From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Yet another flame from Dr. Strychnine
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:41:22 GMT

# stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)

### Two different beliefs can give rise to the same action.  In this case,
### the ban on abortion would not be instituted to give total control over 
### reproduction to men (as, indeed, it wouldn't), but to give equal
### control to both.
>> 
>> 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.  Is that because you refuse to
be persuaded, or because you refuse to let *me* persuade you?  Or is
there some mysterious third party preventing me from persuading you?
(I hope it's the last -- I love eldritch mysteries.)

I reassert: No one should have the legal authority to control another
individual's reproductive system.  If you need the qualification
`without permission,' consider it to be implicit.  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.

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

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

-----

### What you so conviently left out, was that in the patriarchical system,
### men ALSO had the right to require sex of their wives, and they ALSO
### had the right to decide whether or not their wives used birth control.
>> 
>> I'd rather you didn't use the past tense like that.  It might make the
>> less edumacated think that no one subscribes to the patriarchal views
>> anymore.
# 
# 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.

-----

### Both points which must be added in to make your assertion that
### eliminating abortion gives control of reproduction soley to men.
>> 
>> It would help reinforce my point, but I didn't want to bore you with
>> *all* the details of patriarchal thinking, just the ones regarding
>> abortion.
# 
# With these points in mind, your assertion that outlawing abortion would
# return us to a patriarchal society is incorrect.

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.)

-----

### Of course, in the modern world, the right to say NO, and the right to
### use whatever birth control method she wishes to use, allows a woman
### to be in control of her reproduction, irregardless of whether abortion
### is allowed or not.
>> 
>> 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.  Both men and women may use contraception.  Both men and women
may say `No' to sexual intercourse.  However, these things give men
and women equal rights to control conception, not reproduction.

If men could get pregnant, I would demand that men and women have
equal rights to abortion so that each had equal rights to control
their reproduction.

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

Next?

-----

>> Guess I'm gonna have to preach outa the book:
>> 
>> 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.)  Why shouldn't religious
rights be considered political rights?  I assert that a doctrine of
equal political, economic and legal rights strongly implies that
`religious rights' -- whatever you mean by that term -- are covered.
Why do you disagree?

You didn't answer the question.

-----

>> Really?  I never knew.  (It's a problem with us agnostics, you know.)
# 
# Yes.  The problem with most agnostics (The great Dr. Asimov being the
# exception) is that they hold BELIEFS that differ from regligious beliefs
# only in that these beliefs are not supported by a belief in a supreme
# being.

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?

This I gotta hear.  Do tell do tell.  Please please please!

# A belief is still a belief.

A hand grenade is still a hand grenade.
A door is not a jar.  A door is a door.  A jar is a jar.

``WHAT *IS* IT, MAN!!???''  --Ren

-----

>> Wrong again.  `Majority rules' is not how the U.S.A. works.  It is a
>> federal republic, not a direct pure democracy.  Consensus in this
>> country is officially polled at election time.
# 
# 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.  (Oh
dear, the English language has semantic fuzziness -- catch me.)
Besides, I said that consensus is *polled* at election time.  I did
not offer my comments on how and why I think the current system of
officially polling the consensus of the governed is FUBAR.

# 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.'

# 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.  It isn't even true to say that `Majority-
Of-Elected-Representatives Rules' in the U.S.A.  See the Supreme
Court and all the other appointed positions.  Plus, don't forget the
way the minority swings power around in Congress when the President
sides with the minority.

-----

>> 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.

### And some counter examples:
### 
### 	1.	The state restricts your right to sell sex, even if you
### 		do so in the privacy of the woman's bedroom.
>> 
>> I think it shouldn't.  I think it should stop.  Right now, though, the
>> threat to abortion rights is more pressing than this.
# 
# 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?

### 	2.	The state reserves the right to require anything of you
### 		within the bounds of the uniform military code after they
### 		draft you.
>> 
>> One of the rare exceptions where society seems to have built a
>> consensus on when it is appropriate to enslave individuals.  This
>> consensus may change soon as well.
# 
# But, in the meantime, a valid example.

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.

>> If you want to make the case that there really isn't a right to bodily
>> autonomy in the minds of the American public, perhaps you ought to
>> come up with a few more sensible examples that support your argument
>> (so far, I count one).
# 
# I've given two.  Go back and count them again.

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

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.

-----

>> That's because I see abortion as such a fundamental right that
>> I can't see where the State can have any compelling interest in
>> infringing that right.
# 
# 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.

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

-----

### Or, turn it around.  Suppose a man has sex with a woman, and she gets 
### pregnant, and bears the child.  Doesn't it violate his right to bodily
### autonomy to make him support a child he doesn't want?  He, after all,
### can be forced to work to provide that support.
>> 
>> Ah, we're starting to close in on your favorite topic are we?
>> 
>> The Night of the Living Abortion Inequity!!!!!
# 
# Which, from my point of view, is what the news group alt.abortion.inequity
# is about.
# 
>> Said inequity summed up:
>> 
>> 	Consent to sex does not equal consent to motherhood.
>> 	Consent to sex *does* equal consent to fatherhood.
>> 
>> My opinion is that if you have any complaints about this inequity, you
>> should take it up with the Design Engineer.
# 
# 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 bear children.  If a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy to term,
there *will* be a father, as a natural outcome.  Consent to sex is
consent to fatherhood, as sex can result in pregnancy that a woman may
choose to carry to term.

How are politicans supposed to address this inequity without
redesigning a lot of plumbing?  By meeting one inequity with an equal
and opposite inequity?

Here is a free clue.  Learn it.  Know it.  Love it:

	Two inequities do not an equality make.

-----

### Hell no.  You are just begining to realize how much of what you say
### is a statement of beliefs.  Maybe in a few days, you will realize how
### hypocritical and ridiculous both sides are, since both seem to be
### simply stating beliefs as if they are not only obvious truths, but
### handed down by a higher authority.
>> 
>> You got a lotta damned gall.
# 
# Yup.  So do you.

Admitted.

>> I've already told you I'm an agnostic.  That means I believe *every*
>> statement is a statement of beliefs.
# 
# You must not be a scientist, then.

No.  I am not a scientist -- at least, not by profession.

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

I reject your bald faced assertion that agnostics cannot be
scientists. Furthermore, I find the assertion somewhat offensive.

-----

>> Again, you need to get a real grip on your terms.  While `natural
>> rights' is arguably an oxymoron, there is still no reason to discard
>> the word `right' as an unnecessary synonym for `privilege.'  I urge
>> you to consider that carefully.
# 
# 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.  It is a right.  I need not earn this right by direct
action before I may exercise it.  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.

>> A privilege is something that must be earned, and may be denied to
>> people for arbitrary reasons.
# 
# We earned 'em all right.  Or had you forgotten about the revolutionary
# war, etc.?

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?

I didn't fight in the Revolution.  Do I still get my rights^H^H^H^H^Hprivileges?

-----

>> Please refer to the definition of
>> egalitarianism and note the use of the word `rights' not `privileges.'
>> In an egalitarian society, privileges need not be granted equally to
>> all human beings, rights must.  An important difference I think you
>> have missed.
# 
# Who ever said that this was an egalitarian society?

It was founded on egalitarian principles, and to this day, it pays lip
service to those principles and in many ways actually lives up to
them.  (As opposed to back in 1789, when it lived up to them an awful
lot less often.)

#                                                     Trying to argue
# that I am wrong on the basis of that definition implies that this
# IS such a society.  It is not, and never will be, if your beliefs
# are upheld by the majority.

You misunderstand yet again.  See the definition of `egalitarianism'.
You will notice that it refers to `doctrine.'  You are free to argue
that no doctrine can be said to embody a society, and I won't
disagree, but what I will point out is that you are rejecting the
usage of semantic tools to describe politics, and that isn't helpful.

Is the U.S. more fascist than egalitarian?  Is it more capitalist than
socialist?  Is it more collectivist than libertarian?

Do you see where I'm driving?

The American concept of individual rights is tied directly to the
doctrine of egalitarianism.

----

# 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.

-----

>> But then, you've already exhibited a contempt for egalitarianism
>> (common among fascists) that would explain why you see no difference
>> between rights and privileges.
# 
# And of course, it is logical to say that if I have one trait in common
# with a facist, that makes me a facist.  A good, logical argument. ;->

No it isn't -- that's why I didn't say it.  I suggested it.  Should I
discover other traits you have in common with fascists, I may induce
that you are probably a fascist.
 
Besides, I was being coy: contempt for egalitarianism isn't merely a
`common' trait among fascists -- it's a *defining* trait.

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

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman