From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 05:28:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.030602.952@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Why is it that when someone says that they are pro-choice they staunchly
>support abortion and refuse to discuss alternatives??

Huh?  Every pro-choicer I know recognizes the alternatives to abortion, we
just don't believe we are entitled to assume that a woman who has decided on
a abortion hasn't thoughtfully considered them, or that we need to tell her
what to do.  Many, many pro-choicers are involved in contraception efforts,
a number are involved in improving the lot of single mothers. Pro-choicers
tend to be involved with the "post-born."

>I think life is a good choice.

Great.  Feel free to live *your* life according to *your* belief that life
begins at conception.  

*My* belief is that life does not begin at conception, nor is there a
person in the first weeks of gestation.  I will be living *my* life on *my*
terms when it comes to *my* body and sexuality.  I am sick of reading posts
that 'oh, but you are not considering the child.'  

We do consider what we believe are children:  the ones who get born.  We do
not agree with you that all fertilized eggs are children.  We don't want to
change your minds, we just want you to stay out of our families and respect
our right to disagree on a subject that is *not* capable of clear answers.

I think abortion is a good choice in a lot of circumstances, including
those where the father is not committed to being a father.

>I have one solution, and I'll get nuclear flamed for it, but what is
>wrong with abstinence as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Absolutely *nothing* wrong with it, in fact, I support you in it!  Anyone
flames you, can take a shot at me, too.  Since you mentioned that you
practice it, I will say that I do, too.  (Why the hell do you think I spend
so much time on the net?)

Abstinence is not the same thing as being a prude.  It is not the same
thing as being 'sexually impaired.'  It is not 'having an intimacy
problem.'  It is recognizing that, for many of us, sex is much more than a
form of recreation.  (I never feel so insulted or offended as when some guy
acts as if he can approach me as a 'sport fuck.')

I do not support casual sex, and I do not engage in casual sex.  I agree
with some of the RTL posters that 'casual sex' includes more than what many
people call 'casual sex.'  From what I've seen, some people believe sex is
not casual if you would recognize your partner if you were to encounter each 
other at some later date, but do not really know each other or have any 
particular commitment to one another.  Sex does carry the potential for 
pregnancy, for AIDS, and for other STDs.  One should be clear on the commitment
of one's partner before stepping into this arena. 

That said, when I was married, there were any number of times my husband
and I had sex and it wasn't to have children.  If you are saying one should
not have sex unless one is ready to have a baby, I will not go that far.  I
think two committed people should be able to be sexually expressive without
having committed to having children if their birth control fails.  I cannot
imagine, personally, choosing to abort in that context, but I can think of
families I have seen that have been in desperate circumstances where  they
could not handle another child.  They should not have to have a baby when
their family cannot handle it.  t

But as far as abstinence and sex only in the context of commitment being
appropriate choices, I absolutely agree that is what people should do, even
without an AIDS crisis.  

Where we differ is in the idea that, having exercised my best judgment and
sound resposible behavior, the government gets to tell me that, if a
pregnancy results from my sexual activity, I *will* be a mother.  No way.
That decision is my responsibility, and I can handle it better than any
bureuacrat or state agency.  I prefer my understanding of my relationship
with God rather than someone else's making that decision.  It is between me
and my God, not me and the state or someone else's religion.

>BTW--anyone notice that I've kept my postings on the level, without the
>sarcasm of the replies I get???

Yeah, I did.  It's nice to see.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh