From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: What if???
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:42:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.234700.14539@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>hd>In article <j1moody-010992232532@lafmac15.lafortune.lab.nd.edu> j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty
>Dumpty) writes:
> 
>hd>What if the human fetus developed on the outside of the mothers stomach,
>hd>where everyone could see the eyes, ears, nose, etc. forming?
>
>hd>I'm not talking science here, I'm talking psychology.
>
>I think if the fetus was on the outside of the woman, it may become 
>even easier for the fetus fanatics to ignore the woman.  I don't see
>this as a good thing.

This is TOO easy. Okay, boys and girls, let's take this response and
break it down one piece at a time. 

1) Legislating against discrimination against the human fetus means
ignoring women. 

If that were right, then legislating against discrimination in
general, would have to mean ignoring the people whose rights would be
narrowed by such new laws. 

Meaning, why weren't we crying for the Ku Klux Klan and David Duke? 

Lesson, fellow scholars: This 6th grade argument fails because it
implies that protecting one human individual means ignoring another,
and hence it should not be done - this implication is inconsistent
with the course of human rights in the US, and is in fact irrelevant.

Translation: I'll cry for you if you feel you've lost something, but
discrimination is discrimination and my vote is going to be to deprive
you of the right to be the discriminator: Which means bye-bye Roe vs.
Wade and all its kin.  

>hd>We humans have a tendancy to disregard with ignorance things we cannot see.
>
>Care to explain why so many can disregard a woman that they should 
>be able to see.  I'm not making any claim that they can see the 
>woman, but they sure don't have any trouble ignoring her.

We see the women. We saw Jim Crow and we saw the bus company
presidents who wouldn't let minorities sit in the front seats on
buses. 

Just because we pushed THEIR rights to discriminate, into oblivion,
did not mean we did NOT see them. 
It is the same principle which drives the vast majority of the Pro
Life Movement, whether we know it consciously or not. 

>hd>How tragic future generations will view our blindsided stupidity.
> 
>I agree.  I figure they are going to look back in amazement that we
>let a group of fetus fanatics take away rights from women just to 
>protect the object of their obsession.  Tragic is right.

More homework answers, fellow scholars. This 6.5th grade argument
bases itself on the following: 

1) Banning abortion is a result of fetus worshippers. 
2) Hence it is tragic. 

1 - Banning discrimination can be viewed as a result of a movement's
"worshipping" those being discriminated against. The word "nigger
lover" should ring in your head, Dan King. Because people wanted to
gain human rights for African-Americans (and other minorities), they
were called "negro worshippers." 
In other words, we have put many, many non-minorities out of work 
because the OBJECTS OF OUR OBSESSION, now have taken up some of the 
room that non-minorities would otherwise have had to themselves. 

2 - By this reasoning and consistent application to other
anti-discrimination movements BESIDES the pro-life movement, which is
the latest of those movements, your reasoning would lead us to
conclude that whenever we seek to ban some form of discrimination, and
it tramples on the current rights of others, we hence are worshipping
those being discriminated against, and that is a tragedy. 
By your reasoning, it is a tragedy to fight discrimination when it
means hurting someone else's perceived and/or legally granted rights,
because in doing so, we DO NOT SEE THEM.  

Hence, all civil rights movements in America and beyond, have been the
results of tragedies. If we were to accept the reasoning you put forth
in this article.
 
>Dan King

Additional note: You doubtlessly know as well as anyone that there are
some people who oppose abortion for reasons far other than that it is
discrimination. Some oppose it because it is "immoral" or a
"MotherNature NeverIntended FlavorOfBehavior" (whoops - Drieux virus
attack there). Some oppose it because their pastor said so. These same
people are of a class among which exists the kind of person who is
perfectly able to oppose abortion and THEN TURN AROUND and be avowed
racists. This is known as the David Duke pro-lifer. These are the
closest folks you'll ever see, to that "fetus worshipper" argument you
present.  

However, the majority of us, whether we can articulate it to you or
not, see legal abortion as discrimination against the human fetus,
which by any sensible standards, should be recognized as a member of
the human species in the Constitution. We don't WORSHIP fetuses, Dan
King; we oppose legal discrimination against them which strips them of
their right to live. They didn't WORSHIP my great grandparents when
they protested the Dred Scott ruling; they sought legal PROTECTION for
them. 

Your most accurate beef would not be calling us "fetus worshippers,"
Dan King, but rather, the question "Is legal abortion a kind of
discrimination that is consistent, or inconsistent, with the already
decided course of human rights reform in America?" 

At least _then_ you would not make such inaccurate and
self-contradictory statements as which dominated your article. 

What will you call pro-lifers when they shoot down any efforts to take
the right to life away from anencephalic infants? "Baby worshippers"?
I'm sure the rest of America will take great offense to that statement
- great enough offense to vote your side of the LIFE issue, out of
political office. 
 


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion