From: ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:45:20 GMT
Organization: UNC Charlotte

There have been cases in which a pregnant woman has experienced some
physical trauma causing her to miscarry and the person responsible for
the trauma has been convicted of murder--or at least manslaughter--for
the death of the fetus/unborn child.  Yet, if the woman had herself gone
to a clinic to have that same child aborted, it would have been perfectly
legal.  Explain the logic of that.
 
Also, if a woman becomes pregnant and says: "I do not want the child," but
the child's father says: "I do," he cannot stop her from having an abortion.
But if that same woman says: "I want the child," but the man says, "I do not,"
and she does not have an abortion, the man CAN be held liable for child support
later on.  Hence, a woman cannot be forced into motherhood, but a man can be
forced into fatherhood; the fact that women have to go through the pregnancy/
labor process and men do not makes the first clause perhaps valid, but why the
second?
In article <C0Az1r.CGu@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
 
>
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>>In article <C08qtH.C81@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>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?
>>>
>
>>>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.
>
>>    What about that "empirical evidence"?  Where's the empirical
>>evidence to back up religious reasoning?
>
>Pardon.  Perhaps you are unaware of Godel's work.  He demonstrates that
>there can be *NO*, nada, zero, zilch, empirical evidence and/or line of
>theoretical reasoning which can show _a_priori_ that a logical system is
>valid.  You are asking for that which cannot be obtained - it matters not
>whether you ask that of science or of religion.  It appears that whether
>one is a scientist or a priest, one necessarily operates on faith.
>
>>>  Hillary pulbished an article in a law journal
>>>at the beginnning of the last decade advocating precisely this use of the
>>>law.
>
>>    Reference, please.
>
>Provided in another post by another poster - a 1979 article in a
>contemporary studies journal, I believe.  Check your newsreader listings
>under the heading for this post, and you should find it, since it was
>posted in response to your question.
>
>>>  It was in all the papers.  I have no idea how you could have missed it.
>
>>    I didn't.  I did, unfortunately, read the whole article and not
>>just the headline.
>
>So you read it. Why are you asking for references?
>
>>>>>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?
>>>
>>    In the case you cite above, the child did _not_ gain "the same
>>legal rights as adults".  Therefore, this conclusion is meaningless.
>
>That is incorrect.  The child was *represented* by an attorney. This is
>unprecedented.  An individual cannot be represented in court by an attorney
>if that individual is incompetent.  A ward must be named, and the attorney
>represents the ward, who represents the incompetent individual.  By
>permitting the child his own representation, the court acknowledged the
>child as a competent legal entity in the proceedings, and, as a citizen of
>the United States, he thereby gained the same legal rights as an adult for
>the duration of the proceedings.
>
>>>>>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.
>
>>    You didn't answer my questions.
>
>There is no way I could demonstrate harm to you.  I don't know what color
>the sky is on your planet.  I'm assuming that you also have no problem
>with necrophilia, bestiality, or consensual cannibalism.  Thus, Jeff
>Dahmer could be gotten out of jail if he could prove that his victims
>*wanted* to be killed and eaten.  Dr. Kevorkian with a soup de jure, if
>you like.
>
>>>>>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.
>
>>    A decision to have sex acknowledges the possibility of conception.
>>(I'll assume for simplicity's sake that we're only talking about
>>heterosexual vaginal sex.)
>
>
>>>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.
>
>>    No.  You've proven that men don't give birth, nothing else.
>>There isn't a single event that creates a human being.
>
>Yes, there is.  A woman in the U.S. can have an abortion, legally, up
>until the moment of birth, i.e. up until the child gets air in his or
>her lungs.  At that point, the law recognizes a human being and any
>attempt to destroy that life can be prosecuted as murder.  If she goes
>into labor and goes to a women's clinic to have the child dismembered
>and disgorged into a trash can, however - even if that child's scalp
>is protruding from the birth canal, it is simply a legal abortion.
>
>Indeed, this is how scientists obtain brain tissue.  They induce labor
>in the woman to be aborted, wait for the head to show in the birth
>canal, then drill a hole in the skull and evacuate the contents while it
>is held in the vise-like embrace of the birth canal.  This assures the
>minimum contamination from extraneous fluid sources (blood, other tissues,
>etc.).  The body is discarded after the woman's labor expels it.
>This is being done at the University of Colorado - Denver, and at Yale.
>
>>>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.
>
>>     Huh?  Justify this statement.
>
>Read the laws on abortion, surrogate motherhood, anonymous sperm donation,
>and in vitro fertilization.  Read the Tennessee case in which a judge
>ruled that 8 frozen embryos could not be implanted in the egg donor's
>womb because the sperm donor (who had just divorced his wife, the egg
>donor) had the "right to choose not to be a father".  The court's ruling
>implies that the man was not yet a parent.  Thus, fertilization could
>not have created a child.
>
>>>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.
>
>>    True.
>
>
>>>  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.
>
>>    This doesn't follow.  You can't reach conception + X + Y without
>>going through conception.  Or are you suggesting that women can skip
>>conception altogether and jump right to the birth?
>
>Big deal.  I can't make a computer unless someone mines the silicon, steel,
>and copper.  Doesn't mean mine companies make computers.  I wouldn't come
>after U.S. Steel for a defective K-car.  The man supplies raw materials.
>He neither takes part in production nor the decision to produce.  He
>doesn't provide the location for child production.  He has nothing to do
>with child production after the raw material is delivered.  It ain't his
>baby, so to speak.
>
>>>  Remember, at any point
>>>before conception + X + Y, the results can be ripped up and tossed out
>>>unilaterally by the manufacturer.
>
>>     By one of the manufacturers.
>
>Sorry, he only supplied raw material.
>He has nothing to do with manufacture.
>
>>>  Men are legally forbidden to have any
>>>influence whatsoever on the manufacturer's decision.
>
>>     This is a crock.  Men can have all kinds of influence on that
>>decision.  But the final decision is not made my the man.
>
>Nonsense.  They have no *LEGAL* influence, and that's all that counts
>in the courts, boys and girls. If the manufacturer chooses to be swayed
>by other things, such as the phase of Venus or someone's promise to
>move out, that is the manufacturer's choice.
>
>>>  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?
>
>>    "Manufacturing they did not start"?  What happened, parthenogenesis?
>>I'll say it again - without a man somewhere in the process, you
>>don't get children.
>
>I'll say it again.  So what?  A sperm donor is "a man somewhere in the
>process" but no sperm donor can EVER be held liable for child support.
>The only functional difference between one and the other is whether or
>not the woman knows the guy's name.
>
>>>>>  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".
>
>>     I'm not following your argument here.  Is it that men are
>>not part of the birth process (they clearly are, even in your
>>analogy), or that men should never be held financially responsible
>>for the results of their actions?
>
>You are clearly wrong.  No man is part of the birth process.  No man
>is responsible for birth, according to secular reasoning.  Only
>women can be responsible for birth since only women allow birth to
>occur, and it is only at birth that a human being exists, according
>to the same secular reasoning.
>
>>>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.
>
>>    Oh, I see what you're trying to get at now.  Since the child
>>didn't exist at the time of conception, the man did not create the
>>child.  If the child did come into existence some time after,
>>the man had nothing to do with it.
>>    You don't find this to be silly reasoning?
>
>Of course *I* do.  But I'm just one of those damn-fool religious nuts
>who insist that a child must exist at conception.  I argue with the
>premises.  If I were to admit the premises, I could do naught but agree
>with the conclusions.  The logic is perfectly sound, it's the premises
>that are completely silly.
>
>>>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?
>
>>     So you're just being arbitrary.  Are you arguing this just
>>to see your own beautiful words on the screen, or are you going
>>to attempt to make sense?
>>     The only person I've ever seen or heard express ideas like
>>the ones you present above is you.
>
>You haven't read very much, have you?  Try bouncing over to talk.abortion.
>The debate over this issue is *stupendous*.  And you should see it in the
>papers before the end of the year, at least if the reporters are on
>their toes.  As of November, a case was supposed to be argued in New
>York using this very line of reasoning.  It's supposed to appear on the
>docket January 22nd, 1993 - the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
>Don't know if it really will or not, courts being what they are.
>
>>>>    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?
>
>>    As long as it's consensual.  I'm not sure that it is in the case
>>that you mention - if the act is being performed on children, then
>>I'm opposed to it.  I'm opposed to circumsizing babies, too.
>
>What?  You oppose religious freedoms?  Nazi.
>
>>>How about consensual cannibalism?  Should we free Jeffrey Dahmer if
>>>we could determine that his "victims" *WANTED* to be carved up and
>>>eaten?
>
>>     Absolutely.  Can you make any justification that any
>>consensual act should be illegal?
>
>Damn, this boy bites at everything.
>
>>>  I take it necrophilia is always acceptable?
>
>>    Yup.  Just because something is icky doesn't mean it's immoral.
>
>Incredible.
>
>>>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.
>
>>    Not at all.  I'm not denying alcholics the "right" to drive - I'm
>>denying them the right to do so while intoxicated.  I would
>>similarly forbid blind people to drive.
>>   You may now accuse me to blind-bashing.
>
>I most certainly will.  Your probably one of those Colorado bigots,
>aren't you?
>
>>> how would gays like to be
>>>a permanent underclass, looked down on and spit upon as they're genetic
>>>brethren, alcoholics, are?
>
>>    Heh.  You don't think they are already?
>
>No, I don't.
>
>>>There are demonstrable _reasons_ for jailing sexually active AIDS
>>>carriers, so I suppose you support that?
>
>>    If their partners are not aware that their consent to sex
>>included consent to die, then yes, I support that action being
>>criminal.
>
>>>>>  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??????
>
>>    In some cases.  Surprised?
>
>
>>    I'll repeat:  A person who has AIDS and knowingly has sexual
>>relations with another person without that person's knowledge of
>>the condition is committing a crime.
>
>
>>>  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.
>
>>    Reference to the TB law, please.
>
>Read New York City ordninances.  Most major cities still have this one
>on the books - it dates from the early 1900's.
>
>>    If this discussion is going to continue on this level, you
>>can expect me not to reply.  Your writing comes off as a Zeleny-
>>wannabe - I have better things to do than get involved in a
>>pissing-match with a self-aggrandizing pedant.
>
>True.  Your mirror must be overfull as it is.
>
>>                               -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 Kellmeyer
>--
>
>Steve Kellmeyer
>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality