From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
X-To: JAMES G. KEEGAN JR.
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:12:00 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes...
JGKJ> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
JGKJ> ->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
JGKJ> ->>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
JGKJ> ->>->I have yet to see a compelling reason to allow
JGKJ> ->>->second-trimester abortions
JGKJ> ->>i think it's fotunate that you're not in a position of
JGKJ> ->>control over women.

JGKJ> ->That's ok, you're one of many who have reading comprehension troubles.

JGKJ> you mean i'm not allowed to think that it's fortunate
JGKJ> for women you're not in a position to control them?

He said what he said about you, I would guess, because he probably has *no
wish* of being in *any* position of control over *anyone*.  While I think that
it was lacking in manners for him to have insulted you (and vice versa), I
thought that he had made that point abundantly clear.


JGKJ> ->My point is NOT to prevent 2nd tri abortions, or to prohibit them.

JGKJ> my point is for you to wish to control any abortions is
JGKJ> rather misogynist. don't you think women can make that
JGKJ> decision themselves?

His point, I believe, was begun in a form similar to: "*if* second term
abortions were prohibited...".  He has no wish to control *any* such decisions.
Perhaps you have misinterpreted his Devil's Advocate argument?  Remember, just
because one has made a Devil's Advocate argument, does not mean that he/she
advocates it (indeed, this is why one would call it a "*Devil's* Advocate"?)


JGKJ> ->But you, along with many others, fail to answer the question posed.  Wha
JGKJ> ->is it about abortion that comes with a mandate that says "on demand thro
JGKJ> ->birth"?  Is it really about fetal viability?  I don't think so.  Even a
JGKJ> ->born infant is a parasite for a long time (years), unable to exist witho
JGKJ> ->POSITIVE input from outsiders for long.  If that is the issue, why not b
JGKJ> ->able to retroactively abort a 3 month old infant?

JGKJ> what it is is a woman's right to control her body and
JGKJ> its contents. odd that you either don't understand that
JGKJ> or that you want to control women.

He was merely questioning the agenda underlying certain arguments in favour of
the "Pro-Women's Choice" position.  Recall what I posited earlier, in regards
to the fact that "Pro Women's Choice" advocates who primarly hold the civil
libertarian position, also have no problems with respect to being "Pro Male
Choice," but that those who hold the "bodily integrity" position as their
primary argument, are in many cases "Anti-Male Choice".

In other words, he was questioning the motives of "Pro-Women's Choice" advocates
who are "Anti-Male Choice," in particular the fact that in spite of their having
spoken volumes about "reproductive choice," they only seem willing to grant such
a choice to only women, and not men.


JGKJ> ->So what is the REAL issue here?  I have no intention of codifying into
JGKJ> ->law as part of this proposal the idea that 2nd tri abortions should be
JGKJ> ->illegal at the federal level.  I would prefer to leave that to individua
JGKJ> ->states legal codes.

JGKJ> why would you want to make any abortions illegal,
JGKJ> unless, of course, you want to control women?

He doesn't wish to make abortion illegal!  Again, the argument is a "Devil's
Advocate," based upon the proposition that in order to make "reproductive
choice" equitable between the genders, either men and women should *both* have
"reproductive rights" (ie., freedom of choice for women *and* men) or *neither*
gender shoud have such rights (ie., continue to force men into "responsibility"
through paternity suits, *and* outlaw abortion).

So indeed, even if he *did* consider outlawing abortion to be a serious option
for himself (which I believe that it is *not*, despite the line of argument),
the resulting state of affairs would "control" women *and* men, although
admittedly in different fashions.


JGKJ> ->Let's start by guaranteeing that FIRST TRI abortions are absolutely
JGKJ> ->protected.

JGKJ> let's instead leave the matter for women to decide for themselves.

For Pete's sakes, James, he's *agreeing with you* on that particular point!  If
anything, this should calm your suspicions that he is out to outlaw abortion!

You two certainly won't accomplish anything if either of you chooses to
needlessly nitpick the other, especially when you have some points where
you *are* indeed in agreement.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52065 alt.abortion.inequity:5927 soc.men:21218