From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Equal protection dead end? 4.
Date: 21 Dec 92 04:30:08 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec21.002238.21233@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes:  

>Read it again. I said I believed that the accuser has the burden of proof
>whether the accusation was in the legal system or not.

If someone wants to advocate a legislative agenda of restricting the
rights of some traditionallly disenfranchised group, I will certainly
accuse them of hating this group.  They or you can deny it until
you're blue in the face, I think the discriminatory effect is proof
enough to at least make the accusation.  I have stated this many
times.  Feel free to wait around for more proof.  I'm willing to act
and make the accusation on that proof alone.  If someone wants to
demonstrate in response to this accusation that there is some other
compelling explanation, then I guess I will be shown to have been
wrong.  I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

>>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?  
>
>In theory, it could. But you have yet to prove that.

How would one prove or disprove this?  How about a simpler question:
What alternative explanation would you offer?

>>I simply assume that the answer to this question is yes.  
>
>s/simply/simplistically/

I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of the forced pregnancy
position that refutes this accusation.

>I think you're stretching the term "benefit of the doubt" beyond the breaking
>point, Stephen. It refers to a state of facts; you are merely stating 
>opinions.

Do you deny that forcing a women to carry a pregnancy to term is
denying her the benefit of the doubt regarding her own ability to make
judgments about her own reproductive system?

>>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.  
>
>That's not an accusation, it's an opinion. Again, you seem to have trouble
>distinguishing a state of facts from mere opinions.

It's an opinion they want to back up with laws, accusations based on
those laws, and punishments.

>>You don't consider advocating a legislative agenda of forced pregnancy
>>to be a witch hunt against women and their rights as persons?
>
>Correct. It is no witch hunt. At worst, given your description, it's a 
>moral battle. I might even say "jihad". But that's not the same thing as
>a witch hunt, which has to do with evidence and facts, not just opinions.

If the fetus fanatics were trying to convince women not to get
abortions, it would be a moral battle.  If they were merely
persistently pestering women at abortion clinics, it might be a jihad.
When they advocate a legislative agenda, it has to do with
accusations, evidence, and guilt.  Sounds like a witch hunt.  And you
can be sure that there will be witch hunts against women who were not
overjoyed about pregnancies but miscarry if their legislative agenda
goes through.  I cannot understand your purposeful ignorance on these
points.  Why would you state opinions that seem to minimize the
catastrophic effects on women of forced pregnancy laws?

>>I think I have made it clear that in this case I do believe the
>>irrationality is motivated by malice.  I guess we disagree.
>
>Trouble is, you're making a statement of fact -- pro-life is motivated by
>malice against women -- without backing it up. Spout opinions all you want,
>but if you make an accusation, back it up. Unless you want to start sounding
>like Adrienne, that is...

I have never elevated my belief that pro-forced pregnancy is motivated
by malice against women beyond what it is: my belief.  Based on that
belief, I have made that accusation and have provided various
arguments to back up my belief.  You like others are free to disagree.
Further, I have no problem with being accused of sounding like
Adrienne.  Although I do not always think she is 100% correct, I find
myself in general agreement with her on most issues.

>>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.
>
>Ah, and you don't believe that abortion affects the potential father? And you 
>don't believe that abortion affects the medical establishment and medical 
>ethics? And you don't believe that abortion has socio-economic ripple effects?>And, perhaps most importantly to a pro-lifer, you don't think abortion affects>the FETUS????

Last time I checked, we were discussing BA rights.  The BA rights of
fathers are not affected by abortion.  A fetus has no right to occupy
the body of its mother, so it loses in the contest with the mother's
BA right.

>Sure, if you start with the axiom that it's pro-lifers vs. pregnant women,
>AND NOTHING AND NO-ONE ELSE IS INVOLVED OR MATTERS TO THE DEBATE, then it 
>follows fairly trivially that if pro-lifers have a malicious motive, then
>they are misogynistic. But I don't accept that axiom, nor do I think most
>people accept it, at least not in a pure form. Question your axiom,
>Stephen. Questioning one's axioms is one of the rites of passage from 
>pseudo-intellectual to intellectual.

To see you publicly accusing someone of being pseudo-intellectual has
entertainment value in and of itself.  As far as BA rights, which is
what we were discussing last time I checked, the mother takes
precedence.  It's that simple.  I understand the axioms quite
thoroughly on this point.

>>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
>>of women?  
>
>In theory, it could be. But if you cannot actually PROVE this to be the case,
>IN FACT, then don't make the accusation.

I didn't know I had to listen to you when you say I can or cannot make
statements based on my beliefs.  Oh, wait, I don't.  You believe what
you like and you make statements based on your beleifs.  I'll do the
same.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion