From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo
Organization: Where did you say you put those organs?
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:52:09 GMT

In article <l3fmh#q@lynx.unm.edu> swells@triton.unm.edu (Ed Gruberman) writes:
>but in a game of russian roulette, the bullet cannot tell the difference
>between a man and a woman.  what a lot of people have been trying to
>tell you is that they believe there must be some inequtiy in rights
>because of biological differences,that is a woman gets pregnant and
>a man does not.

I understand and agree that there is a biological inequality.  But I
disagree that this should force an inequality under law.  Or, that if
it must, that the inequality should so clearly be in favor of the
woman.

>>And unfortunately, birth control is not perfect.  If it were perfect, for
>>both sexes, then there would be less to discuss.  But it isn't perfect.
>>Not even close.
>>
>>>these days children are not an asset; they are a liability (economically
>>>speaking only).
>>
>>Actually, such a bald statement is incorrect.  I will stipulate that they
>>are sometimes, and in some cases, an economic liability.
>>
>i do not believe this at all.  please support.

A down's syndrome child, or a very premature infant is a heck of a
financial liability.  Mind you, I am limiting myself to financial
matters only.  Parents can love their down's babies as much or more
than a normal child.

>>Why not?  You can have the healthy release of sex without indulging in
>>sexual activities that bear the risk of pregnancy.  If nothing else,
>>masturbation is clean, cheap, and you don't have to pick up the
>>dinner tab. :-)  :-)
>
>point taken, but most people DON"T do it this way.  do you think we should
>after outlawing abortion placve pressure on people to masturbate?
>start a public campaign?

:-)

No, but maybe trying to teach ourselves and children about responsbility
might help.  Failure to accept responsibility for our actions is affecting
us in more areas than just this one.

>i'm sorry but i don't think you are being very realistic in expecting
>people to not have sex

And I'm not being very realistic in expecting people to be responsible
for their choices.  But what the heck, if we don't
aim higher than were we already are, we will never improve.

>i think my view is, people WILL have sex.  people Will be stupid
>about it.  the end result is often that we have a single teenage
>mother with no support for her kids except from uncle sam.  social
>movements and education
>will only do so much;  too many laws will turn our country into a
>fascist state.

Do you honestly think that there is any way to prevent America from
turning into an overrestrictive, fascist state? History would seem
to disagree.  We have been enacting more and more legislation to
restrict our freedoms every year since the U.S. became an
independent country.

Later in this post, you seem to advocate passing even more legislation
to enforce a highly paternalistic and controlling government.  What
is wrong with both allowing people freedom, and letting them deal
with the consequences of freedom?

>i claim it is more important to keep abortion safe and legal and
>to provide a means to help poor single mothers (including and
>especially with abortions and birth control) than to preserve
>your say in what happens to your unborn baby.

Safe and legal I have no problem with.  But the moment you sacrifice
freedom for security or to save irresponsible people from themselves,
you add to the "facist" problem.

>i think a real,
>bad financial situation which is increasingly common, and which
>is resulting in generations of poor, malnutritioned kids who
>often end up costing the entire country in resources, money,
>and productive citizens is more important than your feelings.

Again, how much freedom are you personally willing to sacrifice?
How much of your earnings are you willing to give up to support the
children of others?

>>We as outsiders are not entitled to tell the COUPLE what to do.  But
>>the COUPLE, not just the woman, should decide.
>>
>your idea of equity and mine are different apparently.

No doubt.  Nobody seems to agree on what is fair.

>if all 
>abortions are outlawed, that is exactly what we are doing is telling
>the couple what to do.  i do not think outlawing abortions is fairer
>than the laws now.

Fairer, as in more equal.  Again, we may disagree on what is fair.
What are your criterion for determing what is fair?

>>>if you really believe in the separation of church and state then i
>>>do not think there is much of a solid ground for claiming that
>>>abortion is wrong because the fetus is a child from conception.
>>
>>Uhhhhh. . . I don't think this is logical.  The laws making murder
>>illegal are based in the religious belief that murder is a sin.
>>
>but they are based even more on the fact that for a society to
>hold together you can't allow people to run around killing
>each other.

But killing unborn children is OK?  I would have to say that letting
people run around killing each other happens all the time.  And we
still have a viable society.

>they aren't based in christianity either- almost
>every society has a law against murder.  so i don't think you
>can claim this.

But there are other laws that have been passed that refute your claim.
Consider the laws making prostitution illegal.  There are others, as
I am sure you are aware.

>>Another example:  prostitution.  It is illegal simply because it
>>violates the religious tenets of christianity.
>oh, i guess it has nothing to do with the fact that it spreads
>disease as well?

Prostitution spreads disease no more than any other (and, according to
some of the studies I've read, less) sexual intercourse.  No, if you
go back and look at history, these laws were passed by the good
christian folk as an exercise in imposing their morality on everybody
else.

I suspect that you have a bit of misinformation here.  There are
some very interesting disease statistics  on the legal brothels in
Nevada.  They have a MUCH lower incidence of VD than other sexual
encounters that occur in that state.

>>If we can make law based on religious beliefs such as this, then
>>imposing the same on abortion, is not a problem.  It would simply
>>be a matter of making the belief that a fetus is a child into a
>>law.
>i claim that a law based on religion alone is unconstitutional.

Maybe so, but there are many such laws, and very few of them have
been challenged.  You may be able to do so succesfully, but I doubt
it, as religious bias runs deep.

>just because unconstitutional laws have not all been repealed
>does not invalidate their unconstitutionality.  it means they
>haven't been challenged and overturned yet.

Agreed.

>>But this is not what I'm advocating.  I'm simply stating that on
>>the basis of equal rights, the right to make the UNILATERAL decision
>>to abort should be removed.  Nothing religious about my reasoning.
>>(Unless you consider the basic concepts of equality and fairness to
>>be religious).
>okay, that is fine.  but see above.  again, i think that the
>problems with teenage/single pregnancy and lack of support for
>the mothers and children who result are right now a bigger
>problem than the fact that you have no say in an abortion
>decision.

We can agree to disagree.  I've already stated my belief that your
willingness to sacrifice my rights to solve this problem is, to
coin a phrase, dangerous as hell.  Consider the precedent that this
sets.  You yourself already used the word facism.

>>Actually, I believe in a floating scale.  After all, if a six month old
>>baby has a 50/50 chance of surviving outside of the womb, should it not
>>be considered to be human?
>
>actually, i personally think a baby should not be considereda citizen
>(legally) until it can breathe on its own (yes, that includes 
>preemies on life support).  so if you abort a baby very late in the
>pregnancy and it starts breathing on its own and you let it die
>then you have committed murder.  i think that this definition 
>should be applied only in the case of babies at the time of
>birth or other departure from the mother.

We disagree on definitions.  But defining the start of human life is
not really something that can be done objectively, in the end, somebody
is going to have to draw an arbitrary line (as has already been done
by the supreme court).

Arbitrary lines, however, make for easily challenged law.

>>The survival rate for premature birth has been improving steadily for
>>quite some time.
>i am well aware of this.  it doesn't matter.  pretty soon babies
>will be able to survive in an artificial womb so this doesn't really
>affect anything.

Depends on where you draw the line.  It matters a lot, if you draw the
line at conception.

>>I have to tell you, that I believe you believe what you are saying, but
>>being pregnant changes you A LOT.  
>this is patronizing.  please don't talk to me like this. i'm not
>some  young idealistic college coed, ok?

It seems to me from what you posted, that
you stated that most women would be willing to give up control.  I
have seen no indication that this is true, and a lot of evidence to
indicate that it is not.

>>Look at the number of women who
>>agreed to be surrogate mothers, then changed their minds after they got
>>pregnant.
>>
>>There are a LOT of emotional changes that a woman goes through when they
>>get pregnant, a lot of those changes are hormonally caused.
>>
>>I've known women who swore up and down that they never wanted to have
>>children, and that if they got pregnant, nothing would stop them from
>>having an abortion.  A lot of them are now mothers.
>no shit.  i am also well aware of this.  i'll bet that a lot of the
>"now mothers"  found a way to support their kids too, and the ones
>who went ahead with an abortion realized that they could not
>support their kids for whatever reason.

Not true.  A lot of "now mothers" did NOT find a way to support their
child themselves, they went to the state for support.  And even in
cases where they could not get it, they still had the baby.

You are talking about some pretty powerful, primal instincts here.

One of my wife's cousins is going on her fourth child by her fourth
man.  She has never supported ANY of her children by any other
method that government support.

>this does not mean i am
>wrong - and it does not invalidate the solution.  it also means
>that the hormonal changes one goes through are NOT irresistable,
>as attested by the number of abortions performed today.

Read some of the pro-life literature.  There are a lot of stories
about the emotional devastation that accompanies getting an abortion.

Not every woman suffers this, but certainly a significant number do.

There are now a number of post-abortion counseling clinics.

>i never
>said EVERYONE would take that solution who wanted an abortion
>before they got pregnant, did i?

No, you just said that the majority would.  And I simply maintain that
only a small minority would, based on what I have observed after nearly
15 years of observation in maternity wards (my mother was an obstetric
nurse for 25 years).

>this is not reality!  the fact is that they DON"T go to the police
>and report abuse and rape, or they DON'T get prosecuted, or she
>somehow thinks he's entitled to do this!  or she's ignorant!

But not going to the police, etc, is her choice.  You may talk
about fear, etc, but this does not eliminate her choice.  No one
said that all choices would be easy.  Some choices are so difficult,
that they require every ounce of courage a person has.

Even ignorance is a choice.  Almost every city in America has a public
library, and every child in America has the right to attend a public
school and learn how to read.

>do you support sex ed. and gov't supplied birth control?

At what point do we make people responsible for their own actions/choices?
If we can agree that people should be free to make their own choices,
and be responsible for the results, then why should we, as a society,
supply such?

I would have to say that I am a libertarian.  Do what you want, but
be willing to pay the consequences.

It is harsh, but so is smothering your citizens in the overflowing
arms of big brother.

>(like say, allowing food stamps to purchase condoms at a 
>subsidized rate if needed).
>
>shannon

John
stevens@uswest.com