From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:29:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Sep3.151337.26405@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust
(John Stevens) writes: 

>The fact that women bear children, is not sufficient reason to give them
>all the rights.

They do not have all the rights.  I think you are referring to the
right to choose abortion; here the pro-choice argument is simple.  It
is common law in our society that each person may decided unilaterally
how their own bodies will be used in supporting the lives of others.
For example, you decide for yourself whether to donate blood, tissue,
or organs to another person.  This is true even if the other person is
your child and your wife desperately wants you to act to save him.
She can advise you, but in the end you decide *unilaterally* what to
do.  Is there something you do not understand here?  Please explain
the inequality of allowing women to decide how their bodies will be
used to support another life.

>There is already a VERY large group of people who want to make abortion
>at least more controlled, and most want it made illegal.  In fact, the
>registered number of anti-abortion supporters is much larger than the
>number of abortion supporters, but due to a truly incredible media
>slant, most people are unaware of just how large the numbers are.

Numbers of registered supporters of a position do not allow you to
make a statement about what most people want.  Most people (rightly or
wrongly) favor gun control, yet the number of anti-gun control
lobbyists far exceeds the number registered to control guns.

>Feel free.  I'm busting my ass to get my rights enforced, and you are
>equally free to attempt to get yours enforced.

You are busting your ass to control the reproductive rights of women.

>A woman's pregnancy (when the couple are married) has always been an
>issue of the state.

How so?

>And to be honest, I don't understand why you would object to this.  After all,
>you claim to support personal choice.  So how do you intend to guarantee
>a right to personal choice without involving the state?

You have it backwards.  Choices are guaranteed unless the state
restricts them.  I don't need a law to guarantee my right to go to the
store and buy a quart of milk.

>Besides, aren't you missing a great big fat fact, that a woman's
>pregnancy is ALREADY an issue of the state.  If it wasn't, then we wouldn't
>be discussing this, because there would be no Roe vs Wade, no attempt to
>codify the 'right-to-abortion' into law, no . . . oh hell, you either get
>it, or you never will.

It is an issue of law because control freaks like yourself are trying
to deny women control over their own bodies and reproductive rights.

>You act as if babies are interchangeable.  They are NOT.  If my SO tells
>me that she doesn't want children, fine.  If I couln't live with out them,
>I would do what you suggest and go elsewhere.
>
>But that isn't what this discussion is about.  It is about one particular
>case: the woman is ALREADY pregnant, she wants to have an abortion, and
>I, as the father, do not want her to have an abortion.
>
>The question is: how do we resolve the conflict in her and my rights?
>Currently, the answer is, that the state does not view me as having ANY
>rights, just obligations.

Same situation between you and your son: He needs a kidney or blood or
skin that you do not want to donate.  It is your unilateral choice and
the mother of that child can do nothing about your refusal.  Why do
you want to give /z/e/f/'s rights that children do not have?  Could it
be sexism?

>This must change.

How about changing neither situation.

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity