From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Why restrict thi (1)
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:31:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Only when forced to.

In article <13035.2a6bc900@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> farrell@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>Subject: Re: Why restrict thi (1)
>In message-ID: <1992Jul17.202646.18306@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 20:26:46 GMT
>Bunch of References: <1992Jul10.191328.94122@cs.cmu.edu> <1992Jul13.223654.2182@advtech.uswest.com> <1992Jul15.162238.288572@cs.cmu.edu>
>
>>In article <1992Jul15.162238.288572@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>JS>This last case would be the physical equivalent of filling the barrel
>JS>of a cannon with cement and welding the action shut.
>JS>Now the device is designed to do something else.
>                     ^^^^^^^^
>There you go with that "argument by design" thing again.   Are you a
>Creationist?

Yes and no.  I believe in both creation and evolution.  I do not consider
them to be mutually exclusive.

>If not, how can you argue that the human sex drive is 
>somehow "designed" for procreation only?

Designed or evolved, for the sake of this discussion, it matters not.
Suffice it to say, that sex exists for the sake of procreation.  We
may attach MEANING to the act, such as, "making love", but it doesn't
change the what is physically occurring.

>That belief of yours holds
>up much of the weight of your views on abortion.   Then how is it that 
>you believe birth control is morally acceptable, but abortion is not
>because it is murder?

A sperm or egg cell CANNOT grow into a human being.  A fertilized egg,
can.

However, using the moral equivalent of calculus, a case could be made for
saying that eliminating the ability of a sperm cell and egg to get together
is murder.

My belief that abortion is murder, is a personal religious belief, and I
would prefer not to pass legislation to that effect.  The only good reason
for passing such legislation, in my opinion, is that it gives both
men and women equal rights and responsibilities (ignoring the biological)
in respect to children.

>Why don't you accept the Catholic position that
>since sex is for the purpose of creating children, all artificial
>birth control methods are murder?

As I said above, I base my religious beliefs in biology.  Please note
the word 'base'.  There is more to it.

>Please clarify your views.
>In particular, what is your opinion of IUD's?

An IUD is an abortifacient.  And the use of such, IMHO, is murder.

Again, I would not pass law making the use of IUD's illegal.  Please
remember that I am explaining my personal beliefs, and would not
wish to force them on others.

I have no qualms, however, with forcing others to act in a manner I
consider fair and just.  Religion is a personal thing.  Justice is
an interpersonal thing.

I would prefer to come to an agreement on what is fair, but most people
do not have the patience to start a discussion at such a basic level.

Allow me to state that I consider equal rights to be fairer than special
rights for different classes.

>I look at biology in terms of what functions (plural, sometimes) each
>organ or system can accomplish.  Not in terms of trying to deduce a 
>"purpose" for the organ/system, and then saying anything other than 
>that one purpose is somehow wrong, not valid.

As do I.  The function of the male/female reproductive system is to
reproduce the species.

>You say sex is not for pleasure, but there is much evidence to the contrary:

I do not say that.  I do contend that the pleasureable aspects exist to
support reproduction, not as an end in and of themselves.

>1.  Many women continue to have sex after menopause. (and like it!)

And many loose all interest, or find it physically difficult, painful
or simply impossible.

>2.  Humans have an interest in sex at all times of the year/month,
>    not just during the time when the woman is maximally fertile in her
>    cycle. (unlike many mammals)

However, most women report a heightened libido during their most fertile
period.

>3.  Homosexuals exist, and many of them have sex.

IMHO, a REDIRECTION of the reproductive urge, not something that is
different.

>4.  Bisexuals exist, and many have sex with members of the same sex.

See above.

>JS>Shit!  No WONDER I got confused, TWO susans.  My apologies to both
>JS>for getting confused.
>
>John!!! You have been posting replies to Susan Garvin for at least a week.
>(probably more, but older articles have expired here).  How could you not
>have realized you were debating more than one Susan?   Does this mean
>you don't really read the articles you reply to?  ;-)

Nope.  Just that with only the last name to clue on, no faces, voices, etc.,
and the fact that the sound almost exactly the same, and the fact that
I have been posting so much, encouraged the confusion.

>Isn't this showing an inconsistancy in your views?  You have posted
>thousands of lines promoting the idea that since men can NEVER 
>have an abortion, laws allowing men to have veto power over
>abortions must be passed in order to prevent sex discrimination 
>in our criminal code.

And to keep men AND women from facing the emotional damage of unilateral
decisions that ought to be made by both.

>But now you say that because Susan cannot 
>become pregnant-- and therefore can't have an abortion-- her thoughts
>on sexual functioning (based on HER particular sexual experience
>with her partner, and thus related to HER specific bodily condition)
>cannot contribute to this debate on what the laws should be.

How can her personal views (based on her physical limitations [do you
know the whole story, here?] ) be a basis for laws which she has no
interest in?

Should we be arguing abortion rights based on the sexual experiences
of homosexuals, for example?  They too (so long as they engage only
in homosexual sex) can never have a need for an abortion.

>I'd say that's a contradiction.  

Not in my mind.  You see, this issue is of importance primarily to those
who COULD face the problem.  If you cannot be either father OR mother,
then how can you have a stake in abortion rights, other than in an
intellectual, or supportive role?

But even if you are supportive of those who can, how does an exception
have any relevance to the discussion?  You lost me on the turn.

>Margie Farrell

John
stevens@uswest.com