From: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Mulvihill vs Chuck Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 22 Aug 92 15:28:28 GMT
Reply-To: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) writes:
>+In talk.abortion, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>+>mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) writes:
>+>\eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>        Do you think her family won't stop him from killing her?

They may not be able to stop him.  Faced with a fanatical
fundamentalist, a bat or gun wielding psychotic, I really doubt it.
More importantly, why should they be put in this position?
No offense intended, but perhaps you have not seen many of
these situations.  If not, let me suggest that you do some
community service work in some of our larger cities where
the women's shelters are packed to capacity.  They need the
help, and I think it might change your mind.  You can't
pass a law to make every relationship loving.  But you can
keep legal obstructions out of the way of people who need to
put their lives back together, or escape an abusive situations.

>That there are choices with regards to sex,
>i.e., whether or not one should have sex. I assume that when two people
>consent to have sex, they are mature, consenting, responsible adults who
>understand the implications of the decisions they are making and the
>risks of getting pregnant, venereal diseases, or HIV-exposure. This
>includes knowledge of birth control that they elect to use.

The assumption is an absolute, it is a bad assumption.
We both know that this is not the case.  Further, if these
two people were not "mature" and "responsible"  should
they be having a child?  Do we have enough love in this
country to "support" all of those resulting unwanted pregnancies?
We don't even have enough love to help those who have not
been aborted.  If you don't believe that, watch the reruns
of the Republican Convention, or watch our fist pounding
leader.  Sure he's a loving father, but not of someone else's
kids.

I don't think, perhaps I'm out of touch,
most people discuss what they will do if the method of
birth control should fail.  I am not aware of
a legal form which both partners sign stating their intentions.
Perhaps there should be.  It is not very romantic, but
neither is driving a friend to a clinic.

>If the pregnancy endangers the mother's
>health, abortion then is a medical procedure. This is my position;
>abortion is treated as an issue related to sex and not pregnancy.

Birth control is a sex related issue.  Abortion is not birth control.
Abortion is only an issue if a pregnancy results, it is not a
sex issue.

>Personal choices are made at the intimate level of the bedroom. The
>government in this forum cannot dictate your options here (albeit they
>may influence them). 

I wouldn't bet on it.  Ever heard of sodomy laws?  If they can do
it to homosexuals, they can do it to the rest of us.

>But the choice is yours, and the decisions you make
>are whether or not to engage in sex.

It is not so simple.  Not all of life is so predictable.
Can you picture yourself calculating whether or not your
savings, the insurance company, and the federal/state
governments can afford to take care of you when your condom
fails and someone gives you AIDS?  It is almost laughable.

>When I originally wrote that statement, I meant it's difficult to face
>it as reality for many people, not an indictment of the story being
>fantasy.

Yes. That's why I'm spending some time writing this.  It is difficult
to face.  If a couple minutes on the Net someday helps to save someone
from facing choices made harder by fundamentalist laws, then I consider
it time well spent.
 
>+She wants support, but she NEEDS an abortion!  Her father is
>+a problem, she does not need or want another responsiblity
>+at the time (a child).
>        I agree her father's opinions give an unnecessary burden to the
>already difficult dilemma she faces. But I think more that she NEEDS
>support and WANTS an abortion. 

She is not likely to get support from that guy!

She does not necessarily need the support to live, and in this situation
it is not likely to materialize.  She will probably be murdered,
if she stays and starts showing.  So she needs to either run away,
get rid of her father, abort the prenancy, or come up with something
more creative.  Practically speaking, these are not good options
and she has decided she can live with an abortion.  Without it, she
will die => she NEEDS the abortion.

>It is more necessary that she reaffirm
>her confidence that her family will support and love her even though she
>erred; 

Why?  Thousands survive and prosper without "families".  Does this
grouping she lives with sound like what JDQ or GHWB would call a family?
Perhaps she would do better in one of those gay or lesbian groupings
which may not be "families", but which supply support and nurturing
love to their children.  I object to defining "family" as a biological
unit, and nothing more than that.  An abusive father, drunken mother,
theiving brothers, and prostituting sisters would fit the JDQ/GHWB
definition, but I'll take a stable lesbian couple for parents any day.

>        Would you prefer not knowing if your daughter were pregnant (and
>not married)? 

The point I was making was that with legal, funded abortions, without
parental consent, she would have the opportunity to have the abortion
in a safe, clean environment from a qualified doctor and her father
would never have to know.  Thus she could avoid being murdered,
have the opportunity to put her life back together, and avoid the
mistake in future.

>What would you do if a sibling of yours did something
>wrong and not told you about it (like get suspended from school)?

What I would do is not relavant!  I don't want the government
to impose rules which can kill, maim, and destroy the lives of
people like that young woman who could, given a chance, become
someone we would all be proud off.


>        There was a movie that came out last year, a foreign film from
>Italy called "Everybody's Fine" (from the same guys who produced the
>Oscar-winning foreign film "Cinema Paradiso," which is also an awesome
>film). 

Saw it.  The nature of life should be obvious to someone who watches
Italian cinema.  Nothing is perfect, there is evil, there is good,
and we all try to muddle through without hurting each other.
We can't all be the same, or have the same parents, or never
succomb to temptation.  Responsiblity is fine, but let's not
pass laws that cause young women to die for a mistake such as uninteded
pregnancy.  Such severity is a characteristic of fundamentalist
countries, not this one, yet.

>
>+>This wall between
>+>Sylvia and her dad needs to be torn down.
>+That's your judgement bucko.  And at what cost?  She believes
>+her life to be in danger by that man.
>        That's not only my judgement, it's pretty clear.

Why?  As I said, it is not clear to me, and it could be fatal to her.

>Will she ever
>tell her dad that she had an abortion and almost risked her life because
>of him? Or will she stay silent until either word comes to her dad
>through hearsay or he dies?

Hopefully we will not be nosey enough to try and find out!

>
>+>What would her dad do if he
>+>found out that Sylvia were pregnant (post-abortion)? What would you do
>+>if you were her dad?
>+
>+What I would do is none of your business.
>        Come on. Don't do a Clinton or Gore and duck the question.

It is none of your business.

>+>What constitutes a healthy relationship?

The ability to talk, without fear of being assaulted.  Mutual respect.
I do not think that her father respects her.  He has threatened to
assault her.  It is not a healthy relationship, by my standards, and
nothing but her death will result if she either tells her father,
or stays pregnant.  This woman lived in a difficult situation and
made a hard choice.  She can live with it, why can't you?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc