NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/talk/abortion/34774

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-03 | 5.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!ab980
From: [e-mail] (Carwil James)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Date: 3 Sep 1992 17:47:53 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Carwil James)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Suzanne Forgach) says:

>From article <[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?
>
>
>> 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.  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."   And you know
>what?  Daughters from trusting loving homes like that RARELY ever do
>get pregnant!
>
You assume that if all homes were of this type that teenage pregnancy
would be a thing of the past; that a loved and trusted daughter will
never be taken advantage of? All of this seems to reflect the idea
that a person's course in life is solely or virtually solely a result
of their early direction and that the world will have no influence on
certain people's lives. This hardly seems to fit in with reality.
>>>> If you can manage it, stay in the
>>>> hypothetical, but try to personalize it in a 'real world' sense.
>>>
>>>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.   The world IS what you make 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.  I make ours (my daughter's and mine) a world of decency
>and love, where she knows from early on how to reciprocate.  She
>will want for her children nothing less than what she has grown up
>with herself.   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.   My kids will grow up decent, loving, and in full control
>of their futures.   Because those are the worlds we're creating
>for them as they are growing up.
Nobody controls their future especially not fully. Besides it does
little to answer a hypothetical by denying it's possible. Disreg-
arding that, why do you think the term is _unplanned_ pregnancy. Life
is never as planned and thus this is a possibility.
>
> [Ad hominen attack deleted]
>
>>>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.
>
This is just verbal meandering out of a serious question. I hope that
someone will post a real answer to a key question in this debate.
>
>> 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.
>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.
>
>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".  Of course it can be done.  You just can't be
>bothered, Gordon.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>> Gordon
>
>Suzanne.
>
--
|Carwil James-FreeNet BBS List Editor |InterNet: [e-mail]|
|    / / Only Amiga  /-\ / /-\  Chan  |Phone: [phone]                 |
|\ \/ / Makes It    <o  X  |-/   ben  |"Life's a beach and the tide just    |
| \/\/ Possible.     \-/ \ \-- bplah! | came in." -Osadczuk                 |