From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Subject: Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:23:52 GMT

> Subject: Re: Dodge _THIS_...
> From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
> Date: 15 Aug 92 20:54:07 GMT
>
> Abortions for minors is a subset of abortion rights in general, a subset
> which Bill Clinton and the majority of the pro-aborts support. 

No shit, Sherlock, that's what I keep telling you. Abortions for minors is a
subset of abortion rights in general. Eliminating the subset doesn't entail
eliminating the superset.

> This, also, is one of the things which the majority of Americans do _not_
> want to see, and your efforts to destroy parental rights (which means the
> right to keep a daughter from having an abortion as much as it means the
> right to keep a daughter or son from going to a football game)...

And, as I pointed out, the right to allow your child to die from blood loss
by refusing a transfusion, or to die from a treatable infection by refusing
to allow the use of antibiotics. Which I also suspect the majority of
Americans support. Which does not necessarily make it a good idea.

> For you to have any basis whatsoever to overturn parental consent,
> that basis has also led to the right of adults to have sex with minors
> if the minors consent. 

I agree that from your description it doesn't sound like the statutory rape
case was a good decision. BFD, judges are human and sometimes make bad
decisions. They generally get overturned, or ignored as precedents. By the
way, I can't find any reference to the statutory rape case in the online
newspaper abstracts -- could you please provide the date of the decision and
the names of the defendant and plaintiff so I can look up the text for
myself? Also, what court does Lockett sit on? Is this a decision that only
affects one county, or does he sit on the Fla. Supreme Court? Has the case
been appealed?

> >A -- Minors are entitled to exercise the right of privacy at the same level
> >as adults.
> >
> >B. -- Minors are competent to give consent to sex with an adult.
> >
> >C. -- Minors are competent to give consent to an abortion without parental
> >consent.
> 
> B and C are dependent on A. 
> A lot of people are going to have a problem with C, and a lot _more_
> people are going to have a major problem with B. 
> 
> It may be necessary for them to go and rip out A, thus wiping out the
> foundation for B and C. 

Ripping out A, however, does not affect the status or justification for
abortion for adults in any way shape or form, nor does it affect the right
to privacy as exercised by adults in any way.

> >Which means that your statement above "According to Judge Lockett, to have
> >abortion rights, you must invalidate statutory rape laws" is incorrect.

> No, my statement is, their interpretation of the right to privacy was
> so wrong in the first place that if people don't see it in abortion
> cases, they'll come to see it clearly in how it's interpreted to
> legalize adult/child sex. Which points back to altering the privacy
> rulings. 

Tentatively, until I read the text of the decision and see exactly what
Lockett had to say, I have to agree that Lockett over-extended the explicit
right to privacy written into the Florida constitution. Not in the sense
that who one has sex with is a decision which the state has any proper role
in dictating, but in the sense that I'm not sure minors are capable of
giving informed consent to exercise the right. That has nothing whatsoever
to do with the question of the right to privacy as it extends to adults, or
the status of abortion as it pertains to adults.

> That means pro-aborts have to protect adult/child sex as much as
> abortion because they have to protect privacy as it is currently
> interpreted, which is the only way in the universe that either things
> could be legal. 

First of all, you are conflating two different "rights to privacy." The
first is the (implicit) federal one which the SC began recognizing with
Griswold vs. Connecticut. The second, and relevant one here, is the explicit
right to privacy written into the Florida state constitution. For the
benefit of those who haven't seen this subversive piece of constitutional
prose, which Steve apparently is convinced will lead to the collapse of
Western civilization as we know it (and, no doubt, the corruption of the
purity of out bodily fluids as well), it gives a citizen the "right to be
let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his private life."

Second of all, that supposes that pro-choice individuals agreed with the
logic by which Lockett extended the right to privacy to (apparently)
overturn age of consent laws. That need not be the case, and the flaw in
Lockett's logic need not apply to parental consent laws.

> Which means, pro-choice must defend adult/child sex either directly,
> or indirectly, at its roots, because their roots are common. 
> 
> Which means, you're incorrect. 

No, this means that you are dense. I could, for instance, argue that the
decision to have an abortion without parental consent is one which is made
without reference to (or even against) adult opinion and pressure, while the
decision to have sex with an adult partner may be tainted by adult pressure.
Based on that distinction, one could uphold statutory rape laws, while
opposing parental consent laws for abortion.

> FACT: !Privacy (as interpreted) = !legal abortion and 
>       !legal adult/child sex. 

It's time to put whoever is teaching you propositional logic on overtime and
danger pay, Steve. Keeping clear that we are talking about the right to
privacy in the Florida constitution, I'll agree that 

	Privacy (as interpreted) -> (legal abortion && legal adult/minor sex)

You cannot go from that to your so-called "fact" above. The converse of an
implication is not always true. The only thing you can say is the
contrapositive of the above, which is

	Illegal abortion or illegal adult/minor sex -> 
		different interpretation of privacy rights

As I have pointed out, there are other ways of interpreting the right to
privacy which would keep abortion legal (at least for adults) and allow age
of consent laws for sex. Which, in fact, proves that the converse isn't true
in this case.

> FACT: Legal abortion will be severely compromised and possibly
>       destroyed as a result. 

That isn't a fact, it's an opinion; and, as I've already made clear, not a
very sensible opinion.

****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
**                                                                        **
**	STEVEN CHANEY SUPPORTS LETTING CHILDREN BLEED TO DEATH            **
**                                                                        **
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion