NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/talk/abortion/32564

Text File | 1992-08-19 | 9.9 KB | 237 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!gordons
From: [e-mail] (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Message-ID: <x=#[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 04:43:05 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Summary: Suzanne gets nasty
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 225

<[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
><[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Gordon Storga):
>> <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>[e-mail] (Gordon Storga):
>> ....
>[discussing a hypothetical situation that an minor daughter of Suzanne's
> had an abortion]
>>>> Do you try to see her side of it?  Do you ask her to explain?
>>>Yet BET I do!
>> Confusion: You see her side of it?  OR  Do you ask her to explain?
>
>I "try to see her side of it" by "asking her to explain".  How many
>"yesses" do you want?

Touchy, touchy.  I just asked for a little explanation.

>> Your
>> single answer wasn't clear as to which question you were answering.
>> I'd be interested in hearing how you could see her side of it.
>
>By asking her her reasons.

Fine, you would *hear* her side of it.  I just doubt that you could *see*
her side of it.  There is a difference.  It's the same difference between
you reading my words that I'm an Atheist and actually *seeing* how I could
be an Atheist.  'Understanding' is the implication here.

>                            Just about every truly pro-life mother
>*I* know has taken her teenage daughter asside at some time and said,
>"I don't expect you'll ever get pregnant, but if it were ever to
>happen, you know that I would help you raise the baby until you were
>established enough to take care of him/her yourself."

What does this have to do with seeing her side of it?  This just sounds
like parental support.  Fairly common I would hope.

>                                                        And you know
>what?  Daughters from trusting loving homes like that RARELY ever do
>get pregnant!

You mean, you never *hear* of them getting pregnant.  Like someone from
your church is gonna tell you that their daughter got knocked up.  Yeah,
right.  BTW, you may know some highly unusual pro-life women because the
children of pro-life parents that I've known have never heard *squat* from
either of their parents about support for an illegitmate child BEFORE it
happened.

...
>>>The real world is what you make it, Gordon.
>> Oh, my world is as real as they come.  Yours appears to be fairly
>> fantastical.
>
>No Gordon.   Your world of doom, gloom, and perpetual pessimism is
>NOT real at all.

You must have me confused with Mr. Chaney.  As I related to you in private
email some months back, my life is appallingly wonderful - hence
"my world" is not all gloom and doom (I did, however, just survive yet
another company layoff - terrible that I was kept employed while a
pro-life Catholic with 5 kids and another on the way was released.  What
*was* your god thinking...)

>                   The world IS what you make it.

I can't make the world, Suzanne.  I just take what is there and make the
best out of it.

>                                                    You make yours
>a cesspool by expecting your kids to sleep around exposing themselves
>to all sorts of horrible diseases, not to mention parenthood before
>their time.

("cesspool"???)  I would expect my children to be exposed to the same peer
pressure that I was exposed to when I was young(er).  I never got a
horrible disease (I take that back - I did get mono once), and I was only
exposed to parenthood once - but I wasn't a "child" then so it doesn't
count.

>             I make ours (my daughter's and mine) a world of decency
>and love, where she knows from early on how to reciprocate.

Then you are setting her up for a fall.  She's going to go out into the
real world someday and find out the truth about herself and others.  She
will be so pissed off at you for lying that you'll be lucky if she ever
speaks to you again.

>                                                             She
>will want for her children nothing less than what she has grown up
>with herself.

Religious brainwashing?

>                And you know what Gordon?  Kids have a way of living
>up to EXACTLY what you EXPECT of them.   You expect your kids to
>be animals of the street, who will be unable to control themselves
>in getting pregnant, and then will become physically violent when
>you try to help them.  And your kids would grow up exactly like that,
>Gordon.

Whew!  Good thing I would never consider teaching *any* children this sort
of thing at all.

>          My kids will grow up decent, loving, and in full control
>of their futures.

But, I thought you said *you* were going to raise them?

>                    Because those are the worlds we're creating
>for them as they are growing up.

We don't "create" worlds for our children, Suzanne.  You either prepare
them for the real world that exists outside your church doors, or you lie
to them.

>Yes Gordon, I know you've had a vasectomy.

Yeah, I was beginning to wonder about you.

>                                            You've posted it to
>the world before.  And for the sake of the kids you didn't have,
>I'm glad.

Tsk, tsk.  Suzanne is glad about the abortion my ex-wife had before my
vasectomy.  Sounds faintly hypocritical of you.  Face it Suzanne, you have
absolutely *no* idea of how I'd raise my children.  My
church-going-pro-life-in-laws know my position on religion and abortion,
and my views on the proper way to raise children. They both think I'd be
an excellent father.  So do most of my friends who have small children.

>>>The real world is that parents CAN and DO have a HUGE influence on
>>>their children's view of the world.
>> Sure do, but they have little control.
>That's why you teach them young how to control themselves.

I agree.

>> All in all, you answered pretty much the way I thought you might: You
>> denied that any of these things was a remote possibility for your
>> daughter.
>
>I denied that I can have no influence whatsoever on my daughter.

Not quite.  I said:

>> These are all valid questions.  Teen-agers are rebellious.  At some
>> point they tend to just sit down and not budge (metaphorically).  Your
>> daughter might not do this (and I'm sure many will claim they'll never
>> have to answer these questions because they'll raise their daughter
>> "right"), but then again she might.

You replied:
>No, she mightn't.

You denied that your daughter would ever become pregnant out of wedlock.
You really should learn that I keep track of what people say.  You
apparently don't even keep track of what you say.

>The fact is that you have complete influence AND control while your
>children are still young, and as she is still very young, it is not
>too late for my kid, so she will be taught how to control herself.

And you can teach her to drive too.  It doesn't gaurentee she won't have
a car accident.

>You apparently would be too lazy to teach your kids the self-control
>they'd need in this world, and so you throw up your hands and say
>"it cain't be done".

There's nothing "apparent" about your accusation.  I have repeatedly
stated in this forum that full disclosure and instruction to all children
of all facts and options should be done in home and school.

>                      Of course it can be done.  You just can't be
>bothered, Gordon.

Actually, I can't be bothered with children in my life.  Which is why I
don't have any.  But I do have great sex with my wife and since it has
absolutely zero chance of procreation it probably pisses you off to no
end.

>> You'd claim she murdered her child, but wouldn't report her for
>> murder.  You'd (apparently) physically drag her to counseling whether
>> she needed it or not, whether she wanted it or not.
>
>Correction:  YOUR kid would need to be dragged.   My kid is will not be
>the street animal your kid would be, because I'm seeing to it that she's
>not.  She is, and always will be, a human being.

See, you deny that it could ever happen to your kid.  If your 16 yr old
daughter refused to go to counseling just how do you propose to get her
there?

>> I wonder if you'd
>> mind answering all these questions again, but this time assume that
>> abortion has been made completely illegal, with federal punishment for
>> procuring and abetting abortion.  I'm just curious of your treatment of
>> your daughter would change if had committed murder in the *legal* sense.
>
>Certainly not, because I've said for years that I advocate that the law
>hunt down _abortionists_ themselves, since an abortionist will be guilty
>of far many more abortions than one scared teenage girl.   I have never
>advocated treating women like criminals.

I really wasn't talking about what *you* advocate.  I'm saying that if
abortion was considered murder from a legal aspect for both the women and
the doctor you would choose to ignore the law.  Now what good does the law
do in this case when every parent is going to feel the same way - *their*
daughter is the victim and should not be held accountable.  If your
daughter procured an abortion in this instance she would be guilty of
first degree murder since by your own words she would be fully aware of
what she did.  In many states, she would be on death row - her life
forfeit for the sake of a thumbnail-sized piece of human tissue that
wouldn't have even known it existed.

What a wonderful world the pro-lifer lives in.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
--
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.