From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Just me, there's just me.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:22:00 GMT

In article <78823@ut-emx.uucp> andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>
>Fine.  The man says not to abort.  The woman wants to abort anyway.  After
>much discussion, neither is convinced of the other's views.  *Whose* 
>*decision* *carries* *more* *weight*??  Don't argue that they're equal --
>the decision has to be made, and it has to go one of the two ways.

Addressed in another article.

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

>(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?

>>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.

Consider the classic cases of the military draft, or suicide, or
prostitution. . ..

>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?

>>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.  Not to damn likely on either side.

>To quote other posters, "Why is abortion not a responsible choice?"
>
>Facts, please, not beliefs. :-)

No facts, just beliefs.  Just like you.

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

It isn't.

>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.  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?

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>>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.

>You may not like it; that's your prerogative.  You may not even accept;
>that's your right.  But you cannot force others to abandon their feelings,
>in some cases VERY strong, on the issue.  It just won't happen.

Agreed.  But being overly emotional about the issue, destroys the ability
to communicate about it.

John
stevens@uswest.com