From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:02:36 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <lmc1u2INNij5@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>Well!  It oughtta be clear to anyone following this thread that things are
>starting to heat up.

It's always curious to me that when I begin asking hard questions, the word
'flame' is brought into the discussion....

>>So, regardless of the needs of the woman, of the rights of the woman, of the
>>desires of the woman, she *MUST* gestate that fetus, because you say so.  

>"Regardless" is definitely not the word I would use.  I would be more along
>the lines of "despite the importance".
>PLEASE understand that I in no way treat ANYONE'S rights as unimportant.


You know, I'm not too concerned with what words you would use to describe
this, Paul.  And I'm not too concerned that you *think* you 'in no way'
treat anyone's rights as unimportant.

I am vitally concerned that you would reduce me to a subclass of both
citizen and human being.  And, regardless of the words you care to use, and
the rationalization you would apply to your vote, the FACT of the matter is
you would, in restricting abortion, reduce me, my mother, my daughters, my
sisters, and all the women I know to less-than-people.

It's a hard pill to swallow, Paul, but that's EXACTLY what you would be
doing in supporting abortion restriction.  Get used to it. 


>To me, and quite a few others involved in this issue, this is exactly the
>reason that abortion is such a tough problem. 

Whereas it's a cakewalk for the women involved?  Whereas noone else on this
net besides you and a few others have actually thought this stuff through?
Come on.

>I can't make that assumption on the evidence I have
>yet, so I'm forced to vote in favor of the child.

Ah, you are *FORCED* to remove my absolutely admitted rights because you
lack evidence that a fetus *might* have rights.  Sure tells me where I stand.

>I appreciate your concern.  And I do care about my reputation, to an extent,
>even on the net.  So I try to make it as clear as I can what my position is
>on this is.  If other readers overlook or misinterpret, there's little I can
>do about it, except to keep on reiterating my position, and trust that
>they're reading what I write.

Paul, are *you* reading what you write?  You are proposing that it is right
and just and compelling to REMOVE the RIGHTS of a 100% KNOWN human being
in favor of a maybe-we-aren't-sure-perhaps human being.  And then you are
padding that decision with all kinds of rationalization to make it look 
better. And, you are ignoring the fact that you would not only give to the
maybe-we-aren't-sure-perhaps human being _more_ rights than even the other
100% known human beings on this planet have -- i.e., the right to use the
body of another human being against their will.

I don't think this is a question of misinterpretation.  I think it is a 
question of you attempting to justify a gut level response.  Now, Paul,
nothing wrong with that, we all do it.  But I'm pointing out to you what
the values you would vote for lead to.

>I have just previously stated that I view both child's and woman's rights
>as very important; that it is with regret that I must choose.

Yeah, I heard it ("read it").  And I think your justifications are inaccurate
and your choices poorly supported.  I think you would, because of your personal
gut feel, reduce women to less-than-human, and I think any self aware human
being would fight you.

>>REGARDLESS of how responsible I am.
>>REGARDLESS of how productive I am.
>>REGARDLESS of how brilliant, important or useful I am.
>>I become nothing more, and have no more importance to you in this world than
>>a cow.

>You're certainly not a cow to me; otherwise I wouldn't bother to carry a
>meaningful discourse with you.  But I think your point isn't that, as much
>as that you're very emotional about this. 

Here we go, folks.  Because I point out to Paul that his choices in the
voting booth would radically reduce my rights, I'm 'emotional'.  Gee, Paul,
you don't suppose I could be 'bitter', do you?

Damn straight I'm 'emotional about this'.  You are talking about removing my
rights.  That ain't cocktail party banter.  To parrot you, above, "to me, and
quite a few others involved in this issue, this is a very *serious* topic".
If you aren't going to be deadly serious about it, please don't bother us!

I note, of course, that you don't actually rebut the argument, either, you 
just call me 'emotional' so you can completely IGNORE the point being made.
 
>It is probably wiser to leave this to judgement,
>and relax the blinding emotion somewhat.

Wiser for who?  Better for who?  At whose cost?  These are easy words to say
when we aren't talking about your rights, aren't they Paul?

Now, before you go off on 'emotional' again, think about the question.  These
are easy words to say when we aren't talking about your rights, aren't they
Paul?  It's a question.  It challenges you to investigate deep down just
how hard it *really* is for you to come to conclusions about a situation 
you will never share, and about the very threat to my most integral person-
hood that you will never face.  I suggest to you that you should recognise
this difference, and turn each proposition mentioned on this net around to
view how 'emotional' you would be if we were speaking of a real threat to
*your* freedoms.

>To you, it's a we-don't-quite-know-what.  To me, it's possibly a human life.

Well, Paul, I am a DEFINITE human life.  And no other DEFINITE human life gets
to use my body against my will.  NONE.  Reconcile that.

>As far as money goes, I'm already spooning out the bucks to pay for world-
>broadcast flamewars.  :-)  If it comes to that, though, have wallet, will
>adopt. 

Gee, why go that far?  You could simply pay a woman who was going to abort
because of financial problems, and let *her* keep it.  Or you could take
up rocker on her fisting offer.  If you *really* value the fetus, that is.

>...and your persistence is helping me to come to grips with that.

Glad to be of service.

>>Now, before you jump into that one with both feet, ask yourself if ANYBODY
>>EVER gets to use my body without my consent.  
>>The answer, Paul, is "no".

>I hope this is not intended as a threat.  Such things start flamewars and
>riots.  And riots don't help anyone.
 
I don't understand this comment.  In what way could it possibly be construed
as a threat to ask you a question and provide the answer?

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc