From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:59:28 GMT
     <1992Sep1.212200.15073@advtech.uswest.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>
>>>That EVERYBODY wants to impose their beliefs on the rest of the country.
>>
>>Au contraire.  I'm perfectly willing to live with our society's ethos,
>>but that's different.
>
>Of course you are willing.  Because your viewpoint has already been forced
>upon us.  

How has it been forced?  An ethos cannot be forced, it can only evolve.

I think you're confusing the body of law with the underlying ethical basis.
There are certain things which permeate our entire societal philosophy, and
the right to choose for ourselves (on many issues, not just this one) is one
of the most basic of all.

>This is the equivalent of a man in the '50s saying "I'm perfectly
>willing to live with our society's ethos".

I don't get this (probably too young); would you mind explaining it?

>>(Charles Hall could no doubt expand on this far
>>better than I; it *has* been four years since I took ethics. :-) )
>>I don't want to impose my beliefs on anyone, and I don't want anyone
>>imposing their beliefs on me.  Isn't that fair?
>
>Sure, except in cases where more than one person is involved.
>In those cases, SOME ONE's views have to be paramount.  Whose should it
>be?

The one who is most directly involved, obviously.  This is not an easy
thing to determine, necessarily.

>>>Saying that 'outlawing abortion violates a woman's right to bodily
>>>autonomy' does not give the speaker the moral high ground.  It just
>>>makes her look ignorant.  WHAT RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY?
>>
>>The same right which allows a terminally ill person to die with
>>dignity, to make the conscious decision to die while still in full
>>control of her faculties.
>
>My point is that the right to bodily autonomy is not absolute.

I happen to think it should be, to be honest, but you're correct -- as
the law stands now, it is not.

>Consider the classic cases of the military draft, 

Which (stealing from Heinlein) is involuntary servitude.  The US has never
been in a just war where the draft was required.  Wars where the draft WAS
required are, IMO, wars we never should have been in at all.

>or suicide, 

Why should a person NOT have the right to determine when his/her own life
is no longer worth living?

>or prostitution. . ..

Properly regulated, what is the problem with this?  They're providing a 
useful service.

There -- now that I've responded appropriately to your flame bait, what IS
your point? 

>>The same right which is the very heart of civilized society.  *THAT* RIGHT
>>TO BODILY AUTONOMY.
>>
>>Shall I go on?
>
>No need.  You're wrong, so why bother continuing?

TbBA.  I disagree.

>>>Sigh. . .  Support ANY of your claims without resorting to a statement
>>>of beliefs, and you might find a convert in me.
>>
>>Therefore, you win.  Everything eventually ties back into the hypotheses
>>one chooses, i.e. one's beliefs.  Asking for facts rather than beliefs
>>invites a null argument.
>
>Unless you are willing to abandon beliefs, and make only choices that can
>be supported by objective observation.  

What sort of evidence are you asking for?  I can't think of anything at
all which would support either side in this argument; it's far too much
based in the hypothetical.

>Not to damn likely on either side.

Not too damn possible on either side, IMO.

>>Which I don't.  I *believe* the right to bodily autonomy to be absolute
>>for post-natal humans.
>
>It isn't.

Rephrasal: I believe it *should* be.

>>I believe the right to bodily autonomy for fetuses
>>should be absolute except where it conflicts with the mother's.
>
>Neat, how you express your beliefs, and leave an exception right where
>you want one.  

Well, yeah.  I happen to believe the mother's rights are paramount -- but
we're getting to that.

>Don't get me wrong, I can do the same, and have done so.
>But it brings up a very important point: whose beliefs are we going to
>enforce on everybody else?

That's my point.  We don't enforce *any* beliefs except those held by 
society in the mass -- on those points where people disagree, we let
people make up their own individual minds.

>>The mother's rights supersede the child's unless they are in harmony.
>
>Your beliefs.  Not mine.  I believe in a prioritized system of rights:
>The child's rights supercede the mother's except in cases of rape, incest
>or risk of death to the mother.

This isn't consistent. (It's much the same position I supported until 
recently, except that I also supported pre-viability abortions.) Why
is the fetus's right to life diminished because of his parentage?  Risk
of death to the mother makes more sense, since you're frequently trying
to save the mother's life as opposed to neither's.

>>Arbitrary only in the sense that I believe in granting everyone else the
>>same right to be left alone I wish for myself.
>
>And I believe in granting what is as close to equal rights to everybody
>as is possible.

That's what I said.  Everyone should have equal rights to be left alone, if
they wish it.

>>She wants one.  It's her body.  QED.
>
>QED?  Not here, as your argument is not based on logic, it is based on
>your belief system.

Well, true -- maybe I should have smileyed that, then.  Still, once you 
grant my belief system, it *does* logically follow.

>>You're arguing for a reason conforming to *your* morals, I believe, and
>>that I can't give you.  I don't share them -- I share your ethos, because
>>we (presumably) grew up in roughly the same society.
>
>I am not asking for a reason conforming to my morals,
>I'm trying to get you to admit that both my arguments and yours are based
>in beliefs, and that mine are as valid as yours.

I'm not arguing the validity of your beliefs.  You have every right to
believe whatever you want.  I'm arguing that I find them unreasonable
*for* *me*.  You want to enforce yours on me -- I couldn't care less whether
you agree with me or not.  That's the major difference.

>>>It's not nice to use emotional evocation in a debate.  Both sides do it,
>>>and I have little respect for either.
>>
>>Abortion is an emotional topic, very difficult to discuss dispassionately.
>
>Agreed.  But we can sure try.  For my part, I attempt to avoid insults,
>flames, and emotionally laden terms where ever possible, but I WILL
>respond in kind.

I do my best, though some people irritate me beyond belief. (On both sides,
let me hasten to add.)

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."
                                                  Au revoir, *ma* cherie.
                                                  (Sorry, kiddo.)

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34806 alt.abortion.inequity:3465