From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: A response to the late, great Dr. Strychnine
Date: 11 Sep 92 03:52:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Distribution: usa
Organization: Where!?  Quick, hand me that shotgun!

In article <1992Sep8.194122.4335@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
># stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
>> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
>
>>> I assert that this is morally wrong.  No one should have the legal
>>> authority to control an individual's reproductive system.  What can I
>>> do to persuade you to believe that?
># 
># You cannot.  Or have you missed all the discussion about beliefs?
>
>I see.  I cannot change your mind.

Just as I cannot change your mind.  What can I do to persuade you to believe
that sharing control of a person's reproductive system IS morally correct?

>Is that because you refuse to be persuaded, or because you refuse to let
>*me* persuade you?

Neither.  It is because you cannot think in the necesary way to form the
arguments that it would take to convince me.

>I reassert: No one should have the legal authority to control another
>individual's reproductive system.

And I disagree.

>If there were any hope that I could persuade you to believe this, I
>would question why you disagree with my assertion, but since you
>intend to deny me -- >I'll just let it drop.

I will not stop discussing it, I just warn you that so far, you havn't
even gotten close to the proper mind set necesary to convince me of
anything, let alone that your belief system is superior to mine.

># To illustrate, I believe that abortion is murder.  What can I do to persuade
># you to believe that?
># 
># Think about it.
>
>I did.  I agree with Ray Fischer:
>
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>% Present evidence that the zygote, embryo, and/or fetus is a person and
>% should have the same protections as does any other child.  Convince me 
>% that what you propose will benefit me, society, and/or my descendent.

Which has already done.  Many times.  It did not change anybodies mind
because evidence is only data, whether a z/e/f baby or child is a person
is a matter of information.  Or as I've said all along, whether or not
some one is human, a person and should have rights is a matter of belief.

And we have different belief systems.

>% Writing off my arguments as being mere beliefs contrary to your own is
>% a dead end.

Agreed.  But what else is there?

>Now, why can't I persuade you that no one should have the legal
>authority to control another individual's reproductive system.

I assume that is a question.  One that I've already answered.  Many times.

You state the question in such a way as to ignore the disclaimers, conditions
and exceptions.

I, as the father of the child that a woman is carrying, have a compelling
interest in the fate and future of that child.  This compelling interest
gives me the right, under a limited set of circumstances (the pregnancy
is the result of consentsual sexual relations) to require the woman to
bear the child to term.

># I will an do use the past tense because even if people still subscribes to
># the patriarchal views, the law does not allow them to enforce them.
>
>Some states have not adopted marital rape laws.

So what?  The husband can still be charged with assault and battery.

>I never asserted any such thing.  You may have inferred that, but I
>never even implied it.  (I believe our society is still inherently
>patriarchal -- thus, nothing can *return* us to a patriarchal
>society.)

And I believe that our society is no longer a patriarchy.

>>> Well, it gives women a *ration* of control.
># 
># Yup.  EXACTLY ***EQUAL*** to the amount of control that a man has over
># his reproduction.  I stress the above, because of my arguments regarding
># equal rights, feminism, etc.
>
>Wrong.

Sorry.  I'm right.

>Both men and women may use contraception.

You see, you even begin by agreeing.

>Both men and women may say `No' to sexual intercourse.

Still agreeing.

>However, these things give men and women equal rights to control
>conception, not reproduction.

Here you try desperately to cloud the issue.  With no conception, there will
be no reproduction.  Your point is moot.

>Nevertheless, I would still oppose any state attempts to give
>individuals power to control the reproductive systems of other
>individuals against their will.

And I support the idea of requiring people to accept responsibility for\
their actions, EVEN if it means that at a later date they are required
to do something they do not wish to do, ie against their will.

By your statements, you say that you do NOT support the idea of contracts
that would allow the father the legal right to require a woman to
carry through with a pregnancy after she agreed to become pregnant and
carry the child to term.

And by extension, you support the current system, where child support,
abortion agreements, birth control agreements etc. are not legally
enforceable.

>>> From the American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd Edition:
>>> 
>>> 	egalitarianism: n. The doctrine of equal political, economic,
>>> 	                   and legal rights for all human beings.
>>> 
>>> I think I'd like to read your explanation of how egalitarianism
>>> `denies everybody the right to the free practice of religion.'
># 
># Where, in your definition, does egalitariansim guarantee equal RELIGIOUS
># rights?
>
>What's a `religious right?'  (Try to resist the temptation to commit
>punnery -- I have little patience for it.)

Can I help it that you are humor impaired?

>You didn't answer the question.

I did.  You failed to understand the answer.

>Why do you believe that's a problem?  How is it a problem that my
>beliefs don't stem from a belief in a `supreme being' -- whatever that
>means to you?

It gives you a big old blind spot.  You consistently fail to realize
that you make statements decrying EXACTLY the activity in which you
are engaged: enforcing your BELIEFS on others.

># Silly me, to assume that we meant the same thing by the word 'consensus':
># 
># consensus  1: group solidarity in sentiment and belief  2: a) general
># 	agreement : UNANIMITY  b) the judgement arrived at by most of the
># 	concerned.
>
>I was using definition no. 1 -- a fuzzier definition than no. 2.

Even by that definition, consensus requires more than a simple majority.

># So you can see, that unless you consider consensus to be anything more
># than 50%, we DO NOT arrive at consensus at election time.
>
>Really?  Point out where I said we `arrive at consensus at election
>time.'

I reiterate, whether you admit it or not, elections do not hinge on
consensus, they are based on a simple majority.

># Majority rules IS the way the U.S.A works.  With the exception of those
># individual rights given by the constitution of country and state.
>
>Wrong.  Wrong wrong wrong.

Nope.  RightRightRightRightRightRightRightRightRightRightRightRight.

>It isn't even true to say that `Majority-
>Of-Elected-Representatives Rules' in the U.S.A.

Yes, it is.  The elected representatives create, vote (that nasty word
again, which has nothing to do with consensus) and PASS law.  We are
a country ruled by law.  There fore, the majority of elected officials
rule in regard to a particular law.

>See the Supreme Court and all the other appointed positions.

The supreme court does not introduce and pass law (or at least, they
are not supposed to).  Nor do any of the other appointed positions.

>>> Nevertheless, common law -- nay, common sense -- says that there is a
>>> right to bodily autonomy and that it should rarely be infringed.
># 
># Agreed.  But rarely does not mean never.
>
>Very well.  You have backpedalled from where this originally started
>-- which was whether there should be a right to bodily autonomy.

I have not back pedaled at all.  Should there be a right to bodily
autonomy?  Yes, with exceptions.  Those exceptions are all based in
the idea that it is not absolutely true that what you do to your
body never affects anybody else.

Hence the exceptions to bodily autonomy for suicide, drunken driving,
use of recreational drugs, etc.

># And there will always be something more pressing.  The fact of the matter
># is, bodily autonomy is not an absolute right.
>
>There may very well be.  I never disagreed with this sentiment.  Where
>did you get the idea I did?

By your statements that the right to bodily autonomy is the supporting
right for legalalized abortion.

If you do NOT believe in the right to bodily autonomy, please list
those exceptions to that right that you support.

>A valid example that you can use to knock down the strawman that
>bodily autonomy is not an absolute right.  I never said it was.  I
>said that every infringement upon that right ought to be granted
>because the state has a compelling interest, and you haven't
>challenged my assertion that the state has no compelling interest to
>prohibit most if not all abortions.

Ahhh, back to this old chestnut.  In this case, the state does not
grant an exception because IT has a compelling interest, but in defense
of the rights of the father and child, both of whom DO have a compelling
interest.

Consider your self and statment challenged.

>I question your assertion that the American public is in consensus on
>your first point.

I never asserted that the American public was in consensus.  You did.
I simply point out that the MAJORITY of Americans do agree that this
is an exception.

>Your second example is an example of where the
>American public is in consensus about a compelling state interest in
>infringing the right to bodily autonomy, but I reject it as an example
>of where the public explicitly believes that the right to bodily
>autonomy does not exist -- I contend the public simply sees a
>compelling state interest in infringing that right.

Simply put, my stance is not what you claim it is.  You are attempting
to infer what I have not said.  Perhaps we have both misunderstood.

I simply claim that the American people do not believe that the right
to bodily autonomy is an absolute right.

With one exception allowed, the precedent is set to allow other exceptions
for equally or more compelling reasons.

>In the meantime, I have given you nine (if I recall correctly)
>examples that support my assertion, and you have not challenged a
>single one.

I have challenged all, repeatedly.  You, of course, will not admit that,
as you think that your statement above will cause people to believe
you are telling the truth.

># I can.  The compelling interest lies in stepping in to defend the rights
># of one of it's citizens against the abuse of those rights by another.
>
>Interesting that you used the word `citizen.'  You could have made an
>appeal that the state has an interest in stepping in to defend against
>abuses of `human rights' by another individual, but if you had, you
>would have directly contradicted your earlier statement that `we have
>no rights, just privileges,' as well as opened yourself up to other
>criticisms I don't feel the need to raise at the moment.

And even if I had, I have already stated that I consider the terms rights
and privileges to be interchangeable in the real world.

>I will refrain from pointing out how the word `citizen' introduces a
>flaw in your argument.  I'm sure you can find it.

What, the father is not a citizen?  <Have you found the flaw in your
RESPONSE, yet? ;->

># Why?  When women had complaints about other sexual inequities, they
># took it up with the politicians.  So I'm doing the same thing.
>
>Women organized to take political inequities to the politicians.  You
>are not complaining about a political inequity, but rather a
>biological `inequity,' namely:  women bear children, men don't.

Women organized to take political AND sexual inequities as supported by
the society and the law to the politicians.

You conviently ignore the many places where women demanded equal rights,
but where biological inequities would, by your reasoning, deny them
equal rights.

>Women bear children.  If a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy to term,
>there *will* be a father, as a natural outcome.

When the pregnancy begins, there IS a father.

>Consent to sex is
>consent to fatherhood, as sex can result in pregnancy that a woman may
>choose to carry to term.

Yup.  And you don't even realize that this is unfair.

>How are politicans supposed to address this inequity without
>redesigning a lot of plumbing?

Asked and answered many times.  Simplest solution, make abortion illegal.

This makes the responsibilities, rights as equal as possible.  Not one
hundred percent equal, but closer than currently.

>By meeting one inequity with an equal and opposite inequity?

Not equal and opposite.  Not nearly as much.

>Here is a free clue.  Learn it.  Know it.  Love it:
>
>	Two inequities do not an equality make.

I already know this.  It's to bad you, however, do not know what an
inequity is.

###############################################################################
># You must not be a scientist, then.
>
>No.  I am not a scientist -- at least, not by profession.

A scientist believes that there are statments of fact, and statements of
belief (interpretation).

>Your soliloquy is:  I am an agnostic; agnostics cannot be scientist;
>therefore I must not be a scientist.

No.  My statment is that a scientist would not state that all statments
are ones of belief.

>I reject your bald faced assertion that agnostics cannot be
>scientists.

Allow me teach you what you so badly need to learn.

What you should have said is:

[ Edited for correctness, see above. ]
>I reject [my] bald faced assertion that agnostics cannot be
>scientists.
###############################################################################

Many of the statments you make about what I say or believe are out and
out lies.  A few misunderstandings are expected and wholly acceptable,
but what you just did in the section delimited by ### lines above shows
how ridiculous you are.

You lie about what I say or believe, then attack me on the basis of
YOUR OWN LIES!

>Furthermore, I find the assertion somewhat offensive.

Then don't make it.

># Then give me an example of a right.
>
>The right to engage in consensual sex with an adult in the privacy of
>my own home.

This is a privilege, as it this 'right' can be taken away.

>It is a right.  I need not earn this right by direct
>action before I may exercise it.

Privileges do not need to be earned.  They can be given.  The constitution
gives you certain privileges.

>I may have to fight for it if and
>when the Anti-sex League comes to deny me that right, but
>nevertheless, it is a right -- not a privilege.

Wrong again.

>Are you about to start telling your accounts of how you earned your
>rights -- er, I mean privileges -- by fighting for them in the
>Revolutionary War?

Nope.  As I don't believe that I have 'rights' by your definition of the
word.  I believe that I have privileges.  And these are granted to me
by the constitution.

># After all, you support different rights based on sexual differences.
>
>Different rights for different people when physical differences
>necessitate those differences -- otherwise, I expect the doctrine of
>egalitarianism to be employed where possible.

Yup.  So we have established a precedent where equal rights and
egalitarianism can have exceptions.

>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
>Space Systems/Loral

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion