From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:15:03 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>
>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 

>    Not all secular reasoning is.  Some of it is simply
>anti-religious reasoning masquerading as secular.  In the general
>case, though, secular reasoning will have a foundation in
>fact that religious reasoning never can.

Beg pardon, but the deconstructionists here are laughing uncontrollably.
What, pray tell, is a "fact"?  You simply show that you are a follower of
a very popular Western religion, called "science".  Godel demonstrated
the impossibility of logically verifying the validity of *ANY* logical
system, and empirical evidence from physics is supporting that demonstration.
In other words, science and secular logic has demonstrated that science
and secular logic is no more or less supportable than any other culturally-
based form of thought.

>>Let's take a clear look at a couple of examples of *secular* reasoning:
>>
>>Hillary Clinton et.al. have reasoned, secularly, that children should be
>>given the same legal rights and representation as adults, including the
>>right to divorce their parents.

>    Can you document this?  I haven't heard anything of the sort.

The case of the 11-year old in Florida divorcing his parents within the last
two months comes to mind.  Hillary pulbished an article in a law journal
at the beginnning of the last decade advocating precisely this use of the 
law.  It was in all the papers.  I have no idea how you could have missed it.

>>Similarly, if a 9,10,11,or 12-year old can divorce hs/her parents because
>>of their maturity, then why can't those same mature individuals move in
>>with a 30-year old same sex lover?  If they're mature enough to unchoose
>>parents, they are certainly mature enough to choose who they want to live
>>with.  The National Man-Boy Love Association would certainly support that
>>reasoning.  Why can anyone, secularly, object to pedophilia if the child
>>doesn't object?  Or if the "child" no longer exists, legally, because that
>>child has been ruled an adult by the courts?

>     There is a basic question of whether or not a child is
>capable of giving informed consent for sex.  Currently we have
>age of consent laws - these are terminally flawed, in that not
>all children happen to mature at the same rate.  But they're
>the best method we have right now.  Besides NAMBLA, I haven't
>seen anyone clamoring for the repeal of those laws.
>      So, basically, please document where you've seen this
>line of "secular reasoning".

Pardon me, but given Hillary's premises, it is a logically sound, 
internally consistent argument which makes no reference to religious
dogma and is based upon premises which make no reference to religious
dogma, therefore it is "secular reasoning".  

>>Why is incest wrong, by secular reasoning?  With so many diverse forms of
>>birth control, including genetic testing and legal abortion, it's not like
>>biological reasons could possibly hold water anymore.  As long as both
>>parties agree, where's the harm?

>    Where is the harm?  Can you demonstrate that there is any harm
>at all if both parties agree?

Thank you.  I thought you'd bite.

>>Secular reasoning has found that no human being exists at conception, that
>>women have the right to do with that non-viable tissue what they want,
>>unilaterally, because men have no right to interfere.  Fine.  Then secular
>>reasoning also makes it clear that men are not and can never be parents,
>>since they never create children.

>     I fail to see how you derive this conclusion from your premise.
>Can you trace your train of logic?

A decision to have sex is not a decision to have children.
If a woman decides to have sex, she is not deciding to have children.
If a man decides to have sex, he is not deciding to have children.

No human being exists at conception.
Sex results in conception.
Sex results in the existence of no human being.

Birth is the event which creates a new human being.
Men never give birth.
Men never take part in the creation of a new human being. 

You fall prey to "religiously-based" reasoning when you think of 
sex/conception as having anything to do with the creation of people.
That is an archaic concept, based on out-of-date cultural standards.

Women supply 100% of the labor, provide the location and machinery for
manufacture, and provide 99.99% of the raw material necessary for 
the creation of a human being.  If no human being exists at conception,
and no human being exists at conception + X weeks, while a human being
does exist at conception + X weeks + Y weeks, then obviously only 
the one(s) who contributed to that formation at conception + X + Y are
responsible for the existence of a human being.  Remember, at any point
before conception + X + Y, the results can be ripped up and tossed out
unilaterally by the manufacturer.

  Men are legally forbidden to have any
influence whatsoever on the manufacturer's decision.  Why are they held
to be responsible for manufacturing they did not start, decisions they
are not allowed to make, and a result they did not have any part in?  All
they did was supply raw material nine months previously, and if the 
manufacturer didn't want it, she could have flushed it chemically or 
surgically.  If she accepts delivery, that's her decision - the man is
forever after out of the picture.

>>  At most, men supply only raw material -
>>it is the woman who chooses to manufacture a child.

>    No, the woman chooses to carry the fetus to term, but she
>still can't "manufacture" that child without a man somewhere in
>the process.

And Chrysler can't make a car without raw material from U.S. Steel.
Big deal.  As long as the raw material is of good quality, I fail to
see how U.S. Steel is responsible for Chrysler's cars.  Do they get part
of the profit?  Are they forced to pay for Chrysler's excess inventory?
No.  They supply raw material.  If Chrysler didn't want it, they could
dump it.  They don't have to accept delivery, and the woman can take
"morning-after" contraceptives to reject delivery, or abortion, or 
anything else she wants to do.  If she decides to *ACCEPT* delivery,
however, that's entirely her *UNILATERAL* decision, and her 
responsibility alone, if you want to use "secular reasoning".

>>  If a woman can decide
>>to have an abortion for purely personal economic reasons, then her decision
>>to have a child must also be based on purely personal economic reasons,

>     Nope.  You did it again - your conclusion doesn't follow.
>If a woman can decide to have an abortion for purely personal
>economic reasons, then her decision to have a child _can_ also
>be based on purely personal economic reasons.  Not "must".

But in either case, it has absolutely nothing to do with the man.  If she
wishes to make decisions based on the phase of Venus, fine.  But the man
is legally forbidden any part in the decision to manufacture a child, he
has no responsibility for her decision since he has no part in it.  He 
didn't create a child by the act of having sex.  She didn't create a child
by the act of having sex.  Neither created a child at conception.  ONly
*SHE* creates a child, by choosing to carry to term. When a woman aborts,
she does so for her own reasons based on her own estimates of her personal
situation.  If she carries to term, she must also do so for her own reasons
based on her own estimates of her personal situation.  

The idea that the man has anything to do with it is based on several old
"religious" concepts, i.e. sex involves commitment to another person,
sex creates children, etc.  Secular reasoning has demonstrated that sex
exists purely for pleasure, that it does not create children (only 
prolonged gestation followed by birth creates children).  Men used to be
held responsible for taking care of women and children, but secular
reasoning shows that women need men like fish need bicycles.  The idea of
dual parents is archaic as well - single parent families are normal, we
are told.  Is it any wonder that many men accept secular reasoning?  

>> and
>>there is no secularly logical way she can coerce an involuntary tax out 
>>of the man for a decision she makes unilaterally about her own economic 
>>future.

>    I'm tending to agree with you on this one.  Paternity laws
>need revamping badly.

He bites again.

>>  According to secular reasoning, genetic comparisons are pointless,
>>since a man's twin bears the same genetic relationship to the child, yet
>>isn't legally bound to support the child manufactured via the use of his
>>brother's sperm.

>    I don't follow the point of this one at all.

The point is that proving paternity by genetic testing misses the point.
There can be no paternity if there is no father - existing laws on 
abortion demonstrate quite clearly that the concept of "father" is 
logically insupportable.

>>  Currently, anonymous sperm donors can NEVER be legally
>>held for child support - what difference does knowing the sperm donor's 
>>name make?  It's not like he gets any more choice, or makes a child.

>    The reasoning is "by consenting to have sex (presumably) without
>birth control, the man is consenting to support a child if one results
>from that sexual act."  In the sperm donor case, there is no such
>implicit contract.

The reasoning was "by consenting to have sex (presumably) without
birth control, the woman is consenting to carry a child to term, if one
results from that sexual act".  It isn't any longer.  Why are men held to
a standard that women are not?  Men are implicated in child-making by
simply having sex, while women are implicated in child-making ONLY by
giving birth.  There's a nine-month discrepancy there.  How can men make
a child when women, by the very same act, have NOT made a child?  Boy, I
never realized point-of-view made such a big difference.

>>Do you think this reasoning is crazy?  It's coming to court in New York
>>this very month.  And Karen DeCrow, former president of NOW, is on
>>record as supporting this reasoning.

>    Supporting which reasoning?  What you've written above is
>muddled enough as to be almost unfollowable.

Ah, you are still trapped in religiously-based cultural concepts about
sex and children.  You must free yourself of these old icons, and move
forward to accept the new secular reasoning on sex, children, and family.

>>What about infibulation, the practice of mutilating female genitalia
>>that is common in Africa?  Secularly speaking, we have no right to 
>>condemn another culture's practices.  As long as their society finds 
>>it acceptable, how can we western Europeans dare to impose OUR moral
>>inhibitions on a functioning society?

>    Why should we impose "our" morals on another society?  Why
>should we impose "our" morals on individuals within our society?

So you support infibulation, as long as you're not the one doing it?  
How about consensual cannibalism?  Should we free Jeffrey Dahmer if
we could determine that his "victims" *WANTED* to be carved up and 
eaten?  I take it necrophilia is always acceptable?  

>>You know, this society complains to high heaven about drunk drivers.
>>We say they are suffering from an illness (alcoholism) but we punish
>>them if they dare to be ill in the wrong place.

>    That's an interesting way of putting it.  I look at it as follows:
>A person can choose to drink - the can drink as much as they want,
>and as often as they want.  When they decide to get behind the
>wheel of a car, then they put _my_ life at risk by their actions.
>That's where I draw the line.

Ah, but the compulsion to drink is, by definition, not controllable.
They can no more control their drinking than a homosexual can choose
to be heterosexual.  The evidence linking alcoholism with genetics is
at least as strong; in fact, it is quite a bit stronger.  You would
deny these people the right to engage in normal, everyday activities
simply because of their genetically-influenced lifestyles?  You, sir,
are drunk-bashing.

   Sure, people go off on Colorado simply because it
denies the right to _special_ treatment - how would gays like to be 
a permanent underclass, looked down on and spit upon as they're genetic
brethren, alcoholics, are?   Drunks Rallying In Numbers Kan Unleash Power
(DRINKUP) is a new group dedicated to forcing society to give up their
stereotypical, biased, brutish view of genetically different people.
Did you know many animals get drunk too, on fermenting fruits?  There,
that makes it alright then, since it happens in Nature.

>>  How many people have
>>gone to jail for having the flu while driving?  What if they vomited
>>and hit someone, whay aren't they jailed for DWI (driving while 
>>influenzaed)?

>     That's very clever.  If you can produce research that
>indicates that drivers with influenza are significantly more likely
>to endanger other drivers, I'll support your drive to have a
>ban enacted into law.
>     See, this is where secular reasoning gets you.  You actually
>have to show _reasons_ for your opinions.

There are demonstrable _reasons_ for jailing sexually active AIDS 
carriers, so I suppose you support that? 

>>  Then why don't we jail the AIDS infected for condemning other
>>people to death by being ill in the wrong place (while have sex)? 

>    Umm... This is happening right now.  People are being tried
>for knowingly spreading AIDS.

And you support it??????

>>Especially now that the AZT-resistant strains are obviously being spread
>>by precisely these people?  According to secular reasoning, a drunk driver
>>and a sexually active AIDS carrier are no different.

>    This doesn't follow either.  A drunk driver is endangering others,
>with no consent on their part.  The AIDS carrier is endangering others
>also, if he or she is sexually active.  If the AIDS carrier does
>so with full knowledge of his or her condition, and does not inform
>his or her sexual partner, then I think you could make a good case
>that they should be tried.

FYI, according to the CDC, less than 20% of AIDS carriers who KNOW they
have AIDS bother to inform their partners.  Oddly enough, if they have
syphilis, the law *REQUIRES* them to inform their partners,  if they don't
the state health agencies have a right to do so.  If they have AIDS, 
however, the law denies anyone the right to pass that knowledge on to 
people who may be put at risk.  Similarly, it is legal to jail TB carriers
in order to force them to undergo treatment for this  disease,
but it isn't legal to do so for AIDS carriers.  

>>  So, Evelyn, when
>>are you going to support they jailing of AIDS-infected sexually active
>>individuals?

>      Sigh.  No logic involved here.  It all involves consent.

And after you said there was.  Damn.  You'll jail alcoholics and people
with influenza, but not people with AIDS.  Where's your secular logic?

>>  How about ANYONE with VD?  Follow your thrice-blessed
>>secular logic.   

>     Let me suggest that you don't understand logic - it requires
>more than projecting your own delusions onto the ideas of others.

Indeed.

>				-Phil

>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
>philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
>Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.

Steve
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality