From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Subject: Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 00:58:40 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

> Newsgroups: talk.abortion
> Subject: Re: Dodge _THIS_...
> Message-ID: <1992Aug12.165743.23090@csus.edu>
> From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
> Date: 12 Aug 92 16:57:43 GMT
> 
> In article <1992Aug12.035742.239632@cs.cmu.edu> kck+@cs.cmu.edu 
> (Karl Kluge) royally steps in it:  

I'll leave that for wiser minds than yours to judge...

> >> Newsgroups: talk.abortion
> >> Subject: Dodge _THIS_, pro-aborts!
> >> Message-ID: <1992Aug4.164242.19100@csus.edu>
> >> From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
> >> Date: 4 Aug 92 16:42:42 GMT
> >> 
> >> Jerry Lockett of Florida based his ruling, which invalidates statutory
> >> rape laws, on the right to privacy which invalidated parental consent
> >> abortion laws. Judge Jerry Lockett of Florida said:  
> >> 
> >> 		    /----- abortion rights 	   
> >> ====privacy=========
> >> 		    \----- adult/child sex 
> >> 
> >> According to Judge Lockett, to have abortion rights, you must
> >> invalidate statutory rape laws. Which means adults can have sex with
> >> kids if the kids say OK.  
> >
> >No, according to Judge Lockett, if there is a right to privacy which
> >invalidates parental consent abortion laws, that same right to privacy
> >invalidates statutory rape laws.
> 
> No. His ruling said that if the minor has a right to privacy, it means
> abortion rights _and_ it means the right to have sex with adults. The
> logic runs as follows: 

BINGO! Congratulations. You said the key phrase. "*If* the *minor* has the
right to privacy..."

> A- Privacy
> B- Adult/child sexual relations
> C- Abortion 
> 
> A->B
> A->C

Do you really think that those of us reading your post are so stupid that
having seen you say "Jerry Lockett of Florida based his ruling, which
invalidates statutory rape laws, on the right to privacy WHICH INVALIDATED
PARENTAL CONSENT ABORTION LAWS" they are going to accept your transformation
of the issue of parental consent for abortions for minors into abortion
rights in general? Do you really think people reading your post are so
stupid that having seen you say "if the minor has a right to privacy" they
are going to accept your transformation of that into the right to privacy as
it applies to adults? Your A, B, and C, based on your own statements, should
be:

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.

Which means that your statement above "According to Judge Lockett, to have
abortion rights, you must invalidate statutory rape laws" is incorrect.
Indeed, even to get to "According to Judge Lockett, to give minors the right
to an abortion without parental consent, you must invalidate statutory rape
laws" requires proving that there can be no other basis in Fla. law for
abortion for minors without parental consent other than the claimed right to
privacy.

The most you can validly state is "According to Judge Lockett, the same
right of privacy that entitles minors to abortion without parental consent
also renders them competent to consent to sex with an adult." Your jump from
that to

> >> ========================================================================
> >> 		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
> >> ========================================================================

is one of the more grotesque distortions I've seen on the net, and I'm a
regular reader of creationist postings in talk.origins.

> The problem here is B and the only way to get at B is not to go after
> C, but to deal with A. 

Or to deal with the granting of full exercise of the right to privacy to
minors rather than eliminating the right of privacy itself. Or to bring a
similar case and try to get the precendent overturned by arguing that the
two situations (chosing an abortion, choosing to have sex with an adult) are
not equivalent in terms of ability to give consent.

> Besides, you can't jump to C from B...  

No kidding. Which is why your .sig

> >> ========================================================================
> >> 		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
> >> ========================================================================

is nonsense. Even in the strawman "A = privacy", "C = abortion" that you set
up, you would have to establish "C iff A", not "C if A" for your .sig to be
correct.  You did not do so. Your .sig is therefore wrong.

> And you can't deal with A because it endangers C. 

Nonsense. This case had nothing to do with the rights of adults to choose
abortions. At worst it brings into question the wisdom of permitting minors
to have abortions without parental consent. I suppose you support allowing
children to bleed to death because their parents are Jehovah's Witnesses and
won't consent to a transfusion, or allowing children to die from treatable
infections because their parents are Christian Scientists and don't think
antibiotics should be used? If so, then will you add a line to your .sig
saying "Pro-Life means children bleeding to death"? If not, will you explain
how the issue of parental consent for abortion differs ethically from the
issue of parental consent for other medical procedures?

> >One could imagine invalidating parental consent abortion laws on a basis
> >other than a "right to privacy", and one could also imagine concluding that
> >such a "right to privacy" is not sufficient to invalidate statutory rape
> >laws -- as indeed some other judge may well do.
> 
> One could imagine it, but it didn't happen that way. 
> My .sig joke does not talk about how it "might" have happened
> otherwise, only how it "did" happen in Florida. 

Your .sig is indeed a joke, but not for the reasons you think.

One, it appears to claim that to support abortion rights necessarily implies
supporting decriminializing consensual sex between adults and minors.
Justifications one can put forward for abortion rights other than the right
to privacy, arguments that would break the symmetry assumed by Judge
Lockett, and arguments over the ability of minors to actually give informed
consent in these situations do indeed matter, and destroy any validity the
statement might have.

Two, in any case the specific issues here involve the ability of minors to
give consent, and have nothing to do with whatever stand one may take on the
issue with respect to the rights of adults.

If I'm stepping in anything, it's the bullshit you're slinging.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton