From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Equal protection dead end? 4.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 02:47:48 GMT

In article <34079@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.051445.540@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>(Kevin Darcy) writes: 
>
>>Huh? If I bump into you on the street, and there's no "independent evidence
>>in either direction" whether it was deliberate or not, am I guilty of
>>assault?
>
>You seem to have lost track of who is proposing legislative solutions
>here.  I am proposing that BA be protected by keeping abortion out of
>the legal system.  I think that requires a far different standard of
>proof than an argument that it should be placed in the legal system.

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?

>>Whatever happened to presumptions of innocence? Whatever happened to benefit
>>of the doubt? Whatever happened to high standards of proof? Does all of this
>>just go out the window once you begin your "misogynist" witch-hunt?
>
>There was no presumption of good intent in the abortion debate last
>time I checked.  I am happy to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone
>who professes a pro-life position but gives the same benefit of a
>doubt to pregnant women.  When someone crosses the line from holding a
>pro-life belief, e.g., life begins at conception, to advocating a
>legislative agenda of forced pregnancy, I think it is they who have
>gone on a witch hunt, not me.  

What is this gibberish supposed to mean, Stephen? First of all, what "benefit
of the doubt" are we talking about? The "benefit of the doubt" I was 
referring to was that, in the absence of proof that pro-life is misogynistic, 
we should assume that it isn't. Above, you seem to comparing this "benefit of
the doubt" to something in reference to pregnant women (???) Please identify. 
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? 
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.

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 :-)

>During the whole misogynist thread, I
>repeatedly asked those in the forced pregnancy camp to explain their
>motivation for wanting to give rights to /z/e/f/s that no other entity
>enjoys.  I explained that my interpretation of this was that it was
>discriminatory (Remember the whole thing started when tommy posted an
>admission of this.).  I further explained that I have a fundamental
>belief that the only explanations for discrimination are irrational,
>e.g., misogyny.  

WHOA! TIME OUT! Just because a belief is irrational, doesn't necesssarily 
mean there is a malicious motive behind it, Stephen. A lot of the stuff 
you've been saying in this article has, IMO, been pretty irrational, but I 
don't think you bear me any particular malice (although that could change 
pretty soon). It's just mistaken. 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.

>If you have some other explanation, please post it.

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.

>Also, if you are going to whine about nasty responses to your posts to
>me, e.g., complaining about my being condescending, I would suggest
>that you avoid inflammatory (and as I explain above, incorrect)
>language about others being on witch hunts.

Grow up, Stephen. I call them as I see them, and, as _I_ explain above,
you don't even seem to understand what a "witch hunt" is, so how can you
be so sure that my characterization was incorrect?
		
								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion