From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:07:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Sep3.145448.26265@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust
(John Stevens) writes the same repetitive illogical justification for
abortion laws that he has been spouting for at least six months now:

>The pro abortion camp IS trying to make laws to force people to do the things
>they think we should be doing.

What are you or anyone else forced to do by laws guaranteeing the
right of women to choose abortion?

>And no, this law will not force women to get abortions, but it WILL further
>reduce the probability that fathers will EVER have any rights in regards to
>their unborn children.

The law will (hopefully) not require fathers to be notified if a
mother chooses abortion.  This is a limitation of their rights in
recognition of the conflict between the right of the mother to do with
her body what she sees fit and the right of the father to know what is
going on with a /z/e/f/ he has fathered.  Doesn't sound like a denial
of all fathers' rights to me.

>I've already stated, repeatedly (four times now, to be precise) that
>I support the idea of legal abortion, but I do NOT support abortion as
>a unilateral choice.  It is a choice that should only be made by the
>couple.

So, do you support the right of a mother to force the father of her
child to donate blood to save the child?  What if the father is a
Jehovah's Witness and the mother and child are not?  Why not let all
people decide unilaterally what will be done with their bodies?

>I simply support making abortion illegal, because it is the most politically
>expedient way of making the rights of men and women equal.

You have chosen one aspects of equal rights for men and women,
misrepresented it, and come to a bizarre conclusion.  If a father
continues to be able to withhold donations of bodily tissues, organs,
or fluids from his children, hasn't your law actually exacerbated
inequalities?  

>As an ex-feminist, I am VERY supportive of the idea of equal rights,
>regardless of sex.

This from a man who claimed that women are not discriminated against
in labor markets, calling it hearsay and his favorite old chestnut.
He challenged me for sources, which I supplied, and then dropped this
line of argument.

>Thanks, awfully.  But your support for my right to CHOOSE does not change
>the fact that the government has passed and enforces many laws that make
>such actions as killing myself, smoking dope or shooting up heroin
>illegal.

So you want to improve the situation by forcing women to carry
pregnancies to term?  What a hypocrite!

>Of course, the difference between getting really drunk every night, or
>getting really drunk and driving is whether or not I involve other
>people.
>
>Abortion by definition is NOT a personal choice.  It involves a minimum of
>two people (father and mother) and depending on your belief system,
>one or more babies.

Abortion involves a woman's choice about how her body will be used.
Similarly, you are not required to consult the mother of your child
regarding whether you will donate blood, organs, or tissue to save
your child.  It's that simple.

>Yup.  And I will support them unless I can be convinced that an equally
>just arrangement can be worked out that leaves abortion legal.

With respect to control of bodies, restrictions on third trimester
abortions already make the woman's situation unequal to the man, who
can deny support for the child even after it is born.  How do you plan
to stop this?

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