From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: A woman's choice
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:00:52 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Ron
>Kevin W.
>>Ron
>>>Kevin W

>>>IMO, he should be able to abort his responsibility. This does occur
>>>in most cases, I don't recall any un-married man being forced to pay
>>>child-support, although it probably has occurred in one or two very
>>>special cases.

>>So what?  point here?  What about the man who wants to keep the unborn
>>child?  What does he have to say Ron?

>Well, gee, maybe he could carry it to term? Maybe the woman could force
>him to crawl on his hands and knees for nine months?

Gee, maybe we all could be a little more sarcastic around here too, Ron.
What about the man who helped create the fetus?

>>It's gross.  A man (husband) has no say in whether his child is going to
>>die, yet he can be forced to pay child support for a child he may not
>>want to care for when they get divorced.  DOuble standards.

>Its no his child (ie not born yet). And who is going to be sleeping
>with their wife while they're going through divorce proceedings? Only
>people I can think of are really sick ones. If he was that driven by
>his gonads, maybe he should be forced to pay for his stupidity. No double
>standards here.

Yes there is a huge double standard.  A man is forced to pay child support
for a child he may not want to support, but the woman wants, yet a man
has no say whatsoever in the fate of his unborn child.  Double standard?
YES!!!!

I'm not saying who's sleeping with who at all.  Two very simple cases that
reveal the hypocrisy of the pro-choice side.

>>Let me ask you a question.  I don't want to make assumptions, but from
>>what you have just said ("the government sacntions the killing of human
>>life...") I have to ask you if the fetus is a human life.  Is it?

>To throw your own argument back at you.
>
>Of course it's human, what else could it be. A DOG? .....

Good use of my argument.  I never denied its human likeness and attributes.
The orifinal post questioned it's life.

>Yes, it's genetically human, it's alive, so it's human life, as are
>epidermal cells, muscle cells, and brain cells. This still does not
>equte it with a person, to forestall that entire argument before it
>begins again.

Never said it was a person.  Get it through your think skull.  My 
point is that rights do not imply personhood.

>>>The point here is that the government shouldn't be sticking its nose
>>>into the private business of its citizens in an area that doesn't concern
>>>society at all.

>>So if my friends and I want to start a little drug operation that doesn't
>>involve society, but just a few family members, the government shouldn't
>>get involved?  It should stick it's nose in "private" affairs?

>Whole different concept. You're affecting persons, realized potential,
>not a hypothetical case.

No it is not.  It is a "private" affair.  Hey, and those dealers have the
potential to be good persons, corrected persons.  It's not a different
concept.  Look at it on the global scale:  privacy.  The right of privacy.

>>Get some down time.  Stop smoking.
>
>I don't smoke. My allergies won't let me near any of that crap.
Good.  That makes two of us. :-)

>>The RIght of Privacy, Ron, exists so far as it does not conflict with
>>public policy, that's why we don't seel drugs in our home, that's why
>>I can't kill my mom in the privacy of my home, that's why I can't hold
>>some one captive in the privacy of my home.  That is why there is no
>>privacy issue at all in abortion.

>Again, realized potential in all the cases except the one relating to
>abortion. Hence, your logic just doesn't flow, nor do your points follow
>one another. 

No, the concept of personhood plays no role on the global scale of this
analysis.  We are looking at privacy.  Abortion was illegal.  Legalizing
it conflicted with Constitutional policy:  ie free-hand Constitution making.

>Maybe you should take your own advice.
>PS - I hear smoking affects your memory after a prolonged period of
>time. :-)

Perhaps that Spring Fling Blues Travelers pot floating all around Penn got
to my brain....  :/

>>>After all, the woman is going to bear most (if not all)
>>>the hardships of pregnancy. What gives the government the right to force
>>>this on a woman. Are you going to force all women to have 2.5 kids?

>>Not at all.  I not forcing them to have any kids.  If they don't want kids,
>>best thing to do is not have sex and hopefully avoid rape/incest (I'm not
>>saying that any one woman can say "I'm not going to get raped", but barring
>>rape from this analysis).  Then they won't be forcing pregnancy.  BUT, if
>>you are willing to engage in sex (which is fine) assume the risk that you
>>might get pregnant and that raising the child is the consequence of that
>>action.
>
>You and Steve Franklin should get along great in that small country
>of three people you guys are going to have to start. (The third will
>be Kevin Brawley) 

Hey, I don't care if you have sex.  Have it all you want.  But if you get
pregnant, that baby's yours.

>Might get mighty lonely there, but then again Steve
>won't ever have to worry about an unwanted child, or ever
>having to experience that ikkyyukkything.

You're making bad assumptions about Steve you cannot prove.

>As for getting pregnant and raising a child being the natural consequence
>of the risk of having sex and losing, nature aborts 1/3 of those pregnancies
>(or more) before the woman can carry to term.

So nature (ie spontaneous abortion--misscarraige) accounts for 1/3 (33 %)
of terminations, abortion accounts for 53% of terminations.  So is it
that 86% of pregnacies end up terminated?  We'd have serious poulation
declines then, Ron.  Go figure your percentages for misscarriages
again.

>Which brings up another point. If a woman sits in a very hot hottub
>(not recommended) she will very likely miscarry (after several sessions)
>especially if mixed liberally with caffiene, alcohol, and nicotine.
>(Basically, this makes your body appear very unhealthy to mother nature,
>and of it goes) What would you think about this woman, keeping in mind
>that it is her normal lifestyle?

I think she would be commiting illegalities if her intention was to 
abort the child.

>Would you force her to stop her normal activities as soon as she got
>pregnant? Are you going to force her to call you each time she has sex
>with her husband or menstrates so tha you can keep your eye on that
>"HOLY FETUS"?

How is sitting in a hot hottub filled with nicotine, alcohol and all that
normal?  To be considered normal, there has to be some consistency in
society.  I dare say tha relatively few women do this on normal occasions.

What other purpose other than to abort???

>By the way, I actually knew a person like this, in college.

Key word is "A".  That is not a consistency and the law will never buy it.
That person had to be really spaced if that person sat in a hottub with
all that stuff.

(Did you go to college in the sixties?  Were you at Woodstock? )


>Ron

kcw
--
(=- Mr. Kevin C. Welch to you -=)		Science wiLl Be truth for Life
(  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu	)		TechNology as Nature
						In foRtran tongue the Answer
10000 Maniacs ->				with weAlth and pRominence