From: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:57:30 GMT
Reply-To: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center

In article <oem7ddi00WB51DRh8G@andrew.cmu.edu>, ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:
|>Excerpts from netnews.alt.sex: 29-Sep-92 Re: rights and responsibili..
|>by rocker@aix.rpi.edu 
|>> To whit, it is incredibly arrogant, as well as wrong, for you to
|>> dismiss the very real physical and emotional risks of pregnancy
|>> as merely inconvenient.
|>
|>This is a common arguement.

Why do you think this is?  Perhaps because people who haven't had a
particular experience are in a particularly bad position to comment
on how easy the experience is?

|> Why is it that often people forget the 
|>'very real physical and emotional risks of' abortion?

Have you ever seen anyone state that "Women get abortions without
a second's thought about it, have no physical pain, and never think
about it again"?  If not, you are attacking a strawman of your own
making.

|>Having one or more abortions has the possibility of causing women
|>(especially young women) to become infertile and have multiple mis-
|>carraiges (sp?) in later life.

Do you have a citation, or is this something "everybody knows"?

|> Why is it that many pro-choicers
|>argue for sex education, but education about abortions risks isn't
|>considered as important?

How is it that you know what abortion rights advocates "consider
important"?

|>I'm not saying that this is the way you
|>feel. But it seems to simply be neglected by the pro-choice pamphlets
|>and information.

Could you quote one of these pamphlets for us?

|> If they're *really* pro-choice, why doesn't their
|>agenda include this type of education? If it's only through education
|>that people can make 'responsible' choices, then why is the most 
|>important part of the information, the risks of the abortion, left
|>out, ignored and neglected.

Are you suggesting that most women do not know that invasive surgery
carries some risk?  Are you suggesting that abortion has a higher risk
than surgery in general?  Are you suggesting that abortion has a higher
risk than childbirth?

|>> Defense?  Against what?  I am simply saying it is arrogant (as well
|>> as stupid) for you to comment on the rigors of pregnancy, never
|>> having been pregnant yourself.
|>
|>To use a common arguement here, then I can say, that it is arrogant
|>for anyone not in the military to have an opinion on women in combat,
|>since they've never endured the rigors of military training. And who
|>would this include? Many of our congressmen.

They're certainly welcome to an opinion, if they label it as such.  
They may have an opinion that's based on "I have seen men kill, and
I have seen women kill, therefore I think that women would be able to
kill in combat as well as men."  If they are saying "Well, I've never
been in combat but I don't think women can do it.", do you consider 
this to be a valid opinion?  Are you suggesting that perhaps Mr. Varney
has had some experience analagous to pregnancy which would lend credence
to his opinion that pregnancy poses a risk to nothing more than the
woman's "sense of convenience"?

|>I don't think this is an accurate arguement. Firstly, I don't recall
|>any of Bruce's comments being specifically on the 'rigors' of pregnancy.

He said that abortion was done for "convenience".  This suggests that a
woman who has an abortion because she is vomiting constantly and unable
to get out of bed, much less hold down a job, is suffering only an 
"inconvenience".  I really don't think that Varney is in a position to
judge her level of discomfort, do you?

|>Secondly, it's possible to get a small understanding from reading on
|>the subject, and Bruce might have had the experience of being in the
|>delivery room with his wife.

If indeed this were the case, are you arguing that Varney would have a
right to comment on the childbirth experiences of all women because he
had watched a single birth?  I have seen a prostate exam, but I still 
don't think I'm in any position to judge how comfortable or uncomfortable
the exam may have been for the man involved.

|> We don't know that.

Indeed, which makes your speculation rather pointless, don't you think?

|> How can you say his
|>statements are in arrogance when he might have experiences and knowledge.

That's why I specifically asked him if he had ever been pregnant.  Do
try to keep up on these threads.

|>You have no way of knowing.

And neither do you.

|>There are many things that we all have opinions on without having 
|>experienced them, or having much knowledge on the topic.

Could you give me some examples of this?

|> Using the
|>above argument would invalidate most of our opinions and let us 
|>simply be lambs led to a slaughter.

"Lambs led to a slaughter"?  My my, you must think it's important 
for people to be able to state unsubatantiated opinion as fact.  Do
tell me how we can be "lambs led to the slaughter" by questioning
Varney's basis for stating that pregnancy represents nothing more 
than "inconvenience" for a woman.  Note that I have taken no position
on Varney's right to _believe_ this, only his statement that this
was a fact.

|>ag
                                            
                       -rocker