From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:38:40 GMT

markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>>> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>>>> Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
>>>>> fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.

>>>> Which is not the same thing as consent to pregnancy ...

[--deletions--]

>>> In fact:
>>> A. You certainly DO open yourself to the possibility of attack by
>>>    walking down dark city streets; but
>>> B. This in no way weakens your right to life, or your consequent
>>>    right to self-defense.

>> Right on.  James' point is that if you begin with an absurd assumption
>> (it is irresponsible for a woman to consent to sex and subsequently abort a
>> resulting pregnancy ... ),your conclusions will be equally absurd, even if
>> your reasoning is sound.

> And James' conclusion -- that there's no basis in pro-life thought for
> a "rape or incest" exception -- certainly WAS absurd.

First of all, James made no explicit mention of the rape/incest exception.
A conclusion about rape/incest could probably be inferred since his
syllogisms deal with _consensual_ sex.  However, since the topic of this
discussion is the assumption that consent to sex is consent to the possibility
of pregnancy, I wonder why you would go tangential on us with your mention of
the rape/incest exception.

Secondly, you seem to be avoiding James' point; that absurd assumptions
(consent to sex is consent to pregnancy) yield absurd conclusions.  You
implicitly agree with his point, yet, in this instance anyhow, bring up
another issue to attempt to refute James somehow.  Are you attempting
to score debating points by arguing with a strawman?

For the sake of clarity, I'll repost James' syllogism pair:

--- begin James Woodyatt's article ---

Here's how it works:

A.  Assume: Consent to sex implies consent to the possibility of
    pregnancy resulting from sex.

B.  Observation: Pregnancy carries the risk of death during
    childbirth.

C.  Production: Consenting to the possibility of pregnancy means
    consenting to the risk of death during childbirth associated with
    the possibility of pregnancy.

D.  Theorem: Consent to sex implies consent to the risk of death
    during childbirth.

Thus:

A.  Assume: It is irresponsible for a woman to consent to sex and
    subsequently abort a resulting pregnancy, on the grounds that she
    implicitly consented to the possibility of the grave matter of
    pregnancy when she consented to sex, and abortion would
    demonstrate her decision to have sex was careless.

B.  Observation: From the theorem derived above, consent to sex also
    implies consent to risk of death during childbirth.

C.  Production: If consenting to the possibility of pregnancy and
    subsequently aborting pregnancy when pregnancy occurs is
    irresponsible, then it is also irresponsible to consent to the
    risk of death during childbirth and abort the mother's life when
    death during childbirth is imminent.

D.  Theorem: It is irresponsible for a woman to consent to sex and
    subsequently abort a resulting pregnancy when death during
    childbirth is imminent, on the grounds that she implicitly
    consented to the grave matter of the risk of death during
    childbirth when she consented to sex, and an abortion to save her
    life would demonstrate that her decision to have sex was careless.

I would be pleasantly surprised to see a `pro-life' type who has
advanced the assumption that consent to sex implies consent to the
possibility of pregnancy comment on the logic demonstrated here.
Specifically, I'd like said volunteer to comment on whether the
assumptions are more ludicrous that the theorems produced, especially
if they can't find any glaring flaws in the logic.

Come one, boys.  Two simple syllogisms in series.  You can do it.

--- end James Woodyatt's article ---

Given the absurdity of James' conclusions, wouldn't you agree that the
assumption (consent to sex implies consent to the possibility of pregnancy)
is absurd?

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.kevin-darcy