From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: pro-choice/pro-life/otherstuff
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:11:18 GMT
Organization: AT&T


> >ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
> Jesus, GMS, I hope you aren't a Catholic - I'm going to be not-nice below.
> 
> >>>>THE OPEN AVAILABILITY OF ALL OPTIONS IS THE ONLY WAY.  <== way radical idea!!
> >>But if we begin to interfere in each other's lives -- interference works
> >>both ways, so you've got a choice, strife or peace. If my abortion in
> >>California causes an acute moral reaction in a person in Louisiana,
> >>my assessment is that their ego-space is just a tad too large.
> >
> >Your assessment is subjective.  Those people don't feel that way.
> >Their "feeling" is subjective also.
> 
> ARGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH.
> 
> So whose feelings are more subjective? What Does It Prove!!
> And why debate the damn thing, when the debate is over how we Feel?

It proves that neither side is being logical, rational, objective
or sensible, and is affecting the feelings of the other side and 
justifying it by citing some "higher purpose" which is complete
bullshit.  Like animals in a zoo, but with the capacity of comfortable
rationalization.
> 
> "I feel it's wrong."
> "I feel your feelings are wrong."
> and on by induction.
> 
> - eh? There's a point?

No.  None at all.
> 
> >>Let us do as we choose, this is not an issue where either side can prove
> >>that they are thoroughly right. And not one which can be forced upon us
> >>for decision, either. If your beliefs come at me to injure me, I will injure
> >>you around your beliefs {which allow you to do so}, and if that doesn't
> >>stop you, I will injure you.

As above.

> >
> >This sounds like "battling sensitivities" rather than any kind of debate.
> 
> Well, what else are they.
> Let's get it clear. You wanna debate? Fine. Debate.
> You want me to suspend my personal freedom while it's happening? Nuh-uh.
> 
> And what about those maaaaany, maaaany people who DON'T GIVE A SHIT?
> Doesn't their opinion matter too? I happen to be one of them; I'm taking
> sides because sides are being drawn. Because in my own small mind, it's a
> NON ISSUE. And NO, I'm not going to invite Mrs. Carruthers over for tea
> every Sunday, so we can have a nice long genteel chat about it.

Heaven forbid.  Let's jump around and grunt at each other.  Then we
can throw stones and urinate on the parts of our personal doctrine
that will show the others what rational arguments we posess.
> 
> >>The arguments that say that since it's undecided, it should come down on the
> >>"side of caution" in favor of the fetus - those beliefs are part and parcel
> >>of the antiabortionist side. The antiabortionists do not admit the theoretical
> >>basis of the other side - the pro-choice world views. So fuck them. Reason
> >
> >This may be a practical alternative.  Not that it will satisfy the other
> >side, but then their position is just as subjective.
> 
> You don't address (either you've got some real stake in this, or you're pulling
> my leg across the Gulf of Mexico) - you don't address what happens when I just

I'm not sure what you're saying here.  Are you suggesting that if I don't
take a subjective, emotional, illogical position, then I must be teasing
you?  Clarify.

> don't fucking feel like doing something to placate some woman in Dothan,
> Alabama, or Muncie, Indiana, or - shades of close - Oakland, California, JUST
> BECAUSE they feel like it. I have to have a worldview which admits the mayhem
> their images invoke re: killing fetuses. Women abort naturally all the time.
> The Good Folk aren't having funerals for the miscarried Future Einsteins Future
> Hitlers, are they? You know, I empathized into this, really I did. The arg
> about potential is stupid. The arg about pain, well, how much is it and how
> long does it last? The "other side" hasn't the faintest fucking empathy for the

Are you trying to say that everyone that disagrees with you is a person that
"hasn't the faintest fucking empathy for the mother..."?    If you replace
"mother" with "child", you will have the same crap the baboons on television
with their cute "pro-life" (Oh, how utterly PC it is) placards spew.

Amazing how little value that cerebral cortex has shown.  What a waste
of evolution.  As someone once said, "Intelligence has few practical
applications."

> mother, her context, her future, etc. etc. and they Ain't Gonna Be There to
> wash them diapers neither. Oh, the anguish of a soul denied admission to the
> Earth! Like the soul in the body of the mother is dogshit! My stereotype of
> Catholicism says exactly that: mitigate suffering, but Never Prevent It. What

Let's get it straight, people.  I, Gilbert Mark Stewart, don't give two shits
about what Holy Book slogan X is in.  Put up or shut up.  If you don't have
something to bring to the debate table, kindly place it in the most con-
venient bodily orifice.  If it don't walk the walk, I ain't interested in the
talk.  Let's get back to the point.

> Morons. Better a family of ten Down's syndrome kids than two normal ones -
> because Life Is So Precious. Quantity ueber Quality any day of the week.
> Yeah - so if it's all relative and everyone has an opinion - here mine
> is TOO. Reason dictates, reason dictates Too. I have to factor objective

This use of Janusian thinking is rather creative, but by no means original.
There is no reason being used in the above.  If Catholics are your Favorite
Villain of Choice, fine.  I even agree with your sentiments regarding quantity
and quality.  I even have no use for the "well, we're all equal and precious"
crowd, whose reasoning implies, "then why should anyone strive to improve,
if it makes no difference".  But I had assumed you were intelligent 
enough, based upon prior writings, to see that all of those claims are
broad-brush generalizations.  This black-and-white thinking is exactly
the kind of crap some religious zealots have used that pisses you off.

> reality into my emotional decisions. When other people violate the quality of
> my life by trying to force me to live it to suit their taste, I'm going to
> get increasingly nasty - I have a say in this dump too. So when it gets real
> dirty and subjective - if you try to deprive me of my liberty with your false
> philosophy - hey, see it coming back at you. At the end of everything then,
> if it's all so very stupid as this, pro-choice will win because it's the age
> of Aquarius and the last official act of the pre-Aquarians will be to kill
> those who Don't Believe. Ouch! No, perverted as it sounds, I'll fight to the
> death to establish a religion of tolerance on the burial ground of the
> religions of intolerance - that's right, ironic and paradoxical as it is -
> there's the Subjective voice for you - I'll be tolerant of you if you're
> tolerant of me - otherwise all bets are off.

You're right.  It's ironic and paradoxical.  So, how do we address these
disagreements in which the two points are mutually exclusive?  Well, for
one, we have to realize that there is no "win-win" solution.  Those
proponents of "happy day thinking" have to become adults and realize that
they are overgeneralizing and that they don't have The Answer.  We also
have to realize that, having no "mutually agreeable solution", that they
have to learn to live as rational human beings, get their heads out of their
collective ass, and learn to live with the very Real Problem that won't
go away.  That there are people in the world that will do whatever the 
hell they want, and they should live with it or die unhappy.  You see,
I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions, nor am I agreeing with them.
I'm saying that attributing, or appearing to attribute, Evil Intentions
to a side, by oversimplifying the other position, by generalizing the
Other Side's viewpoint, you are doing the same goddam stupid crap that
will keep us all in a morass of dung for the next hundred years.

> 
> >>fair or eat it. They don't play fair. And they say they don't have to. No
> >>compromise with adults behaving like stupid children - and I *mean* stupid.
> >>Same animal drive that lets them equate "how I feel" == "what is fact",
> >>is the same animal drive that likes to fuck and makes babies in the absence
> >>of birth-control, thanks to - you guessed it.
> >
> >Not all babies or fetuses that are candidates for abortion come from
> >women who do not practice birth-control.  Further, your feeling that
> >the woman comes before the fetus in all cases is only a feeling as well.
> 
> The living woman can produce more fetuses, and she has a longstanding
> investment in her own current reality. The fetus has had no such contact
> with the world. So a vicious image: Let's kill the woman when the fetus
> becomes viable enough to survive on its own, and harvest fetuses. The women
> serve only to exist to produce more fetuses. I guess it's still Homo Sapiens,
> so who cares? Man on a liferaft with his pregnant wife. We don't know why,
> but suddenly she or the baby can stay, but not both. Okay, save the fetus,
> chuck the woman. Don't worry about the guy, life is meant to be suffered,
> so he's just doing his job and he can handle it anyway. The illogic of this
> position when taken to the extreme, at the very least highlights some of the
> considerations of the pro-choice view.

I understand.  Some of this may be traced to the longterm roles of male
as tool and provider, woman as baby machine.  I agree that this is no
longer appropriate.  Notice, however, how selective the changes are made
when each side gets to whine?  The changes fought for are those that will
benefit primarily the side complaining.  Surprising?  No, sadly.
> 
> >>Sorry, GMS, I'm a Capricorn, and practical about it. I don't have time to
> >
> >I am too.  What does this have to do with anything?  Do we die sooner than
> >most?
> 
> No, later, sorry.
> 
> >>waste debating it. There are times when I feel free to indulge my ardor at
> >>the expense of being open to rational discussion, and this is one of them.
> >
> >Anyone can choose to ignore logical debate.  It usually causes problems,
> >and sometimes results in being forced to face your unsupported assumptions,
> >causing the "image/reality" dichotomy to be obvious and uncomfortable, but
> >that's just the way it is.
> 
> Hey. My views ARE unsupported - is that all you want to hear?

There you go.  If 1% of the world would realize that, we'd both be happy,
I'll bet.

> It is not amenable to a logical discussion,

Wrong.

> I have to choose what to believe.

I agree.

> So I have.

It's only the conveyance of the reasoning behind it that I contest.
"Justification by sympathy."  "God told me personally."  "You're all
bastards, so I'm right."  That sort of thing.  I'm sure you've heard
them, and I'm pretty sure you've been as PO'd as I've been.

> So whoever thinks abortion is wrong has that freedom too, just
> not with my body. They don't feed, clothe and house my body, they don't have
> the deed to it, I don't remember getting a phone call telling me my ownership
> was transferred to someone else lately. So all of a sudden it's a life and
> death thing? Glad you know I was alive up till now. So when my religion
> demands a blood sacrifice, and when there are enough of me, I'm sure you'll
> be glad to comply with your sons and daughters just because I feel like it.
> I'm sure you'll just love having that abortion I want you to have because I
> say so. How long do I have to beat on this point?
> 
> >>{anticipate this offered to "other side as well"; read on.}
> >>When it comes time to *decide*, I say - let as all do for ourselves as our
> >>nature dictates to us as individuals. It's an arbitrary choice should we,
> >>or should we not, have the freedom while the issue is being discussed; but
> >>the issue is NOT symmetrical. The people who want to compel childbirth in
> >>no way suffer direct consequences for forcing others to do so. I will not
> >
> >This is usually true.  That is a good reason to doubt their relative
> >sincerity.  However, it is not a sufficient reason to say that they
> >are wrong.
> 
> I'm getting tired, so I'll wrap this up.
> Hey I'm just sure they're sincere as apple pie and I'll pack them off with

Yeah.  Everyone is.  That's what's scary about the whole damn thing.  Sincere
as the naked apes they are.

> a lunch and everything, thank you for the antiabortion tract and have a nice
> day, why of course I'm glad you're doing this work for the betterment of
> humanity and the greater glory of God so God bless you - money, oh why don't
> you leave me the address where I can mail it when I get my checks printed
> should be any day now.
> 
> Hey, I have compassion for 'them'. But I'm not blind and I have compassion
> for me too.
> 
> I'm sorry my way of life offends you; it's not meant to. SO TUNE OUT.
> Gotcherown life. Livit.
> 
> >>I don't mind offering rational discussion about it - but the opponent can't
> >>prove anything with me; nor I them. I show over and over again it comes down
> >>to emotional reasoning backed up by some rational thought, and ends up a
> 
> >Bingo.
> 
> What, is that all you wanted to hear? I could have said that days ago. Why
> didn't you just say so?

Well, I was pretty direct in addressing your reasoning, which was
generally concerned with attacking the other side with the same types
of emotional clash and erroneous argument the other side often uses.
I can understand someone feeling angry about a perceived slight, but
I still don't accept it as an argument.

> >>matter of belief. So if nothing else my *religion* says I have the right to
> >>an abortion and my *god* and *bible* say so too. No, no, no, they say, the
> >Guess I don't care about that.
> Bingo. Guess it takes one to know one.

One what?  If you mean you don't care about my not caring, that's good.
Certainly better than, "Well, God spoke to me," as I'm sure you'd agree.
> 
> >>Bible says "blah" and it also says "what the Bible says is true", so You're
> >>Wrong. How long do you want me to argue with someone like this? Fine: you
> >
> >The multiple interpretations of Bibilical information often seriously impede
> >its use as a reliable reference.  Since the author(s) are often only
> >accessible via lesser-credible intermediaries, an alternative to the
> >text-only version of the information is similarly hampered.
> 
> He's pulling my leg across the Gulf of Mexico after all.
> 
> >>got a closed mind, I got a closed mind. Equal rights again, thank you and
> >>goodbye, have a nice train ride back to Indiana or wherever {that's unfair,
> >>I know.}

It's all well and good for people to hand me this stuff like, "Well, we'll
just have to agree to disagree," or, "Well, that's my opinion, so there."
If the debate is about something which cannot be proven, like your point about
abortion.  Yes, any decision about it is by its very nature subjective.
However, when I hear that response to an argument regarding something which
should be discussed logically, this person is saying to me, "I'm not rational
and don't intend to be.  I'd rather attack the issue on irrational grounds,"
and it means that I should not discuss anything with this person, since they
have refused to think.  In the case of the abortion rights, the basic issue
is that the "arguments" the two sides use to "debate" this issue tend to 
be so much mudslinging and horseshit.

> >>It touches a nerve, GMS, because these people live in a monochromatic world.
> >
> >Guess I don't care about this either.  Lot's of people have said stupid
> >things to me and then said, "It's a sore spot," as though I'm supposed to
> >agree with them because of it.  Basically, "It's a sore spot," is my cue
> >to interpret that as, "Ignore what I have just said."
> 
> That's "lots". Curious how you can see them feel X, and refer to themselves
> feeling X, and they still want to avoid X, as if the avoidance made X not-
> happen. But Denial is a pernicious addiction. I should know.

You're right.  Arguing illogically is a way for them to ignore the basic issue
as well, you'll agree.
> 
> >>A lot of people will have to die, before the remainder will be happy living
> >>in one. I like people better than that. And I'd be one of the dead ones.
> >
> >Why is that?  You might find that people will get more reasonable.  I
> >realize there are lots of ridiculously irrational people out there, but
> >as a whole, I think people make more sense today than history would
> >portray.  As with many things, this feeling I have is a "leap of faith"
> >as well.  I can't prove it, but it's probably better than assuming that
> >the world will not be a better place unless you're dead.
> 
> Different discoursal worlds. Context shifts. Mumbling incomprehensible.
> (Me, not you.)
> 
> >Frankly, it becomes a matter of group A doing and believing X and group
> >B doing and believing Y, and a power struggle.  However it turns out,
> >it is incorrect to glorify a simple choice of X or Y as being the
> >Right Way, when neither group can prove it either way.  The only honest
> >approach to this is, "I'm doing this because I feel most comfortable
> >with this alternative."
> 
> How come I get to put the philosophy out, and you get to take credit for
> it? I'm sort of tall and thin, like Stan Laurel - I guess that makes you ...

Depends who's on first.

Seriously, though, I get the feeling you agree with my position regarding
the logic/non-logic of abortion debates and, for that matter, most "debates"
we see in the media and between "thinking" people.  And my only point is
that they are not fruitful, and if we could clear this smog away, we
might have time to deal with real problems and real issues.  Wouldn't it
be nice if folks could say, "Yes, we have a basic difference in assumption.
We're wasting our time yelling about this."  'Course, it could be scary,
what with all the people having all that time to think...


GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa