From: jcowling@ophelia.UVic.CA (Scowling Jim Cowling)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 05:41:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.233734.27265@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>1) Opposes war because it is killing? 
>>Usually, war is opposed because it is senseless killing over some trivial
>>piece of territory or some trivial political or economic point.  Occasionally, 
>>it is justified, but those occasions are severely limited.  (I believe that
>>in most cases, baring such cases as WWII, etc, that war is ususally the
>>wrong answer, and even WWII could have been stoped before war was necessary, 
>>as could WWI)
>
>Translation: If every woman has a right to control her own body (which
>extends to killing, where abortion is concerned), surely, every
>dictator has a right to control his own troops. 

Jeez.  Time for me to say my piece.

Woman : Body :: Troops : Dictator ?

I don't think so.  This is without a doubt one of the faultiest analogies I've
seen in years.  

>>>2) Seeks a ban or massive waiting periods on guns because they may kill? 
>>The persons harmed are persons as defined under law, and to those who are
>>left-of-center, the necessity of gun ownership isn't understood to be a
>>'right'...it all has to do with the interpretation of the militia clause of
>>the second ammendment.  (I disagree with bans, but not reasonable waiting
>>periods)
>
>And then you disagree with waiting periods on abortions? 

I certainly do.  What possible right can the state have to interfere with a
woman's right (hell, ANYONE'S right) to do what she wants with her body?

There are two (and really only two) arguments that anti-choicers can use to
debate abortion on demand as a right:

1.  The foetus must be considered a human being  (which is ridiculous, as there
    is no positive proof that a foetus is sentient)
2.  Religious grounds.

And "religious grounds" don't wash.  It is impossible to hold a rational debate
or come up with a rational proposal based on religious grounds simply because
all such arguments must begin with the axiom "there is a God or God-like being
which exists and/or one or more books of irrefutable scripture".  This axiom
requires faith, and a rational argument has no use for faith.  Hence, there
really can't be a debate.

>Inconsistencies still abound... 

See my .sig file.

>>>3) Favors spotted owls over the welfare of working-class human beings? 
>>No.  Balances nature against human needs.  It is only the most radical
>>environmental types who value animals over humans.  Most rational people
>>balance the two.  (I do, and think there is an acceptable compromise in
>>there somewhere)
>
>The most radical? Such as Earth First!, which spikes trees and damages
>equipment and human beings? 
>
>Earth First! gets less punishment for its acts, than Operation
>Rescue.

Earth First! has a membership which is only a minute percentage of Operation
Rescue's.  On a per-member basis, I think your point is debatable.  Also,
I disagree with premise #3 above, as I am pro-choice and certainly don't
hold the welfare of spotted owls (or orcas, or eagles, or what-have-you) over
those of working-class humans.  But a foetus is certainly not a working-class
human.  It is a potential human, but, IMHO, no more so than a shared lovers
glance.  

>>>4) Opposes the death penalty because it is killing? 
>>It is clearly state sanctioned murder.  The usual response is that we, as a
>>society, have no more right to commit murder than the person we are
>>'punishing.'  I don't see how capital punishment is anything more than pure
>>retribution.  (I currently support capital punishment, so I don't fit this
>>sterotype)
>
>Well, the pro-choicer next to you tends to think that convicted mass
>murderers deserve more of their concentration and attention than the
>victim & his/her family. They seem to adore mass murderers as much as
>they accuse us of "adoring fetuses." 

Genralisation, generalisation, generalisation, and safely ignored, as it holds
little usefulness in a rational argument.  Man, when I read stuff like this
I'm glad that I'm Canadian, where we worry far less about access to abortion
(because, for the foreseeable future, it is more readily available than in
the US) and the death penalty doesn't exist (except for treason, but no one's
been hung for treason in this country since the 1800s).
>>7) And the eagles' eggs?
>They adore unborn eagles more than unborn humans. 

Humans are in no danger of being wiped from the face of the earth, either.
There are far more humans on this planet than is safe, in the long run.  I 
think we could definitely do with a few hundreds of thousands more eagles.

>They cry for those unborn eagles but they wage war against any consideration
>for unborn humans. 

Axiom:  Consideration for a woman's body is more important than consideration
        for a foetus.

Axiom:  A foetus is not an unborn human.      

>>>9) But then tries to justify abortion even though it is killing? 
>>But it's not so cut and dried.  This is a moral decision.  I agree that
>>it's wrong, but it's not my place to force my values on someone else, 
>>especially when those values are derived from my religion.
>
>How's about pro-lifers whose values were derived outside of any
>religion, say, from a bible known as an Embryology Book? 

Certainly abortion is killing.  So is having a tumour removed.  What real 
difference is there between a tumour and a foetus?  One has the potential to
become a human being.  That potential, however, must hinge on the mother's
choice to allow it to happen, and the mother is never required to allow it
to happen.  Forcing a woman who wishes to have an abortion to hold the
foetus to term is nothing short of slavery, which, as I recall, was outlawed
in your country a number of years back.  Or am I mistaken?

>How would you respond to proof that a human life does start at
>fertilization, if it could be shown in a scientific textbook? (Don't
>dodge this one, please. I got lotsa folks who make it a hobby to dodge
>this, and I think much higher of you than that.) 

Show it to me in, say, forty or fifty textbooks and you'll be able to use
Anti-Choicer Axiom #1.  Anyone can write a textbook, and because all written
works are tainted by the opinions of their authors, any Christian embryologist
would be stupid not to put such info in a book, regardless of its veracity.

Until birth, a foetus is simply a collection of cells belonging to the mother.
It cannot survive outside the womb, just as my liver would die if removed from
my body (unless helped artificially, of course).  It is not a singular being.
To be coldy intellectual, it is a parasitic organism until birth.

>>>12) Opposes the choice to control one's own body with whatever
>>>pleasure-inducing drugs they want to put into themselves, because
>>>drugs are dangerous? 
>>Well, this is one of those questions that crosses thw whole politcal
>>spectrum.  Is drug use really a victimless crime?  The effects on society 
>>can be horrendous.  But, please realize, the right is just as nuts on this 
>
>Well, some Leftists like to claim that legalized pot can be an actual
>benefit to society. They just happen to get smashed by their own camp,
>when it comes time to air these ideas to the public. 

Generalisations, generalisations, generalisations.  If someone is growing their
own and smoking it in their own house, the State shouldn't interfere, IMHO.
The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, or some such thing,
so I hear.

>But surely, if the right to kill an unborn child comes from the "right
>to control of one's own body," surely something like drugs, would be a
>right, too. 

Certainly.  Assuming they grow their own.  Once they start buying crack off 
the street, they become part of a global network of crime and victimisation
which has no right to exist.

>And, as they ruled in Florida, it also means the right for adult men
>to go to bed with little girls. 

I didn't hear about this.  Enlighten me.

>Pro-choicers don't like consistency because, like drugs & underage
>sex, it leads to things which America would not _ever_ accept. But, it
>seems, some judges are willing to be consistent, regardless: they'll
>end up forcing pro-choicers to walk the plank without the pro-lifers'
>help... 

Morality is never based on consistency.  

>>>13) Then turns around and opposes regulations on breast implants
>>>despite that some implants may be dangerous?  
>>Huh?  I think you have this one backwards.  Breast implants have been shown
>>to cause problems in SOME cases.  Thus, the governemnt has stepped in to
>>examine the issue.  Should companies be allowed to market any product for
>>any reason, and damn the consequences?
>
>You missed the issue. The moment someone came out with the idea that
>breast implants might be dangerous, and then showed instances and
>facts to prove it, there was a hold put on implants. As a result,
>feminist and pro-choice groups went crazy - whether it was dangerous
>or not, they did _not_ like breast implants being taken away. In their
>twisted minds, companies should've been allowed to market the
>implants, damn the consequences. 

And the US government still subsidizes tobacco and alcohol production, both of
which are proven health risks.  Go figure.

>>>I just wanted to know about these inconsistencies of the pro-choice
>>>movement... 
>>You've listed a bunch of sterotypes that just don't fit!
>
>So now what do you think every time the media stereotypes pro-lifers
>as religious fanatics? Now do you know what it's like to be
>stereotyped? 

By all accounts, the safer bet would be that all anti-choicers are irrational.
You certainly don't do anything to disprove it.

-------
Scowling Jim Cowling
Creative Writing Department, University of Victoria (opinions disassociated)
"Do I contradict myself?  Very well then I contradict myself.   
(I am large, I contain multitudes)." -- The Waltster
-------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion