From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:53:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stay Awake Software


I swear I've commented on this already, but the order of posts is such
that this appeared after my other responses.  Sorry if it confuses anyone.

<1992Aug31.144116.12258@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
><BtK044.IG4@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>><1992Aug25.161841.1495@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
[Beer and bacon analogy deleted]
>No riddles, straight talk.  Because the analogies you give are false.
>
>They differ from the abortion situation because in your analogy, only
>one person is involved, the responsible party (he who eats the bacon).
>
>In the case of abortion at least one, and depending on your beliefs, two
>other people are directly affected by a woman's UNILATERAL decision to
>have an abortion, the father and the child.

I'd say that the man in this case is minimally inconvenienced or affected
by the abortion.  At least, he has *no* health risks either way.  There is
no child involved so that is pointless.

...
>>Express beliefs?  Sure, why not.  But you're on the side that
>>wants to make laws that *rule out* other people being able to
>>practice their beliefs, and has already invaded expression.
>
>Guess what?  You are also on the side of those who want to make laws that
>*rule out* other people being able to practice their beliefs.  

Could you elucidate?  What laws would *rule out* people practicing their
beliefs?

>                                                               You want
>abortion legal, even though passing law to make it so would violate the
>practice of other peoples religious beliefs.

This is pure bull.  Abortion remaining legal does not require someone who
is against abortion to go out and immediately get one.  What it does
require is that these people leave others alone wrt abortion.  If your
religion requires that you interfere with other peoples personal lives 
you *should* be prohibited from practicing that portion of it.  If your
religion requires that you must legalize involuntary servitude for women
I suggest you find a nice middle-east or south american country to live
out your fantasies.

>And if you are honest with yourself, I'm sure that you would admit that
>you support other laws that restrict people's right to practice their
>beliefs.

Yeah, that human sacrifice stuff is definately out.  Of course, we do
allow Catholics to practice cannibalism...

...
>When you admit that at the very least, the FATHER has a stake in the abortion,
>not just the mother, then we may be able to find a common ground.

The man has a stake in abortion.  It's just such a small insignificant
stake that it hardly qualifies subjecting the woman to slavery.

>>>Who hands out rights?
>>
>>Isn't that a matter of religion -- a PRIVATE matter?
>
>Nope.  It is also a matter of government -- a PUBLIC matter.

The government recognizes rights.  It doesn't grant them.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.