NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/talk/abortion/35964

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-10 | 5.2 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35964 alt.abortion.inequity:3672
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!coopsol!gordons
From: [e-mail] (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Observations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stay Awake Software
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 22:42:00 GMT
Lines: 108

<[e-mail]> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
><[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
>><[e-mail]> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>><[e-mail]>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens):
>>>>> <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>>>And this is exactly the reason I'm here.  Because it isn't an individual
>>>decision.  It is the decision of TWO people, father and mother.
>>
>>Not until fathers bear children it's not.  If you can't handle that, be more
>>careful in choosing your mate.
>
>Bearing the child is only a small part of parenting.  And until you
>realize that, you really have no chance at all of understanding my position.

It's difficult to understand how you can trivialize the pain, discomfort,
and body damage that a woman incurs during pregnancy and refer to it as
only a "small part" of parenting.

>The fact that women bear children, is not sufficient reason to give them
>all the rights.

Well, this is an assertion.  Fairly blatant too.  What do you base your
position upon?  The woman is the _only_ member of the couple that *gets
pregnant*.  Why wouldn't she have sole control over what goes on in her
body?

...
>>I disagree and I am surprised you would think the process of making abortion
>>illegal is expedient in the first place.
>
>There is already a VERY large group of people who want to make abortion
>at least more controlled, and most want it made illegal.  In fact, the
>registered number of anti-abortion supporters is much larger than the
>number of abortion supporters, but due to a truly incredible media
>slant, most people are unaware of just how large the numbers are.

Ah yes, blame that damn "liberal" press.

...
>>>I would be much happier with a constitutional amendment that requires
>>>the consent of the father before abortion is allowed.
>>
>>Then in many cases you are agreeing with making a woman's pregnancy an issue
>>of the state, which violates the personal freedom this country was founded on.
>
>A woman's pregnancy (when the couple are married) has always been an
>issue of the state.
>
>And to be honest, I don't understand why you would object to this.  After all,
>you claim to support personal choice.  So how do you intend to guarantee
>a right to personal choice without involving the state?

By reading the Constitution.

>Besides, aren't you missing a great big fat fact, that a woman's
>pregnancy is ALREADY an issue of the state.  If it wasn't, then we wouldn't
>be discussing this, because there would be no Roe vs Wade, no attempt to
>codify the 'right-to-abortion' into law, no . . . oh hell, you either get
>it, or you never will.

The point is, now listen carefully, IT SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE OF THE
STATE'S!  That's the whole point.

You would be better off if you were unable to purchase or consume food
stuffs that were bad for you: fatty foods, candies, etc.  Should the state
be allowed to mandate what you eat, when you eat it, and how much of it
you eat?  Should that state have a say in what you do with your body?
Where do you draw the line?  Gee, I might like to draw that line somewhere
else.  Why should I be able to draw the line FOR YOU?

...
>But that isn't what this discussion is about.  It is about one particular
>case: the woman is ALREADY pregnant, she wants to have an abortion, and
>I, as the father, do not want her to have an abortion.
>
>The question is: how do we resolve the conflict in her and my rights?

We grant her an abortion and tell you 'tough cookies'.

>Currently, the answer is, that the state does not view me as having ANY
>rights, just obligations.
>
>This must change.

Why?  Do you want all men to always have a right to keep a woman pregnant
against her will?  How is this fair?

>>>If a law or constitutional amendment is passed that allows abortion to
>>>remain the sole choice of the woman, then I will have to turn to getting
>>>fatherhood to be legally recognized as a choice, not an obligation.
>>
>>I think, if I understand that sentence, that's the way to go.
>
>Nah.  It's a dark horse at best, much less likely to be succesful than
>limiting or eliminating abortion.

But it would be the most fair thing to do.


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 all.
--
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.