From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: A woman's choice
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:23:45 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Mr. President) writes:
>Ron
>>Kevin W
>>>In article <1992Apr13.014319.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsrlg@acad3.alaska.edu write
>s:

>Here goes Ron again, twisting my words and failing to use good logic.  I
>never said killing the fetus was murder, Ron.  This murder example is
>just an arbitrary murder case...say a man stabs and kills another man.

Then what was the point? Nobody here (as far as I know disputes killing
a person is murder. (with the standard definition of person)

>It's just to show the lunacy of the original position on whether it is a life
>or not.

So was my response....nobody denies that a z/e/f is a living organism.

>>IMO, he should be able to abort his responsibility. This does occur
>>in most cases, I don't recall any un-married man being forced to pay
>>child-support, although it probably has occurred in one or two very
>>special cases.

>So what?  point here?  What about the man who wants to keep the unborn
>child?  What does he have to say Ron?

Well, gee, maybe he could carry it to term? Maybe the woman could force
him to crawl on his hands and knees for nine months?

>It's gross.  A man (husband) has no say in whether his child is going to
>die, yet he can be forced to pay child support for a child he may not
>want to care for when they get divorced.  DOuble standards.

Its no his child (ie not born yet). And who is going to be sleeping
with their wife while they're going through divorce proceedings? Only
people I can think of are really sick ones. If he was that driven by
his gonads, maybe he should be forced to pay for his stupidity. No double
standards here.

>>Kevin, the government sanctions the killing of human life every day
>>in a multitude of ways, including unsafe work areas (ever been on a
>>skyscraper under construction? very unsafe), legislating highway speeds
>>that allow one to get killed and maimed, etc...

>So what you are implying is that the fetus is not human life.  Notice how
>I also said "...government WILL allow..."  That's a misread on your
>side.

Misread? How? If it sanctions the killing of human life, it definitely
allows it. I just used a stronger word, it did not change the context
to any appreciable extent, in that abortions are legal now. 

>Let me ask you a question.  I don't want to make assumptions, but from
>what you have just said ("the government sacntions the killing of human
>life...") I have to ask you if the fetus is a human life.  Is it?

To throw your own argument back at you.

Of course it's human, what else could it be. A DOG? .....

Yes, it's genetically human, it's alive, so it's human life, as are
epidermal cells, muscle cells, and brain cells. This still does not
equte it with a person, to forestall that entire argument before it
begins again.

>>The point here is that the government shouldn't be sticking its nose
>>into the private business of its citizens in an area that doesn't concern
>>society at all.

>So if my friends and I want to start a little drug operation that doesn't
>involve society, but just a few family members, the government shouldn't
>get involved?  It should stick it's nose in "private" affairs?

Whole different concept. You're affecting persons, realized potential,
not a hypothetical case.

>Get some down time.  Stop smoking.

I don't smoke. My allergies won't let me near any of that crap.

>The RIght of Privacy, Ron, exists so far as it does not conflict with
>public policy, that's why we don't seel drugs in our home, that's why
>I can't kill my mom in the privacy of my home, that's why I can't hold
>some one captive in the privacy of my home.  That is why there is no
>privacy issue at all in abortion.

Again, realized potential in all the cases except the one relating to
abortion. Hence, your logic just doesn't flow, nor do your points follow
one another. 

Maybe you should take your own advice.
PS - I hear smoking affects your memory after a prolonged period of
time. :-)

>>After all, the woman is going to bear most (if not all)
>>the hardships of pregnancy. What gives the government the right to force
>>this on a woman. Are you going to force all women to have 2.5 kids?

>Not at all.  I not forcing them to have any kids.  If they don't want kids,
>best thing to do is not have sex and hopefully avoid rape/incest (I'm not
>saying that any one woman can say "I'm not going to get raped", but barring
>rape from this analysis).  Then they won't be forcing pregnancy.  BUT, if
>you are willing to engage in sex (which is fine) assume the risk that you
>might get pregnant and that raising the child is the consequence of that
>action.

Nice and tidy.....unfortunately full of holes.

You and Steve Franklin should get along great in that small country
of three people you guys are going to have to start. (The third will
be Kevin Brawley) 

Might get mighty lonely there, but then again Steve
won't ever have to worry about an unwanted child, or ever
having to experience that ikkyyukkything.

As for getting pregnant and raising a child being the natural consequence
of the risk of having sex and losing, nature aborts 1/3 of those pregnancies
(or more) before the woman can carry to term.

Which brings up another point. If a woman sits in a very hot hottub
(not recommended) she will very likely miscarry (after several sessions)
especially if mixed liberally with caffiene, alcohol, and nicotine.
(Basically, this makes your body appear very unhealthy to mother nature,
and of it goes) What would you think about this woman, keeping in mind
that it is her normal lifestyle?

Would you force her to stop her normal activities as soon as she got
pregnant? Are you going to force her to call you each time she has sex
with her husband or menstrates so tha you can keep your eye on that
"HOLY FETUS"?

By the way, I actually knew a person like this, in college.

If you want to know the relevancy of the last few sentences, it is basically
this: If you cannot force someone to change their lifestyle because
they might be pregnant, or you cannot monitor someone to force them
to change their lifestyle when they get pregnant, then you can't force
someone to remain pregnant, since this definitely changes their lifestyle.

No funky logic here. Its either that, or your gooing to promote a very
unhealthy lifestyle for some people. Then again, you'd probably make
that illegal too, since it would damage your precious FETUS RECEPTACLE.

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion