From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: A fools paradise, that's all it is.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:11:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.214614.21642@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.145448.26265@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.202750.18927@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep1.165853.11816@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Aug31.211903.25718@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>The pro abortion camp IS trying to make laws to force people to do the things
>>they think we should be doing.
>
>What are they forcing?

Sigh. . . Once again, they are forcing the father to allow his child to be
aborted.  He has no say in the matter, and no choice.  Which is why the
label 'pro-choice' is an out and out lie.  pro-female-choice, yes.

>That's probably true. If you want to have rights over children being born,
>help fund medical research to allow the implantation of a uterus in males.
>
>Until then, relax and accept your biological bind.

If I said that to a woman who wanted to get a job but was refused on the
basis of her physical inability to do the job, she would scream sexism.

I gues sexism is OK when women apply it to men, but not vice versa.

>>I've already stated, repeatedly (four times now, to be precise) that
>>I support the idea of legal abortion, but I do NOT support abortion as
>>a unilateral choice.  It is a choice that should only be made by the
>>couple.
>
>So it is bad to have the *state* to mandate abortion, but it's ok for
>a husband to mandate abortion rights if he feels like it?

???? I do not understand what you are saying here.  Or maybe it just doesn't
have anything to do with what I said?

>Am I missing something?

It would seem so.

>>I simply support making abortion illegal, because it is the most politically
>>expedient way of making the rights of men and women equal.
> ^^^^^^^^
>You have a different definition of expedient than I do.

Probably.

>Also, men and women are not purely equal. You *seem* to be working for 
>equality in an area that equality cannot exist in because of intrinsic
>biological differences.

So what?  The feminist movement has made NO exceptions to the equal
rights cause on the basis of sex, why start now?

To answer the question, because THIS is the one case where women have
MORE rights than men.

>>As an ex-feminist, I am VERY supportive of the idea of equal rights,
>>regardless of sex.
>
>Well, I'm sorry, but there are some things we will never be equal in 
>because of intrinsic differences.

Oh good.  Then according to you, we can junk the idea of equal rights in
favor of granting rights based on based on individual ability, talent,
sex, race, etc.

>No amount of lobbying is going to change that,

It already HAS changed the law.  Try telling the feminists that no amount
of lobbying is going to get you equal rights and then tell me what their
reply is.

>>Thanks, awfully.  But your support for my right to CHOOSE does not change
>>the fact that the government has passed and enforces many laws that make
>>such actions as killing myself, smoking dope or shooting up heroin
>>illegal.
>
>I think the fact that they've done that is absurd.

I disagree.  Obviously, such actions affect society, they are not done
in total isolation.

>The fact that they've done that is also somewhat pointless judging by
>the amount of heroin and pot use and the amount of suicide.

Not pointless at all.  It has VERY far reaching economic effects.  Try
claiming life insurance benefits on someone who has commited suicide,
or health insurance benefits if you need medical attention due to an
overdose, or an adverse reaction to a controlled substance.

And, of course, you can pretty much guarantee that you will be held
legally liable if you are found to be guilty of illegal drug use
contributing to a motor vehicle accident.

>>Of course, the difference between getting really drunk every night, or
>>getting really drunk and driving is whether or not I involve other
>>people.
>
>Yes. Early abortions do not harm anyone else.

The baby.  What about the baby?

>I know you might say that because *you* wanted the child, it harms you,

Got it in one.  As an aside, does it frighten you to know that you are
begining to understand how I think, even if just a little?

>but that is the sad fact of biology I'm recommending you simply accept.

Almost word for word what I heard a man tell a feminist protester.  I
will allow your imagination to fill in the response, and use that response
as my own.

>You are a prisoner in your body and cannot hope to change your control
>over who gives birth, your or your SO.

I've never had any interest in trying to control over gives birth.  But
the biological fact that you seem not to be able to accept is that my
SO would NEVER have gotten pregnant if not for me (the father).  This
gives me legal obligations and should give me legal rights.

>Until you can do that, you'll have to hope she's a nice person
>and/or wants to have the baby. Having a baby can be considered (at least
>at times) as a *favor* your SO does for you. I have even heard meN
>literally thank their SOs for putting in so much work, being so commited
>and going through so much pain for them to be able to have a child.

Try looking at it from the other side.  My wife thanked me for getting
her pregnant, and for being very supportive of her during and after the
pregnancy.  You see, having a baby is not a favor anybody does for
anybody else.  It was a joint effort, it should entail joint responsibility
and equal rights.

Or, another way of thinking about it is, that men do women a favor by
getting them pregnant.

If he/she does not wish to be a parent, then he/she will not consider it
a favor, so he/she should be able to terminate/avoid the parental role.
Women do this by choosing not to have sex, by using birth control and
if all else fails, by aborting the child.

Men do this by choosing not to have sex, using birth control, and
if all else fails, legally notifying the mother of his decision to
terminate his parental responsibilities and rights. . . Ooops, for
a moment there, I slipped into a fantasy world where men are not
treated as second class citizens.  Forgive me.

>>Abortion by definition is NOT a personal choice. 
>
>I hope to help it remain a personal choice. I'm sorry if it leads to 
>fisticuffs with you.

Yes.  We would both be sorry.  You for starting the fight (I DO NOT start
physical violence) and me for reacting to it.

>Yes, two to start, one to finish.
>
>Is starting a pregnancy so hard for you that you can't just go find another
>SO and see if *she* won't have your baby?

Some people will copulate with anything that moves.  Others apply loose
standards for selection, others apply very strict standards and have
highly complex rituals to indicate commitment, etc., before engaging
in such behavior.  If one is of the latter type, yes, it may be very
difficult to 'just go find another SO'.

>You have an odd definition of 'just'.

You mean, you don't consider the concept of 'equal rights' to be just?

What is it, then?

>David Knapp                                  University of Colorado, Boulder

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion