From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Part of a reply to Rodney - more later re: the dark side
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:27:09 GMT
Keywords: way long

In article <1992Oct9.081258.2464@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>>rodney's questions about x-sexuals &c. -- ecsd's long reply
>>
>>Very interesting, complete, and logical.  On both your counts.
>>Just one minor point to make:
>
>>>THE OPEN AVAILABILITY OF ALL OPTIONS IS THE ONLY WAY.  <== way radical idea!!
>
>>I have to point out that the abortion issue is often stated in a
>>very simplistic and idealistic way.
>>
>>At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the Pro-Choice people argue that
>>a woman has a right as to how to treat her own body.  This sounds right.
>>The Pro-Life people argue that the child has a right to its own life.
>>This sounds right as well.
>>
>>{ proof, assumptions, subjective, ill-will, workarounds }
>
>My workaround like I said before is pretty easy. Let everyone do what they
>feel is best, short of stopping other people from doing what those people
>feel is best. Then nobody will be doing anything that damages their own
>values.

In general, that's my approach, but it's not an answer to the debate.
The world is full of things that go on that don't necessarily directly
affect other people, but those people feel compelled to change or stop
those things.  If you knew that children were being murdered in some
country or other, I'd be surprised if that didn't affect you in some
way.  To the pro-life(anti-choice) people, a fetus is a person.  I
kind of doubt that, but I have no way to disprove their assumptions.
If you have some way of doing that, please do.  It will save us all
a lot of time.
>
>But if we begin to interfere in each other's lives -- interference works
>both ways, so you've got a choice, strife or peace. If my abortion in
>California causes an acute moral reaction in a person in Louisiana,
>my assessment is that their ego-space is just a tad too large.

Your assessment is subjective.  Those people don't feel that way.
Their "feeling" is subjective also.
>
>Let us do as we choose, this is not an issue where either side can prove
>that they are thoroughly right. And not one which can be forced upon us
>for decision, either. If your beliefs come at me to injure me, I will injure
>you around your beliefs {which allow you to do so}, and if that doesn't
>stop you, I will injure you.

This sounds like "battling sensitivities" rather than any kind of debate.
>
>The arguments that say that since it's undecided, it should come down on the
>"side of caution" in favor of the fetus - those beliefs are part and parcel
>of the antiabortionist side. The antiabortionists do not admit the theoretical
>basis of the other side - the pro-choice world views. So fuck them. Reason

This may be a practical alternative.  Not that it will satisfy the other
side, but then their position is just as subjective.

>fair or eat it. They don't play fair. And they say they don't have to. No
>compromise with adults behaving like stupid children - and I *mean* stupid.
>Same animal drive that lets them equate "how I feel" == "what is fact",
>is the same animal drive that likes to fuck and makes babies in the absence
>of birth-control, thanks to - you guessed it.

Not all babies or fetuses that are candidates for abortion come from
women who do not practice birth-control.  Further, your feeling that
the woman comes before the fetus in all cases is only a feeling as well.
>
>Sorry, GMS, I'm a Capricorn, and practical about it. I don't have time to

I am too.  What does this have to do with anything?  Do we die sooner than
most?

>waste debating it. There are times when I feel free to indulge my ardor at
>the expense of being open to rational discussion, and this is one of them.

Anyone can choose to ignore logical debate.  It usually causes problems,
and sometimes results in being forced to face your unsupported assumptions,
causing the "image/reality" dichotomy to be obvious and uncomfortable, but
that's just the way it is.

>{anticipate this offered to "other side as well"; read on.}
>When it comes time to *decide*, I say - let as all do for ourselves as our
>nature dictates to us as individuals. It's an arbitrary choice should we,
>or should we not, have the freedom while the issue is being discussed; but
>the issue is NOT symmetrical. The people who want to compel childbirth in
>no way suffer direct consequences for forcing others to do so. I will not

This is usually true.  That is a good reason to doubt their relative
sincerity.  However, it is not a sufficient reason to say that they
are wrong.

[...]
>only a zero-sum game. So I'll pick up the gun.
>
>I don't mind offering rational discussion about it - but the opponent can't
>prove anything with me; nor I them. I show over and over again it comes down
>to emotional reasoning backed up by some rational thought, and ends up a

Bingo.

>matter of belief. So if nothing else my *religion* says I have the right to
>an abortion and my *god* and *bible* say so too. No, no, no, they say, the

Guess I don't care about that.

>Bible says "blah" and it also says "what the Bible says is true", so You're
>Wrong. How long do you want me to argue with someone like this? Fine: you

The multiple interpretations of Bibilical information often seriously impede
its use as a reliable reference.  Since the author(s) are often only
accessible via lesser-credible intermediaries, an alternative to the
text-only version of the information is similarly hampered.

>got a closed mind, I got a closed mind. Equal rights again, thank you and
>goodbye, have a nice train ride back to Indiana or wherever {that's unfair,
>I know.}
>
>It touches a nerve, GMS, because these people live in a monochromatic world.

Guess I don't care about this either.  Lot's of people have said stupid
things to me and then said, "It's a sore spot," as though I'm supposed to
agree with them because of it.  Basically, "It's a sore spot," is my cue
to interpret that as, "Ignore what I have just said."

>A lot of people will have to die, before the remainder will be happy living
>in one. I like people better than that. And I'd be one of the dead ones.

Why is that?  You might find that people will get more reasonable.  I
realize there are lots of ridiculously irrational people out there, but
as a whole, I think people make more sense today than history would
portray.  As with many things, this feeling I have is a "leap of faith"
as well.  I can't prove it, but it's probably better than assuming that
the world will not be a better place unless you're dead.

Frankly, it becomes a matter of group A doing and believing X and group
B doing and believing Y, and a power struggle.  However it turns out,
it is incorrect to glorify a simple choice of X or Y as being the
Right Way, when neither group can prove it either way.  The only honest
approach to this is, "I'm doing this because I feel most comfortable
with this alternative."

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa