From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns (was Re: Observations)
Summary: Long-winded flamewar.
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:34:41 GMT

#    -- stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
>>   -- bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
###  -- stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)

>> [waxing on the subject of inherent patriarchal sexism]
>> ...Are you satisfied yet, or must I wax further?
# 
# I understand you now.  I just think you are confused.  You ascribe beliefs
# to others that they never professed.

Technically, I didn't.  I expressed my opinion that others may hold
beliefs they have never professed.

#                                      I've never heard anybody, pro-abort
# or pro-life, say that ONLY the man should have the say in when a woman
# gives birth. [...]

I have.  And they show up every Thursday and Friday in front of a
women's health clinic in Redwood City, California.  None of them are
pro-choice.

# And I don't see any connection between the exception for rape, and
# patriarchal sexism.  It would seem to serve the interests of all parties.

The crucial word in the above is `exception.'  Need I explain in
excruciating detail?  Yes, I think I should.

The patriarchal view is that women should not have the right to
abortion.  The reason: it gives women the power to control
reproduction.  In the patriarchal mind, that power should rest with
men, i.e. men decide when to have sex, men decide when to have
children -- an unwanted pregnancy (from a man's point of view) is a
man's problem, and the patriarchal solution is to punish the man
with a punishment the patriarchy thinks is suitable.

Also, the patriarchal view is that women should be given an exception
to the no-abortion rule for cases of rape (incest is a different
matter and I won't explain).  The reason: it allows men to escape
becoming fathers of children they did not conceive -- few women, the
thinking goes, will opt to bear a child of rape if given the
exception, and those that would can probably be pressured.

Thus, the exception seems to serve the woman's interest, but the
actual prohibition doesn't.  The exception is there because of
patriarchal concerns, not out of any concern for women.

Do you need any further help?

-----

>> I agree with you that some people do not consider abortion to be a
>> responsible course of action.  You should also agree with me that some
>> people (not necessarily the same people) consider mandatory
>> sterilization and coerced abortion good public policy.
>> 
>> What's yer point?
# 
# That EVERYBODY wants to impose their beliefs on the rest of the country.
# 
# It isn't just the pro-lifers, the pro-aborts are doing the same.

Hmmm.  I suppose you're right.  The pro-life types want to put the
FacelessGodlessFascistTechnoHorrorAuthorities (to coin a drieuxism) in
a position to grant yea or nea permission to women seeking abortions.
And we pro-choice types want to impose our SavageBarbaricPaganHeresies
by denying the mandatory sterilization nazis and coerced abortion
fiends a chance to control public policy.  Has anybody got any respect
for opposing viewpoints, anymore?

You *can* do better than that, I presume?

-----

### What bozo is this?  A name would be appreciated.  I think he/she has
### been misinterpreted on any number of occasions.
>> 
>> I can't believe you're chewing on this.
# 
# Why not?  I consider it the heart of the issue.  People on both sides
# keep harping about rights, but so far, nobody seems to be willing to
# admit that what rights we humans give ourselves, are based in our
# belief systems.
# 
# Different belief systems, different rights.

Oh, I suppose you might be one of them there anarchist types, in which
case we'll have a quite a bit to argue about (but not on t.a)
concerning the following:

Part of the foundation of society is its rule of law, and law is best
formed by the building of consensus about what rights individuals have
and what powers government should be authorized to have.

People have different belief systems, but it's a fundamental principle
of an egalitarian society that every individual has the same rights.
Which is why I **VEHEMENTLY** disagree with your concept of `different
belief systems, different rights.'  *I* like egalitarianism.

The net result is that when society arrives at a consensus about what
rights individuals must have, some people with opposing belief systems
will be disappointed -- if this is unacceptable, the problem is with
the entire concept of law itself.  If that's what you want to argue, I
suggest you take it up with the Libertarians who can probably most
easily be found in alt.politics.marrou -- they love to chew on that
bone.

# Saying that 'outlawing abortion violates a woman's right to bodily
# autonomy' does not give the speaker the moral high ground.  It just
# makes her look ignorant.  WHAT RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY?

The right to bodily autonomy that our society has arrived at by
consensus.  Or do you want to question that assertion?  Go right
ahead, but here's a few examples where the State has generally not
been given a compelling interest in violating the right:

	1. I have a right to masturbate in private.

	2. I have a right to smoke cigarettes in my home.

	3. The state does not have the power to give me an
	   identification tattoo.

	4. The state does not have the power to give me a lobotomy as
	   punishment for a crime.

Some people believe the state has a compelling interest in one or more
of these cases.  Most folks don't, and the law of the land reflects
that.

Part of the difficulty in the abortion rights debate is that the law
reflected a consensus that became invalid.  Now the law reflects that
lack of consensus, and there are those who refuse to accept that
change and want it changed back.

-----

>> In the sentence `who gave us the right to have sex regardless of the
>> cost?' there are a number of presumptions that aren't necessarily
>> valid. (Among them: there is a `who' that `gives' `rights;' there is a
>> `right' to have sex; that sex `costs.')
# 
# Sex undeniably costs.  As everything has a cost.  At the very least, sex
# 'costs' you time and energy.

`Who gave us the right to have sex regardless of the cost in time and
energy?'  Please.  That sounds like dissociated press output.

-----

>> When I assert that women have a `fundamental right' to terminate their
>> pregnancy at will, I'm saying I believe that this is a freedom that
>> should not be abridged, especially by the State.
# 
# Here we get into religious belief systems.  (Religious, in that the
# belief in anything without supporting facts, etc. is religous in nature).

Perhaps `religious' is a poor choice of words, but I understand, and
won't quibble, except to say that `political' would probably be a much
better choice.  `Politcal' in that the belief that an individual
should have a certain right that should not be abridged by the state
is essentially political in nature.

# The pro-aborts tirades about rights make them look as fanatic as the
# religous part of the pro-life side.  Both are screaming about their
# belief systems as if they were laws of nature.

No.  Both are making a lot of noise, but it is political in nature.
(There is quite a lot of religious hand-waving on the pro-life side --
much less of it on the pro-choice side).

The pro-choice argument is *not* that the right to abortion is a
natural fact.  There are those partisans who might say it is a
`natural right,' but *I'd* say that's an oxymoron.  Regardless, it is
a political argument, for the most part -- not religious.

# As in all such disagreements, he who has the biggest political stick,
# will eventually win.

Indeed.  Are you taking bets?

-----

>> In the
>> mean time, how about coming up with a better challenge than basically
>> saying: `well, not *everybody* thinks it's unacceptable.'
# 
# No challenge meant.  A lot of people on the net claim to be hear to
# debate, not just argue.  If you are here to debate, you will not mind
# taking a few moments of your time to help explain, teach or direct
# somebody who asks for that help.

Nah.  I'm here mostly to argue and harangue.  I do not have the time
to do the research necessary to put up a good debate (especially since
this forum is not a `debate' forum as much it is a street fight).  I
limit my debating to the observation of logical fallacies in my
opponents and to correction of egregious errors concerning data I have
at hand.

-----

### Abortion is not considered a responsible choice.
>> 
>> *Here* is where you appear to loop back on yourself. You do not give a
>> reason why abortion is `not considered a responsible choice,' and you
>> neglect to qualify it by appending `for ending pregnancies resulting
>> from consensual sex.'
# 
# Consider the qualification made.

Very well.

#                                  And I had assumed you would realize that
# the statment is one of beliefs.  After all, this belief, or one very like
# it (abortion is murder, therefore it is an immoral choice) is the basis
# for the pro-life movement.

I agree.  The art of persuasion (and I'm not saying I'm a particularly
adept artist) requires that one offer reasons for discarding an
opinion and taking a new one.  The way to offer reasons for discarding
the opinions most pro-lifers hold is to show the irritating
inconsistencies their opinions have with other opinions that they
commonly hold.

>> Explain why abortion should be considered a reasonable choice for
>> dealing with a pregnancy that results from rape, but not a reasonable
>> choice for dealing with a pregnancy that results from consensual sex,
# 
# Sigh. . .  Support ANY of your claims without resorting to a statement
# of beliefs, and you might find a convert in me.

I didn't realize we were locked into the domain of facts and numbers.
I thought this argument was persuasive in nature.  I demanded (I
should have requested -- I apologize) that you explain how such
beliefs do not result in immense cognitive dissonance.

# What we have here, is the belief that the child that is the result of
# a rape CONTINUES the violation of the woman's (limited) right to bodily
# autonomy, and that that right supersedes the child's right to live.

...which immediately begs the question why that right only supersedes
a fetus's right to life if the fetus is the result of rape.

# In the case of aborting a child that is the result of consensual sexual
# intercourse, the woman's bodily autonomy was NOT violated during
# conception, she AGREED to have sex.

Again, the argument is arbitrary.  In the case of rape, a woman has
the right to bodily autonomy to abort her fetus because the fetus is a
result of an act that violated her right to bodily autonomy -- but in
the case of consensual sex, she has no such right.

You're entitled to such a silly opinion if you wish, but I think it's
a ridiculous foundation for public policy, it makes for vague and
arbitrary law (which you ought to agree is a bane of egalitarian
society), and I would question whether any right should only be
exercisable if it has first been violated.

#                                     It is the belief of some that the
# woman, if she is a mature, adult human being, accepts RESPONSIBILITY
# for the results of her actions (i.e., having sex).
# 
# If we begin by accepting the fact that neither the right-to-life or the
# woman's right-to-bodily-autonomy can, or should be, ABSOLUTE rights,
# then you have to establish the conditions and circumstances where in the
# mothers rights supersede the childs, and vice versa.

Indeed.  Let's build consensus by persuading as many people as
possible to subscribe to the same view.  That will not happen if we
continue to use arguments that make so little sense when examined.

-----

>> He's taking the patriarchal sexist line of thinking.  He
>> never explains why he thinks abortion is IkkyYukky (to use a
>> drieuxism), let alone why rape, incest and mortal threat should be
>> allowable exceptions.  Until he offers an explanation other than the
>> typically patriarchal reasons we all know and love, I shall continue
>> to suspect that he is `a running dog sexist lackey of the patriarchy.'
# 
# Fine.  I have explained my belief system, and you have explained yours.
# 
# Attacking HIS belief system gains you no points.  After all, it's the
# ultimate in religious bigotry for you to claim that your belief
# system is morally superior to 'patriarchal sexist line of thinking'.

You clearly have no idea what the `ultimate' in religious bigotry is.

And I disagree.  Attacking his belief system does gain `points.'  If
done formally and politely, it can be persuasive.  If done with wit
and satire, it can be amusing.

Both of these are worthy goals.  (Oops.  I guess I just asserted
another arbitrary belief.  Killfile me now.)

-----

>> It also produces
>> reasoning that justifies requiring women to grovel before the
>> Authorities for permission to terminate pregnancy, without even
>> pretending to offer a moral reason why women's freedoms must be
>> so restricted by the State.
# 
# What makes a reason moral, is a belief system.  He CANNOT offer a reason
# that you will consider moral, because you and he have different belief
# systems.

Indeed.  What persuasive arguments he *did* bring out, I attacked.
That's the nature of a persuasive argument.

# Turn it around, offer ANY moral reason for allowing a woman to have an
# abortion after she AGREED to have sex.

You failed to completely turn the question around.  Here was the
original demand:

>> Explain why abortion should be considered a reasonable choice for
>> dealing with a pregnancy that results from rape, but not a reasonable
>> choice for dealing with a pregnancy that results from consensual sex.

Here is the true reversal:

   Explain why abortion should not be considered a reasonable choice for
   dealing with a pregnancy that results from rape, but a reasonable
   choice for dealing with a pregnancy that results from consensual sex.

My answer: because it's perverse, horrifying and amounts to punishing
women for being the victims of rape.

To answer your attempt at a reversal of the question, the moral reason
of allowing a woman to have an abortion after she has agreed to have
sex, is that it is her moral right to control her reproductive system,
even when it is midway through the process of reproducing a human being.

Now.  What purpose did your question serve?  Was it merely to distract
attention from the flimsiness of the arguments to support the rape
exception to a ban on abortion?

-----

>> Do you apologize for his fascism?  Do you condone it?  Or worse, do
>> you add your voice to his in support?

	[ ... ]

# Ignoring the emotionally laden terms, the question boils down to, do
# I share a PART of his belief system.  The answer is yes.
# 
# Should you be required to go to the department of motor vehicles and
# GROVEL before the FACIST BUERACRATS (sp?) of the DMV to aquire a motor
# vehicle license?
# 
# Or would it be better to go to the DMV, take your drivers test and be
# issued a drivers license if you pass?

A license to drive is, by social consensus, a privilege, NOT a right.
Gaining privilege often requires grovelling before fascists.  This is
an argument over balance of power, not individual rights.

Your analogy indicates that you see abortion as a privilege, not a
right.  Abortion is a privilege?  I can understand the argument that
abortion is a crime.  I can understand that it's a right.  But a
privilege?  Weird.  Bizarre.  Eldritch.  Please explain.

-----

# ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;->
# 
# Now for my question; why do you support the murder of innocent, helpless
# children?  Do you REALLY want to support such a hitlerian system (the
# murder of human beings because they are UNWANTED!?)?
# 
# ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;->
# 
# It's not nice to use emotional evocation in a debate.  Both sides do it,
# and I have little respect for either.

Wimp.  Emotion is inherent within persuasive arguments.  Get used to
it.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman