From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Equal protection dead end? 4.
Date: 20 Dec 92 15:16:28 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec20.024748.18418@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes: 

>Um, Stephen, you are the one who seems to have lost track: YOU are the 
>accuser here -- specifically, you are accusing pro-lifers of being
>misogynists. I believe the accuser has the burden of proof, whether the 
>accusation is "in the legal system" [sic] or not. Now, are you going to 
>_prove_ that pro-life is inherently misogynistic, or are you going to 
>just simply ASSUME, in the absence of "independent evidence in either
>direction" that they are misogynistic?

I am not in a court of law last time I checked.  What started the
discussion was tommy's `proof' that forced pregnancy required wanting
to give special rights to /z/e/f/s.  If someone loves children and
wants to protect them, why limit special rights to /z/e/f/s?  Could it
be that they are inside women, who these supposed `child lovers' want
to keep in their traditionally disenfranchised societal roles?  I
simply assume that the answer to this question is yes.  Feel free to
disagree.  

>What is this gibberish supposed to mean, Stephen? First of all, what "benefit
>of the doubt" are we talking about? The "benefit of the doubt" I was 
>referring to was that, in the absence of proof that pro-life is misogynistic, 
>we should assume that it isn't. 

I feel quite confident in believing that it is.  I guess we just
disagree.

>Above, you seem to comparing this "benefit of
>the doubt" to something in reference to pregnant women (???) Please identify. 

Giving pregnant women the benefit of the doubt in controlling their
own bodies and making a better decision regarding the morality of
abortion in a particular instance than fetus fanatics can make for all
instances.  

>And since when is "pro-life" strictly synonymous with the belief that "life 
>begins at conception"? Are you saying that it's impossible for a pro-lifer to 
>believe that life begins at, say, 8 weeks gestation? Preposterous. And what's 
>with your use of the term "witch hunt"? Do you even know what the term means? 

A witch hunt is when someone makes an accusation that cannot be
disproven and is damaging to the accused; for example, fetus fanatics
accuse women of being unable to make a moral judgment about their own
bodies or progeny.  When I see such people make such accusations, I
respond two ways: (1) I argue that women are capable of making such
judgments.  (2) I accuse the accusers of being on a campaign of hatred
against women.  In response to (2), they are free to do (1).

>It denotes apprehending and punishing people, based on scant or non-existent 
>evidence. In what way do you think pro-lifers are conducting a "witch hunt" 
>against pregnant women? That makes no sense.

You don't consider advocating a legislative agenda of forced pregnancy
to be a witch hunt against women and their rights as persons?

>Take a pill, Stephen. Get some rest. Then please try to speak English
>instead of Empty Confused Rhetoric. Or you might get mistaken for a
>pro-lifer :-)

Now who's being condescending?  I would happily ignore your
misdirected sarcasm except for the fact that you whine when you get it
in return.

>WHOA! TIME OUT! Just because a belief is irrational, doesn't necesssarily 
>mean there is a malicious motive behind it, Stephen. 

I think I have made it clear that in this case I do believe the
irrationality is motivated by malice.  I guess we disagree.

>A lot of the stuff 
>you've been saying in this article has, IMO, been pretty irrational, but I 
>don't think you bear me any particular malice (although that could change 
>pretty soon). It's just mistaken. 

The only malice I dish out on t.a is directed to those advocating
legislative agendas restricting a person's right to bodily autonomy.
I may occasionally respond in kind when you up the emotional ante in
our discussion, but my real malice is saved for those who want to pass
laws forcing pregnant women to carry to term.

>And, even if there IS a malicious motive
>behind pro-life, why do you just assume that it's misogyny? It could just 
>as easily be hatred of young people (who are less likely to know about birth 
>control, and thus more likely to get accidentally pregnant), hatred of 
>surgeons (who stand to make money from abortions), hatred of certain races, 
>geographical regions, or socio-economic classes (who are more likely to need 
>abortions). Irrational malice comes in many sizes and shapes, Stephen. 
>Misogyny certainly has no monopoly on the darker sides of human nature.

Since female is the only characteristic that applies to all persons
whose rights will be restricted by forced pregnancy legislation, I
feel quite comfortable in designating such restrictions as
misogynistic.  While I agree that irrational malice comes in all
shapes and sizes, when I see a particular irrationality directed
exclusively at females, I call it misogyny.

>I believe I already have, Stephen. I have suggested that pro-lifers value
>fetal life, and that's why they strive to have it legally protected. If
>you want more details than that, I suggest you ask a pro-lifer for them. 
>Although I disagree with pro-lifers on exactly how much value a fetus should 
>have, I do not find this belief -- that fetuses have some value -- to be 
>INHERENTLY irrational, nor do I see any independent evidence of an entrenched 
>misogyny in the position.

Why value only fetal life and not real children?  Could it be that
/z/e/f/s are inside women and by protecting them you limit the rights
organization theory women?  This is what I believe.  Feel free to
disagree, but I'd back away from claims about proof on either side.

>Grow up, Stephen. I call them as I see them, and, as _I_ explain above,
>you don't even seem to understand what a "witch hunt" is, so how can you
>be so sure that my characterization was incorrect?

Are you going to whine about my nastiness if I tell you to grow up in
return?  You explain nothing above, Kevin.  I think the statement that
forced pregnancy legislation is not a witch hunt against women is
patently false.  It will require apprehension and punishment for those
who try to avoid it and much pain and suffering for those who comply.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion