NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/talk/abortion/36698

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-15 | 7.5 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36698 alt.abortion.inequity:3794
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!ncar!csn!boulder!ucsu!spot.Colorado.EDU!knapp
From: [e-mail] (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Observations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: spot.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:06:17 GMT
Lines: 210

In article <[e-mail]> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:

>>We weren't discussing parenting, we were discussing giving birth.
>
>An inseparable subset of parenting.

I think you are out of touch with reality at this point.

>>You have *no* part in that.
>
>Bullshit.  It wouldn't be HAPPENING if not for me.

Yes, you donated a sperm. Good work. Then what? Was that donating of sperm
hard work in comparison to carrying a child for 9 months than having your
crotch split open?

What kind of sex do you *have* John?!


>>You also aren't required to have a part in parenting.
>
>Bullshit again.

Unsupported assertion. A pattern appears.

>>I know a number of women who raised their children just fine without the
>>aid of a man.
>
>And there are a number of men who raised their children just fine without
>the aid of a woman.  So what?
>
>>>The fact that women bear children, is not sufficient reason to give them
>>>all the rights.
>>
>>Huh? All the rights over their bodily functions? You think they should not
>>have all the control over their body
>
>Not 'their' body.  They are pregnant.  By definition, they are sharing their
>body with the baby.

And, if you had it your way, 'sharing', by submitting to their husbands
desires, BY LAW, to carry that baby beyond their wishes. Some 'sharing.'
You weren't one of the communists that fled Russia, were you?

>>>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.
>>
>>Really? Let's just vote on the issue then. I'm all for it.
>
>Vote?  Sure.  And of course, which ever way the vote goes, everybody will
>agree to be a good looser and just live with the results, right?

Right.

>>>Feel free.  I'm busting my ass to get my rights enforced, and you are
>>>equally free to attempt to get yours enforced.
>>
>>Your rights 'enforced'. I like that. I am only working to retain and
>>protect womens right to decide what is done with their bodies by themselves.
>
>No, you are not.  You are working (hell, fighting) to keep unborn children
>as slaves.  Slaves so despised, so utterly property, that they don't even
>have the basic right to life.

Seeing that all of us were fetuses,naturally your next reductio ad absurdum
statement will be that all 'pro-aborts' have a Freudian hatred of all
humanity. Do we now worship Satan?

You are correct, fetuses have no 'right to life'.

>Slant it all you want, but in the end, the pro-choice position is based on
>one of the prime tenants of slavery, to wit the belief that the slave is
>NOT human.

Slant as judged by an expert. You redefined all the terminology you use
for greatest emotional impact and you tell me I 'slant.' Hmm.

Yes, I don't believe a dog is human, therefore he is my Slave!!!

BWahahahahah. (evil laugh as I walk my dog on.... A LEASH AUUUGHH>)


>Interesting company you find yourself in.  The echos of those anit-abolitionist
>forebears of yours are so loud, I sometimes have trouble hearing what you
>are saying.

I am convinced now that you hear many voices, John. Listen to you doctor,
don't stop taking the Thorazine.


>'I am only working to retain and protect [the slave owner's] right to decide
>what is done with their [property] by them selves.'

(above is a creative definition of the colloquial term 'left field')

>>>A woman's pregnancy (when the couple are married) has always been an
>>>issue of the state.
>>
>>Hopefully, that will be carefully monitored.
>
>How so?

"WE ARE GOING TO TO YOU INTO A SLAVE TOO, JOHN", " YOU AND ALL THOSE
EVIL FETUSES!"  :-'


>>>You act as if babies are interchangeable.
>>
>>Where did I do that?
>
>When you imply that instead of fighting to protect the life of the child
>that my SO wants to abort, I should just find another woman who is
>willing and have a child with her.

Um, you have some very strange ideas about what is 'implied.'

>I'm sorry, but the baby that is being aborted is a unique individual,
>irreplaceable.

So is your toenail, which, by the way, is on OUR LIST OF SLAVES.


>>>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.
>>
>>Yes, then you're fucked. Give up.
>
>Hmmm.  If abortion becomes illegal, remember that phrase, OK?

We are not biologically predetermined to be controlled by fascists, you are
biologically determined to not have the choice about birth.

>>I'm sorry. I think your attempting to have
>>the state then force her to give birth is barbarian.
>
>Just as I think that having the state allow her to murder the baby is
>barbaric.

Look up 'baby' again. The thorazine will not affect your short term
memory forever.

>>It is no hair off your ass to go impregnate another woman.
>
>I disagree, STRONGLY.  That baby is irreplaceable.

No, John, read the sentence again. SLOOOOOWLLYYY. Try to maintain a thought.
Concentrate. Think "Spermmmmmm, speerrrmmmm".


>>>The question is: how do we resolve the conflict in her and my rights?
>>
>>I'd say you have no rights in that regard and you simply need to get used to it.
>
>We already know what your beliefs are, and you probably (although I wouldn't
>guarantee it) know what my beliefs are.

They often disagree with each other (your beliefs that is.)

>If abortion becomes illegal, just get used to it.

Twist, twist, twist.

>>>This must change.
>>
>>Good luck. One thing that might help is simply trying to get over your pain
>>of your past experience in this matter. It would certainly make you
>>happier and more objective.
>
>I'm VERY happy now (as happy as any adult can be) about our baby boy.  And
>I'm being very objective.

Have you given him his first swastika? (objective swastika, that is?)


>You might be a fairer, more reasonable person if you got over this 'it's
>OK to murder a VERY young child' idea.

I murdered 1 billion very young children just last night, John. I don't
think I can stop now...

>>>>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.
>>
>>Go for what is right, not what will suffice.
>
>Both are right.  One is more expedient.
>
>>David Knapp                                   University of Colorado, Boulder
>
>John
>[e-mail]



BTW, George doesn't give a damn about abortion (seen a quote where he says so)
he just wants your vote.




--
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   [e-mail]