From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:31:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

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.

	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).

	If we permit the second reason to be the basis for the law, however,
we are effectively obligated to modify the law to prohibit sexual relations
between ANY two individuals who can be demonstrated to be at higher risk for
propagating genetic demage to a child - a ruling which would prohibit any
two individuals who did not pass a genetic screening to engage in sexual
relations. Since this is obviously a patent absurdity, the incest laws are
by nature discriminatory (since they segregate a subset of all individuals
who *may* propigate genetic damage for special treatment). In addition, this
reasoning presupposes that the incest will result in a full term pregnancy,
which is far from a likely supposition. Finally, incest is defined so
broadly as to include individuals who do NOT have any higher risk of genetic
damage to offspring than do members of the general population (i.e., those
who are related by marriage rather than by blood, adopted children or
siblings, etc), which is a completely arbitrary and discriminatory act.

	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."

	I have no problem whatever with incest among consenting adults. It
does not involve me personally, it does not require me to perform any act
whatever save that of practicing tolerance. Therefore, I do not believe I
have any right what-so-ever to demand it be banned. I stay out of the
bedrooms of others - all I ask is that they stay out of mine!

>Now of course, this is rediculous and incorrect.  I can make the same 
>argument about the Dem's position supporting "choice" -- that it applies
>even to women entering their final month of pregnancy.  And damnit, if
>she wants an abortion at that point she's got a right to choose!
>
	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!

	It would, however, be totally appropriate to require that the
physician performing such an abortion make every effort (consistent with the
primary goal of preserving the life of the mother) to save the baby as well.

>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.

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan) 
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d