From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Eulogy for the "Pro-Choice" label (Was Re: Fathers, abortion
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:11:24 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

>Received: by sage.cc.purdue.edu (5.61/Purdue_CC)
>	id AA09807; Wed, 7 Oct 92 22:04:21 -0500
>Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 22:04:21 -0500
>From: ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Don Dodson)
>Message-Id: <9210080304.AA09807@sage.cc.purdue.edu>
>To: milliken@athena.cs.uga.edu
>Subject: Re: Fathers, abortion
>Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.abortion
>In-Reply-To: <1992Oct8.003639.19520@athena.cs.uga.edu>
>References: <1992Oct6.162127.3657@sci34hub.sci.com> <1992Oct7.010013.10853@athena.cs.uga.edu> <1992Oct7.014947.5386@midway.uchicago.edu>
>Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
>Cc: 
>Status: OR
>
>In article <1992Oct8.003639.19520@athena.cs.uga.edu> you write:
>>	If abortion is not the right choice for you, then don't have one.  
>>	But don't try to force your moral convictions on others.
>
>DON> What is your address?  I'd like to come over and take everything you
>DON> own.  Its my choice after all.  If theft is not the right choice for
>DON> you, then don't steal.  But don't try to force your moral convictions
>DON> on others.
>
>DON> Don
>
>	Okay, somebody fill me in.  How does somebody who takes something
>	this far out of context, and then applies a totally pathetic attempt
>	at logic in an effort to refute a position with which he disagrees,
>	get into Purdue University?  Huh?  Huh?  Tell me. 

Well, how about this: 

I will apply three major pro-choice principles:
1) Right to Privacy
2) Control of one's own body 
3) Lotsa people do it anyway 

Two of those principles are absolute necessities in pro-choice
thought: #1 and #2. 

Lessee... 
If "If you don't like abortion, don't have one" is valid, then the
application of the most necessary parts of the pro-choice stand, would
apply to drugs. 

You see, use of cocaine or marijuana can be done in the privacy of
one's home, and since it does not kill someone else, directly, you
have a "right to control your own body" and use crack or pot in the
privacy of your own home. And MANY, MANY more people are drug users,
than there are pregnant women. Drug use knows no gender.  

Why is it, then, that given the three fundamental pro-choice arguments
are true for drugs, too - and then some - this principle does not
apply to a BIGGER situation than even abortion? By your exact
standards, freedom of choice should be extended to pot and cocaine. 

HOWEVER, it seems that PRO-CHOICE organizations are unwilling to admit
this as a FREEDOM OF CHOICE. It is not listed in the "Freedom of
Choice Act" even though it would be a freedom by your exact
definitions. 



Okay, and now for applying it to Don's analogy:
>DON> What is your address?  I'd like to come over and take everything you
>DON> own.  Its my choice after all.  If theft is not the right choice for
>DON> you, then don't steal.  But don't try to force your moral convictions
>DON> on others.

What is your address? I'd like to bring a drug-user over to your home
and inform you that they are using drugs on their own body in the
privacy of a motel room, for purely recreational purposes. 
Now, don't you go calling the cops. It is their choice, after all. If
drug use in the privacy of one's home, for the purpose of pleasing
one's own body (and not doing anything to you at all), is not the
right choice for you, then do not use drugs. But don't try to force
your moral convictions on them. 

Remember the factors involved: 
1) Privacy 
2) Controlling their body and their body alone
3) They are a consenting adult
4) Many, many people do it even though it is illegal 

NOW, we have a correct analogy. Only now, it is not involving just a
woman, but men AND women alike. 


If it is impossible to legalize drugs on these four basic principles
that legal abortion cannot survive without, then we obviously have a
contradiction when we turn around and say: 
"A woman has a right to control her own body and kill someone
dependent upon her in the process." 

Mainly because "No one has a right to control their own body for
recreational purposes when it comes to drugs, and because it is
illegal, people are DYING.."  



=============================================================================
The next time someone proclaims to be pro-choice, ask them about their
position on drugs. 
	      Pro-choice is a bunch of inconsistent crock. 
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42273 alt.sex:32836