From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:08:01 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <C08qtH.C81@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>
>>>In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 
>>

>>In other words, science and secular logic has demonstrated that science
>>and secular logic is no more or less supportable than any other culturally-
>>based form of thought.

>    What about that "empirical evidence"?  Where's the empirical
>evidence to back up religious reasoning?

Pardon.  Perhaps you are unaware of Godel's work.  He demonstrates that
there can be *NO*, nada, zero, zilch, empirical evidence and/or line of
theoretical reasoning which can show _a_priori_ that a logical system is
valid.  You are asking for that which cannot be obtained - it matters not
whether you ask that of science or of religion.  It appears that whether
one is a scientist or a priest, one necessarily operates on faith. 

>>  Hillary pulbished an article in a law journal
>>at the beginnning of the last decade advocating precisely this use of the 
>>law.

>    Reference, please.

Provided in another post by another poster - a 1979 article in a
contemporary studies journal, I believe.  Check your newsreader listings
under the heading for this post, and you should find it, since it was
posted in response to your question. 

>>  It was in all the papers.  I have no idea how you could have missed it.

>    I didn't.  I did, unfortunately, read the whole article and not
>just the headline.

So you read it. Why are you asking for references?

>>>>Similarly, if a 9,10,11,or 12-year old can divorce hs/her parents because
>>>>of their maturity, then why can't those same mature individuals move in
>>>>with a 30-year old same sex lover?  If they're mature enough to unchoose
>>>>parents, they are certainly mature enough to choose who they want to live
>>>>with.  The National Man-Boy Love Association would certainly support that
>>>>reasoning.  Why can anyone, secularly, object to pedophilia if the child
>>>>doesn't object?  Or if the "child" no longer exists, legally, because that
>>>>child has been ruled an adult by the courts?
>>
>    In the case you cite above, the child did _not_ gain "the same
>legal rights as adults".  Therefore, this conclusion is meaningless.

That is incorrect.  The child was *represented* by an attorney. This is
unprecedented.  An individual cannot be represented in court by an attorney
if that individual is incompetent.  A ward must be named, and the attorney
represents the ward, who represents the incompetent individual.  By 
permitting the child his own representation, the court acknowledged the
child as a competent legal entity in the proceedings, and, as a citizen of
the United States, he thereby gained the same legal rights as an adult for 
the duration of the proceedings.  

>>>>Why is incest wrong, by secular reasoning?  With so many diverse forms of
>>>>birth control, including genetic testing and legal abortion, it's not like
>>>>biological reasons could possibly hold water anymore.  As long as both
>>>>parties agree, where's the harm?
>>
>>>    Where is the harm?  Can you demonstrate that there is any harm
>>>at all if both parties agree?
>>
>>Thank you.  I thought you'd bite.

>    You didn't answer my questions.

There is no way I could demonstrate harm to you.  I don't know what color
the sky is on your planet.  I'm assuming that you also have no problem
with necrophilia, bestiality, or consensual cannibalism.  Thus, Jeff
Dahmer could be gotten out of jail if he could prove that his victims
*wanted* to be killed and eaten.  Dr. Kevorkian with a soup de jure, if
you like.

>>>>Secular reasoning has found that no human being exists at conception, that
>>>>women have the right to do with that non-viable tissue what they want,
>>>>unilaterally, because men have no right to interfere.  Fine.  Then secular
>>>>reasoning also makes it clear that men are not and can never be parents,
>>>>since they never create children.
>>
>>>     I fail to see how you derive this conclusion from your premise.
>>>Can you trace your train of logic?
>>
>>A decision to have sex is not a decision to have children.
>>If a woman decides to have sex, she is not deciding to have children.
>>If a man decides to have sex, he is not deciding to have children.

>    A decision to have sex acknowledges the possibility of conception.
>(I'll assume for simplicity's sake that we're only talking about
>heterosexual vaginal sex.)


>>No human being exists at conception.
>>Sex results in conception.
>>Sex results in the existence of no human being.
>>
>>Birth is the event which creates a new human being.
>>Men never give birth.
>>Men never take part in the creation of a new human being. 

>    No.  You've proven that men don't give birth, nothing else.
>There isn't a single event that creates a human being.

Yes, there is.  A woman in the U.S. can have an abortion, legally, up
until the moment of birth, i.e. up until the child gets air in his or 
her lungs.  At that point, the law recognizes a human being and any 
attempt to destroy that life can be prosecuted as murder.  If she goes
into labor and goes to a women's clinic to have the child dismembered
and disgorged into a trash can, however - even if that child's scalp
is protruding from the birth canal, it is simply a legal abortion.

Indeed, this is how scientists obtain brain tissue.  They induce labor
in the woman to be aborted, wait for the head to show in the birth
canal, then drill a hole in the skull and evacuate the contents while it
is held in the vise-like embrace of the birth canal.  This assures the
minimum contamination from extraneous fluid sources (blood, other tissues,
etc.).  The body is discarded after the woman's labor expels it.
This is being done at the University of Colorado - Denver, and at Yale.

>>You fall prey to "religiously-based" reasoning when you think of 
>>sex/conception as having anything to do with the creation of people.
>>That is an archaic concept, based on out-of-date cultural standards.

>     Huh?  Justify this statement.

Read the laws on abortion, surrogate motherhood, anonymous sperm donation,
and in vitro fertilization.  Read the Tennessee case in which a judge
ruled that 8 frozen embryos could not be implanted in the egg donor's
womb because the sperm donor (who had just divorced his wife, the egg 
donor) had the "right to choose not to be a father".  The court's ruling
implies that the man was not yet a parent.  Thus, fertilization could
not have created a child.

>>Women supply 100% of the labor, provide the location and machinery for
>>manufacture, and provide 99.99% of the raw material necessary for 
>>the creation of a human being.

>    True.


>>  If no human being exists at conception,
>>and no human being exists at conception + X weeks, while a human being
>>does exist at conception + X weeks + Y weeks, then obviously only 
>>the one(s) who contributed to that formation at conception + X + Y are
>>responsible for the existence of a human being.

>    This doesn't follow.  You can't reach conception + X + Y without
>going through conception.  Or are you suggesting that women can skip
>conception altogether and jump right to the birth?

Big deal.  I can't make a computer unless someone mines the silicon, steel,
and copper.  Doesn't mean mine companies make computers.  I wouldn't come
after U.S. Steel for a defective K-car.  The man supplies raw materials.
He neither takes part in production nor the decision to produce.  He 
doesn't provide the location for child production.  He has nothing to do
with child production after the raw material is delivered.  It ain't his
baby, so to speak.

>>  Remember, at any point
>>before conception + X + Y, the results can be ripped up and tossed out
>>unilaterally by the manufacturer.

>     By one of the manufacturers.

Sorry, he only supplied raw material.
He has nothing to do with manufacture.

>>  Men are legally forbidden to have any
>>influence whatsoever on the manufacturer's decision.

>     This is a crock.  Men can have all kinds of influence on that
>decision.  But the final decision is not made my the man.

Nonsense.  They have no *LEGAL* influence, and that's all that counts
in the courts, boys and girls. If the manufacturer chooses to be swayed
by other things, such as the phase of Venus or someone's promise to
move out, that is the manufacturer's choice.

>>  Why are they held
>>to be responsible for manufacturing they did not start, decisions they
>>are not allowed to make, and a result they did not have any part in?

>    "Manufacturing they did not start"?  What happened, parthenogenesis?
>I'll say it again - without a man somewhere in the process, you
>don't get children.

I'll say it again.  So what?  A sperm donor is "a man somewhere in the 
process" but no sperm donor can EVER be held liable for child support.
The only functional difference between one and the other is whether or
not the woman knows the guy's name.  

>>>>  At most, men supply only raw material -
>>>>it is the woman who chooses to manufacture a child.
>>>    No, the woman chooses to carry the fetus to term, but she
>>>still can't "manufacture" that child without a man somewhere in
>>>the process.
>>
>>And Chrysler can't make a car without raw material from U.S. Steel.
>>Big deal.  As long as the raw material is of good quality, I fail to
>>see how U.S. Steel is responsible for Chrysler's cars.  Do they get part
>>of the profit?  Are they forced to pay for Chrysler's excess inventory?
>>No.  They supply raw material.  If Chrysler didn't want it, they could
>>dump it.  They don't have to accept delivery, and the woman can take
>>"morning-after" contraceptives to reject delivery, or abortion, or 
>>anything else she wants to do.  If she decides to *ACCEPT* delivery,
>>however, that's entirely her *UNILATERAL* decision, and her 
>>responsibility alone, if you want to use "secular reasoning".

>     I'm not following your argument here.  Is it that men are
>not part of the birth process (they clearly are, even in your
>analogy), or that men should never be held financially responsible
>for the results of their actions?

You are clearly wrong.  No man is part of the birth process.  No man
is responsible for birth, according to secular reasoning.  Only 
women can be responsible for birth since only women allow birth to
occur, and it is only at birth that a human being exists, according
to the same secular reasoning.

>>But in either case, it has absolutely nothing to do with the man.  If she
>>wishes to make decisions based on the phase of Venus, fine.  But the man
>>is legally forbidden any part in the decision to manufacture a child, he
>>has no responsibility for her decision since he has no part in it.  He 
>>didn't create a child by the act of having sex.  She didn't create a child
>>by the act of having sex.  Neither created a child at conception.  ONly
>>*SHE* creates a child, by choosing to carry to term. When a woman aborts,
>>she does so for her own reasons based on her own estimates of her personal
>>situation.  If she carries to term, she must also do so for her own reasons
>>based on her own estimates of her personal situation.  

>    Oh, I see what you're trying to get at now.  Since the child
>didn't exist at the time of conception, the man did not create the
>child.  If the child did come into existence some time after,
>the man had nothing to do with it.
>    You don't find this to be silly reasoning?

Of course *I* do.  But I'm just one of those damn-fool religious nuts
who insist that a child must exist at conception.  I argue with the 
premises.  If I were to admit the premises, I could do naught but agree
with the conclusions.  The logic is perfectly sound, it's the premises
that are completely silly.

>>The idea that the man has anything to do with it is based on several old
>>"religious" concepts, i.e. sex involves commitment to another person,
>>sex creates children, etc.  Secular reasoning has demonstrated that sex
>>exists purely for pleasure, that it does not create children (only 
>>prolonged gestation followed by birth creates children).  Men used to be
>>held responsible for taking care of women and children, but secular
>>reasoning shows that women need men like fish need bicycles.  The idea of
>>dual parents is archaic as well - single parent families are normal, we
>>are told.  Is it any wonder that many men accept secular reasoning?  

>     So you're just being arbitrary.  Are you arguing this just
>to see your own beautiful words on the screen, or are you going
>to attempt to make sense?
>     The only person I've ever seen or heard express ideas like
>the ones you present above is you.

You haven't read very much, have you?  Try bouncing over to talk.abortion.
The debate over this issue is *stupendous*.  And you should see it in the 
papers before the end of the year, at least if the reporters are on 
their toes.  As of November, a case was supposed to be argued in New
York using this very line of reasoning.  It's supposed to appear on the
docket January 22nd, 1993 - the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  
Don't know if it really will or not, courts being what they are.

>>>    Why should we impose "our" morals on another society?  Why
>>>should we impose "our" morals on individuals within our society?
>>
>>So you support infibulation, as long as you're not the one doing it?  

>    As long as it's consensual.  I'm not sure that it is in the case
>that you mention - if the act is being performed on children, then
>I'm opposed to it.  I'm opposed to circumsizing babies, too.

What?  You oppose religious freedoms?  Nazi.

>>How about consensual cannibalism?  Should we free Jeffrey Dahmer if
>>we could determine that his "victims" *WANTED* to be carved up and 
>>eaten?

>     Absolutely.  Can you make any justification that any
>consensual act should be illegal?

Damn, this boy bites at everything.

>>  I take it necrophilia is always acceptable?  

>    Yup.  Just because something is icky doesn't mean it's immoral.

Incredible.

>>Ah, but the compulsion to drink is, by definition, not controllable.
>>They can no more control their drinking than a homosexual can choose
>>to be heterosexual.  The evidence linking alcoholism with genetics is
>>at least as strong; in fact, it is quite a bit stronger.  You would
>>deny these people the right to engage in normal, everyday activities
>>simply because of their genetically-influenced lifestyles?  You, sir,
>>are drunk-bashing.

>    Not at all.  I'm not denying alcholics the "right" to drive - I'm
>denying them the right to do so while intoxicated.  I would
>similarly forbid blind people to drive.
>   You may now accuse me to blind-bashing.

I most certainly will.  Your probably one of those Colorado bigots, 
aren't you?

>> how would gays like to be 
>>a permanent underclass, looked down on and spit upon as they're genetic
>>brethren, alcoholics, are?

>    Heh.  You don't think they are already?

No, I don't.

>>There are demonstrable _reasons_ for jailing sexually active AIDS 
>>carriers, so I suppose you support that? 

>    If their partners are not aware that their consent to sex
>included consent to die, then yes, I support that action being
>criminal.

>>>>  Then why don't we jail the AIDS infected for condemning other
>>>>people to death by being ill in the wrong place (while have sex)? 
>>
>>>    Umm... This is happening right now.  People are being tried
>>>for knowingly spreading AIDS.
>>
>>And you support it??????

>    In some cases.  Surprised?


>    I'll repeat:  A person who has AIDS and knowingly has sexual
>relations with another person without that person's knowledge of
>the condition is committing a crime.


>>  Similarly, it is legal to jail TB carriers
>>in order to force them to undergo treatment for this  disease,
>>but it isn't legal to do so for AIDS carriers.  

>    Reference to the TB law, please.

Read New York City ordninances.  Most major cities still have this one
on the books - it dates from the early 1900's. 

>    If this discussion is going to continue on this level, you
>can expect me not to reply.  Your writing comes off as a Zeleny-
>wannabe - I have better things to do than get involved in a
>pissing-match with a self-aggrandizing pedant.

True.  Your mirror must be overfull as it is.

>				-Phil
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
>philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
>Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12689 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11103 alt.politics.clinton:19390 alt.politics.bush:15261 alt.politics.homosexuality:8720