NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/54346

Text File | 1993-01-06 | 6.5 KB | 140 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!cookc
From: [e-mail] (rocker)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: aix.rpi.edu
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <+j82dp#@rpi.edu> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:01:23 GMT
Lines: 129

[e-mail] () writes:

>[e-mail] (rocker) writes:

>>[e-mail] () writes:

>>>Pregnancy is not a punishment.  Pregnancy is a responsibility one must
>>>accept for one's actions.  Men who consent to sex should be legally
>>>responsible to support the child emotionally and financially.

>>I'd be absolutely fascinated to hear how you propose to legislate that
>>men emotionally support their biological children.  Or is abortion the
>>only fit subject for legislation, and should we just trust that men
>>will "do the right thing"?

>Did I claim we could legislate that?

Ah, silly me, I must have been thrown off by the word "legally" in the
original sentence.  So you are now saying that no, men should not be
legally responsible to support their children emotionally?  Funny how
the men's responsibilities in this situation just keep getting fewer
and fewer, while women's keep increasing.

>Oh, by the way, it's you liberals

Me liberals?  Do share with us the in-depth analysis of my views which
has eventually led you to come to the conclusion that my political
leanings can safely be described as "liberal", I'm sure it would be
fascinating.  After all, I can hardly believe that you'd be silly
enough to characterize a person's entire political philosophy based
on how you think they feel about a given issue.

In fact, true conservatives point out that under the conservative
ideal of smaller government, with less governmental intrusion into
individual lives, abortion is hardly a fit object for legislation or
regulation.

>who are now helping children sue
>their parents for "non-performance"... so in effect YOU are trying to
>legislate this.

What is "non-performance" and why on earth do you bring it up here?
Does this "non-performance" consist of refusing to buy a Nintendo
game?  Or is it more like extreme emotional and sexual abuse?

In fact, it is only the anti-abortion gang that I see attempting to
legally dictate the parent-child relationship, through parental
consent laws.  And yet a pro-"life"r announced to me the other day
that the gov't had no business interfering in the way she raised her
children. I asked if they had the right to protect children from
abuse, and she said oh, THAT was ok.  I pointed out that definitions
of abuse differ, and that it constituted interference in the family.
She thought for a few moments, and then said that if repealing abuse
laws was the price we paid for privacy, then so be it.  I pointed out
that many more children would die without the protection of abuse laws,
and she shrugged and said that wasn't _her_ fault.

So much for taking responsibility.  So much for being pro-"life".
(Although given the repeal of abuse laws, I have no idea on what she
would base her desire to legislate against abortion....)

>>I'm also assuming that you are strongly against the concept of adoption,
>>since it allows all those horrible, slutty men to escape their emotional
>>and financial duties.

>You're an idiot if you think anything I have said indicates this.

<chuckle>  So in fact, you _don't_ think that the man involved should
have any responsibility at all?  After all, if the child is adopted,
the man walks away scot-free.  Funny how the men in your scenario are
getting more and more ways to escape the consequences of their actions,
while the women have to do what you say no matter what.  Tell me, are
you of the "Biologically, men are led around by their dicks and really
can't do anything about their sexual desires, so therefore it's entirely
women's responsibility to say no or deal with the consequences if they
say yes" school of thought?

Doesn't sound very flattering to men, does it?

>I am adopted.  My sister is adopted.  Several of my cousins are adopted.
>Several of my friends are adopted.  I can't say how glad I am to know
>that all of these people's biological parents didn't scrape them out
>into a garbage can because my life is enriched by their existance.

Thanks for sharing.

>>>This society is going down the hill MORALLY.  All of these problems stem
>>>from the same thing: lack of moral absolutes.  Abortion is a great way to
>>>escape maturity, regardless of your actual age.

>>Do share with us your currently fashionable set of politically correct
>>moral absolutes.  I need to keep up, since these "moral absolutes" seem
>>to be as changeable as the weather.

>Don't use the term "politically correct" with me.  Political correctness
>is in the vanguard of support for moral relativism.

Well, yes.  But it seems that the definition of "sin" changes from day to
day.  After all, once it was considered a sin to BE homosexual.  Now the
Catholic church at least doesn't consider it a sin to BE homosexual,
just to participate in homosexual ACTS.  But then other Christian churches
sanction same-sex marriages.  Baptists think that dancing is a sin, others
don't.  Some churches consider gambling to be a serious sin, while others
raise money with "Bingo Night".  I just want to know which set of moral
absolutes it is that you're following, as everyone seems to think that
they have THE answer.

>I will give you a moral absolute.

>Murder is wrong.

Ok, let's look at this.  You're the one who defined murder as "the killing
of a human being", yes?  (After all, if you use the actual definition of
murder as "unlawful killing", your line above begins to look an awful lot
like a tautology.)  Say you walk into the airport, and find a man holding
50 people hostage holding a bomb.  He doesn't see you, so you take out
your gun and shoot him.  Was this wrong?  You're driving down the street,
and a man jumps in front of your car.  You hit him and he dies.  Was this
wrong?  You are on a remote battlefield where medical help will not reach
(you know this to be true), and you find a man suffering from a horribly
painful wound that will eventually kill him.  You have nothing to ease
his pain, so you shoot him to end his suffering.  Is this wrong?

Or is there a category of killing that's "wrong, but less wrong than the
alternative"?

>Edward Simmonds

                     -rocker