From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:17:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Stevens
>> Ferrari
>>> Stevens
>>>> R. Cage

>>Regardless of whether or not she makes the decision "unilaterally," SHE 
>>must bear the pain, sickness, serious health risks, and possibility of
>>death UNNILATERALLY.  That fact gives her the right to decide whether or
>>not she will accept those risks unilaterally, although few choose to exercise
>>this right.

>You state your beliefs.  I, obviously, disagree.  Just make sure you realize
>that you ARE stating beliefs, not facts.

It is nnot a "belief" that "SHE must bear the pain, sickness, serious health
risks, and possibility of death UNILATERALLY."  It is a fact.

>>a woman seeking an abortion realizes she cannot handle
>>this pregnancy and the child that would result for whatever reason.

>Not true.  Many abortions are requested for the reason that the child
>would change the woman's life in a way she WON'T handle, not because
>she COULDN'T handle it.

Well, if you consider it selfish nnot to want to be on welfare, to complete
your education, to be alive, thenn yes, I'd agree that she WON'T handle it.

>>A woman
>>seeking ann abortion is trying to avoid becoming a burden onn others -
>>taxpayers, her family.

>It is not absolute that a woman MUST be a burden on others.

In the case of a woman being forced to bear a child she does not want, it 
is quite likely.

>>>Guess what?  You are also on the side of those who want to make laws that
>>>*rule out* other people being able to practice their beliefs.  You want
>>>abortion legal, even though passing law to make it so would violate the
>>>practice of other peoples religious beliefs.

>>That is bullshit.  No one is forcing you to support abortion (or to have
>>one, if you were female).

>Wrong.  I can be legally forced to 'support' an abortion.  Remember, under
>the current system, I have NO SAY AT ALL.  Just an obligation to pay
>through the nose.

Pay through the nose?!  Health care in this counntry is grossly underfunded!
You pay a hell of a lot more for OTHER instruments of killing, such as
ICBMs, military bases, and military weapons, than you do for abortion -
do you oppose them too?

Not to mentionn the fact that you pay a hell of a lot more for an unwanted
child who is neglected because the mother has to work two jobs, annd ends
up onn welfare, state supported rehabilitation, and prison.

>>It is NOT a legitimate "practice of religious
>>beliefs" to force others to conform to your ideology.

>Once again you state beliefs that are contradictory to facts.  There are
>many laws on the books that enforce others to conform to christian
>ideology.

Annd if they do not prohibit direct harm to others, such as blue laws and
sodomy laws, I oppose them too.

>>Your right to 
>>practice your religion ends where my rights begin, such as my right to
>>privacy.

>If this were true, prostitution would be legal.  It is not, because the
>right you state, is not absolute.

Another law that I oppose.

>>As a ridiculousness test, how would you like it if my religion
>>involved forcing everyone that I consider to be a pinhead to pass a physical
>>test that involved a serious risk to your health and life, and to that end 
>>I was forced to kidnap you and torture you to uphold my religious beliefs?
>
>Correct.  Ridiculous.  Because you have no interest in what I do, but I
>DO have an interest in what a woman does if she is carrying our child.

No you donn't.  I have a HELL of a lot more interest in you, who are working
to take away my rights, than a private woman deciding what to do about a 
pregnancy inn which you are nnont innvolved.

>>You wouldn't *dream* of enforcing the laws againnst kidnapping and assault,
>>now would you, since you'd be violating my RIGHT to practice my religion?

>Actually, the ideal choice would be to establish a hierarchy of rights.
>If a family agrees to follow a strictly fundamentalist christian set of
>rules, then the man, as head of the household, would have final say.

Annd families who *don'T* choose to follow "a strictly fundamentalist set
of rules"?

>In other familys, the rules that were chosen at the incorporation of the
>marriage would hold sway.

No chance to change their minnd, eh?

>This would resolve your point about religious freedom by allowing you to
>exercise control over others, if your religion supports this, so long as
>they are members of your religion.

The key phrase being "so long as they are members of your religion," I
am not a member of your religion, therefore you have no right to tell me
not to have an abortion.

Not that I think you have a right to tell me or anybody else, includinng
a member of your religion, what to do inn any case.

Why do you have such a profound problem with allowing people to make up
their own minds about the one decision that coiuld affect THEIR lives,
NOT YOURS, so profoundly?

>>Or, for a more realistic example, the religion of KKK members involves the
>>continual harassment of, terrorism against, and killing select members of,the
>>the following groups: African Americans, Catholics, immigrants, Jews, and
>>non-traditional women.  By your criterion above, you would not stop them 
>>since that would entail the enforcement of laws "that *rule out* [the KKK]
>>being able to practice their beliefs." 

>Neat.  But dead wrong, as you totally missed the point that I do not support
>the idea of interfering in a process that I am not involved with.  I simply
>think that if the child is mine, I should have a say in what happens to it.

I don't think there is a SINGLE soul onn this newsgroup that would claim
that if the child is yours, you should not "have a say in what happens to
it."  Pro-choicers believe, quite logically, that the amount of "say" should
approximate the amount of stake the individual has in the decision.  Since
NO ONE has more at stake in the decision of whether or not to terminnate a
pregnancy than the mother, NO ONNE has more "say."  Thus, the FINAL decision 
must be hers.

Annd, if your statement that you "do not support the idea of interfering
in a process that [you are] not innvolved with" is true, it must
necessarily follow that you do not support anti-choice legislation.

>So it would be hypocritical of you to fight against me trying to pass laws
>that restrict your right to impose your beliefs on me.

It would be hypocritical of you to interfere "inn a process that [you are]
not innvolved with."

>If you and your SO want to have your child aborted, do so.  But when I'm
>involved, I should have the right to be involved in the decision making.

There's nnot a soul here who would deny you that right - as long as
beinng "involved inn the decision making" means only expressing your
opinions, not using any kind of coercion or force.

>>The father, IF he is responsible, IF he did attempt to prevent conceptionn in
>>the first place, annd IF he has a good relationship with the mother, DOES
>>deserve to have his opinion onn the matter heard.  However, as the woman is
>>the SOLE bearer of threat to health and life, she makes the SOLE decision
>>concerninng such risk.

>I disagree.  By this reasoning, since only MEN bear the risks involved in
>creating and maintaining a free America, a woman should have her opinion
>listened to, but MEN should be the sole decision makers.

By WHAT fantasy criterion are men the only ones "involved in creating and
maintainninng a free America"?  You're sure you on the third planet?

>You, and many other pro-aborts that I have listened to, seem to be incredibly
>sexist.  You support UNequal rights based on sex.

Name ONE way inn which I support UNNequal rights based onn sex.  Keep in
mind that I am NOT a feminnist, I am an equalist.
-- 
"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity