From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Part of a reply to Rodney - more later re: the dark side
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 09:59:07 GMT

Jesus, GMS, I hope you aren't a Catholic - I'm going to be not-nice below.

gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>>gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>>>rodney's questions about x-sexuals &c. -- ecsd's long reply
>>>Very interesting, complete, and logical.  On both your counts.
>>>Just one minor point to make:
>>>>THE OPEN AVAILABILITY OF ALL OPTIONS IS THE ONLY WAY.  <== way radical idea!!
>>But if we begin to interfere in each other's lives -- interference works
>>both ways, so you've got a choice, strife or peace. If my abortion in
>>California causes an acute moral reaction in a person in Louisiana,
>>my assessment is that their ego-space is just a tad too large.
>
>Your assessment is subjective.  Those people don't feel that way.
>Their "feeling" is subjective also.

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH.

So whose feelings are more subjective? What Does It Prove!!
And why debate the damn thing, when the debate is over how we Feel?

"I feel it's wrong."
"I feel your feelings are wrong."
and on by induction.

- eh? There's a point?

>>Let us do as we choose, this is not an issue where either side can prove
>>that they are thoroughly right. And not one which can be forced upon us
>>for decision, either. If your beliefs come at me to injure me, I will injure
>>you around your beliefs {which allow you to do so}, and if that doesn't
>>stop you, I will injure you.
>
>This sounds like "battling sensitivities" rather than any kind of debate.

Well, what else are they.
Let's get it clear. You wanna debate? Fine. Debate.
You want me to suspend my personal freedom while it's happening? Nuh-uh.

And what about those maaaaany, maaaany people who DON'T GIVE A SHIT?
Doesn't their opinion matter too? I happen to be one of them; I'm taking
sides because sides are being drawn. Because in my own small mind, it's a
NON ISSUE. And NO, I'm not going to invite Mrs. Carruthers over for tea
every Sunday, so we can have a nice long genteel chat about it.

>>The arguments that say that since it's undecided, it should come down on the
>>"side of caution" in favor of the fetus - those beliefs are part and parcel
>>of the antiabortionist side. The antiabortionists do not admit the theoretical
>>basis of the other side - the pro-choice world views. So fuck them. Reason
>
>This may be a practical alternative.  Not that it will satisfy the other
>side, but then their position is just as subjective.

You don't address (either you've got some real stake in this, or you're pulling
my leg across the Gulf of Mexico) - you don't address what happens when I just
don't fucking feel like doing something to placate some woman in Dothan,
Alabama, or Muncie, Indiana, or - shades of close - Oakland, California, JUST
BECAUSE they feel like it. I have to have a worldview which admits the mayhem
their images invoke re: killing fetuses. Women abort naturally all the time.
The Good Folk aren't having funerals for the miscarried Future Einsteins Future
Hitlers, are they? You know, I empathized into this, really I did. The arg
about potential is stupid. The arg about pain, well, how much is it and how
long does it last? The "other side" hasn't the faintest fucking empathy for the
mother, her context, her future, etc. etc. and they Ain't Gonna Be There to
wash them diapers neither. Oh, the anguish of a soul denied admission to the
Earth! Like the soul in the body of the mother is dogshit! My stereotype of
Catholicism says exactly that: mitigate suffering, but Never Prevent It. What
Morons. Better a family of ten Down's syndrome kids than two normal ones -
because Life Is So Precious. Quantity ueber Quality any day of the week.
Yeah - so if it's all relative and everyone has an opinion - here mine
is TOO. Reason dictates, reason dictates Too. I have to factor objective
reality into my emotional decisions. When other people violate the quality of
my life by trying to force me to live it to suit their taste, I'm going to
get increasingly nasty - I have a say in this dump too. So when it gets real
dirty and subjective - if you try to deprive me of my liberty with your false
philosophy - hey, see it coming back at you. At the end of everything then,
if it's all so very stupid as this, pro-choice will win because it's the age
of Aquarius and the last official act of the pre-Aquarians will be to kill
those who Don't Believe. Ouch! No, perverted as it sounds, I'll fight to the
death to establish a religion of tolerance on the burial ground of the
religions of intolerance - that's right, ironic and paradoxical as it is -
there's the Subjective voice for you - I'll be tolerant of you if you're
tolerant of me - otherwise all bets are off.

>>fair or eat it. They don't play fair. And they say they don't have to. No
>>compromise with adults behaving like stupid children - and I *mean* stupid.
>>Same animal drive that lets them equate "how I feel" == "what is fact",
>>is the same animal drive that likes to fuck and makes babies in the absence
>>of birth-control, thanks to - you guessed it.
>
>Not all babies or fetuses that are candidates for abortion come from
>women who do not practice birth-control.  Further, your feeling that
>the woman comes before the fetus in all cases is only a feeling as well.

The living woman can produce more fetuses, and she has a longstanding
investment in her own current reality. The fetus has had no such contact
with the world. So a vicious image: Let's kill the woman when the fetus
becomes viable enough to survive on its own, and harvest fetuses. The women
serve only to exist to produce more fetuses. I guess it's still Homo Sapiens,
so who cares? Man on a liferaft with his pregnant wife. We don't know why,
but suddenly she or the baby can stay, but not both. Okay, save the fetus,
chuck the woman. Don't worry about the guy, life is meant to be suffered,
so he's just doing his job and he can handle it anyway. The illogic of this
position when taken to the extreme, at the very least highlights some of the
considerations of the pro-choice view.

>>Sorry, GMS, I'm a Capricorn, and practical about it. I don't have time to
>
>I am too.  What does this have to do with anything?  Do we die sooner than
>most?

No, later, sorry.

>>waste debating it. There are times when I feel free to indulge my ardor at
>>the expense of being open to rational discussion, and this is one of them.
>
>Anyone can choose to ignore logical debate.  It usually causes problems,
>and sometimes results in being forced to face your unsupported assumptions,
>causing the "image/reality" dichotomy to be obvious and uncomfortable, but
>that's just the way it is.

Hey. My views ARE unsupported - is that all you want to hear?
It is not amenable to a logical discussion, I have to choose what to believe.
So I have. So whoever thinks abortion is wrong has that freedom too, just
not with my body. They don't feed, clothe and house my body, they don't have
the deed to it, I don't remember getting a phone call telling me my ownership
was transferred to someone else lately. So all of a sudden it's a life and
death thing? Glad you know I was alive up till now. So when my religion
demands a blood sacrifice, and when there are enough of me, I'm sure you'll
be glad to comply with your sons and daughters just because I feel like it.
I'm sure you'll just love having that abortion I want you to have because I
say so. How long do I have to beat on this point?

>>{anticipate this offered to "other side as well"; read on.}
>>When it comes time to *decide*, I say - let as all do for ourselves as our
>>nature dictates to us as individuals. It's an arbitrary choice should we,
>>or should we not, have the freedom while the issue is being discussed; but
>>the issue is NOT symmetrical. The people who want to compel childbirth in
>>no way suffer direct consequences for forcing others to do so. I will not
>
>This is usually true.  That is a good reason to doubt their relative
>sincerity.  However, it is not a sufficient reason to say that they
>are wrong.

I'm getting tired, so I'll wrap this up.
Hey I'm just sure they're sincere as apple pie and I'll pack them off with
a lunch and everything, thank you for the antiabortion tract and have a nice
day, why of course I'm glad you're doing this work for the betterment of
humanity and the greater glory of God so God bless you - money, oh why don't
you leave me the address where I can mail it when I get my checks printed
should be any day now.

Hey, I have compassion for 'them'. But I'm not blind and I have compassion
for me too.

I'm sorry my way of life offends you; it's not meant to. SO TUNE OUT.
Gotcherown life. Livit.

>>I don't mind offering rational discussion about it - but the opponent can't
>>prove anything with me; nor I them. I show over and over again it comes down
>>to emotional reasoning backed up by some rational thought, and ends up a

>Bingo.

What, is that all you wanted to hear? I could have said that days ago. Why
didn't you just say so?

>
>>matter of belief. So if nothing else my *religion* says I have the right to
>>an abortion and my *god* and *bible* say so too. No, no, no, they say, the
>
>Guess I don't care about that.

Bingo. Guess it takes one to know one.

>>Bible says "blah" and it also says "what the Bible says is true", so You're
>>Wrong. How long do you want me to argue with someone like this? Fine: you
>
>The multiple interpretations of Bibilical information often seriously impede
>its use as a reliable reference.  Since the author(s) are often only
>accessible via lesser-credible intermediaries, an alternative to the
>text-only version of the information is similarly hampered.

He's pulling my leg across the Gulf of Mexico after all.

>>got a closed mind, I got a closed mind. Equal rights again, thank you and
>>goodbye, have a nice train ride back to Indiana or wherever {that's unfair,
>>I know.}
>>
>>It touches a nerve, GMS, because these people live in a monochromatic world.
>
>Guess I don't care about this either.  Lot's of people have said stupid
>things to me and then said, "It's a sore spot," as though I'm supposed to
>agree with them because of it.  Basically, "It's a sore spot," is my cue
>to interpret that as, "Ignore what I have just said."

That's "lots". Curious how you can see them feel X, and refer to themselves
feeling X, and they still want to avoid X, as if the avoidance made X not-
happen. But Denial is a pernicious addiction. I should know.

>>A lot of people will have to die, before the remainder will be happy living
>>in one. I like people better than that. And I'd be one of the dead ones.
>
>Why is that?  You might find that people will get more reasonable.  I
>realize there are lots of ridiculously irrational people out there, but
>as a whole, I think people make more sense today than history would
>portray.  As with many things, this feeling I have is a "leap of faith"
>as well.  I can't prove it, but it's probably better than assuming that
>the world will not be a better place unless you're dead.

Different discoursal worlds. Context shifts. Mumbling incomprehensible.
(Me, not you.)

>Frankly, it becomes a matter of group A doing and believing X and group
>B doing and believing Y, and a power struggle.  However it turns out,
>it is incorrect to glorify a simple choice of X or Y as being the
>Right Way, when neither group can prove it either way.  The only honest
>approach to this is, "I'm doing this because I feel most comfortable
>with this alternative."

How come I get to put the philosophy out, and you get to take credit for
it? I'm sort of tall and thin, like Stan Laurel - I guess that makes you ...