NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/talk/abortion/33451

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-25 | 11.3 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33451 alt.abortion.inequity:3281
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!mips!decwrl!sgi!wdl1!bard
From: [e-mail] (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Observations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:19:35 GMT
Lines: 246

Ya-HOOO! Another terminally boring flamewar to engage in!

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
# [e-mail] writes:
# >[e-mail] (Mike Serafin) enlightens us with:
# >Are you refusing to adopt those viewpoints simply because they are
# >`extreme?'  Because, if you are, you're probably about to learn why
# >people are so polarized by the issue.
#
# IMO, an extreme law is a bad one.  And it seems not to be applied, because
# it gives the judge and jury so little freedom to judge.

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.

-----

# ># I do not agree that a woman has a right to an abortion in the case of
# ># consensual sex.
# >
# >Why not? Why did you qualify that with the words `in the case of
# >consensual sex?' My initial suspicion is that it was born out of your
# >inherent patriarchal sexism, but I realize you *might* have a bizarre,
# >but reasonable alternative reason for qualifying yourself in that way.
#
# 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 expect it's very rare that anyone ever refuses to accept the
# >consequences of an unplanned pregnancy.  After all, the situation
# >rapidly becomes apparent and there's no running from it -- you either
# >carry to term, or you terminate, pretty much. The other alternatives
# >aren't much better.  Refusing to accept the consequences of
# >contraceptive failure, is like refusing to accept the consequences of
# >a parachute failure.
#
# 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.)

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?

-----

# ># If neither the man nor the woman has the emotional or financial
# ># ability or desire to raise a child then one must take the only
# ># alternative available, DON'T HAVE SEX!  Who gave us the right to have
# ># sex regardless of the cost?
# >
# >The same bozo that `gave' us all our other rights, of course.
#
# 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.

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.') They deserve examination
before we go chasing after what I'm saying when give a flip answer to
such a poorly formed question.

# >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.'

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.

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.  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.

-----

# >Your demand that people use abstinence as their only means of avoiding
# >unplanned pregnancies is curious, in that many people would find that
# >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.
#
# Ummm. . . Facts? Figures?  I would tend to agree, out of my own personal
# biases, but there are celibate people.  And I myself have had long periods
# of time where I did not have a sexual partner.  And besides, celibacy is not
# the only way to guarantee no pregnancy.  There are many forms of sexual
# expression that do NOT risk pregnancy.

(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.')

Besides, you're demanding that I produce `facts or figures' to support
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.  In the
mean time, how about coming up with a better challenge than basically
saying: `well, not *everybody* thinks it's unacceptable.'

-----

# >Your reasoning seems to be circular.  Allow me to demonstrate: Women
# >shouldn't consent to sex when they don't want to get pregnant because
# >it's wrong for them to terminate their pregnancy if the pregnancy is
# >the result of consensual sex because consensual sex might lead to an
# >unwanted pregnancy.  That's silly.  It indicates that your whole
# >problem is not with abortion -- it's with consensual sex.
#
# The reasoning would be circular, if that is what his reasoning is.  However,
# I interpret what was said in a different fashion.  May I suggest that you
# reread what was said?
#
# 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.'

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,
and do it without using the circular reasoning that I attributed to
Mr. Serafin (who hasn't offered another explanation yet), or I shall
consider that you are yet another patriarchal sexist control freak who
thinks that abortion is not a responsible way to deal with an unwanted
pregnancy resulting from consensual sex because consensual sex that
results in an unwanted pregnancy is wrong because it might lead to an
unwanted pregancy resulting from consensual sex.

-----

# ># I do not agree that a woman should not be allowed to an abortion in
# ># cases of rape, incest, or where the mothers life is in danger.
# >
# >Do you *admit* to being a running dog sexist lackey of the patriarchy
# >then?  You certainly sound like one with rhetoric like that.
#
# ????  How in the world do you generate a response like this from what
# was written?  Please explain the connection that you see.

See above.  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.'

Clear enough?  Jeez, I gotta 'splain everthang.

-----

# >Basically, what you're saying is that you think women should only be
# >granted permission to terminate their pregnancies when they can prove
# >to the authorities who control access to abortion that they meet one
# >of the three seemingly arbitrary qualifications that you've enumerated
# >above.
#
# The exceptions he listed are not abitrary.  They are based on reasoning
# that stems from his belief system.

Right. And his belief system seems arbitrary. 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.

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


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

"So I've got my eye on you, punk, because I - let's face it - am the
Sole Representative of Law and Justice, nay civilization itself, in
this MY GOD NO.... BASTARDO!  you did it, that's the end, you've
doomed us all..."
                           -- Curtis Yarvin (impersonating Raoul Duke)