From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... Th (2)
X-To: KEITH " A A COCHRAN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Followups-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:18:00 GMT

Keith Cochran writes...
K"AAC> Personally, I think Will needs to get rid of the anger in his life, and
K"AAC> get out of abusive relationships.

Actually, after a year of counselling, I got rid of (most of) my depression and
anger, some time ago, a very slow, and sometimes agonising process.  Nowadays, I
live with my wife (whom I married just last year, who was in fact, a very long
time acquaintance, dating back to our childhood) and our baby daughter, but
admittedly, it is still hard to forget.  Also, the second "anniversary" (hardly
the appropriate word) is coming up next Sunday (the 18th).  As much as I try
to forget it, I find it quite difficult, and have realised that I would much
rather like to remove the day from the calendar...  So, given that I have more
or less recovered, you wonder : "Why the hell did he say THAT, a month ago?".
Well, first of all, as I explained to Dan, I was attempting to show the tragedy
of a man who, not properly counselled, and feeling betrayed, feels that
violence is the only answer.  In trying to show that violence can just as well
be caused by desperation than by the desire to control someone else (indeed,
desperation is the feeling that one has lost *self* control), I made the foolish
mistake of casting myself as the hypothetical person, even though I never even
considered violence, much less planned it, as some people had implied.

Why did I cast myself in such a light?  To re-iterate, I was attempting to
humanise the issue, to say "Look, here is someone who has never committed *any*
violence in his life, save for *one* minor, five second fight while a child,
[hardly a record of violent tendencies, as someone else implied], but when
placed in a hopeless situation, cracks under the strain".  I didn't think that
I could sufficiently impress the point upon the net, by merely saying "Consider
a hypothetical man, who has never committed violence in his life, is emotionally
stable, who respects both genders as equals, is not racist, is not heterosexist,
but who one day finds himself in a tragic and unfortunate situation, from which
he is offered no assistance, and is treated like a second-class citizen, and
consequently in an act of desperation, commits the first act of violence in his
life" - this is too impersonal.

Naturally, if I had had the chance to notice that my attempt at humanising the
issue had gone wrong, I would have explained my reasons, but of course, as Peter
Nyikos (I think) and a few others mentioned (I hope!), ZOOiD decided to drop
dead for a week and a half (the mail feed had been restored after a week, but
the news feed was still intermittent for a few days afterward), and when I came
back, I discovered that half the net had denounced me as a throwback to the
Nazis...  (actually, I shouldn't make this joke - the father of the woman
involved, was a Corporal in the SS!  Maybe this had something to do with her
threats on my life :-)  Okay...forgive my bizarre humour, but sometimes, you
just *have* to laugh or you drive yourself batty from being too serious).

Anyway...  for other subjects...

       >>> (The ">>>" is from me)
K"AAC> >>> This is also an interesting subject matter... How can "pro choice" pe
K"AAC> >>> oppose abortion after a sex determination, if they are in favour of a
K"AAC> >>> "for any reason and no apologies"?  Will they oppose sex determinatio
K"AAC> >>> because "it just might be a female"?

K"AAC> I don't oppose abortions after sex determination.

But the point is, a lot of "pro-choice" people, *do*, and I have even seen
feminist opinions considering the practice "femicide".  I consider this
hypocritical *in the extreme*, because it seems as though the same people
who are saying (in essence) "it isn't human until it's out," are contradicting
themselves by saying (in essence) "if it has XX chromosones, you're murdering
a female," as though "it" is only a human if "it" is female.

If you absolutely demand a reference, please write back, and I can dig it up,
although I don't believe that it came from a feminist book per se, but from a
layperson's guide to new reproductive technologies, written by an English M.D.,
who consulted with the feminist community ... of course, I *could* be thinking
of the wrong book (I have a stack of books and material about NRTs, from most
sides of the issues, so it could take a while!)


K"AAC> >>> But if one *is* "pro choice" *and* opposes abortion after a sex deter
K"AAC> n,
K"AAC> >>> then the question arises : What do these people *really* believe?  -
K"AAC> g
K"AAC> >>> Pro-Choice, or Pro-Choice-Only-If-It's-A-Choice-We-Agree-With?

K"AAC> For that matter, what happens if it's proven that homosexuality is geneti
K"AAC> And they develop a test that 100% guaranteed to tell you if your "unborn
K"AAC> is Gay?  Will pro-lifers suddenly want to allow abortions in the case of
K"AAC> "Rape, Incest, or Homosexuality"?

Actually, if I am not mistaken, the "orthodox" view on abortion is that it is
*always* wrong, irrespective of rape, incest, or actual or perceived
"handicaps" (and I *do* consider it bigoted to think of homosexuality as
"abnormal").

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Gravity is a Myth.  The Earth Sucks!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women