NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/13923

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-27 | 7.5 KB

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13923 talk.abortion:58102
Path: sparky!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 26 Jan 1993 21:55:46 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu

Well!  It oughtta be clear to anyone following this thread that things are
starting to heat up.  Nevertheless, I'll keep the flames from starting, as
Adrienne is doing the same....

Once again,
more exchange between Adrienne and myself.  I'm even ">"s; she's odd...

>>>We don't have that whiz bang technology yet that will render this argument
>>>moot.  So what do *you* propose we do?  I propose that we let individuals
>>>settle the matter individually, according to their own consciences.
>>
>>I simply cannot agree until you (or someone else) can convince me that the
>>life of the unborn child will not be directly threatened, or that the life
>>of the mother will be threatened more, or that the unborn child isn't alive
>>at all, or any other circumstance that would render the pro-life case moot.
>
>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.
To me, and quite a few others involved in this issue, this is exactly the
reason that abortion is such a tough problem.  Nature has forced us to
choose between two fundamental rights, and has the gall to imply that we
can't have both.  (I do hope that someone is working on this.)

You do not have a problem with this, because you believe there is no life at
stake, except perhaps the woman's.  Thus, the issue is clear to you, and I
can understand that.  I can't make that assumption on the evidence I have
yet, so I'm forced to vote in favor of the child.

>Tell you something, Paul, it is this root belief, unshakable as it appears
>to be, that will get you branded as a mysogynist on this net.  Now, maybe
>you don't much care about that -- after all, it's only a net.

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.

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.  (Or help in
the choosing, to be more accurate.)  In the interest of brevity I will
refrain from repeating this unless absolutely necessary.

>But to those of us who are women, who do face the possibility of being dis-
>counted as human beings because we own wombs, it gets to be a pretty important
>point of view.  You would turn me into a lesser animal on this planet, because
>I own a womb.
>
>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.  This is an emotional issue, no
doubt.  To both sides.  It is probably wiser to leave this to judgement,
and relax the blinding emotion somewhat.

>Because *you* value the fetus.
>
>Now, I can understand how women everywhere are going to have a problem with
>that.
>
>It's also basically inconsistant on the face of it.
>There isn't any OTHER being on this planet that gets to use my body against
>my will, but you would grant that right to a fetus.  Which we have argued
>up and down about here, since it's 'personhood' and 'rights' are definitely
>not settled things.  So, for this we-don't-quite-know-what, you propose to
>abridge my rights -- given to me because I'm an UNDISPUTED person, and a
>citizen of this country.

To you, it's a we-don't-quite-know-what.  To me, it's possibly a human life.
From the evidence so far, to me, it's _probably_ a human life.  To be more
accurate, it's probably a human life entitled to protection under the law.

I hate to bring in analogies, because so many posters feel they cloud and
confuse the issue.  However, I'll do so anyway in the hope that will help
clarify my feelings to SOMEBODY.  That said, here's the Analogy Warning:

Note that the following is NOT meant to support any of my arguments on the
abortion issue, but rather to convey better understanding, if possible.

It's a quite short analogy, really, if you take away the disclaimer packaging.
Simply put, hostages in foreign countries, notably P.O.W.s in Vietnam, are
at best only _possibly_ still alive, American citizens.  And the popular
attitude is to get them outta there anyway.  Cost, or loss, is often not
considered an object.  Note again that this is NOT to mean that "therefore,
the child's life reigns supreme" or anything like that.  It's just to convey
why many pro-life advocates are willing to put their votes on the line (and
rarely even their cars) in opposition to pro-choice.

>There isn't a single other human being who gets to use my body against my will,
>but you figure it makes sense to make an exception -- SEIZING my rights against
>my will, and over my protest -- in the case of a fetus.
>
>I think that's nonsense.
>
>I think, if *you* value that fetus so damned highly that you would FORCE women
>through the law to surrender their HUMAN RIGHTS, then *you* are going to have
>to put a lot more behind it than "I believe".  I'd like to see your bankbook,
>to see how much money you are willing to back up your beliefs with.  You would
>INSIST (presuming your statement above correlates to a legal restriction on
>abortion) that women pay with their physical selves.  How far are *you* going
>to go in standing up for your beliefs, bub?

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.  I'll ask my parents for advice on providing for a child, set up
college funds, etc.; anything to keep him or her happy.  I might even come
to enjoy the company, as introverted as I tend to be.  I just hope the
adoption agency sees fit to entrust a child to a single male college student.
If my job does well, I'll take on another.  If I can give a child as good a
life as I've had, it will be worth it....

...and your persistence is helping me to come to grips with that.

>>If no lives are at stake, I would be very willing to leave this matter to
>>the individual.
>
>Well, that's another topic for debate, ain't it?  You'll find it coming around
>about every two weeks.

Indeed.  It seems to be up constantly, along with all the other facets of
abortion.

>Now, before you jump into that one with both feet, ask yourself if ANYBODY
>EVER gets to use my body without my consent.
>
>The answer, Paul, is "no".

I hope this is not intended as a threat.  Such things start flamewars and
riots.  And riots don't help anyone.

Thank you for your arguments...


Paul Brinkley
[e-mail]
Pro-Thought Advocate