From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 07:27:12 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa

<1992Sep10.034942.12697@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
><1992Sep2.205322.9187@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Aug31.144116.12258@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
>>><BtK044.IG4@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>>>><1992Aug25.161841.1495@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
>>>In the case of abortion at least one, and depending on your beliefs, two
>>>other people are directly affected by a woman's UNILATERAL decision to
>>>have an abortion, the father and the child.
>>
>>I'd say that the man in this case is minimally inconvenienced or affected
>>by the abortion.
>
>Yup.  Just the same way a woman is 'minimally inconvenienced or affected'
>by a miscarriage, or the loss of a one week old baby.

Nope.  A woman experiencing a miscarriage risks death.  A man cannot
experience a miscarriage physically.

>Go ahead and tell that to the wife of my instructor.  I PROMISE I'll
>give you a decent burial!

Put me in touch with her.  If she can't stand the truth then that's her
problem, not mine.

>>At least, he has *no* health risks either way.
>
>Wrong.  He has fewer health risks during the pregnancy than the woman,
>but has more health risks during the next 18 years.  Check the stats
>on stress related illnesses in men.

The man has *no* health risks from being pregnant because a man *cannot*
be pregnant.  Sheesh!  Next you'll be telling us that a goldfish can get a
sprained ankle.

>>There is no child involved so that is pointless.
>
>There is a child involved, and your attempt to ignore 'im won't make
>her go away.  Which is why you want to have the right to abortion.
>Because other wise, the child won't go away.

There is no child involved.  Please supply evidence to support your claim
that there *is* a child involved in a common abortion.

>>>You want
>>>abortion legal, even though passing law to make it so would violate the
>>>practice of other peoples religious beliefs.
>>
>>This is pure bull.  Abortion remaining legal does not require someone who
>>is against abortion to go out and immediately get one.
>
>No.  But it does require me to stand aside and allow murder to be done.

Nope.  Abortion is legal, therefore not murder.

>My religion requires me to act to end such an injustice if at all possible.

It does??  Can you tell me exactly *where* in your bible (the heart of
your religious teachings) your god/Jesus commands you to get involved in
issues of abortion and seek to make them illegal?  Indeed, if your god
thought it was such a heinous crime he'd do something about it.  Wouldn't
he?  Wouldn't you, if you had the power?

>>What it does
>>require is that these people leave others alone wrt abortion.
>
>For abortion, read murder.

Why?  That would be lying.  What does your religion say about lying?

>>If your
>>religion requires that you interfere with other peoples personal lives 
>>you *should* be prohibited from practicing that portion of it.
>
>I disagree.

I'm so glad you don't live next door to me.  We'd be in court over your
medical bills.

>>If your
>>religion requires that you must legalize involuntary servitude for women
>>I suggest you find a nice middle-east or south american country to live
>>out your fantasies.
>
>|-()  Another big laugh!  So many pro-choicers use this totally lame
>accusation in the attempt to defend abortion.  As if any semi-intelligent
>person couldn't tell the difference between disallowing abortion (removing
>only ONE choice) and 'involuntary servitude for women'!

John Stevens is walking through the woods one day, and falls down into an
old mine shaft.  He can't get out but he can call for help.  I arrive to
find him sitting in the hole looking up at me begging to be freed.  I toss
him some food in exchange for him entertaining me, but I don't help him 
free himself.  In fact, I keep anyone else from helping him.  I keep him 
in the hole for 9 months during which he loses his job and/or misses out
on schooling.

Does John have any recourse against me?  Would he consider his stay in the
hole to be a kind of slavery or bondage?

...
>>The man has a stake in abortion.  It's just such a small insignificant
>>stake that it hardly qualifies subjecting the woman to slavery.
>
>Sigh. . .  Yup, there are such people.  Thank god for the net.  Otherwise
>I'd be talking to this person face to face.

Oh, I doubt you'd be talking to me.  You might be yelling at me from a
pro-life picket line, but I doubt you'd be talking to me.

>I don't suppose you will admit that I believe differently?

Certainly I recognize that you believe differently.  That's kind of
obvious, don't you think?

>>The government recognizes rights.  It doesn't grant them.
>
>I'm AMAZED that you know so little about this.  Please go read the
>constitution.

I have.  I believe the 9th and 10th ammendments are the pertinent parts
for this discussion, but then, I don't have it in front of me right now.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.