NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/14038

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 12.4 KB

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14038 talk.abortion:58284
Path: sparky!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!biosci!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:54:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 228
NNTP-Posting-Host: sahara.cs.utexas.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>>Well!  It oughtta be clear to anyone following this thread that things are
>>starting to heat up.
>
>It's always curious to me that when I begin asking hard questions, the word
>'flame' is brought into the discussion....

:-) Sorry.  I _have_ noticed that you haven't called me arrogant, misogynist,
or resorted to any other personal attacks, unlike quite a few other posters
here.  That speaks highly of you.

(Besides!  I didn't use the word "flame".  I used the phrase "heat up".
There's a difference.  :) )

>>>So, regardless of the needs of the woman, of the rights of the woman, of the
>>>desires of the woman, she *MUST* gestate that fetus, because you say so.
>
>>"Regardless" is definitely not the word I would use.  I would be more along
>>the lines of "despite the importance".
>>PLEASE understand that I in no way treat ANYONE'S rights as unimportant.
>
>You know, I'm not too concerned with what words you would use to describe
>this, Paul.  And I'm not too concerned that you *think* you 'in no way'
>treat anyone's rights as unimportant.

Are you saying that I _am_ treating anyone's rights as unimportant?  Namely
women's?  I thought I had made the opposite clear.  If not, I shall try
again.  Do you understand that I am forced to make what appears to me to
be a choice between two fundamental rights?  If you were forced to choose
between two fundamental rights, what would you do?  This is not a rhetorical
question; I urge you to answer it.  How could you choose, without being
viewed as treating the other "right" as unimportant?  Do you see why I want
to find another solution to this, besides aborting a fetus or forcing a
woman to keep her baby?

And of course, you say that you are not concerned with my position on that
point.  This is not _my_ way; I am quite concerned with _your_ position on
this.  I want to understand your viewpoint in order to come to a decision
that will be satisfactory to both of us.  Otherwise I'd just behave any
way I wish and not care a whit what you feel.  This is why I rephrase your
points in a light beneficial to you; to show that I am listening to you.
This is why I concede and agree with some of your points; to show that I
can identify with them.  And it is why I offer my own viewpoint to you,
so that you can understand it as well.  If pro-choice is unwilling to show
concern for the viewpoint of pro-life, and vice versa, this issue will
_never_ be resolved, one way or the other.

>I am vitally concerned that you would reduce me to a subclass of both
>citizen and human being.  And, regardless of the words you care to use, and
>the rationalization you would apply to your vote, the FACT of the matter is
>you would, in restricting abortion, reduce me, my mother, my daughters, my
>sisters, and all the women I know to less-than-people.
>
>It's a hard pill to swallow, Paul, but that's EXACTLY what you would be
>doing in supporting abortion restriction.  Get used to it.

You have said repeatedly that restricting abortion restricts women's
rights, no doubt with the intent of getting me to finally acknowledge it.
I have strived to indicate in my prior posts that I have already acknowledged
it.

I have similarly said repeatedly that the evidence on hand causes me to
believe that allowing abortion to remain legal gives unborn children no
liberties at all, and that therefore I must favor the least of the two
infringements, barring other alternatives.  I stated furthermore that it
is arguable whether or not unborn children are entitled to these liberties.
If you believed that they were indeed entitled to them, do you see why I
would feel this way?  This is also not a rhetorical question; I look
forward to your answer.

If I were to favor the liberties of the mother, it could just as easily
be said that the FACT of the matter is that I would, in keeping abortion
legal, reduce unborn children to less-than-people.

>>To me, and quite a few others involved in this issue, this is exactly the
>>reason that abortion is such a tough problem.
>
>Whereas it's a cakewalk for the women involved?  Whereas noone else on this
>net besides you and a few others have actually thought this stuff through?
>Come on.
>
>>I can't make that assumption on the evidence I have
>>yet, so I'm forced to vote in favor of the child.
>
>Ah, you are *FORCED* to remove my absolutely admitted rights because you
>lack evidence that a fetus *might* have rights.  Sure tells me where I stand.
>
>>I appreciate your concern.  And I do care about my reputation, to an extent,
>>even on the net.  So I try to make it as clear as I can what my position is
>>on this is.  If other readers overlook or misinterpret, there's little I can
>>do about it, except to keep on reiterating my position, and trust that
>>they're reading what I write.
>
>Paul, are *you* reading what you write?  You are proposing that it is right
>and just and compelling to REMOVE the RIGHTS of a 100% KNOWN human being
>in favor of a maybe-we-aren't-sure-perhaps human being.  And then you are
>padding that decision with all kinds of rationalization to make it look
>better. And, you are ignoring the fact that you would not only give to the
>maybe-we-aren't-sure-perhaps human being _more_ rights than even the other
>100% known human beings on this planet have -- i.e., the right to use the
>body of another human being against their will.

By restricting abortion I would be only restricting women's liberties, not
removing them.  By keeping abortion legal I would be removing the liberties
of a "maybe-we-aren't-sure-perhaps human being".  Which outweighs the other,
definite restriction of liberty, or the possible denial of it altogether?
This is another arguable point.  However, so far, the evidence on hand
leads me to believe that a fetus should be entitled to these liberties we
speak of, so I, myself, must still favor them.

>I don't think this is a question of misinterpretation.  I think it is a
>question of you attempting to justify a gut level response.  Now, Paul,
>nothing wrong with that, we all do it.  But I'm pointing out to you what
>the values you would vote for lead to.

You already have pointed them out to me.  Restricting abortions would
restrict women's liberty to do what they wish to themselves.  Is this
what you are trying to convey?  If so, you have been acknowledged.

>>I have just previously stated that I view both child's and woman's rights
>>as very important; that it is with regret that I must choose.
>
>Yeah, I heard it ("read it").  And I think your justifications are inaccurate
>and your choices poorly supported.  I think you would, because of your personal
>gut feel, reduce women to less-than-human, and I think any self aware human
>being would fight you.
>
>>>REGARDLESS of how responsible I am.
>>>REGARDLESS of how productive I am.
>>>REGARDLESS of how brilliant, important or useful I am.
>>>I become nothing more, and have no more importance to you in this world than
>>>a cow.
>
>>You're certainly not a cow to me; otherwise I wouldn't bother to carry a
>>meaningful discourse with you.  But I think your point isn't that, as much
>>as that you're very emotional about this.
>
>Here we go, folks.  Because I point out to Paul that his choices in the
>voting booth would radically reduce my rights, I'm 'emotional'.  Gee, Paul,
>you don't suppose I could be 'bitter', do you?
>
>Damn straight I'm 'emotional about this'.  You are talking about removing my
>rights.  That ain't cocktail party banter.  To parrot you, above, "to me, and
>quite a few others involved in this issue, this is a very *serious* topic".
>If you aren't going to be deadly serious about it, please don't bother us!
>
>I note, of course, that you don't actually rebut the argument, either, you
>just call me 'emotional' so you can completely IGNORE the point being made.

I hold that my justifications are accurate, and if there are flaws, I
encourage you to continue to point them out to me.  I have just supported
my choices, as I have done in past articles.  My gut prohibits me from
devaluing any person, woman or man, without the presence of overwhelming
and insurmountable circumstances.  I do not hold you to be emotional
because you demonstrate how my choice would reduce your rights, but because
you implied that I liken you and all other women to cattle.  While I
infrequently inject humor into my posts to keep the mood from becoming
intolerable, I am doing my utmost to remain deadly serious, sober, and
reasonable, and I would appreciate other readers' input on how well I am
doing in this respect, in addition to your own input.  (Posting or e-mail;
I have no real preference.)  And your point, once again, if I do not miss
it, is that I would be restricting women's liberties by advocating
restrictions on abortion.  I hope, by my earlier writings, that you
understand that this point has been anything but ignored.

>>It is probably wiser to leave this to judgement,
>>and relax the blinding emotion somewhat.
>
>Wiser for who?  Better for who?  At whose cost?  These are easy words to say
>when we aren't talking about your rights, aren't they Paul?
>
>Now, before you go off on 'emotional' again, think about the question.  These
>are easy words to say when we aren't talking about your rights, aren't they
>Paul?  It's a question.  It challenges you to investigate deep down just
>how hard it *really* is for you to come to conclusions about a situation
>you will never share, and about the very threat to my most integral person-
>hood that you will never face.  I suggest to you that you should recognise
>this difference, and turn each proposition mentioned on this net around to
>view how 'emotional' you would be if we were speaking of a real threat to
>*your* freedoms.

I shall do my best to demonstrate that I am indeed thinking about the
four-part question you just asked.

It is perhaps axiomatic that emotion degrades judgement.  When a person feels
angry, lustful, depressed, or estatically happy, that emotion puts a tint on
decisions that can and very often change the way they are made.  Were I to
harbor an extreme feeling of emotion, I would unsubscribe from this group
right now to keep posters from "poisoning my mind" with their arguments,
rather than make an effort to collate and consider their views to better
perceive the flaws in my own.  So I try to keep my emotion out of it.

Any person in a high emotional state would have their judgement worsened, so
this is both wiser and better for everyone.  There is no cost to calming the
emotion besides time, so I assume that is not what you meant; rather that
making such unemotional judgement would exact a cost on women.  And with this
comes the answer to the final question.  Were it to be my rights or liberties
that are at stake, I would opt for everyone to make a rational decision over
an emotional one in an instant.  If my stance were ever to depend solely on
emotion, I would be in a bad position indeed.  To many people, pro-life is
an emotional stance.  I do not deny that many people are pro-life because
of emotion.  But I also know that there are those who are pro-life, and
naturally, pro-choice, because of reason.

If you wish to change my mind, do not appeal to my emotion; rather, prove
that my assumptions are not true.

[snip]

>>As far as money goes, I'm already spooning out the bucks to pay for world-
>>broadcast flamewars.  :-)  If it comes to that, though, have wallet, will
>>adopt.
>
>Gee, why go that far?  You could simply pay a woman who was going to abort
>because of financial problems, and let *her* keep it.  Or you could take
>up rocker on her fisting offer.  If you *really* value the fetus, that is.

Go this far?  It seemed like I wasn't going far enough.  :)  If you're
saying that providing for a woman's financial needs is a reasonable solution,
I would go for that, within reason.  However, I am unfamiliar with rocker's
"fisting" offer.

[snip]

Paul Brinkley
[e-mail]
Pro-Thought Advocate