From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:06:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: For what purpose?

In article <1992Aug26.001935.2945@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>Ya-HOOO! Another terminally boring flamewar to engage in!
>
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
># bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
># >serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) enlightens us with:
>
>I put quotes around the word `extreme' because of the subjective
>nature of the qualification, i.e. extreme in who's mind?  My point is
>that there is a strong polarizing nature in the abortion rights
>debate, which makes seemingly `extreme' points of view more commonly
>held as there is little room to be moderate on the issue.

Seems reasonable.  After all, the both sides are arguing beliefs, not
facts (nobody has the facts, so it has to be beliefs) and their
belief systems seem to be diametrically opposed.

># How do you interpret this as being 'inherent patriarchal sexism'?  Is it
># the use of the phrase 'consensual sex' that bothers you?
>
>I said, `my initial suspicion is... inherent patriarchal sexism.'  I
>assume you want to know what makes me suspect that, and yes, it's the
>part about consensual sex that sets off the alarms.
>
>It's my belief that the idea that women do not control whether they
>give birth or not, and that men do, is a hallmark of patriarchal
>sexism, and that the idea that women should generally not be permitted
>to terminate their pregnancy of their own volition is another hallmark
>of patriarchal sexism.
>
>Further, I believe that making an exception to the general rule that
>women must give birth when pregnant in cases of rape, serves the
>interest of the patriarchal sexist man who is opposed to being
>required to father a child he did not conceive.
>
>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.  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.  Just that he should have some say in the decision.

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.

># Of course, the difference in opinion is based on differing beliefs in
># what the phrase 'accepting responsibility' means.  Some people do not
># consider abortion to be a responsible course of action.
>
>(I never used the word `responsibility' in the quoted paragraph.  I
>used the word `consequences.'  I was perhaps coy.  So killfile me
>now.)

Hell no.  This is just getting interesting.

>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.

># 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.

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?

>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.

># >Look,
># >do you really want to get into a discussion about the origin of human
># >rights?
># 
># I wouldn't mind at all.  Because it seems that this is the root of the
># discussion.
># 
># On one side:
># 
># 	The woman's right to bodily autononmy.
># 
># On the other:
># 
># 	The right to life.
># 
># Who hands out rights?
>
>Glad you asked.  I sure hope you're not expecting an absolute answer
>because I'm not an absolutist.  I'm an agnostic, so I can't say our
>rights are granted by Providence.  I *can* express my opinions and
>tell you what I mean when I use the word `rights.'

Fair enough.

>I'm not going to go on a long tirade here about `rights' other than to
>say that I believe `rights' are an intellectual fantasy we create in
>order to build consensus about what freedoms every individual should
>have.  I'm much more concerned with the real world where power is what
>determines what freedoms an individual actually has, regardless of the
>academic discussion over what freedoms they *should* have.

Fair enough.  I agree with you.

>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).

>If the overwhelming
>majority of society agreed with that position, (or if they disagreed)
>there would not be an abortion debate, as the right would be `widely
>recognized' (or `widely denied' as the case may be).  At the moment,
>there is significant disagreement on the issue, which I take as
>evidence that social consensus on abortion rights has not formed yet.

Agreed.  Hence the intense debate, name calling, etc.

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.

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

>(As for the `many forms of sexual expression that do NOT risk
>pregnancy' I submit that my use of the word `abstinence' should have
>been read as `abstinence from sexual intercourse.')

Accepted.

>Besides, you're demanding that I produce `facts or figures' to support

Not demanding.  Just asking.  If you have the information, I would like
to peruse it.  It never hurts to gather more data.

>my contention that `many people would find [abstinence] an
>unacceptable, if not impossible alternative to the use of
>contraceptives and the reliance on the availability of legal, safe
>abortion in the event of contraceptive failure.'  Tell you what bub,
>I'll start searching for poll results that support my claim.

No need.  If you had the reference handy, I would have liked to go look
it up, but as you state a belief, there is no need to support it.

Incidentally, I share your belief.  But it is still a belief, without
facts, etc.

>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.

># The reasoning seems to be: Agreeing to sexual intercourse implies acceptance
># of responsibility for any resulting consequences.  If you do not consent,
># then you should not be held accountable for the consequences (rape, incest).
>
>So far, you have not tripped yourself up.
>
># 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.  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.

>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.

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.

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.  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.

># ????  How in the world do you generate a response like this from what
># was written?  Please explain the connection that you see.
>
>See above.

I did.  Thank you.

IMHO, you are being paranoid, seeing plots where none exist.

Overreacting, at the very least.

>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'.

>Clear enough?  Jeez, I gotta 'splain everthang.

Of course you do.  If you didn't have to explain everthing, you wouldn't
need to communicate.  If you didn't need to communicate. . .

Ah, fuck it.  You know what I mean ;->

>Right. And his belief system seems arbitrary.

Of course.  So is yours and mine.

>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.

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

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

You make two appeals to emotion:

1)	Using the phrase 'grovel before the Authorities'

	and

2)	Using the word 'fascism'.

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?

;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;-> ;->

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.

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

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion