From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Equal protection dead end? 1.
Date: 21 Dec 92 03:55:21 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec20.235152.21010@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes: 

>>>Word for word, eh? Please point out the part where I condescendingly 
>>>"recommended" that you read up on the subject matter?

Your original complaint was about specific language that I had used,
not the suggestion that you need to read critical legal theory.  When
I pointed out that the language was lifted directly from your post,
you changed the complaint.  That's why I did not respond.

>Then tell me where I went wrong, whiz-kid! If you can't refute what I have
>said, then the bluster above is just empty ad hominem posturing.

I have pointed out to you in several places where you have stated
views that imply objectivity to law that critical legal theory is
quite insistent does not exist.  

>And they have answered you. Repeatedly. They tell you that they value the 
>fetus, and that's why they strive to protect it. But you don't listen. You
>just put your hands over your ears and screech "MISOGYNISTS! MISOGYNISTS!"
>until they just walk away in disgust. Real productive.

The only answer I ever saw from tommy was that he advoated forced
pregnancy to enhance the nobility of women.  I cannot recall a single
response to my post from a pro-forcer explaining how their position
was to protect /z/e/f/s not harm women.  Please give specific cites
where they posted this in response to me.  If they did, I am certain
that I asked them why /z/e/f/s are entitled to protections not given
to children.  To this I am sure the response was a deafening silence.
As my patience with you on this thread demonstrates, I respond even to
vacuousness.

>Well, in the conspicuous absence of any proof to the contrary, I think I've
>established that there is no Constitutional Law precedent for respecting
>BA rights. This is _contra_ your claim that the right is "widely recognized".

Your statement shows a complete ignorance of critical legal theory and
contradicts your earlier statements about the right to eat Rocky Road.
It's not in the constitution, but I bet it is widely recognized.  You
have also yet to respond to my example of the coverage of James
Stockdale as an example of it being widely recognized.  You have
conveniently omitted every reference I have made to it in your
responses.

>Shows how much you know. Anyone can file an _amicus curiae_ brief, Stephen.
>I know that the NOW _amicus curiae_ brief contained some form of BA argument,
>but I have no reason to believe that they were particularly authoritative
>(and the fact that the Court explicitly REJECTED that part of the argument
>suggests that they were NOT, in fact, very authoritative).

(1) I suppose the amici were homeless people who walked into the
Supreme Court off the street?  (2) Yet another statement that shows
complete ignorance of critical legal theory.  Socially constructed
rights ultimately depend on shared beliefs.  While the Supreme Court
is an important arbiter of shared beliefs, it is hardly an ultimate
authority.

>You're asking me to explain the stupidity of others!?!!? Maybe there's some
>traces of mercury in their water supply, I dunno....

You know, Kevin, I have a personal habit of tallying up the number of
people making a similar accusation against me.  If it exceeds three, I
start to consider seriously the possibility that it is true.
>Yes, rights are socially constructed, but that doesn't mean legal rights
>come into existence on the whim of a localized minority of the electorate,
>Stephen. There is a long and arduous process of getting rights recognized,
>and that is as it should be -- I don't _want_ whims and caprices becoming
>recognized as fundamental rights, since I may not AGREE with those whims 
>and caprices, and I want at least a decent crack at trying to show why 
>they're wrong. You have not shown that the BA rights have attained any
>recognition in Constitutional Law whatsoever.

One of the fundamental points of critical legal theory is that the
whim of a tiny minority like the Supreme Court can create and destroy
rights.  Again, your ignorance is showing.  I never claimed that BA
had any Constitutional basis.  You are now putting words in my mouth
because this is what you can disprove.  My claim is that the right was
widely recognized.  You have yet to respond to the Stockdale coverage
as an example that this is true.

>One emotional response from a highly-selective debate crowd audience 
>amounts to the establishment of a legal principle???

I guess you don't watch television or read the press.  I could care
less what the audience did.  I am talking about the fact that millions
of Americans were discussing the BA argument that Stockdale raised for
days after the debate.

>Stephen, stop purposely misreading me. I'm *not* arguing a Strict 
>Constructionist viewpoint here, i.e. that because BA isn't enumerated in the 
>Constitution, it's not a fundamental right; I'm arguing that BA rights
>aren't even recognized given a LOOSE interpretation of the Constitution.
>I'm arguing that BA rights don't even have as much status as the much-
>attacked Right to Privacy. I'm saying that BA rights DON'T EXIST in 
>Constitutional Law. I'm willing to work to change that, but I'm not going
>to walk around with your rose-colored glasses on and assume that the battle
>is already won. It isn't. There is a long way to go. These things often take a
>LONG time. It may not even happen in my lifetime, or yours. Deal with it.

I am so glad to have you on my side of this issue, Kevin, I may break
down in tears of relief.  A simple statement that a right is widely
recognized is hardly the same as a statement that it is unassailable.
There are plenty of cases where BA is widely recognized, in for
example, the case of not forcing a parent to donate blood, tissues, or
organs to their childre.  It seems to me that the essential question
is why pro-forcers want to pursue a legal agenda of selectively
limiting this right only for women.  That has been my question and
will remain so.  That is also the basis of my accusation of misogyny.
The refutations you have raised to the accusation consist of (1) its
not in the Constitution and (2) they love /z/e/f/s.  (1) does not
address my point, because I never said it was in the Constitution.
(2) strikes me as a smokescreen.  Why provide rights for /z/e/f/s but
not for children?  Could it be that the former are in women's bodies
and helping them keeps a traditionally disenfranchised group in its
place?  Believe what you like in response to that question.  I know
what I believe.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity