From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:53:48 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa


DOD>In article <1992Oct13.013019.15599@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
dk>In article <1992Oct11.153944.18790@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
 
dk> The point I was trying to get across is that
dk> despite FFLA's position on many other issues, their stand on the legality
dk> of abortion can hardly be called feminist.  
 
DOD>Since when did "Dan King" become the sole and final arbiter of
DOD>the definition of feminism?   Do you often have these desires 
DOD>to control the thoughts of people who call themselves feminists?  
 
Your dishonesty makes it extremely easy to ignore you.  However, 
since I do have a few free moments here, what the hell, might as
well respond.  It could even be possible that in this case you
are not being intentionally dishonest, but rather just proving
you have a serious reading comprehension problem.  If that is the 
case, perhaps you could find someone at that big university you
claim you are taking classes at, to explain this article to you.
As they hopefully will be able to explain to you, I was not 
defining feminism, but rather asking how FFL can justify 
anti-abortion legislation and call that pro-women.  I'll include
the article you took the quote out of context from.  I'd
advise you to get some help in reading it.
 
Article <1992Oct11.153944.18790@nas.nasa.gov> in it's entirety:
 
P>In article <3948@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
dk>In article <1992Oct9.140551.18270@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
 
dk>I think I'm starting to better understand FFLA's position.  They are
dk>feminist in a variety of areas.  It is only in the abortion debate where
dk>they quit being feminist. 
 
P>The way I see it is that the abortion rights movement is a subset of feminism. 
P>Abortion is an extremely important women's issue, but believe me, feminism
P>would be just as crucial even if the concept of abortion were to magically
P>dissappear.
 
Okay, I think we agree then.  The point I was trying to get across is that
despite FFLA's position on many other issues, their stand on the legality
of abortion can hardly be called feminist.  From what you write here, it
appears you agree but don't believe they are being intentionally deceptive
by tying feminism in with their title and position.  
 
I also agree with much of what FFLA says about abortion.  I agree that
the ready access to abortion has not been a win/win deal.  The reasonably
easy access to abortion has caused numerous other problems.  The only 
place we part ways in to the solution to these problems.  FFLA believes
a central part to this solution is to take the access away from women.
I believe we should deal with the various other problems, and not
restrict women's choices due to societal problems.
 
dk> I would then argue that their use of the title
dk>Feminist For Life is intentionally deceiving, because it leaves the 
dk>impression that their position on abortion is pro-women.... However,
dk>when push comes to shove, when the fetus's right to life is in conflict
dk>with the woman's right to her body, they are willing to use the force 
dk>of law to take away the woman's right.  As should be clear, this is hardly
dk>a pro-woman position. 
 
P>You feel it necessary to lump all "rights" together as a neat, clean package
P>deal.  The right to existance verses right to control over body are what is in
P>contention here just as you have stated.  BUT - you go much further by
P>implicitly saying that these two rights are equal on the list of human rights -
P>thats where the problem comes in.  Its unfortunate that the lesser of the two
P>rights applies to the woman in this case.
 
I have never said the two rights are equal.  I believe the woman's right to
control her body is of greater value than the fetus's right to life.  I 
believe there are very serious dangers for both individuals and society 
in general if we decide that a right to life for anyone should be important
enough to take away some ones right to their body.  I don't believe a fetus
should have rights greater than we grant to other members of society.  No
other group or person has the right to use some ones body against their
will.  
 
And this is a tangent.  My comment was that you can not give the fetus's
right a higher value, thereby removing the woman's right and call that
pro-woman.  You may by able to justify your hierarchical rights, but you
can't take away woman's rights for the sake of a fetus, and claim you 
do it for the cause of feminism.
 
dk>Your missing a major chunk of the story.  Take Back the Night was a rally in 
dk>protest against rape.  FFLA used this rally to attempt to push their pro-life,
dk>anti-woman agenda.  

P>This is totally false with regards to the Washington DC rally.  From an earlier
P>post of mine:" ...However, at the rally here in Washington the only banner
P>held, stated the groups name.  The FFLA marchers did not chant inflammatory
P>slogans or try to muscle their way into prominance.  The violence and abuse
P>directed against them was unprovoked..."
 
I was not at the rally.  People I have a reasonable amount of trust in
claim it happened one way, I assume people you trust claim it happened
another way.  I don't see either of us convincing the other of what 
happened.

P>P

Dan King