home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35382 alt.abortion.inequity:3575
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!sunova!linac!uchinews!ellis!eeb1
- From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
- Subject: Re: Observations
- Message-ID: <1992Sep7.033921.8119@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
- Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
- Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
- References: <1992Sep01.193909.24105@watson.ibm.com> <1992Sep3.143636.26067@advtech.uswest.com>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 03:39:21 GMT
- Lines: 66
-
- In article <1992Sep3.143636.26067@advtech.uswest.com>
- stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
- >In article <1992Sep01.193909.24105@watson.ibm.com>
- >margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
- >>In <1992Sep1.165853.11816@advtech.uswest.com>
- >>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
-
- >>> Which is a statement of personal belief, not fact. My belief is that the
- >>> woman should be aware of the possibility of pregnancy, and be prepared to
- >>> carry through (just as the man has to) in the event of a pregnancy.
-
- >>> My beliefs are just as valid as yours, so if you tell me what I 'should'
- >>> do, then I take it I have the right to tell you what YOU should do.
-
- >>Naturally. As long as you don't try to enforce it against my will.
-
- >Nope. They are still just as valid when I try to enforce them. This is
- >called law. And right now, you are enforcing your beliefs on others.
-
- >You will not admit that. You keep conviently side stepping the difficult
- >questions, or ignoring pertinent facts.
-
- Pertinent fact: your "father's consent" wished-for-law ignores the
- woman's right to control her body, since it divides control over her
- body equally between the two people who have created the z/e/f and
- ignores the fact that the body is hers.
-
- Difficult question: doesn't this make this position the most
- miogynistic position around, as its premises are misogynistic (women
- don't have a right to control their bodies)?
-
- >>Note that I said *should*, not *must*. Just like if you wanted to give
- >>someone a gift, but control how they used it, I'd say you should come
- >>to an agreement *before* giving them the gift. You're free to do what
- >>you like, but if you give them the gift with no strings attached, then
- >>whine because they threw it out, I'm free to think you're a fool for
- >>doing so.
-
- >Except that once again, you conveniently ignore the facts. Agreements that
- >attempt to enforce maternity OR abortion OR excusing the father from
- >child support payments are unenforcable legally.
-
- >Hence my desire to change the law. And yes, in changing the law, you
- >might end up having somebody elses beliefs enforced on you, but how
- >does that differ from today? Already, there exists a large body of
- >law that enforces other peoples beliefs on you.
-
- You ... hypocrite!
-
- Child support contracts are unenforcible, which creates an
- infringement on men's rights, so instead of changing this you want to
- destroy women's rights to control their bodies?!!
-
- Excuse me if I think this shows total disregard for women's rights.
-
- >Are you trying to call into question the entire body of law?
-
- Yes. Both Larry and I have said that child support contracts should
- be enforcible as a general rule long before you poked your nose into
- talk.abortion.
-
- --
- Pro-Choice Anti-Roe - E. Elizabeth Bartley
- Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
-
- Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
-