From: swells@triton.unm.edu (Ed Gruberman)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:27:01 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Jul17.200836.17949@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <y+=ml8_@lynx.unm.edu> swells@triton.unm.edu (Ed Gruberman) writes:
>
>I've seen mentally healthy, stable women go into complete hysterics over
>a miscarriage.  And a miscarriage is almost always an accident.
sorry i was being paternalistic.  complete hysterics are not good for
anyone.  hence the shocking statement.  just ignore me.

>
>I would agree that sex can be practiced for other REASONS than procreation.
>
>But the act is inherently procreative.
>
>Try this analogy on for size:
>
>Suppose you and I like to play russian roulette (RR).  Suppose that we
>have a revolver that has six chambers, and we use a mixture of 5 blanks
>for every LIVE round.  And suppose we play the game by pointing the
>gun at our child, instead of our own heads.
>
>[ 
>  Explanation:  The mix of bullets, taken with the odds of getting a
>  bullet when you spin the chamber, give you approx. the same odds as
>  getting pregnant with non-hormonal, non-surgical contraceptive
>  methods.
>]
>
>Now, it is my stance that the inherent purpose of a gun is to kill things.
>The inherent purpose of sex, is to procreate.  We are using this gun as
>a toy, to play a game, but it's inherent purpose cannot be denied.
>
>And we cannot be guaranteed that we will never get a live round, and
>we know this fact, then WE are RESONSIBLE for any death or injuries
>that result from playing this game.
>
>If we play, and loose, should we be allowed to skip medical treatment?
>Would it be fair to say that only a WOMAN gets to decide about whether
>or not to get treatment, and that a man must live with what ever happens?
>Shouldn't both be included in the decision

but in a game of russian roulette, the bullet cannot tell the difference
between a man and a woman.  what a lot of people have been trying to
tell you is that they believe there must be some inequtiy in rights
because of biological differences,that is a woman gets pregnant and
a man does not.

>And unfortunately, birth control is not perfect.  If it were perfect, for
>both sexes, then there would be less to discuss.  But it isn't perfect.
>Not even close.
>
>>these days children are not an asset; they are a liability (economically
>>speaking only).
>
>Actually, such a bald statement is incorrect.  I will stipulate that they
>are sometimes, and in some cases, an economic liability.
>
i do not believe this at all.  please support.

>>sex is good for you; it is a healthy outlet and an
>>expression of affection.  i would not dare expect anyone who did not want a
>>child to be celibate.
>
>Why not?  You can have the healthy release of sex without indulging in
>sexual activities that bear the risk of pregnancy.  If nothing else,
>masturbation is clean, cheap, and you don't have to pick up the
>dinner tab. :-)  :-)

point taken, but most people DON"T do it this way.  do you think we should
after outlawing abortion placve pressure on people to masturbate?
start a public campaign?

i'm sorry but i don't think you are being very realistic in expecting
people to not have sex

i think my view is, people WILL have sex.  people Will be stupid
about it.  the end result is often that we have a single teenage
mother with no support for her kids except from uncle sam.  social
movements and education
will only do so much;  too many laws will turn our country into a
fascist state.

i claim it is more important to keep abortion safe and legal and
to provide a means to help poor single mothers (including and
especially with abortions and birth control) than to preserve
your say in what happens to your unborn baby.  i think a real,
bad financial situation which is increasingly common, and which
is resulting in generations of poor, malnutritioned kids who
often end up costing the entire country in resources, money,
and productive citizens is more important than your feelings.

that is, until we can find the technology to correct that.

>>what i would expect for any normal, educated
>>person is that they use birth control properly.  but i still do not
>>think i am entitled to tell the couple not to get an abortion if
>>somehow things get screwed up, for whatever reason.
>
>We as outsiders are not entitled to tell the COUPLE what to do.  But
>the COUPLE, not just the woman, should decide.
>
your idea of equity and mine are different apparently.  if all 
abortions are outlawed, that is exactly what we are doing is telling
the couple what to do.  i do not think outlawing abortions is fairer
than the laws now.

>>if you really believe in the separation of church and state then i
>>do not think there is much of a solid ground for claiming that
>>abortion is wrong because the fetus is a child from conception.
>
>Uhhhhh. . . I don't think this is logical.  The laws making murder
>illegal are based in the religious belief that murder is a sin.
>
but they are based even more on the fact that for a society to
hold together you can't allow people to run around killing
each other.  they aren't based in christianity either- almost
every society has a law against murder.  so i don't think you
can claim this.

>Another example:  prostitution.  It is illegal simply because it
>violates the religious tenets of christianity.
oh, i guess it has nothing to do with the fact that it spreads
disease as well?

>
>If we can make law based on religious beliefs such as this, then
>imposing the same on abortion, is not a problem.  It would simply
>be a matter of making the belief that a fetus is a child into a
>law.
i claim that a law based on religion alone is unconstitutional.
just because unconstitutional laws have not all been repealed
does not invalidate their unconstitutionality.  it means they
haven't been challenged and overturned yet.

>
>But this is not what I'm advocating.  I'm simply stating that on
>the basis of equal rights, the right to make the UNILATERAL decision
>to abort should be removed.  Nothing religious about my reasoning.
>(Unless you consider the basic concepts of equality and fairness to
>be religious).
okay, that is fine.  but see above.  again, i think that the
problems with teenage/single pregnancy and lack of support for
the mothers and children who result are right now a bigger
problem than the fact that you have no say in an abortion
decision.

please note that i don't support merely keeping abortion legal but
also providing birth control ed. and supplies.

side note:  did you ever consider that you may already have
a right, in that if you and yoe aborted it, that you
could sue her for breach of contract?

a case like this could set a precedent, and would establish
some form of say in what happens to your baby.  there are
difficult legal complications, but it could be a solution
for now.

>>if you think it is wrong because you think it is a human life then
>>we need to address a host of other laws.  there is a need for a
>>legal definition of a human as i believe you have mentioned, but
>>i think abortion up through 2nd trimester is a reasonable compromise.
>
>Actually, I believe in a floating scale.  After all, if a six month old
>baby has a 50/50 chance of surviving outside of the womb, should it not
>be considered to be human?

actually, i personally think a baby should not be considereda citizen
(legally) until it can breathe on its own (yes, that includes 
preemies on life support).  so if you abort a baby very late in the
pregnancy and it starts breathing on its own and you let it die
then you have committed murder.  i think that this definition 
should be applied only in the case of babies at the time of
birth or other departure from the mother.


>The survival rate for premature birth has been improving steadily for
>quite some time.
i am well aware of this.  it doesn't matter.  pretty soon babies
will be able to survive in an artificial womb so this doesn't really
affect anything.

>
>I would prefer a law that bases the right to humanity on some fixed
>percentage of survival rate, say 50/50.
>
>>>Agreed, though, that when the technology becomes available, this will
>>>ease the burden.  I doubt, however, that women will be willing to
>>>relinquish control over "their" fetus.
>>
>>i'll bet they will.  i know i would - if i thought i could not support
>>a child and someone else wanted to bear my child i would happily
>>relinquish control over "my" fetus instead of going through the
>>emotional and physical trauma of either abortion, or a pregnancy
>>where i went through all that pain to have a child to then give
>>her or him up.
>
>I have to tell you, that I believe you believe what you are saying, but
>being pregnant changes you A LOT.  
this is patronizing.  please don't talk to me like this. i'm not
some  young idealistic college coed, ok?

>Look at the number of women who
>agreed to be surrogate mothers, then changed their minds after they got
>pregnant.
>
>There are a LOT of emotional changes that a woman goes through when they
>get pregnant, a lot of those changes are hormonally caused.
>
>I've known women who swore up and down that they never wanted to have
>children, and that if they got pregnant, nothing would stop them from
>having an abortion.  A lot of them are now mothers.
no shit.  i am also well aware of this.  i'll bet that a lot of the
"now mothers"  found a way to support their kids too, and the ones
who went ahead with an abortion realized that they could not
support their kids for whatever reason.  this does not mean i am
wrong - and it does not invalidate the solution.  it also means
that the hormonal changes one goes through are NOT irresistable,
as attested by the number of abortions performed today.  i never
said EVERYONE would take that solution who wanted an abortion
before they got pregnant, did i?

>Ahhh!  I see your point.  So long as the technology to create an
>artificial womb exists, this is not an option.  Removing the child
>without having a mother for it would be an abortion.
no, you missed my point.  i was asking you what you personally
would do to try to get someone to have your baby for you.

>I don't agree with you, that is true.  But I am just as clear on the
>issue as you are.

ok, we have cleared things up.
>
>Please try not to imply that because I disagree with you, that my
>viewpoint is somehow inferior.
please don't jump to conclusions.  you inferred that i thought your
viewpoint was somehow inferior.  i don't like it, but i don't think
it is necessarily inferior, and i didn't imply such.


>>while it gives YOU a better
>>choice, the woman who was beaten up for having used birth control
>>the last time her man sexed her,
>
>This is a different situation than the one we have been discussing all
>along.  If you change what we are talking about, then please allow me
>to respond to the new subject.
>
>Abuse or rape is different (don't you agree?) than consentual sexual
>relations.
>
>>and/or is too poor to have any MORE
>>kids, and/or is already on welfare, and/or is a drug addict...should i
>>go on?...no longer gets another choice -   this shit happens, ok?
>
>You are right.  She doesn't get ANOTHER choice, that of abortion.  But she
>does have a choice.

this is not reality!  the fact is that they DON"T go to the police
and report abuse and rape, or they DON'T get prosecuted, or she
somehow thinks he's entitled to do this!  or she's ignorant!
i want to give her another way out if she wants one, inaddition
to trying to change the fact that this stuff happens so much.

do you support sex ed. and gov't supplied birth control?
(like say, allowing food stamps to purchase condoms at a 
subsidized rate if needed).

shannon

>John
>stevens@uswest.com
>[ Who has studied the art of killing/But has no interest in being an artist. ]


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism