From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Back from Texas - 1 of 2
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:54:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: bmw.1992Apr8.195423.484
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource

In article <31244@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr7.135505.21575@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu writes:
|> >In article <31067@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
|>  
|> 
|>  What anti-murder laws codify is a concencous (not a 
|> >majority) opinion that the willful termination of born human life is wrong. To
|> >reinforce this opinion, sanctions are imposed on those proven to have violated
|> >these laws, with the strengh of the sanctions modified to be appropriate to 
|> >the degree of "wrongness" of the crime.
|> >
|> 
|> Suppose that was what proposed anti-abortion laws did.
|> 

If anti-abortion laws codified societal consensus, fine. However,
this requires:
	1) consensus on the beliefs the laws are to codify
	2) consensus be 100% agreement (not majority rule)

|> Surely it is the same "consensus" that matters ... as it does for murder.
|> 
|> Noone complains that people who don't accept that human persons shouldnt be
|> murdered, should be exempted from prosecution.
|> (Or at least if they do, we ignore them).
|>

Perhaps this is because the belief that is codified by anti-murder
laws is that it is wrong for someone else to kill me, rather then
(by your assumption) it is wrong for me to kill someone else.
 
|> So why should we listen to women who believe that they have a right-to-choose
|> when it comes to removing a foetus from their womb?
|>

Because, if we are to come to consensus, we are required to listen
to all opinions, irregardless of their validity.
 
|> UNLESS of course the usual democratic process dictates that we should listen
|> to them.
|> 
|> Surely the issue is a simple one - of consensus?
|>

Simple no. Consensus yes. The process of consensus is much more 
complicated the simple democratic rule. It requires listening
to ALL opinions, and developing a course of action that ALL can
agree on. It also requires taking no action until consensus is
reached.
  
|> >Anti-abortion laws are an attempt to codify an opinion that women
|> >do not have the right to self-determination.
|> 
|> Thats true - in the case of pregnancy, they don't (or shouldn't).
|> 
|> But they don't even enjoy total self-determination now!
|>

That's the point. Men, are allowed self-determination, women are
not. Your reason, men don't get pregnant. However women who are
unable to become pregnant are not allowed self-determination 
either, so your reason is incorrect. The reason is that women
have the potential to become pregnant irregardless of ability.
 
|> > By implication, this reinforces
|> >an attitude that there are distinctions between men and women based on gender.
|> 
|> You see a problem with that?
|> Of course there are such distinctions.
|>

Yes, since it implies a class system based on the amount an individual
contributes to the reproductive process. The distinctions you wish
to codify as law seem to be backwards as they place the most
restrictions on the (reproductively) more important individual.
 
|> >It is not fear that should restrain you from enacting such laws, but rather
|> >a sense of equality.
|> 
|> But I don't accept that men and women are equal when it comes to foetuses.
|> 
|> Men don't get pregnant.
|> 
|> *If* they did - then they should be bound by the same rules.
|>

So, you feel that it is acceptable to generate laws based on 
physiological differences irregardless of how these distinctions
are exhibited by individuals.

Thus, since testosterone increases violent tendencies, laws that
are designed to prevent violent actions should require more 
severe penalties for men then women.
  
|> 
|> >|> 	BUT, all legislation is like that.  
|> >|> 	All legislation imposes.
|> >
|> >Not all legislation imposes bigotted prejudices. 
|> 
|> To someone who believes that they have a right or duty to withold taxes,
|> tax law imposes bigotted prejudice.
|> 
|> To someone who believes that women are there for the raping, rape laws
|> impose bigotted prejudice.
|>

These laws may be bigotted, but they don't prejudge the worth of the
individuals they attempt to control. They are also applied equally
to all members of society.
 
|> If laws impose at all, then they all do it - and in a "bigotted" way to boot - 
|> anti-abortion laws too.
|>

Laws against abortion, by your own admission, prejudge the worth of the
individuals they attempt to control. These cannot be applied equally to 
all members of society.
 

|> 
|> >Because, in most cases, they are based on a formal religion, typically a 
|> >patriarchally ruled religion, and not on beliefs held by all members of 
|> >society. They also tend to ignore the tenants & beliefs of faiths outside of 
|> >the scope of the particular religion of the persons proposing the legislation.
|> 
|> Not in my case!
|> 
|> I just believe that foetuses should be protected because I like foetuses.
|> Unless a woman is going to die or be damn near it, I want the woman to leave
|> the fetus alone!  JUST 'cos I believe it.
|>

Fine, you're an individual, in your case you ignore the tenants and beliefs
of all faiths outside the scope of your opinion. In fact, you may be ignoring
opinions outside the scope of your opinion.
 
|> Just the same type of unprovable tenants & beliefs that all our other laws are
|> based on.
|> 
|> Murder - based on a value for either others lives or my life.
|> Rape - based on a value for women (mostly).
|> Robbery - based on a value of an individual's right to property.
|> 
|> 	(or whatever!)
|> 
|> I agree with those beliefs and values - but can I *prove* them?  Nope!
|>

But you can state the consensus upon which they are based. Can you state
the consensus for an anti-abortion law?
 
|> 	"tend to ignore the tenants & beliefs of faiths outside of 
|> 	 the scope of the particular religion of the persons proposing the 
|> 	 legislation"
|> 
|> All laws are like that.  The difference with the laws we have - as opposed to
|> the proposed laws - is that generally, the enacted ones are believed in
|> by CONSENSUS.
|>
The enacted laws are also applied equally to all members of society. The 
proposed laws can not be applied equally to all members of society.

|> >They are very different.
|> >	1) there is no concencous as to the correctness of the legislation
|> 
|> 	Well if thats all - then no problem.  But lets not talk about
|> 	"pro-choice" and "anti-choice" then.  Lets just stick to
|> 	"pro-consensus".
|> 	Me, I'm pro-consensus.
|> 
|> 	If due process of democracy allows abortion, tuff for me - and tuff
|> 	for the foetuses.
|>

No, you are not pro-consensus, as, you show little understanding of the
process. You may be pro-majority rules, but not pro-consensus.
 
|> 	Are you prepared to say the same, if due process bans abortion?
|> 	Are you - like me - "pro-consensus"?
|>

If societal consensus bans abortion fine, if not fine. However, consensus
requires 100% agreement on the correct course of action before any action
may be taken (this includes changing the status quo).
 

-- 
--Bruce

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
				Gandhi
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion