dissenting futilitarian no. 9

2
D EAR patient reader , you rare & blessed person , you sweetheart you: It is time now, if we can, to expose Motion 312 for what it is. Is it a reasoned plea for innocent inquiry into human beginnings ? OR is it a devious effort ( involving irrelevant pretense about facts and science) to remove human rights from those who have them? To readers who have said Yes !' already, what's yer rush? That may be your conclusion , but bring us with you. Let us view your EVIDENCE . People have been saying that, The word debate ' is being used as a cover for the desire to pass anti -abortion laws ." Is the word ‘Debate' being used “as a cover "? Then it is not True Debate that is under the cover: it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. So let's examine what is under the skin. If the Cry of Wolf is empty, then let us see its emptiness. We can expose an empty charge, as you know, by hearing its case. Let us look carefully ( not hurriedly, dismissively, indifferently, but with care) at the evidence for the claim that the Motion is dishonest and deceptive. miss TRUSTER B ut first, enter MISS TRUSTER . If you are thinking, ‘Oh, I think I will put this paper down right now, because I don't trust this Dissenting Futilitarian to do justice to this case (who is this person?) ,' then you are a Mistruster . And let us speak for a moment with our friend Miss Truster , to whom I say: - Indeed, yes: you don't trust me. That is a fact, isn't it? MISS TRUSTER: Yes it is; you will just have to accept it. THE DF : But I do, I do: you are not sure about me - after all, what have I done to make you sure? MISS T: Nothing. THE DF : And who can be sure of anything in this world? So you are ready to put The Dissent- ing Futilitarian down and read no further. MISS T: Well, actually, I have already tossed it aside with exasperation. It was very annoying to hear you say that you are going to look carefully at my evidence for the claim that the Motion is dishonest. You - ha ! You make me laugh. THE DF : But you have said you don't know me; I am an unknown: you have tossed me aside because you are not sure about me. Which leaves me confused, because it seems in reality that you are quite sure about me: you are quite sure that I have no capacity to present your argument fairly. Apparently I gave you all the grounds you need to conclude that I cannot present your case. - So what would you read? A newspaper written by yourself? MISS T: Ridiculous! I trust lots of people to write about this. THE DF : Do the people you trust happen to be people who agree with you? Does a person begin to seem trustworthy when he starts talking like you? I know that is not what you are conscious of doing, but I am asking if that is in fact what you do, if that is the pattern. That would be foolish, because in that case you are confusing two entirely unrelated things : veracity & correctness . You think that if I don't have the correct view ( the one you swear is right) then I can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything related to this case ( I must be entirely unreliable on this issue) . But what evidence have you gathered of my gross untrustworthiness? The evidence is that I am unknown to you - or , to come to the point, you can't yet smell what my view is! But you have gathered all you need to dismiss me! Miss Truster , you are Full of Trust, and so you are an Amazing Irony! ( I have omitted miss truster 's response to the above because it consisted, as you have no doubt guessed, in a series of denials. After all, it “cannot" and “could never be true" that anyone would “be so stupid" as to “do such a thing." Indeed no. Im-possible.) But ... if Mistrusters were possible, we would have plenty of people who, as they begin to read strangers, start sniffing for agreement or disagreement with themselves, so that they can know whether to bother reading or just start scoffing. A culture rich in mistrust and dismissal. Ahh, home sweet home! You must note one important thing: Mis- trusters cannot Debate. No, not at all, since Debate involves listening to someone on the other side of the issue and assessing the truth of what they say, and the Mistruster does not do that. He or she does not listen: listens briefly but quits and goes back to declaiming slogans, because there is no point in listening ( ‘That blowhard cannot be trusted') . And if you agree that Debate is a piece of the infrastructure of Democracy then you will agree also, I think, that MISS TRUSTER is bad for Democracy. Perhaps we could have a kind of zoo to protect ourselves from her: Come see the Amazing Irony, the Danger to Democracy! Mind you, it would be easy to win release from that cage: just stop confusing accuracy & cor- rectness ! You want to see if someone is trust- worthy?É Don't stop listening but LIsten : do they make a good case or not? Do they make a case you would accept from an ally? The evidence of that isn't that they are in your clique. When people refuse to say ‘That is true' to someone whose ‘pedigree' is unclear ( or who is actually, gasp, on the other side! ) , then our Democracy ( this land's solution to governing difference) turns jaundiced and takes to the sickbed - because now it seems that it is only ‘our kind' who can be trusted. ( Bye bye ‘Tole- rance of Difference.' We liked you until....) the deviousness of motion 312 w ith the Mistrusters ejected, let us hear the case for dis- missing Motion 312 as a fraud, a devious effort to take Human Rights away under a cover of reasoned concern for Human Rights: When I first heard about this motion , I was appalled and outraged , and saw it as a wolf in sheep s clothing . It struck me as an insidiously deceptive motion that refused to acknowledge its evident aim : the illegalization of abortion ." motion 312 is a Trojan Horse attempt to introduce rights for the fetus - thereby limiting the rights of a woman to obtain an abortion ." The issue isn 't whether Zygotes , embryos , and fetuses are human ; the issue is whether a Zygote , embryo , or fetus has RIGHTS that trump those of a pregnant woman ." What Motion 312 proposes, recall, is to consider what “evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth ." Nowhere does it contain the word ‘abortion'. In what way is Motion 312 deceptive? Would you not agree that it is deceptive because it does not disclose its true purpose: If the legal definition of when one becomes a human being were to be adjusted so that a fetus is declared to be a legal person at some earlier stage of gestation , then the homicide laws would apply . As a necessary consequence , aborting fetal development anywhere in the potentially new adjusted period would be considered homicide . Thus the ultimate intention of this motion is to restrict abortions in Canada at some fetal development stage ." Was the Trojan Horse deceptive? Case closed. 1 | deceptive intentions I do apologize for toying with you, but did you really think that ‘Trojan Horse' business closed the case? You are so manipulable. If a thing is deceptive then it involves a deception - agreed? Was the Trojan Horse deceptive? Yes. It intended to deceive. It had an actual purpose other than the purpose it presented, which was fake. The deception was that it stood there looking like a peace- offering to the Trojans, but it was not a peace- offering to the Trojans; it was anything but. Does Motion 312 deceive? - Well, the purpose it presents is, as you will appreciate, not fake. Its manifest purpose is to see if a human being exists before birth - and everybody agrees that that is what it intends because that is the way it will challenge abortion. If we find that a human being exists before birth, as its author suggests we would ( he has said, I conclude that science will show a child is a human being at some point before the moment of complete birth ") then abortions kill human beings, etc. So if the Motion is deceptive it isn't because of that Trojan-Horse/fake-purpose business. What, then? How else can you deceive? How about by Ulterior motive , a motive “beyond that which is avowed." You claim that your motive is A ( which you admit, and yes you do want A) , but your true motive is B ( which you always deny to be your true end) . At a function cocktail you meet the CEO of AfriCaf, a coffee company, who begins to talk about his company's aid to African communities. YOU : Yeah, I've seen your ads ... the African kids with the little slates. Sure, you are helping Africans. - But, y'know, let's face it: your real agenda is making me like AfriCaf more than its competitor, which has no charity wing. CEO : Well, I do want you to like us more but - really I do want to give back to these communities, which grow our coffee. N o. 9 4 AUG 2012 } } The D I S S E N T I N G F U T I L I T A R I A N { { L E T T E R S T O c a n a d i a n s F R O M A C I T I Z E N O N T H E S U B J E C T O F T H E P R O P O S E D I N V E S T I G AT I O N I N T O O U R H U M A N I T Y I t is d u e t o J U S T IC E t h a t m a n i s a G o d t o m a n a n d n o t a W o l f . F R A N C I S B A C O N B

Upload: dissenting-futilitarian

Post on 20-Mar-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Issue 9 of a broadsheet for Canadians thinking about the 'Human-being Motion' (Motion 312)

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Dissenting Futilitarian no. 9

D EAR patient reader , you

rare & blessed person ,

you sw eetheart you: It is time now, if

we can, to expose Motion 312 for what it is.

Is it a reasoned plea for innocent

inquiry into human beginnings?

OR is it a dev ious ef fort (involving

irrelevant pretense about facts and science)

to remov e human rights from those

w ho hav e them?

To readers who have said ‘Yes !' already, what's

yer rush? That may be your conclusion , but

bring us with you. Let us view your EVIDENCE .

People have been saying that,

“The word ‘debate ' is being used as a cover for the

desire to pass anti-abortion laws."

Is the word ‘Debate' being used “as a cover"?

Then it is not True Debate that is under the

cover: it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. So let's

examine what is under the skin. If the Cry of

Wolf is empty, then let us see its emptiness.

We can expose an empty charge, as you know,

by hearing its case. Let us look carefully (not

hurriedly, dismissively, indifferently, but

with care) at the evidence for the claim that

the Motion is dishonest and deceptive.

miss TRUSTER

But first, enter MISS TRUSTER . If you

are thinking, ‘Oh, I think I will put

this paper down right now, because I don't

trust this Dissenting Futilitarian to do justice

to this case (who is this person?),' then you

are a Mistruster . And let us speak for a

moment with our friend Miss Truster , to

whom I say: - Indeed, yes: you don't trust me.

That is a fact, isn't it?

MIS S TRUSTER : Yes it is; you will just have

to accept it.

THE DF : But I do, I do: you are not sure about

me - after all, what have I done to make you sure?

MIS S T : Nothing.

THE DF : And who can be sure of anything in

this world? So you are ready to put The Dissent-

ing Futilitarian down and read no further.

MIS S T : Well, actually, I have already tossed

it aside with exasperation. It was very

annoying to hear you say that you are going

to look carefully at my evidence for the

claim that the Motion is dishonest. You - ha !

You make me laugh.

THE DF : But you have said you don't know me;

I am an unknown: you have tossed me aside

because you are not sure about me. Which

leaves me confused, because it seems in reality

that you are quite sure about me: you are

quite sure that I have no capacity to present

your argument fairly. Apparently I gave you

all the grounds you need to conclude that I

cannot present your case. - So what would

you read? A newspaper written by yourself?

MIS S T : Ridiculous! I trust lots of people to

write about this.

THE DF : Do the people you trust happen to

be people who agree with you? Does a person

begin to seem trustworthy when he starts

talking like you? I know that is not what you

are conscious of doing, but I am asking if that

is in fact what you do, if that is the pattern.

That would be foolish, because in that case

you are conf using two entirely unrelated

things : v eracity & correctness .

You think that if I don't have the correct

view (the one you swear is right) then I

can't be trusted to tell the truth about

anything related to this case (I must be

entirely unreliable on this issue).

But what evidence have you gathered of my

gross untrustworthiness? The evidence is that

I am unknown to you - or , to come to the

point, you can't yet smell what my view is!

But you have gathered all you need to dismiss

me! Miss Truster , you are Full of Trust, and

so you are an Amazing Irony!

(I have omitted miss truster 's response to

the above because it consisted, as you have

no doubt guessed, in a series of denials. After

all, it “cannot" and “could never be true" that

anyone would “be so stupid" as to “do such a

thing." Indeed no. Im-possible.)

But ... if Mistrusters were possible, we would

have plenty of people who, as they begin to

read strangers, start sniffing for agreement

or disagreement with themselves, so that they

can know whether to bother reading or just

start scoffing. A culture rich in mistrust and

dismissal. Ahh, home sweet home!

You must note one important thing: Mis-

trusters cannot Debate. No, not at all, since

Debate involves listening to someone on the

other side of the issue and assessing the truth

of what they say, and the Mistruster does

not do that. He or she does not listen: listens

briefly but quits and goes back to declaiming

slogans, because there is no point in listening

(‘That blowhard cannot be trusted').

And if you agree that Debate is a piece of the

infrastructure of Democracy then you will

agree also, I think, that MISS TRUSTER is bad

for Democracy. Perhaps we could have a kind of

zoo to protect ourselves from her: Come see the

Amazing Irony, the Danger to Democracy! Mind

you, it would be easy to win release from that

cage: just stop conf using accuracy & cor-

rectness ! You want to see if someone is trust-

worthy?É Don't stop listening but LIsten : do

they make a good case or not? Do they make a

case you would accept from an ally? The

evidence of that isn't that they are in your clique.

When people refuse to say ‘That is true' to

someone whose ‘pedigree' is unclear (or who is

actually, gasp, on the other side!), then our

Democracy (this land's solution to governing

difference) turns jaundiced and takes to the

sickbed - because now it seems that it is only

‘our kind' who can be trusted. (Bye bye ‘Tole-

rance of Difference.' We liked you until....)

the dev i ousness of mot i on 312

with the Mistrusters ejected,

let us hear the case for dis-

missing Motion 312 as a fraud, a devious

effort to take Human Rights away under a

cover of reasoned concern for Human Rights:

“When I first heard about this motion, I was appalled and

outraged, and saw it as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It

struck me as an insidiously deceptive motion that refused

to acknowledge its evident aim: the illegalization of

abortion."

“motion 312 is a Trojan Horse attempt to introduce rights

for the fetus - thereby limiting the rights of a woman to

obtain an abortion."

“The issue isn't whether Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses

are human; the issue is whether a Zygote, embryo, or

fetus has RIGHTS that trump those of a pregnant woman."

What Motion 312 proposes, recall, is to consider

what “evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or

is not a human being before the moment of complete birth."

Nowhere does it contain the word ‘abortion'.

In what way is Motion 312 deceptive? Would

you not agree that it is deceptive because it

does not disclose its true purpose:

“If the legal definition of when one becomes a human being

were to be adjusted so that a fetus is declared to be a

legal person at some earlier stage of gestation, then the

homicide laws would apply. As a necessary consequence,

aborting fetal development anywhere in the potentially

new adjusted period would be considered homicide. Thus

the ultimate intention of this motion is to restrict

abortions in Canada at some fetal development stage."

Was the Trojan Horse deceptive? Case closed.

1| decept ive intent i ons

I do apologize for toying with you, but

did you really think that ‘Trojan Horse'

business closed the case? You are so manipulable.

If a thing is deceptive then it involves a

deception - agreed? Was the Trojan Horse

deceptive? Yes. It intended to deceive. It had

an actual purpose other than the purpose it

presented, which was fake. The deception

was that it stood there looking like a peace-

offering to the Trojans, but it was not a peace-

offering to the Trojans; it was anything but.

Does Motion 312 deceive? - Well, the purpose

it presents is, as you will appreciate, not fake.

Its manifest purpose is to see if a human being

exists before birth - and everybody agrees

that that is what it intends because that is

the way it will challenge abortion. If we find

that a human being exists before birth, as its

author suggests we would (he has said,

“I conclude that science will show a child is a human being

at some point before the moment of complete birth")

then abortions kill human beings, etc. So if

the Motion is deceptive it isn't because of that

Trojan-Horse/fake-purpose business. What, then?

How else can you deceive? How about by

Ulterior motiv e , a motive “beyond that

which is avowed." You claim that your motive

is A (which you admit, and yes you do want

A), but your true motive is B (which you

always deny to be your true end).

At a function cocktail you meet the CEO of

AfriCaf, a coffee company, who begins to talk

about his company's aid to African communities.

YOU : Yeah, I've seen your ads ... the African kids

with the little slates. Sure, you are helping

Africans. - But, y'know, let's face it: your real

agenda is making me like AfriCaf more than

its competitor, which has no charity wing.

CEO : Well, I do want you to like us more

but - really I do want to give back to these

communities, which grow our coffee.

No.

9 4 AUG

2012}}

The DISSEN TING FU TILITARIAN {{

L ET T E R S TO c a n a d i a n s F R OM A C I T I Z E N O N T H E S U B J E CT O F T H E P R O P O S E D I N V E ST I G AT I O N I N TO O U R H U M A N I T Y

“ I t i s d u e t o J U S T I C E t h a t m a n i s a G o d t o m a n a n d n o t a W o l f . ” F R A N C I S B A C O N

B

Page 2: Dissenting Futilitarian no. 9

YOU : Ah! So you deny that your real reason for

building those schools in Kenya is ($ka-ching$)

profit! You deny what you are really up to.

Now I know that you have an Ulterior motiv e !

CEO : But why do you say that profit is what

we really care about? We want both things:

yes, we want to be profitable; yes, we want to

help. What's deceptive about that?

YOU : The deception is that you don't want

to admit why you are building those schools;

you won't say that it is profit! You keep

talking about charity!

CEO : Well, I was talking about the charity,

which it seemed worth telling you about.

YOU : Your deception lies in the fact

that you won't confess to the one

thing you really do care

about. You keep hiding it!

CEO : But it isn't the one

thing I care about.

YOU : Aha! You deny

it, just as I said!

CEO : I deny it, yes. Yes

I do. The charity isn't

just a means to profit.

It is good in itself.

YOU : Oh it is, is it? All

right then: now we'll

flush out the proof that profit is what you are

really all about. Would you be happy with

just the charity and not the profit? Then stop

advertising your charity. When A cannot

lead to B, then I will know that B isn't

what you are really after.

CEO : But profit isn't all we care about. If

charity is a means to profit, it's just that

much better. Why not have the profit too?

YOU : You can't live without profit, can you?

You won't let go of it! Give up your profits!

CEO : But ... we're in business. Are you some

kind of ... - it's almost as if you hate profit.

YOU : Profit! Always on your mind, isn't it?

A A AI hope you are mad at me for writing ‘YOU ' so

many times - because you are not such an idiot,

are you? So why that dialogue? To raise the

issue of real intent and how we can know it.

“The real intent of Motion 312 is to bestow legal personhood

on fetuses as a way to re-criminalize abortion.”

Is the Motion a Wolf that slyly intends crimi-

nalization without admitting it? What's the

clue? What that dialogue shows is that, if we

are not to come off as an idiot, there has to be

some evidence that shows what a person's

real intent is. It's stupid just to keep

insisting. So what reveals that a person's

TRUE intent is B? It isn't that A leads to

it. (One thing can predictably lead to another

- gambling to pennilessness - without that

thing being your true objective.)

You have an Ulterior motiv e , about which

you are d ec e i v i n g p eo p l e , when you

commence A, and B is the only logically

possible result of A, but then you deny

that your purpose with A is B. - That is

what people are calling the deviousness of

Motion 312 . The author of the Motion says:

“m312 does not propose to deny recognition of women's rights."

But to that, people say:

“[in september] we will have to sit through another hour

of ‘debate' on something that pretends not to be about

abortion, but that everyone knows is about abortion."

Does the Motion pretend it has no bearing on

abortion? Well, its author does say:

“I am not shying away from the fact that the question of

whether or not a child is a human being is relevant to the

issue of abortion. It certainly is.”

Indeed. Yet the charge laid is this: a reassign-

ment of personhood and the attendant

criminalization of abortion is w hat

this motion intends , since this is logically

the only possible consequence of altering

this section of the Criminal Code:

“Either Motion 312 means to change public policy on

personhood OR it’s a waste of government time, taxpayer

dollars: Pick A or B, there's no 3rd option.”

“M312 supporters, Stop lying. M312 is about fetal rights,

fetal personhood, and criminalizing [abortion].”

“Supporters of Motion 312, and Woodworth himself, bend over

backwards with assurances that it’s nothing of the kind."

The Motion's author, noted one writer,

“is back lying about Motion 312 again, [claiming it] ‘does not propose to deny women recognition of their

rights'. the magic question, again: Why M312 then?”

The Motion's supporters, it is charged,

“will not grant [that] M312 would open [the] door [to criminalizing abortion]: if it has no public policy goal, it's a waste of time.”

A journalist reporting on the first de-

bate, in April, points out the MP who:

“stresses that the section [placed] in question [by the motion] is in the Criminal Code -

the one that deals with homicide.”

2| is the decept ion deeper?

b ut that is not all the decep-

tiveness charged to this Motion.

As I noted not long ago, I spent a little time

in an interesting corner of the Internet in

which daily ‘Debate' (whether Debate it was,

I leave to the informed) unfolds on Motion

312. A rather strange Debate, I must say, for

it was conducted only in tiny, fragmentary

statement-lets of fixed length, shorter even

than this sentence! Imagine a public billboard

(titled #M312) where citizens arrive several

times daily to post their comments, sometimes

replying to previous postings. I read with interest.

What began to attract my attention was a series

of comments giving a reason for rejecting the

Motion outright. That reason was the one we

have just set forth: Deception about intent .

“I’d say the Evidence is In re Motion 312 being a straightup

Personhood and Abortion motion."

I confess that at that time I was puzzled,

for it so happens that Motion 312 does not

use the words ‘person' or ‘personhood' at all.

And on that basis I was prompted to post

a ‘corrective' message: “M312 is not a personhood

motion." And so my roller-coaster ride began.

My reply received a reply, and it soon became

clear that the Motion was charged with a

second kind of deception .

“Motion 312 wrongly conflates ‘being’ with ‘legal person’.”

Allow me to explain the import of this, which

I believe I now understand. (You be the judge!)

When the Motion says ‘human being ', it really

means ‘person '. That is, when the Motion asks,

Is a fetus a human being?

it is really asking,

Is the fetus a legal person?

But, it is charged, the author of the Motion

does not admit this, and indeed wants to

capitalize on the perception that he is not

chiefly interested in personhood at all.

Hearken back to our little cocktail-party chat,

switching the names, and you will see that

the cases are somewhat alike: actual admission

that B is relevant. It is true that B (the

definition of personhood) is indeed an issue;

the author of the Motion has said so:

“If there’s no objective criteria for who’s a human being,

then personhood and the fundamental rights that go with

it can be defined in any way any powerful ... group decides."

But, he insists, redefining legal persons is

not the Motion's real and essential intent.

Its concern is human being s and the law.

CHALLENGER : Your deception [so you might

argue, challenging the Hon. Member] lies in thefact that you won't confess to the one thing

you really do care about: personhood. You keep

hiding the fact that that is your concern!

THE HON . MEMBER : But it is not the one thing

I care about.

CHALLENGER : Aha! You deny it, you deceive!

THE HON . MEMBER : I deny it, yes, I do. But I

don't deceive, because the Motion isn't just a

means of redefining personhood. It is valuable

in itself, even without that.

And so the drafter of M-312 has said:

“I honestly want what the motion asks,

and that is for a respectful dialogue and

an open-minded study of the evidence

[as to the point at which a human

being exists]."

“I don’t think it necessarily re-

solves the issue of abortion. And,

more important, I think that the

question of whether any law

should declare that a

person is not a human

being w ithout good

reason is a greater worry

than the issue of abortion."

But shouldn't that have been: ‘I think that any

law declaring that a human being is not

a person w ithout good reason is unjust'?

Isn't that what this is truly about? So the

Motion has been charged with a second

kind of TRICK : deceptiv e use of language .

É“m312 intends to confuse 2 concepts: biological humanity

and legal personhood. They are separate."

“Motion 312, built on a disingenuous and self-serving

misinterpretation of legal jargon, [fully intends to usher in] the Beginning of the End of Abortion Rights in Canada.”

What is the evidence that this Motion means

legal person when it says human being?

The evidence is, once again, that you cannot

examine the beginnings of a human being

Éfor any other reason but the redef i-

nition of personhood in the law .

“Once more, The term ‘human being' is a red herring in this.

THE Only thing that matters is legal ‘personhood'."

“M312 pretends that fetuses are not human. Yes they are.

What they are not is ‘persons'."

(As to a third deception - the wording of the

Criminal Code was based on archaic science,

when it was chosen in fact to mark this very

distinction between protected and unprotected

human beings - no evidence as to this fact re.

the intent of the law has been brought forth.)

And what is our conclusion? I cer-

tainly do not need to tell you; a

conclusion is what you can see for yourself. If

the only possible consequence of examin-

ing w hen a human being begins is a change

to the law concerning legal persons , then,

what is the conclusion that you must drawÉÉ?

Is M-312 a reasoned plea for innocent

inquiry into human beginnings?

OR is it a deceptiv e assault on existing

human rights?

Would the scientific evidence presumably push

personhood back into abortion territory (turn-

ing abortions into homicides)? If the crimi-

nalization of abortion is logically the

only possible consequence of any change

the motion would bring , ....

But I don't need to remind you , Wise Reader,

that in a Debate we hear the other side too.

What's to fear? Let the Concluding Conclu-

sion stand! Next issue: wolf 's clothing?

I am, etc.

1 1 D i s s e nt i n g f ut i l ita r i a n . b lo g s p ot.ca