From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 20:50:05 GMT

<1992Aug13.211626.15421@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.):
>In <16e9bfINNijc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:
>> In article <1992Aug13.155229.7513@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>>[deletion]
>>>  I was merely bringing Gordon's statement to heel.  Unwanted (or even wanted,
>>>for that matter) pregnancies CAN do all these things--with the effect of "ruin."
>>>But it is NOT a certainty.  Or highly likley.
>> 
>>How can you tell?
>
>  How can you?  Got any hard data?  I've been looking (obviously in the wrong
>places) to no avail.  And you've deleted a lot--including my questions.

I admit I do not have "hard data" on this, although it has been posted
here before.  Perhaps someone will repost it.  What I wonder is why anyone
has to justify to you what they do with their own bodies.

>> How can you, Jimmy, who have never sat through an unwanted pregnancy, tell
>> what is 'highly likely' with any certainty?  If I had to figure who would have
>> a better picture about this, you or a pregnant woman, I'd vote for the
>> pregnant woman.
>
>  Gordon Storga is not a pregnant woman.  

Thanks for noticing. ;-)

>                                          I note you had no trouble with his
>assertion, which, by the above logic, is just as flawed as mine.  Shall we
>trot out the standard double-standard arguments for both sides at this point?

You bring up an interesting point - there are men who defend women's
rights.  Why do we do it?  What do we have to gain?  Well, *personally*
we have nothing to gain.  One of our reasons though is, most of us will
at some time have a wife or girlfriend and we feel that if we wait
until then to try to protect their rights it will be too late.  Those
men who are gay share another reason with the rest of us -- the
protection of rights and the exclusion of the government from our
bodies.  "Precedent" can be an ugly thing (it's sometimes referred to
as 'the slippery slope').  Allowing the government the precedent to decide
who will *remain* pregnant has already lead to judges deciding who can
*get* pregnant (Norplant).  Who knows how far it an go.  Maybe gays won't
be allowed to reproduce out of fear of <gasp> more homosexuals.

The main reason why my comments are accepted over yours is that you are
advocating oppression of women (to a certain extent), while I am
advocating freedom for women.

>  Just between you and me and the the rest of the world, I'd vote for the
>pregnant woman too.  She's a lot more likely to know--but there's no
>guaruntee either.

There are no gaurentees in life.  Only probabilities.  Each person must
decide for themselves what that means to them.

>  Any pregnant women who know the facts care to let us know before this gets
>any more ugly?  I can only go on what the mothers I know have had to say.
>Hardly comprehensive.  But then I've not seen anything better here, yet.

Again I say, if the women feels it (pregnancy) is ruining her life, then
it is ruining her life.  That it doesn't seem that way to you is of little
consequence to her.  You are not in her shoes, she may not have the
education you do therefore not as marketable in the job arena.  She may
not *want* to be pregnant, therefore she may not take care of herself
while pregnant.  She could end up giving a deformed/handicapped child
up for adoption (see "Crack Babies").

If someone can post "hard data" I'd like to see it too.


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 all.
-- 
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.