From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: About those UnBornThi
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:30:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>In article <Jul.24.15.02.07.1992.23324@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>I believe that the phrase 'equal rights' refers not to rights based on
>biological equalities, but the attempt to make rights equal EVEN THOUGH
>the individuals in question ARE NOT equal due to sexual or racial
>differences.

My understanding of the term is that if one's gender makes no difference in a
situation, then it should not be considered.  I don't think it means that 
situations should be altered significantly so that gender doesn't make a 
difference.  

>In other words, the belief that biological differences should give rise
>to different rights, is, IN MY BELIEF, unfair.

If they are real and unavoidable differences, I don't see why we should
ignore them.  

>However, if you do believe that different biologies should give rise
>to different rights, but only those differences which are 'absolute',
>then perhaps you need to stop, and realize that while the ability to
>carry a baby is something that only women can do, the ability to
>impregnate a woman is something that only men can do.

And the man can choose not to impregnate a woman by using birth control.
If the birth control fails, then he must face the consequences just like
the woman.  But because they play different roles in this process, they
have different consequenses to face.

>And if a woman should have special rights due to her responsibilities
>in the act of reproduction, maybe men should to.

So far, you haven't come up with one that sounds fair to me.

>Surprise.  My news reader does not.  Isn't it nice that you very kindly
>ask these questions of me, so that you might know whether or not to
>flame me?

I try to be nice as much as I can.  But I am human and I have been known
to loose my temper.

>>If I were simply a knee-jerk reactionary, I would have told you to
>>f*** off a long time ago.

>You and I define reactionary differently.  To me, it means that you
>attempt to force your beliefs and attitudes on me, and if you cannot
>succeed, you shift to abuse.  Since this is USENET, not a face to
>face confrontation, the abuse is limited to the verbal (written?),
>but it is abuse, just the same.

Then you misinterpreted me.  I did not attempt to force my beliefs on you.
I simply argued with what you presented to me.  After covering the same
bases with you over and over and over and over again, I became fed up
and made a wisecrack about you.  

>Strange, how someone who is horrified at the thought of abuse, is so
>ready to abuse.  I guess introspection is even rarer than common sense.

If I was "so ready" to abuse you, I would have done it a long time ago.
Read back through the thousands of lines of posts that we have done and
you may realize what I am talking about.  You may see exactly how many 
times we've gone in circles before I broke down and make a crack.

I don't think that qualifies me as "so ready".  I think that shows
a tremendous amount of restraint.

>Feel free to tell me to fuck off.  It hurts when people are abusive,
>but IMO you have the right to ignore me, or anyone else.

I did not tell you to fuck off, by the way.  I said if I were a knee-jerk
reactionary, then I would have just told you to fuck off a long time ago
and I would have been done with it.  BUT, I didn't do that.  I listened
and I discussed.  I tried to be fair.  You don't believe that I was trying
to be fair because we are adhering to different ground rules.

You think that everything has to be "even-steven", no matter who you are
or what your situation.  If I get something, you have to get something,
no matter why I got what I got.  You want to change situations so that
men and women can both receive the exact same treatment.

My basic ground rule is that each individual controls his or her own body
and anything or anyone who happens be attached to it.

>Of course, if you consider me to be dangerous, you might not want to
>ignore me.  Danger does not go away just because it is ignored.  Indeed,
>if I spent less time posting here, I could spend more time writing letters
>to my congressional representatives, news papers, etc.

No, I don't see you as dangerous.  I'm glad that you care enough about a 
particular situation to discuss it and fight about it, I just don't think
there is anymore for us to discuss.  We got down to the bare bones on this
one and have discovered that we disagree.  I don't think either one of us
has managed to change the way the other one sees things.  

>In fact, ignoring me might be doing me a favor.

Well, then I'll make sure not to ignore you.  Wouldn't want to 
do you any favors now, would I?  :)

>I have asked a number of women what they think of the people involved in
>the confrontations between pro-choicers and pro-lifers.  Strangely enough,
>a lot of them think that the pro-lifers are nicer people, because most
>pictures showing the choicers/lifers in face to face discussion show
>a 'choicer who is screaming, with a face full of hate, while the 'lifer
>is trying to calmly, lovingly talk the other side around.

Oh, like those calm loving pro-lifers who bomb abortion clinics and 
picket Planned Parenthood, and scream insanely at patrons "Don't
Kill Your Baby!!!!"?  Those people?  

I'm sorry if I don't think much of your poll-taking skills.  



-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services