From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Jan 1993 18:29:01 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <lme140INNb0t@sahara.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>In article <1k6bmsINNg34@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <lmc1u2INNij5@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:

>>>"Regardless" is definitely not the word I would use.  I would be more along
>>>the lines of "despite the importance".
>>>PLEASE understand that I in no way treat ANYONE'S rights as unimportant.
>>You know, I'm not too concerned with what words you would use to describe
>>this, Paul.  And I'm not too concerned that you *think* you 'in no way'
>>treat anyone's rights as unimportant.

>Are you saying that I _am_ treating anyone's rights as unimportant?  Namely
>women's?  

I did ask how you would vote.  Your private opinion is not my concern.  Your
vote is.  If you would in fact vote to restrict a woman's right to abortion,
then, yes, I'm saying you are treating the woman's rights as unimportant.
You admitted yourself in a prior posting that you aren't even settled on the
fetus as having *equal* rights, yet, but if you would vote to restrict a
woman's right to abort, you are voting to remove her rights to her own body.
And that looks pretty much like treating her rights as unimportant to me.

>I thought I had made the opposite clear. 

Uh, you *said* that you respect her rights.  You also *said* that you would
vote to remove her rights.  It looked inconsistant to me, too.

>Do you understand that I am forced to make what appears to me to
>be a choice between two fundamental rights?  

No, I don't, because unless I've badly misread you, (which I doubt, but then
the quote isn't in front of me at this moment, so it's possible) you said you
weren't even yet yourself convinced of the fetus' rights.  Therefore you are
not choosing between two fundamental rights, but between and absolutely 
established fundamental right (the woman's) and a maybe-kinda-I'm-no-sure
fundamental right (the fetus').

>If you were forced to choose
>between two fundamental rights, what would you do? 

I wouldn't.  I don't think that fundamental rights conflict.  The POINT of
individuality is that INDIVIDUALS have it.  A fetus, within the body of another
person doesn't qualify.  

And, Paul, EVEN IF it did qualify, you would have to give it MORE rights in
order to allow it to live at the woman's protest because NO OTHER HUMAN has
the right to use the body of a woman against her will.  You would have to
go out and *create* a new 'fundamental' right that would cause all kinds of
problems for women, and thus, all kinds of problems for our society.  I'd
advise against it.


> This is not a rhetorical
>question; I urge you to answer it.  How could you choose, without being
>viewed as treating the other "right" as unimportant? 

I don't think a fetus *can* have rights.  SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE giving rights
to a fetus would create problems in the entire rights stream structure we have
created for our country.  Fundamental rights mean they are pretty obvious,
and desireable.  Awarding rights to fetuses, and accepting the concommittant
problems of doing so, is neither obvious nor desireable.

>And of course, you say that you are not concerned with my position on that
>point.  This is not _my_ way; I am quite concerned with _your_ position on
>this.

I really only mean to say that I respect your right to your own opinion, and
haven't any interest in getting into semantic arguments.  Obviously we are
sharing a discussion on a public net, therefore one can reasonably conclude
that we are both at least marginally interested in the discussion.  The point
at which I would (and did) step in to question your opinion is the point at
which you would use the force of law (by virtue of your vote on the subject)
to force your opinion upon me.  Then it's no longer just your opinion, right?

>You have said repeatedly that restricting abortion restricts women's
>rights, no doubt with the intent of getting me to finally acknowledge it.
>I have strived to indicate in my prior posts that I have already acknowledged
>it.

But then come back and say that a woman's fundamental rights are 'not
unimportant'?  How do you reconcile these statements?  How can *you*
possibly come to this kind of conclusion for someone else?

>I have similarly said repeatedly that the evidence on hand causes me to
>believe that allowing abortion to remain legal gives unborn children no
>liberties at all,

Somehow the notion of liberties for unborn children escapes me, entirely.

>I stated furthermore that it
>is arguable whether or not unborn children are entitled to these liberties.
>If you believed that they were indeed entitled to them, do you see why I
>would feel this way?  This is also not a rhetorical question; I look
>forward to your answer.

No.  (1) you haven't a settled opinion yet on the matter of the 'liberties'
to be given an unborn child.  (2) Since you don't pay the cost, I consider
your voice to have little legitimate weight beside the voice of the person
who WOULD bear the cost (the woman).  (3) Given your doubt about the nature
of the fetus, I cannot IMAGINE how you could inhibit the freedoms of KNOWN
persons!      

And, of course, (4) even if you were settled in your mind that fetus' have
'rights' that would be infringed by abortion, you would need to award that
fetus further rights that no other human being on this planet enjoys in order
to restrict the woman from aborting it.  And that's a stretch I challenge
any thinking person to attempt to justify.

>>Paul, are *you* reading what you write?  You are proposing that it is right
>>and just and compelling to REMOVE the RIGHTS of a 100% KNOWN human being
>>in favor of a maybe-we-aren't-sure-perhaps human being.  And then you are
>>padding that decision with all kinds of rationalization to make it look 
>>better. And, you are ignoring the fact that you would not only give to the
>>maybe-we-aren't-sure-perhaps human being _more_ rights than even the other
>>100% known human beings on this planet have -- i.e., the right to use the
>>body of another human being against their will.

>By restricting abortion I would be only restricting women's liberties, not
>removing them.

Oh, like KIDNAPPING is only 'restricting a woman's liberties'?  Like RAPE
is only 'restricting a woman's liberties'?  Like locking her in a padded
cell, and feeding her only state approved foods, all for the benefit of 
the unborn child, would be only 'restricting a woman's liberties'?  

This is supposed to look somehow OK?

>Which outweighs the other,
>definite restriction of liberty, or the possible denial of it altogether?

I think that taking a woman's liberty away, for a period of 9 months 
against her will *IS* denying it altogether.  What is the point behind
having a 'freedom' if it is seized against one's will?  That's not freedom.
That's a convenient sleight of hand practiced by a 'benevolent government.'

Definite restriction of liberty is one of the reasons we have fought war
after bloody war.  Why men and women of good conscience have fought and
DIED -- surrendered their LIVES -- to oppose such oppression.  Think again.

>However, so far, the evidence on hand
>leads me to believe that a fetus should be entitled to these liberties we
>speak of, so I, myself, must still favor them.

I'm not arguing the evidence on hand, because I haven't yet seen one spark
of evidence that convinced me, but we are curious since you keep bringing it
up.  I will point out that, even with INCONTROVERTABLE evidence, I don't
think you can rationally or logically award special rights to fetuses, but
you might consider posting your 'evidence' (perhaps under another heading)
so people can see what you find so compelling.

>, I am doing my utmost to remain deadly serious, sober, and
>reasonable, and I would appreciate other readers' input on how well I am
>doing in this respect, in addition to your own input. 

I think you are doing fine.  I don't need your shots at my emotional state,
of course, but it doesn't really matter.  You know what's likely to come back.

>And your point, once again, if I do not miss
>it, is that I would be restricting women's liberties by advocating
>restrictions on abortion.  I hope, by my earlier writings, that you
>understand that this point has been anything but ignored.

But you will do it anyway.  

Why is that?

Because you are not sure, you will restrict women.  Why is that?

You know, when doctors are not sure, they *don't* operate.
When juries are not sure, they *don't* convict.

Why would you act to restrict women when you admit you are not sure? 

>>Wiser for who?  Better for who?  At whose cost?  These are easy words to say
>>when we aren't talking about your rights, aren't they Paul?
>>Now, before you go off on 'emotional' again, think about the question.  These
>>are easy words to say when we aren't talking about your rights, aren't they
>>Paul?  It's a question.  It challenges you to investigate deep down just
>>how hard it *really* is for you to come to conclusions about a situation 
>>you will never share, and about the very threat to my most integral person-
>>hood that you will never face.  I suggest to you that you should recognise
>>this difference, and turn each proposition mentioned on this net around to
>>view how 'emotional' you would be if we were speaking of a real threat to
>>*your* freedoms.
>
>I shall do my best to demonstrate that I am indeed thinking about the
>four-part question you just asked.
>
>It is perhaps axiomatic that emotion degrades judgement. 

(?????!!  It is also axiomatic, if you want to look at it this way, that
people NEVER make judgements in the absense of emotion.  What does this mean?)

>...
>So I try to keep my emotion out of it.

>Any person in a high emotional state would have their judgement worsened, so
>this is both wiser and better for everyone.  There is no cost to calming the
>emotion besides time, so I assume that is not what you meant; rather that
>making such unemotional judgement would exact a cost on women.  And with this
>comes the answer to the final question.  Were it to be my rights or liberties
>that are at stake, I would opt for everyone to make a rational decision over
>an emotional one in an instant. 

We just recently went through a funny little exercise here in talk.abortion,
Paul, where the population of talk.abortion was invited to vote on whether
or not an outspoken poster (who didn't seem to have a firm grasp of the Bill
of Rights) was going to have to be strapped to his chair for 3 weeks.  Now, 
sure, it was silly, and we all had a good kick out of it, but the vote was
something like 13 to 2, yes, he did have to be strapped to his chair for
3 weeks.  I think we all had a good time, but I think many of us were
rational and unemotional (as humans get) in exposing to this particular
poster that his understanding of the Bill of Rights could probably be im-
proved with some study.  Many of us were quite serious in our intention 
with the lesson.  Maybe you observed this little object lesson.

Do I understand from the above that you would consent to being strapped to
your chair for 3 weeks if we 'rationally' and 'unemotionally' decided that
you should be?  I hope not.

You do understand, of course, that we could all here rationally and unemo-
tionally decide that you, Paul Brinkley, should now pay all our credit card
bills until the balance is satisfied, too.  Why would *that* be a mistaken
notion?  Do you begin to see why I figure *you* deciding for *women* whose
bodies are going to be harmed somehow smells of old fish?

>If you wish to change my mind, do not appeal to my emotion; rather, prove
>that my assumptions are not true.

Good idea.  Read the above.

>>Gee, why go that far?  You could simply pay a woman who was going to abort
>>because of financial problems, and let *her* keep it.  Or you could take
>>up rocker on her fisting offer.  If you *really* value the fetus, that is.
>
>Go this far?  It seemed like I wasn't going far enough.  :)  If you're
>saying that providing for a woman's financial needs is a reasonable solution,
>I would go for that, within reason.  However, I am unfamiliar with rocker's
>"fisting" offer.

Ah, but Paul, what is 'within reason'?  You would vote to require women -- all
women presumably -- to bear children against their will.  Are you willing and
able to support ALL these women in their financial difficulty?

It has been pointed out that many women abort children that they cannot 
afford to have.  I have done this myself because the inclusion into my 
household of a third child would have seriously undermined my ability to
raise and educate my two existing children.  I would have loved a third
child.  It would only have run you about $150,000 to change my mind.....

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality