From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:47:47 GMT

In article <vydn_bl.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>Thus spake shou@midway.uchicago.edu: 
>
>>Does this right also apply to people under the age of 18?  If so, can we
>>not make the same kind of argument regarding sexual realtions between minors
>>and adults?  In other words, in addition to allowing prostitution, fairness
>>dictates that we also repeal laws against statutory rape.    While we're at 
>>it, we ought to repeal laws against incest between consulting adults.  My 
>>point is that an activity ought not be considered a "right" just because
>>it is available and can arguably be said not to hurt anyone.  There is a
>>justifiable concern for the "social fabric."
>>
>	Lets look at your questions individually.
>
>	Statutory rape: SOME reasonable limit must be placed on the age at
>which an individual is deemed mature enough to make their own decisions and
>to assume responsibility for those decisions. If an individual has reached
>that age (whether it is set at 18, 16, or some other age), then society has
>no right to intervene in decisions which involve only that individual and
>other consenting individuals.  Statutory rape laws imply the inability to
>provide INFORMED consent, on the part of one party.
>
Just a sec. Isn't your "reasonable limit" just another convenient fiction?
I mean isn't it socially determined?  Isn't any restriction you impose
just an arbitrary limitation of some people's right to do what they want with
their own body?  And anyway, how _about_ the right of a 13 year old to have
an abortion against their parents wishes?  You didn't quite get to that. 


>	Incest between consenting adults: Certainly such laws should be

>revoked. Only two reasons exist for their existance:
>
>	1. Incest is against religious strictures.
>
>	2. Incest increases the chances of genetic defects in children.
>
>	Obviously, the first point is not a valid one on which to base a law
>(religious strictures have no validity with respect to US law - although in
>some nations that is not the case).
 

[points on incest between adults deleted]

>
>	Contrary to your argument, there IS no social fabric to consider.
>Society is nothing but a collection of individuals - to claim that removing
>the rights of those individuals is a benefit to society is, therefore, a
>convenient fiction to cover the actual act of dictating the morality of
>others based on one's OWN perceptions of what is "right."
 
How then does this jibe with your allowal of statutory rape laws?  They
could easily be seen as some sort of "convenient fiction" used to dictate
morality. 
>
>

[my points about 9th month abortions deleted]

>	On the contrary, once the fetus becomes viable legitimate arguments
>DO exist with respect to limiting abortion. Notice I said LIMITING, not
>banning outright. If the life of the mother is at stake, NO limit on
>abortion is valid - ANY such limit constitites murder by fiat!
>
I whole heartedly agree with your last point here.  But my point is
that when you talk about "viability" and "limiting abortion" you are
moving toward an area the boundaries of which are fairly unclear.  We
can really only probably reach an approximate understanding of "viability"
--most likely only an arbitrary one, and the "limits" you suggest for
abortion will again be socially dictated.  I can see that you are 
coming from what seems to be an anarchistic position (no slam intended),
but you also seem to want to have things both ways--no interference, but
then again, maybe a little here and there.

>
>>Actually, I don't think most Dems would support this, any more than most
>>Reps want to deny abortions to women in life threatening situations.  And
>>in any event (even though it has not a snowball's chance in hell of passing),
>>the so called "human life amendment" allows abortion when the mother's life
>>is threatened.
>>
>	And that's about it. How generous of you.
 
What is this supposed to mean?  Are you offended by those who disagree
with you?


-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu