From: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, etc.
Reply-To: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
Organization: Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya ,Japan.
Distribution: talk.abortion
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:39:52 GMT


>>In article <1992Dec18.113255.23932@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>
>[deletia]
>>A woman would have to give up some rights to have a baby,
>>undeniably.  I just happen to believe that a woman's rights
>>do not extend so far as to kill the fetus.  You give absolutely ZERO
>>consideration to the fetus.  ZERO.  God, are you selfish.
>
>You are starting to irritate me.

Yes, I should stop making sense maybe.

>Later in this posting, you delete your _last_ accusation 
>of selfishness, and my response to it.  Unfortunately, 
>you misogynist newbie twit, I am somewhat known in this 
>forum as a mother of three who's been voluntarily sterilized 
>(or mutilated, if you prefer, Merry Christmas Suzanne).  

If it was voluntary, then you have only done this mutilation to yourself.
I don't see what it has to do with me or this discussion.
Note: pro-life does not necessarily equal misogyny.

>I 
>will never require an abortion personally.  My reason for 
>opposing legal rights for fetuses is that I place a very 
>high value on the lives and wishes of women.  I can see that
>you do not share this value, or else you have not given
>much consideration to the impact of your agenda on the
>lives of women.

I try to consider both the fetus and the mother.  She is free
to do what she wants when the child is physically not dependent
on her.  It's a question of degree.

>>>>This is like saying my right to drive all over the road
>>>>shouldn't be taken away just because I might wipe out a
>>>>few bystanders.   Crazy drivers deserve more rights.
>>>HOW is it like that, Todd?  Your feeble attempt at 
>>>analogy makes no sense to me.
>>It's like this.  We all have to live together. We have to give
>>and take.  This includes rights.  You give nothing.  You take all.
>>Get it?
>>
>Pardon me, but I think my rights include the right to 
>refuse to live with you.

What a hell, to have to live with one's own baby.

>I don't think you are a 
>particularly generous soul to want to strip rights
>away from women in order to award them to fetuses.

Give and take.  That's how a functional society works.
But perhaps you've never lived in such a society.

>What are YOU willing to give up, Todd?

If or when I become a father, I will either propose or ask
to be a single father depending on the situation.  I want
to give a lot to my kids.  I think that's substantial.
Yes, I want to LIVE with them.  I want to support them,
play with them, and love them (maybe go camping together), 
even if they turn out to be complete assholes.

>I don't want to give the impression that fetuses should
>have no rights.  A fetus should have whatever rights
>the pregnant woman wishes to give up voluntarily.  

Why is this necessarily so?  On what basis?  It's totally
arbitrary, admit it.  We are all given whatever rights
society allows us.  No more, no less.

>For
>some women, including myself, this includes giving up
>the right to get out of bed for extended periods of time.

Sounds rough.

>I even gave up the right to pick up and cuddle a born
>child, who also suffered from that deprivation, in order
>to give a pair of fetuses the right to the best chance
>they could have.  REAL selfish, huh?

So you're noble.  Congrats and my respect to you.

>[suggestion that I should have been aborted deleted, along
>with my agreement and a description of permanent physical
>damage caused by my birth]
>>>of pain.  The damage was not forseeable, BTW.
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>How many times do I have to state that I do not oppose abortion
>>if the mother's health is in danger.  Can we please stop arguing
>>about things we agree on?
>>It is sad that your mother endured so much.  But it is obvious
>>she loves you, and would not want you to end your life, and
>>this would be a ridiculous demonstration anyhow.  And as
>>mentioned, it sounds like a case where abortion might have
>>been the best solution.  But for a healthy mother, it is a
>>different situation.
>>
>Clue Time.  READ what I wrote.  The damage occurred
>during delivery with NO forewarning.  Every woman
>who carries a child to term risks death or permanent
>physical harm.  

So does everybody who walks down the street.  We should
all stay inside and lock the doors and watch TV for the
rest of our lives.  Why not just abort our existence if
there's any danger in it.  (Your clue to accuse me of
making a pointless analogy).

>Weren't you the one who said it was
>'just vanity'?  

Maybe I was right.

>Your misogyny is appalling.

Get real.  You can only see yourself as a victim, and your
only solution is to take it out on others, namely men and
fetuses.  Your victim mentality is what lets you get away
with murder.

>>>>>>Real justice would reflect a balance of both 
>>>>>>individuals' rights. Abortion is about as one-sided as it gets.
>>>>>In what sense can a fetus be called an 'individual'?
>>>>>Can this 'individuality' be ascertained without doing
>>>>>something invasive to the body of a pregnant woman?
>>>>Therefore the fetus should be put to death.  Get in my way? --> Die.
>>>>Good sense of justice there.
>>>Idiot alert.  How can you refer to 'individual rights'
>>>of an entity that does not posess individuality as one
>>>of its attributes?
>>My whole point is that fetuses are to some extent individuals,
>>and deserve some rights and protection. Can you prove otherwise?
>>
>Think, Todd.  In what way is a fetus an individual?
>This is an unsupported assertion on your part.

In what way are you an individual?  Individality (and an
individual's rights) are a perceived thing.  I wish to
change perceptions.

>Since you are the one with a legislative agenda that
>would remove existing rights from half the population,
>I believe the burden of proof is on you.

If I want to give rights to a set of heretofore unrecognized
set of individuals, then I think I have a case.  Adding
rights to one set of individuals often removing some
priviledges from another set.  Unfortunate, but hard to
avoid.

>>>And I have never said that I think
>>>all fetuses should be aborted.  I think women should
>>>have a choice.  
>>I think a fetus should have some choice too.  Balance.
>>
>You have ann odd notion of 'balance', if it requires
>giving 'choice' to beings incapable of thought.

Do you know this to be true?  Animal rights people seem to
feel that rather "thoughtless" beings have some rights.

>>>Great Nature aborts about 66% of all
>>>concepta before birth.  Why should the wishes of women
>>>be considered inferior to random natural processes?
>>So if 10,000 people die in random car crashes every year,
>>and I wish you dead, why should my wishes be considered
>>inferior?  Your way of thinking would allow me to drive
>>right over you.
>>
>Only if I'm living inside your body.

Your repulsion to your own child is curious and schocking.
You must really hate yourself a lot.

[some stuff deleted - Muriel and I dealt with it through e-mail]

>>>Even if the woman (God forbid!) _wants_ to have sex, why
>>>does this abridge her future rights?  
>>Does it abridge her of her future responsibilities?
>>>By this logic, women
>>>could only say 'no' to a man if they've never said 'yes'
>>>to him.  
>>
>>Honestly don't understand.  Please clarify.
>>
>You have the mentality of a rapist if you believe a 
>woman's right to say how her genitals can be used in
>the present is contingent upon a decision she made
>at some time in the past.

This last bit makes some sense, but I still don't see
how "a woman could only say 'no' to a man if they've
never said 'yes' to him".  Try to clarify again.

But with regard to the bit of sense:  Some decisions have
long term effects; the decision to have sex is one of them,
and it bears great responsibility not to be taken lightly,
or corrected as an afterthought.  One could say the same
about something mundane as dietary habits.

>>>Consent to physical occupation implies consent
>>>to future occupation?  Hmmm?
>>Contraceptives.  Use 'em.
>
>Sometimes they fail, Todd. 
>
>>[some stuff deleted]
>>
>>>If you award rights to a fetus, you remove rights from
>>>pregnant women that all other born persons enjoy.  
>>Yes. It's true. Responsibility normally entails diminished
>>rights.  E.G. Driving a car limits your right to be drink.
>>
>When did I ask for the right to be drink?
>Driving a car is a privilege, not a right.  It can be
>abridged for many reasons.  Deciding how my genitals
>are to be used and how much pain and risk I'm willing
>to live with is a bit different.

Gee, I wonder how much pain and risk the fetus undergoes.

>>>I 
>>>am now obligated to ask you a couple more questions:
>>>1. Since you think pregnancy is a fair consequence for a
>>>woman who has consensual sex, 
>>Once again, a wide variety of contraceptives are available...
>>
>And they don't always do the job.  Are you willing
>to allow abortion in cases of contraceptive failure?

No.

>>>how do you feel about legal abortion for victims of rape?
>>For the fourth time, I do not oppose abortion for rape victims.
>
>This leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that you
>really don't think fetuses have rights, or you think
>those rights are contingent on their parentage, or the
>circumstances of their conception.

Rape is a forced use of a woman's body.  So since I believe
women have the right to not have their bodies abused grotesquely
(which rape definitely is) so I support abortion at the expense
of the fetus.  Not a nice thing to do, but women have rights.

Consensual sex leading to pregnancy is a totally voluntary
action.  It is not grotesque, whether the pregnancy was
planned or not.  It is consensual, and women should be aware
that, yes, sex can lead to pregnancy i.e. a long term occupation
of their bodies.  Or they should abstain if they don't want
to run the risk.

>>>2. (this is rocker's question, but she's busy these days)
>>>What equivalent PHYSICAL responsibility do you propose for
>>>a male who has consensual sex resulting in pregnancy
>>>for his partner?
>>
>>How about commitment to the mother and the child, physically
>>interpreted as participating in child rearing personally, and
>>doing his utmost to provide properly for the family.  Marriage
>>is not necessarily requisite.
>>
>Not even close.  You would require the woman to undergo
>a great deal of PHYSICAL risk and discomfort, 

Yup.

>not to mention
>damage to our 'shitty careers'.  

Fuck careers.

>The man is supposed to stick 
>around and help raise the kid, see to financial support,
>and you think this is _equivalent_?  

Financial support goes on for about 18 years or more.  A woman
can give birth and she's out of there.

>>BTW, I will be gone until about Jan. 5, so cannot continue this
>>dialogue until that time.
>>
>How conveeeenient.  I'll email you a copy of this article 
         ~~~~
You act like I'm trying to avoid this discussion just because
I get to go home for Christmas for the first time in four years.
Be nice.

>on January 5.
>
>muriel
>standard disclaimer



Todd
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nagoya Institute of Technology,
Itoh Laboratory,			"Be excellent to each other."
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion