NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/talk/abortion/31600

Text File | 1992-08-13 | 6.0 KB | 129 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!csus.edu!nextnet!chaneysa
From: [e-mail] (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Who takes care of the unwanted mother?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:45:46 GMT
Lines: 116


As you can tell, while the flamewar articles receive a general 30
minute to 1 hour response, this kind of post receives none in over 3
days.

Pro-lifers might want to take note that the same group who is trying
to flame me (and unsuccessfully since I'm prepared to deal with them),
had also been responsible for blowing Siren (one of their most
intellegent allies) off the net with their negativity, and is the same
group which is ignoring this article.

That's because this article fails to meet their Steve Hall Dennis
Chaney Numbskull Raving Lunatic propaganda requirements, and they
can't twist this post into a flamefest. So they don't respond.




In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gopal Agrawal) writes:
>>>
>>> How do most men here feel about marrying a women with someone
>>> else's children (i.e., single parent) ?
>>
>>My fiancee is a single parent, I met her when she was 8 months
>>pregnant, and I love her with all of my heart.
>
>My opinion: any pro-lifer who feels negatively about a single mother,
>is contradicting their own stance.
>When they act this out and other women sense or experience this
>negativity towards single motherhood, it may cause one or more women
>to have abortions to avoid this negativity coming out against them.
>In short, pro-lifers may get their single women w/o children, only
>after they've done the thing that this hypocritical subset of
>pro-lifers in general, oppose the most.
>
>I wouldn't hold single motherhood against a woman WRT dating. It's
>dangerously illogical, which is the primary reason why I wouldn't make
>that mistake, and whether or not I end up seeing the child as a burden
>to our relationship, would be grossly irrelevant. I _would_ make room
>in my life, even if it meant knocking some feelings aside.
>Secondarily, it is an acceptable tradeoff: compromising some feelings
>to prevent endangering the right to life.
>
>>> Does having children
>>> make it difficult  (or makes no difference) for a women to have
>>> a promising relationship with men ? I mean do most men not care
>>> if the women they are dating have children ? Is it a turn off
>>> if the woman declares to her date that her package deal includes
>>> a couple of kids ? Most people I know would rather have the first
>>> one or two years of their married life without kids.
>>
>>Probably true, but I think it's more like a bonus.  I love Zachary
>>like I would my own son.  Although I was a thousand or so miles
>>away on his birthday (August 26, 1991 if y'all wanna send me
>>presents for him ;) ), I was only male to lend Lisa support before
>>she left for the hospital.  The biological father (I'll call
>>him Fuckface to preserve his identity), Fuckface, was nowhere
>>to be seen.  He didn't try to contact Lisa until several months later.
>>How's that for a case in point?
>
>Fuckface? Well, I disagree with you. I call him Asshole, Butthead, and
>a few other names. We will have to argue this out over which name to
>call him. :)
>
>>> If it makes no difference, then it is a +ve point for the
>>> anti-abortionists. But if it becomes difficult, then it
>>> is a -ve point. Have anti-abortionists given a thought about
>>> how the woman can be deprived of an active social life if she
>>> has unwanted kids ?
>>
>>I imagine the anti-abortionists would say "you could put the baby
>>up for adoption," but then, Lisa said that if she was going to carry
>>her own flesh and blood the full hellish nine months, then she wasn't
>>going to give him away to anybody.
>
>I would say "put up the baby for adoption = 1 option," within the realm
>of a pro-life stance of "don't kill the baby."
>But I would also recognize the existence of other options: educating
>other men not to have this negative view towards single motherhood,
>and working with others to ensure that the single mother has no more
>social barriers than those practicality problems that come with
>bringing up a baby. If she's got to bring the baby along during the
>date, IMO, she's gotta do it, and the man ought to respect that she
>cares enough to take care of the child regardless.
>
>It is also grossly illogical for the man in this case, to consider his
>agenda with her, more important than her own child, especially when it
>comes to caring for him/her. There is a line where the boyfriend's
>interests eventually have some priority over some aspects of the
>mother/child relationship, but I would say those instances are few and
>far between, and that over 95% of the time, when the baby needs
>attention, he's got to yield.
>
>>"Personally, I'm pro-life, but for everybody else I'm pro-choice"
>>                                 -Lisa Marie Crotts, 1992
>>
>>Brian McBean  -  [e-mail]
>
>
>===============================================================================
>            Robert Casey for President '96!
>             This Casey never strikes out.
>===============================================================================
>===============================================================================
>BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney
>B    B     O      O   S         S          <[e-mail]>
>BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS
>BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating
>BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0
>
>           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
>