NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/52700

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 8.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!gatech!news.ans.net!cmcl2!rnd!smezias
From: [e-mail] (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Equal protection dead end? 4.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:38:52 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business
Lines: 164

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

>It has not been proven that the primary intent of the legislative agenda is
>to restrict the rights of women. The position of pro-life has been, is, and
>probably always will be, to protect fetal life.

The discriminatory effect that would result from the actions of
putatively sentient fetus fanatics is proof enough for me.  Feel free
to believe what you like about the adequacy of this proof.

>That's ridiculous, as I have pointed out repeatedly. The sinking of the
>Titanic killed more men than women. Are icebergs misogynistic? The attack
>on the marine base in Beirut killed more men than women? Do you think the
>terrorists were misandrist? Just because something bad affects one class
>of people more than another is *NOT* even plausible evidence that the
>motivation was to discriminate against that class. You're grasping at
>straws.

(1) The iceberg was not sentient; fetus fanatics are reputed to be.
(2) The terrorist would have gladly killed any and all women who were
at the base.  The fetus fanatics seem to only want to protect life
when it is in the body of a woman.  (3) You should inform all your
beloved legal scholars that they should now start rejecting all equal
pay for identical work claims that merely establish that men and women
doing identical work are paid different wages.  Tell them they need a
smoking done to do anything.

>Oh, I see. Pro-lifers are presumed guilty of misogyny until they "prove"
>themselves innocent to your satisfaction, eh? And you deny that this is
>a witch hunt?

I guess all those wicked McCarthyites who dare to press litigation
just because some employer pays men and women or whites and people of
color different wages are just on a witch hunt.

>It has little or nothing to do with her ABILITY to make judgments, Stephen.
>It has everything to do with her PRIORITIES. Pro-lifers seem to think that
>fetuses aren't attributed the proper value by some women. That has nothing
>to do with "benefit of the doubt". It's just a disagreement over what
>constitutes a minimum acceptable valuation of the fetus. Reasonable people
>CAN disagree over such things, Stephen. It disgusts me when people assume
>that just because someone disagrees with them, that they are afflicted
>by all sorts of malicious motives -- they're a misogynist, a control
>freak, or whatever. All you do is stifle rational debate when you spout
>unsubstantiated charges like that.

Pure semantics: You don't call setting priorities a judgment?  I have
no problem when reasonable people disagree about the proper valuation
of a fetus in the abstract.  I would venture a guess that Steve Adams
and I would disagree about the morality of certain abortions.  We
could have a rational discussion about this and might learn something
from one another.  As far as I'm concerned, the stifling of rational
debate starts when someone advocates a legislative agenda that forces
women to behave as if they agree with that person.

>The bazillionth time, Stephen, pro-lifers are NOT accusing women of being
>unable to make decisions about their bodies. They seek to protect fetuses,
>and unless you have proof of anything more than that, I would ask you to
>stop throwing around baseless accusations.

I'm afraid we just disagree.  I find the forced pregnancy position to
be inherently and improperly interventionist in the lives of women.
I don't see how this can be separated from a judgment that women are
incapable of making decision about their own bodies.

>Again, you're stretching the term beyond the breaking point. Just because
>something has to with "accusations, evidence, and guilt" doesn't mean it's
>a witch hunt. Are laws against shoplifting "witch hunts"? A witch hunt
>occurs when someone pursues and/or apprehends someone else, based on scant
>or non-existent evidence. Do you have any proof that the proposed abortion
>restrictions would not follow the same rules of evidence that all other
>convictions require? In the absence of such proof, I do not see that the
>term "witch hunt" is warranted.

The proof is the discriminatory effect.  Sometimes effect is warranted
to be sufficient evidence, e.g., equal pay for identical work.
Sometimes it is not warranted to be sufficient, e.g., equal pay for
comparable work.  I think it is sufficient in this case; you think it
is not.  I guess we disagree.

>>And you
>>can be sure that there will be witch hunts against women who were not
>>overjoyed about pregnancies but miscarry if their legislative agenda
>>goes through.
>
>Wild, unsubstantiated speculation.

Speculation for sure.  Let's hope we never have to live in a world
where we could do the empirical test that would demonstrate whether it
was wild and unsubstantiated.

>>I cannot understand your purposeful ignorance on these
>>points.  Why would you state opinions that seem to minimize the
>>catastrophic effects on women of forced pregnancy laws?
>
>Where did I commit this alleged "minimization"?

When you stated that a pro-life legislative agenda does not imply that
women cannot make judgements about their own medical care and bodies.
primarily at restricting the rights of women.  For example:

>The bazillionth time, Stephen, pro-lifers are NOT accusing women of being
>unable to make decisions about their bodies.

I don't even know how anyone could believe this long enough to get the
message to their fingers to type it.

>>I have never elevated my belief that pro-forced pregnancy is motivated
>>by malice against women beyond what it is: my belief.
>
>You have accused all pro-lifers of being misogynists.

And at all points made it clear that this is my belief.

>You arguments have been refuted. Your belief is irrational.

You have never refuted the fact that forced pregnancy has a
discriminatory effect on women.

>Oh, then do you think Don Beaver is a pro-life then, a fact that Adrienne
>ADMITS she can't substantiate, but refuses to retract?

I cry myself to sleep about it.  As someone who does empirical studies
of the diffusion of anti-discrimination law and organizational
responses, I find the worldview of the soc.men crowd to be completely
detached from reality.  An overall claim that men are disadvantaged
relative to women in our legal system is so far-fetched as to be
detached from reality.

>Among other things. In THIS particular branch of the discussion, we were
>discussing whether the discriminatory effect of abortion restrictions implied
>that all pro-lifers were misogynists. You claimed that "female is the only
>characteristic that applies to all persons whose rights will be restricted
>by forced pregnancy legislation". That claim is obviously false. Sure,
>female is the only characteristric that applies to all persons whose BODILY
>AUTONOMY rights will be restricted by forced pregnancy legislation, but since
>pro-lifers are looking at rights _other_ than just BA rights, you can't
>presume discriminatory intent in THEIR position.

The discriminatory effect from the beginning has been tied to the
special rights that have to be given to /z/e/f/s to restrict the BA
rights of women.  I'm sorry for taking the shorthand of not stating
this explicitly each time I say rights in this discussion.

>>I didn't know I had to listen to you when you say I can or cannot make
>>statements based on my beliefs.  Oh, wait, I don't.  You believe what
>>you like and you make statements based on your beleifs.  I'll do the
>>same.
>
>Don't make accusations of fact unless you can back them up.

What exactly is an accusation of fact?

>Discriminatory
>effect is NOT sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent, and your claim
>of misogyny hinges on a proof of discriminatory intent. Your claim fails
>miserably.

Says you.  I say differently.  I guess we just disagree.

SJM