From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 17:47:42 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <Bt02F0.1H@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.001828.8498@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
> [Pennsylvania law]
>>You make my point.  Read what you posted - it roughly translates to:
>>"We know what's best for you.  You can't be trusted to make an informed
>>decision yourself.  Therefore, by LAW, you must jump through these n
>>hoops before your decision is deemed acceptable to us."  Isn't this
>>the precise thing that Rush Limbaugh harps upon the democrats for?
>>This sort of thing does not promote people thinking for themselves and
>>taking responsibility for their actions.  It is social engineering, pure
>>and simple, a thinly disguised attempt by the anti-choice faction to 
>>encroach on people's personal decisions.  And it stinks.
>
>I think that you have a rather warped sense of social engineering, Dale.

My definition of social engineering is the legislated coercion of
people to support programs which the legislature thinks they "ought"
to support "for the common good".

Look.  If the legislature deems that abortion is murder, fine and dandy.
Make a law against abortion.  As long as abortion is legal, the 
government has no right to place restrictions on it.  It's either murder
or it isn't.  None of this exemption crapola for rape or incest.  After
all, a baby is a baby, no matter how the conception took place.  What
the government needs to do is define when _human_ life begins.  Hopefully,
some sort of scientific criteria would be used in making this definition,
like the point at which normal human brainwaves can be detected.  Once
this definition is in place, normal homicide laws apply.  All of the
arguments I've heard on the issue center around religious dogma that life
begins at conception.  If that's your belief, fine.  Don't have abortions.
But don't put your religious beliefs on anyone else.

>The people of Pennsylvania are not claiming to know what is best for
>anyone.  They simply want to make sure that you are given the best
>possible chance to find out what is best for you.  Let me give you a

Well, it's the legislature, not the people.  And they most certainly 
*are* claiming to know what's best for you.  Your first and second
statements above contradict each other.  The presumption is that by
asking for abortion, you couldn't possibly have considered all of the
available information.

>different example that may help to clarify the point.  
> [three day cooling off period laws...]
>your level of certainty.  Is this because the government thinks you are
>stupid?  Do you want to see this law overturned?  I doubt it.  Under

Yes, that is precisely what the government is saying.  "You are a poor
stupid idiot who can't be trusted to make important decisions yourself
and suffer the consequences of your own actions."

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I see no value in such laws.  All they
do is foster the belief among people that somehow the government is
going to protect them from everything, which it obviously cannot do.
We have created a state where people have no self-reliance.  Blame
someone else, it can't be my fault.  If you don't believe that, check
out the number of lawsuits filed in this country.  If we had a system
that told people "YOU are responsible for yourself", people would learn
to be more careful about their actions.

If a salesman sells me something, and hasn't committed fraud, what's the
problem?  I can see requiring the acceptance of returns in cases of fraud
or misrepresentation, but just because I allowed myself to be pressured?
No, thanks.

>pressure people make poor decisions especially when all the facts
>presented are one-sided.  Is this social engineering?  I think not.  The

I think so.

>abortion issue is similar, however, due the irreversibility of the
>decision the cooling off period must come before the "sale" (it is a
>sale of services).  No one is kept from having what they want in either
>case.  But because of the pain caused by poor decisions the state makes
>it possible for you to reverse your initial impulse.

See?  You automatically assume it's an impulse decision.  That presumption
is offensive and mostly unjustified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "There is no animal so spooky as the True Believer."
                   ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh