regret

[Volokh, Eugene]

    I appreciate Prof. Alexander's concerns, which she is certainly
entitled to air.  And if the list had a general practice of not using
"argumentative, polemical characterizations," Prof. Scaperlanda might be
reasonably expected to tone the characterizations down a bit.
(Likewise, if he wishes to do so, for rhetorical reasons, I would
certainly understand.)  
 
    But given the nature of past list discussions, it seems hard to me
to condemn Prof. Scaperlanda, who doubtless sincerely and not
unreasonably believes that the intact D&X of a second-trimester fetus is
"brutal killing" -- a position that others may disagree with, but hardly
strikes me as outlandish or patently unreasonable, even to those who see
it unreasonable to treat the destruction of a few-day-old collection of
cells as "brutal killing" -- for using such a description.  
 
    I take it, for instance, that a death penalty opponent would be
entitled, given the practice on the list, to call execution by
electrocution "brutal murder," even if many do not believe execution to
be "murder," do not believe that killers condemned to death have a right
to life, and do not believe electrocution to be particularly brutal.
Perhaps less vivid or conclusory terms would be more conducive to
persuasion; perhaps not; but I doubt they would violate list standards
as they have developed.  It seems the same is true as to the actions
involved in intact D & X of a second-trimester (or third-trimester)
fetus.
 
    Eugene


________________________________

	From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Janet Alexander
	Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:36 AM
	To: Scaperlanda, Michael A.; Lynne Henderson; Andrew Koppelman
	Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
	Subject: Re: regret 
	
	
	Dear Professor Scaperlanda,
	        Would you kindly spare the rest of the list these
argumentative, polemical characterizations?  You have made your point --
you think intact D&X is immoral.  Others on the list do not agree and
have quite different, though perhaps equally strong, views about the
morality of the Supreme Court's decision.  I have tried to spare the
list the responses that have gone through my mind each time I read some
such propagandistic phrase as "brutally killed."  I am afraid I am going
to have to resign from the list if this doesn't stop.
	        Janet Alexander
	
	Janet Cooper Alexander
	Frederick I. Richman Professor of Law
	Stanford Law School
	Stanford CA 94301-8610
	650.723.2892
	
	
	At 08:12 AM 4/23/2007 -0500, Scaperlanda, Michael A. wrote:
	

		Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
		Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
		        boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C785A9.AAEC6DC4"
		
		Lynne, are you suggesting that the psychological harm
the mother suffers in choosing to have her partially born child brutally
killed is similar to the harm suffered when one chooses "Stanford over
Yale, law over medicine"?  Or, did I miss understand you?
		 
		Michael
		 
		Michael Scaperlanda
		Associate Dean for Research
		Edwards Family Chair in Law
		University of Oklahoma College of Law
		300 W. Timberdell Rd.
		Norman, Oklahoma 73019
		Ph.    405.325.4833
		FAX   405.325.0389

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20070423/9d724408/attachment.htm