From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Summary: Deep pro-choice.
Date: 20 Dec 92 08:28:38 GMT
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <BzH99B.6tr@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

> jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) writes:

> >Pro-Choice Loses a Round

> >It used to be that you had a choice on whether to support abortion
> >counseling.  Now, unless you have evaded the clutches of the United
> >States Government, you no longer have that choice.  Within the space
> >of a week, a judge declared the so-called ``gag rule'' invalid, and
> >United States President-elect Bill Clinker announced that he would
> >sustain such a policy.  This means that part of your toil is applied,
> >by way of taxation, in support of abortion counseling, whether or not
> >you would so choose on your own.

> Part of everyone's tax money also goes to various military expenses.  In
> particular an improportionate amount of funding for NATO operations in Europe
> is covered by the US even though Europe is economically quite capable of
> paying more for its own defense.

I concur.

> I do not wish for my tax money to get
> wasted on military charity that isn't even needed,...

So why do you put up with it?  Why don't you secede?  You would quit
any other organization whose direction had become irrevocably contrary
to your wishes.  What's so special about this one?

> There is this concept called "majority rule", maybe you've heard
> of it?

Funny you should ask.  Maybe it's the irrational attachment that so
many of my neighbors have to this abhorrent concept (aka tyranny of the
majority) that motivates me to speak up here.  Read my signature
again.  ``...OR NOT AT ALL!''  Do you have the illusion that ``civil
liberty'' (the ostensible subject matter of this newsgroup) is
compatible with tyranny of the majority?

> >Seeking government help to safeguard personal choice is like hiring
> >the fox to guard the chickens.  The whole _purpose_ of democratic
> >political government is to supplant _personal_ choice with
> >_collective_ choice.

> And we have collectively chosen to allow everyone to make their own decisions
> with respect to abortion.  Too bad you can't accept it.

Whether or not to have an abortion _is_ the personal choice of the
woman (and possibly the father).  It has nothing at all to do with
anything your ``collective'' may say about the matter.  It's only
because you and your archist friends happen to wield the nukes right
now that the rest of us have to pay any attention to you whatsoever.

I suspect that here you are mistaking me for someone who is
anti-choice.  You couldn't be more wrong.  I am more pro-choice than
you have yet imagined.

> >If a person's toil is applied, without that person's consent, through
> >taxation, toward an end that that person does not approve, how does
> >this differ from slavery?

> It is quite different from slavery.  In slavery certain people are subjected
> to very different rules than others.  The slaves were treated as sub-people
> and had no voice in government.  In taxation (which, in case you missed it was
> allowed by one of those amendments--I forget which one) everyone is subject to
> the same consistent rules.  The more you make, the more you have to give to
> the government, for all the government does to protect your life and property.
> If you believe in anarchy, well tough s**t; you're in the minority and the
> rest of us don't want you violating our rights.

One of the reasons I participate in these dialogues is in hopes of
getting self-righteous archists to confront the aggressiveness of
their ways.  I suggest that you examine just who is attacking whom in
the scenario you just sketched, the archist demanding tribute or the
anarchist wishing to go his own way in peace.

> If you don't like paying taxes to the US government, you can always emmigrate
> to some other country.  I'm sure you can find a country that won't pay for
> the abortion counseling you are so opposed to.

You have no reason to believe that I'm opposed to abortion counseling.
In fact, I am not.

I'm opposed to Peter trying to force Paul to support abortion counseling
(or anything else) without regard for Paul's personal choice in the
matter.

As for ``emigration'', see my words above regarding secession.

> >If civilization is to have a future, it must include widespread
> >respect for simple human dignity: allowing the other person go his or
> >her own separate way in peace.

> But we won't *pay* a fraction of a fraction of our earnings to give that other
> person some responsible guidance, so that they will not become an even
> *greater* burden on society in the future; is that it?

Why not?  I have no objection to their being paid something.  My
problem is with Peter trying to force Paul to pay them something.

-- 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar