From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Equal protection dead end? 4.
Date: 28 Dec 92 01:11:15 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <34559@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.172635.27009@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>(Kevin Darcy) writes: 
>
>>It has not been proven that the primary intent of the legislative agenda is
>>to restrict the rights of women. The position of pro-life has been, is, and
>>probably always will be, to protect fetal life.
>
>The discriminatory effect that would result from the actions of
>putatively sentient fetus fanatics is proof enough for me.  Feel free
>to believe what you like about the adequacy of this proof.
>
>>That's ridiculous, as I have pointed out repeatedly. The sinking of the
>>Titanic killed more men than women. Are icebergs misogynistic? The attack
>>on the marine base in Beirut killed more men than women? Do you think the
>>terrorists were misandrist? Just because something bad affects one class
>>of people more than another is *NOT* even plausible evidence that the
>>motivation was to discriminate against that class. You're grasping at
>>straws.
>
>(1) The iceberg was not sentient; fetus fanatics are reputed to be.

"Sentience" != "malice".

>(2) The terrorist would have gladly killed any and all women who were
>at the base.  The fetus fanatics seem to only want to protect life
>when it is in the body of a woman.  

Duh. When the fetus is removed from a woman, and lives, we don't call
it a "fetus" anymore, we call it a "baby" or "child". So, it's true, but
only BY DEFINITION, that a "fetus fanatic" [sic] cares about life that's
in the body of a woman. This is not sufficient proof, however, that they
bear any ill-will towards women. It IS fairly convincing proof, however,
that they seek to protect fetuses.

>(3) You should inform all your
>beloved legal scholars that they should now start rejecting all equal
>pay for identical work claims that merely establish that men and women
>doing identical work are paid different wages.  

As explained in another post, the Equal Opportunity legislation is 
written explicitly in such a way to relieve the claimants of this burden
of proof. But the Constitution is not. So, if you want to make a 
Constitutional claim, I think you should probably drop this "equal pay
for equal work" nonsense...

>Tell them they need a smoking done to do anything.

Say what?

>>Oh, I see. Pro-lifers are presumed guilty of misogyny until they "prove"
>>themselves innocent to your satisfaction, eh? And you deny that this is
>>a witch hunt?
>
>I guess all those wicked McCarthyites who dare to press litigation
>just because some employer pays men and women or whites and people of
>color different wages are just on a witch hunt.

Are you equating moral pronouncements with the mundane details of litigating
an Equal Opportunity claim? What a warped perspective.

>>It has little or nothing to do with her ABILITY to make judgments, Stephen.
>>It has everything to do with her PRIORITIES. Pro-lifers seem to think that
>>fetuses aren't attributed the proper value by some women. That has nothing
>>to do with "benefit of the doubt". It's just a disagreement over what 
>>constitutes a minimum acceptable valuation of the fetus. Reasonable people
>>CAN disagree over such things, Stephen. It disgusts me when people assume
>>that just because someone disagrees with them, that they are afflicted
>>by all sorts of malicious motives -- they're a misogynist, a control
>>freak, or whatever. All you do is stifle rational debate when you spout
>>unsubstantiated charges like that.
>
>Pure semantics: You don't call setting priorities a judgment?  

Sigh. Yes, it's a "judgment", Stephen, but it's not a judgment of ABILITY,
it's a judgment of PRIORITIES. Can't you read?

>I have
>no problem when reasonable people disagree about the proper valuation
>of a fetus in the abstract.  I would venture a guess that Steve Adams
>and I would disagree about the morality of certain abortions.  We
>could have a rational discussion about this and might learn something
>from one another.  As far as I'm concerned, the stifling of rational
>debate starts when someone advocates a legislative agenda that forces
>women to behave as if they agree with that person.

Ah, so it's okay for your view to be the Law of the Land, but not okay
for a pro-lifer's view to be the Law of the Land, even though your views
both meet the criteria of "rational"?? Sounds a little biased to me. You're 
the one who keeps blabbering about how rights are "socially constructed", 
Stephen, so if a clear and convincing majority of the populace agreed to 
outlaw abortion, and their representatives accurately represented that view, 
then by your reasoning, there is no reason in the world why abortions 
shouldn't be outlawed, right?

Or are you trying to trap pro-lifers in a Catch-22 situation, whereby you
hold up their attempts to legislate their views as discriminatory and EP-
violative IN AND OF ITSELF. It doesn't work that way, Stephen. The law doesn't
see any distinction between merely HOLDING a view on social policy, and
attempting, peacefully, to IMPLEMENT that view legislatively.

>>The bazillionth time, Stephen, pro-lifers are NOT accusing women of being
>>unable to make decisions about their bodies. They seek to protect fetuses,
>>and unless you have proof of anything more than that, I would ask you to 
>>stop throwing around baseless accusations.
>
>I'm afraid we just disagree.  I find the forced pregnancy position to
>be inherently and improperly interventionist in the lives of women.

That is an irrational belief, as I have pointed out. Pro-lifers' primary
concern is to protect fetal life. They may be callous and inconsiderate
of women, perhaps, but there is no independent evidence I can see that
pro-life is inherently misogynistic.

>I don't see how this can be separated from a judgment that women are
>incapable of making decision about their own bodies.

Stephen, do you see a difference between

	X is incapable of making a decision

		and	

	X is incapable of making the RIGHT decision

I may be incapable of deciding what to eat tonight. So, maybe I'll skip it,
and have a big breakfast tomorrow instead. That is NOT the same thing as
saying I'm capable of making the RIGHT decision about what to eat -- 
nutritionally, economically, or whatever. Pro-lifers, by and large, don't
claim that a woman CAN'T make a decision. In fact, I think they'd be very
happy if she COULDN'T make the decision, because the "default" condition,
when no decision is made, is for the pregnancy to continue. What they
claim is that the decisions that some women are capable of, and DO make,
don't reflect the "proper" valuation of a fetus. That's a very different
claim. Please learn to distinguish between ability and rightness.

>>Again, you're stretching the term beyond the breaking point. Just because
>>something has to with "accusations, evidence, and guilt" doesn't mean it's
>>a witch hunt. Are laws against shoplifting "witch hunts"? A witch hunt 
>>occurs when someone pursues and/or apprehends someone else, based on scant
>>or non-existent evidence. Do you have any proof that the proposed abortion 
>>restrictions would not follow the same rules of evidence that all other
>>convictions require? In the absence of such proof, I do not see that the
>>term "witch hunt" is warranted.
>
>The proof is the discriminatory effect.  Sometimes effect is warranted
>to be sufficient evidence, e.g., equal pay for identical work.

Not when adjudicating Constitutional Equal Protection claims.

>Sometimes it is not warranted to be sufficient, e.g., equal pay for
>comparable work.  I think it is sufficient in this case; you think it
>is not.  I guess we disagree.

Your equation of discriminatory effects with discrimination itself is
irrational, as has already been shown.

>>>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?
>>
>>Where did I commit this alleged "minimization"?
>
>When you stated that a pro-life legislative agenda does not imply that
>women cannot make judgements about their own medical care and bodies.
>primarily at restricting the rights of women.  For example: 
>
>>The bazillionth time, Stephen, pro-lifers are NOT accusing women of being
>>unable to make decisions about their bodies. 
>
>I don't even know how anyone could believe this long enough to get the
>message to their fingers to type it.

Believe it, Stephen. The ability to make a decision, and the ability to make
the RIGHT decision, are not the same thing at all.

Are you really so dim, that this distinction completely escapes you?
It's really NOT that subtle, even...

>>>I have never elevated my belief that pro-forced pregnancy is motivated
>>>by malice against women beyond what it is: my belief.  
>>
>>You have accused all pro-lifers of being misogynists.
>
>And at all points made it clear that this is my belief.

Ah, but you also universalize that "belief". Look above, where you fake
disbelief that anyone could have an opinion which differed from yours -- 
("I don't know how anyone could believe this..."). When you universalize
like that, you begin to sound like you're passing off this irrational
belief as an objective fact. And that's where you draw the ire of those
who do not necessarily agree with you. Watch the way you express your
irrational beliefs, Stephen, and you'll save yourself a lot of trouble.

>>You arguments have been refuted. Your belief is irrational.
>
>You have never refuted the fact that forced pregnancy has a
>discriminatory effect on women.

So? That's not a sufficient proof of discriminatory intent.

>>Oh, then do you think Don Beaver is a pro-life then, a fact that Adrienne
>>ADMITS she can't substantiate, but refuses to retract?
>
>I cry myself to sleep about it.  As someone who does empirical studies
>of the diffusion of anti-discrimination law and organizational
>responses, I find the worldview of the soc.men crowd to be completely
>detached from reality.  

Huh? What does that have to do with Adrienne's false and unretracted claim 
that Don Beaver is a pro-lifer? Are you on medication?

>An overall claim that men are disadvantaged
>relative to women in our legal system is so far-fetched as to be
>detached from reality.

I agree. But what Don Beaver has been arguing is not an "overall" claim.
It's a claim that SPECIFICALLY in the area of family law, men are
disadvantaged. And, unless you have proof to the contrary, I'm going to
believe the proof I've already seen presented in support of that claim.

>>>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.
>>
>>Don't make accusations of fact unless you can back them up. 
>
>What exactly is an accusation of fact?  

"X did Y". As opposed to e.g. "I believe X is Y".

>>Discriminatory
>>effect is NOT sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent, and your claim
>>of misogyny hinges on a proof of discriminatory intent. Your claim fails
>>miserably.
>
>Says you.  I say differently.  I guess we just disagree.

Your belief is not rational, however, as I have shown. Discriminatory effect
is no more "proof" of discriminatory intent than an overturned lawn chair
is "proof" that a tornado recently swept through the vicinity. Sure, if a
tornado DID happen, the lawn chair would probably be overturned. But the
implication doesn't work in reverse.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion