From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Equal protection dead end? 4.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 00:22:38 GMT

In article <34461@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.024748.18418@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>(Kevin Darcy) writes: 
>
>>Um, Stephen, you are the one who seems to have lost track: YOU are the 
>>accuser here -- specifically, you are accusing pro-lifers of being
>>misogynists. I believe the accuser has the burden of proof, whether the 
>>accusation is "in the legal system" [sic] or not. Now, are you going to 
>>_prove_ that pro-life is inherently misogynistic, or are you going to 
>>just simply ASSUME, in the absence of "independent evidence in either
>>direction" that they are misogynistic?
>
>I am not in a court of law last time I checked.  

Read it again. I said I believed that the accuser has the burden of proof
whether the accusation was in the legal system or not.

>What started the
>discussion was tommy's `proof' that forced pregnancy required wanting
>to give special rights to /z/e/f/s.  If someone loves children and
>wants to protect them, why limit special rights to /z/e/f/s?  Could it
>be that they are inside women, who these supposed `child lovers' want
>to keep in their traditionally disenfranchised societal roles?  

In theory, it could. But you have yet to prove that.

>I simply assume that the answer to this question is yes.  

s/simply/simplistically/

>>Above, you seem to comparing this "benefit of
>>the doubt" to something in reference to pregnant women (???) Please identify. 
>
>Giving pregnant women the benefit of the doubt in controlling their
>own bodies and making a better decision regarding the morality of
>abortion in a particular instance than fetus fanatics can make for all
>instances.  

I think you're stretching the term "benefit of the doubt" beyond the breaking
point, Stephen. It refers to a state of facts; you are merely stating 
opinions.

>>And since when is "pro-life" strictly synonymous with the belief that "life 
>>begins at conception"? Are you saying that it's impossible for a pro-lifer to 
>>believe that life begins at, say, 8 weeks gestation? Preposterous. And what's 
>>with your use of the term "witch hunt"? Do you even know what the term means? 
>
>A witch hunt is when someone makes an accusation that cannot be
>disproven and is damaging to the accused; for example, fetus fanatics
>accuse women of being unable to make a moral judgment about their own
>bodies or progeny.  

That's not an accusation, it's an opinion. Again, you seem to have trouble
distinguishing a state of facts from mere opinions.

>>It denotes apprehending and punishing people, based on scant or non-existent 
>>evidence. In what way do you think pro-lifers are conducting a "witch hunt" 
>>against pregnant women? That makes no sense.
>
>You don't consider advocating a legislative agenda of forced pregnancy
>to be a witch hunt against women and their rights as persons?

Correct. It is no witch hunt. At worst, given your description, it's a 
moral battle. I might even say "jihad". But that's not the same thing as
a witch hunt, which has to do with evidence and facts, not just opinions.

>>Take a pill, Stephen. Get some rest. Then please try to speak English
>>instead of Empty Confused Rhetoric. Or you might get mistaken for a
>>pro-lifer :-)
>
>Now who's being condescending?  I would happily ignore your
>misdirected sarcasm except for the fact that you whine when you get it
>in return.

Hmmm... You mean, like you just did?

>>WHOA! TIME OUT! Just because a belief is irrational, doesn't necesssarily 
>>mean there is a malicious motive behind it, Stephen. 
>
>I think I have made it clear that in this case I do believe the
>irrationality is motivated by malice.  I guess we disagree.

Trouble is, you're making a statement of fact -- pro-life is motivated by
malice against women -- without backing it up. Spout opinions all you want,
but if you make an accusation, back it up. Unless you want to start sounding
like Adrienne, that is...

>>And, even if there IS a malicious motive
>>behind pro-life, why do you just assume that it's misogyny? It could just 
>>as easily be hatred of young people (who are less likely to know about birth 
>>control, and thus more likely to get accidentally pregnant), hatred of 
>>surgeons (who stand to make money from abortions), hatred of certain races, 
>>geographical regions, or socio-economic classes (who are more likely to need 
>>abortions). Irrational malice comes in many sizes and shapes, Stephen. 
>>Misogyny certainly has no monopoly on the darker sides of human nature.
>
>Since female is the only characteristic that applies to all persons
>whose rights will be restricted by forced pregnancy legislation, I
>feel quite comfortable in designating such restrictions as
>misogynistic.  While I agree that irrational malice comes in all
>shapes and sizes, when I see a particular irrationality directed
>exclusively at females, I call it misogyny.

Ah, and you don't believe that abortion affects the potential father? And you 
don't believe that abortion affects the medical establishment and medical 
ethics? And you don't believe that abortion has socio-economic ripple effects? 
And, perhaps most importantly to a pro-lifer, you don't think abortion affects 
the FETUS????

Sure, if you start with the axiom that it's pro-lifers vs. pregnant women,
AND NOTHING AND NO-ONE ELSE IS INVOLVED OR MATTERS TO THE DEBATE, then it 
follows fairly trivially that if pro-lifers have a malicious motive, then
they are misogynistic. But I don't accept that axiom, nor do I think most
people accept it, at least not in a pure form. Question your axiom,
Stephen. Questioning one's axioms is one of the rites of passage from 
pseudo-intellectual to intellectual.

>>I believe I already have, Stephen. I have suggested that pro-lifers value
>>fetal life, and that's why they strive to have it legally protected. If
>>you want more details than that, I suggest you ask a pro-lifer for them. 
>>Although I disagree with pro-lifers on exactly how much value a fetus should 
>>have, I do not find this belief -- that fetuses have some value -- to be 
>>INHERENTLY irrational, nor do I see any independent evidence of an entrenched 
>>misogyny in the position.
>
>Why value only fetal life and not real children?  Could it be that
>/z/e/f/s are inside women and by protecting them you limit the rights
>organization theory women?  

In theory, it could be. But if you cannot actually PROVE this to be the case,
IN FACT, then don't make the accusation.

								- Kevin