From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Summary: Hmmm...
Keywords: abortion prisoners sex
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:23:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <BrwzD7.C2E@news.cso.uiuc.edu> (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>That I write:
>>In article <BrwCst.2nA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>>That jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
JS>I don't understand how these religious zealots who call themselves
JS>"Pro-Life" can do so.  By outlawing abortion, they would be forcing
JS>women back in the alleys, and many would die of these illegal abortions.
>
Me>["three reason" part of Steven's response deleted]
>
SLK>Yeah, and I'm also against using prisoners for medical experimentation
SLK>against their wishes.  I am not to keen on the human experimentation...
>
Me>Are you implying that we give prisoners a choice (which we do)?  Wow!
Me>That's "one up" on women.  At the already pregnant stage, they only
Me>have two choices and I think you want to get rid of one of them.
>
SLK>I noticed you deleted the part I was answering.  The original question
SLK>was "Why would anyone be against fetal tissue research?" or words to
SLK>that effect.  Your reply is a non-sequiter.

I didn't want to imply that you were answering that question with your
above response (which I ended up doing), but the main point of my response
was to indicate that prisoners of the state had more choices about what they
could do with their bodies than women.

SLK>Furthermore, the woman and her
SLK>partner already *MADE* their choice when they decided to have sex.

Not in all cases.  Rape/incest?  Birth control failure?  (In which case they
decided that they would try not to conceive.)  

SLK>They just don't happen to like the consequences.  But since that 
SLK>consequence is another human life, they cannot choose to end that life
SLK>simply because they don't like the results of their choice.

In all cases of pregnancy the consequence is another human life?  What about
spontaneous abortions (even if they happen really early in pregnancy)--would
we consider what had developed as a "human life?"  (Could we <the same
question>...?  On what basis?  Because the egg was fertilized?  What about
In Vitro Fertilization?  If they have a couple of fertilized eggs left over
[because the patient got pregnant] should we force her to carry those?)

JS>And many of these people are
JS>against teaching the young about safe sex, and then diseases like AIDS
JS>spread.
>
SLK>"These people" teach chastity.  If you don't engage in sex, you have an
SLK>extraordinarily small chance of getting AIDS.  True, many of us are 
SLK>against the use of contraceptives.  But claiming that condoms offer
SLK>protection against AIDS, is like claiming that schools should teach
SLK>"safe" Russian roulette - always wear a Kevlar vest.  After all, teenagers
SLK>are GOING to play Russian roulette, theirs no way to stop them, so we
SLK>really ought to show them how to do it safely.
>
Me>So, when will people be taught about sex then, if ever?  (Who'd want to learn
Me>about it anyway?  It's dirty and disgusting and... [extreme sarcasm])
>
SLK>Teaching chastity involves teaching what sex is so that the students know
SLK>what it is they are reserving the use of (pardon the dangling preposition).
SLK>The whole point of chastity teaching is to explain that sex is so special,
SLK>and filled with so much meaning, that it should be reserved for the special,
SLK>enduring love of marriage.  It's obvious that you've never been taught
SLK>about sex or chastity by the response you've made.

Oh?  I'm really big on virginity.  (Really--the first time I was really upset
that I'd lost it; more so than my SO [she's the religious one, too!])  I
generally believe what you are saying in your chastity section.  I'd like to
hope though that your chastity version of sex ed. would still teach various
forms of reliable birth control methods.  (Not all couples want to raise
their own "Brady Bunch" and I don't think everyone has your self-restraint.)
I hope your program is more than the Nancy Reagan-ish approach (Just say no).
Are teenagers going to continue to have sex?  Why?
1)  Because they feel like they owe it to their SO
2)  Peer pressure (which I venture to say that both you and I wish to reduce)
3)  They love their SO so much that they get wrapped up in what their bodies
    are feeling
In any event, the numbers of teenagers that will have sex will be much more
so than play Russian Roulette.  The risks are a lot less apparent/immediate.
By the way, I don't think a Kevlar vest would help you very much in Russian
Roulette.  The gun goes against your head.  (By the same token, that's why
teenagers smoke--it's hard to convince them that they should worry about the
long-term.)  And marriage?  Lots of people wouldn't grant it to homosexuals.
I think it's possible to love someone so much that you want to share with
them your most prized possession to show them that you care.  [Homosexuality:
Don't have to worry about pregnancy there!]  (I'm not accusing you of being
homophobic.  I'm just saying that marriage does not have to be a
prerequisite.  I wanna show that you can be totally in love with someone,
not be married to them, and want to show them how much you do love them.)

>And it is still the best way to avoid sexually transmitted disease of
>all varieties.

Yeah.  I don't doubt this point at all.  Condoms can break and people should
know that.  But, they're better than not using anything at all.  "To reduce
the risk."

Me>-Richard
Me>Yes, there are many ethical problems that need to be resolved with fetal
Me>research.
>
SK>Well, I'm glad we agree on something.
SK>
SK>SK

Medical technology is far outpacing the ethicists.  For now, I believe it
to be the decision of the woman and doctor involved.  They're the only
ones who have to cope with the decisions that they've made.


-Richard
   ____ _ _
OO \  / /`/`  Enjoy your sexuality.
++  \/ O O          ^^^^