do not wish to
offend.


Paul Brinkley
[e-mail]
Pro-Thought Advocate

P.S.:  I know I promised a thread in which I would clarify what I meant by
  "human life", "person", and "American citizen", but time constraints are
  probably going to prevent me from posting another one of my inevitably
  wordy articles.  :)  Perhaps a few days from now.  In the meantime, I'll
  try to refrain from using the terms, or clarify them if needed.