NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/talk/abortion/31926

Text File | 1992-08-15 | 3.8 KB | 91 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc.alt.politics.bush
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!The-Village!waterbed
From: Larry Margolis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 04:03:02 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Nntp-Posting-Host: netslip63.watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Lines: 77

In  <[e-mail]>  [e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>
> [e-mail] writes:
>
> >[e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >>[e-mail] (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
> >>> No, Holtsinger, he said that all women deserve support of their right to
> >>> choose.
>
> >> If he said "all people deserve support of their right to discriminate
> >> against homosexuals", then wouldn't that wrongly assume that all people
> >> would actually _want_ to discriminate against homosexuals?
>
> > No, it would wrongly assume that all people have a right to discriminate
> > against homosexuals in the first place.
>
> That depends on the state law.  My point still stands.

"Depends on the state law" implies that you recognize that at least some
states have laws barring discrimination based on sexual preference, so
you know that it's not true that *all* people have that right.  So your
point falls.  In addition, you're apparently assuming that even if the
state doesn't explicitly ban it, that people have a *right* to discriminate
against homosexuals; an assumption with which I'd disagree.

> ># Definitely!  Their statements regarding their (grand)daughters are just a tad
> ># hypocritical; one would hope that they see the error of their ways and open
> ># the door for _all_ women rather than close it for their (grand)daughters.
>
> > "Open the door" doesn't mean you'd force anyone through it; it just means
> > that it's available for those who want it.
>
> Right, he assumes that all women are pro-choice,

This statement is not correct.

> that all women would actually _want_ to receive support for
> their right to an abortion,

This statement is not correct.

> and that all women think alike.

This statement is not correct.

> >> He said that all women deserve support of their right to choose.
>
> > To draw an analogy - all women deserve support of their right to escape
> > from an abusive relationship.  This does not assume that all women *want*
> > support of this right.  Some women feel that they're better off than they
> > would be outside of the relationship.  Some women feel that they're the
> > man's property, and don't have any such right.  Regardless - they
> > deserve *support* of their right, whether or not they want it or
> > plan on taking advantage of it.
>
> You make the same sexist argument that Chris Lyman made.

This statement is not correct, as *neither* of us made a sexist argument.

> Your analogy
> contains the implicit assumption that "some women" (probably very few women)
> would not want to receive support for their right to escape from an abusive
> relationship, just as "some women" would not want to receive support
> for their right to an abortion.
>
> Your analogy does not compare to abortion, since *many* women are pro-life,
> not just "some women" (i.e. very few women).

Ignore the numbers involved.  The argument is that they deserve to have
their rights supported, whether or not they feel they should have the
right.  You may also disagree that this is a right that women should have,
but you're incorrect to claim that the argument is sexist or implies in
any way that *all* women *want* the right.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)