From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 10 Sep 92 03:49:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: No comment.

In article <1992Sep2.205322.9187@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>I swear I've commented on this already, but the order of posts is such
>that this appeared after my other responses.  Sorry if it confuses anyone.
>
><1992Aug31.144116.12258@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
>><BtK044.IG4@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>>><1992Aug25.161841.1495@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
>>In the case of abortion at least one, and depending on your beliefs, two
>>other people are directly affected by a woman's UNILATERAL decision to
>>have an abortion, the father and the child.
>
>I'd say that the man in this case is minimally inconvenienced or affected
>by the abortion.

Yup.  Just the same way a woman is 'minimally inconvenienced or affected'
by a miscarriage, or the loss of a one week old baby.

Go ahead and tell that to the wife of my instructor.  I PROMISE I'll
give you a decent burial!

>At least, he has *no* health risks either way.

Wrong.  He has fewer health risks during the pregnancy than the woman,
but has more health risks during the next 18 years.  Check the stats
on stress related illnesses in men.

>There is no child involved so that is pointless.

There is a child involved, and your attempt to ignore 'im won't make
her go away.  Which is why you want to have the right to abortion.
Because other wise, the child won't go away.


>>You want
>>abortion legal, even though passing law to make it so would violate the
>>practice of other peoples religious beliefs.
>
>This is pure bull.  Abortion remaining legal does not require someone who
>is against abortion to go out and immediately get one.

No.  But it does require me to stand aside and allow murder to be done.
My religion requires me to act to end such an injustice if at all possible.

>What it does
>require is that these people leave others alone wrt abortion.

For abortion, read murder.

>If your
>religion requires that you interfere with other peoples personal lives 
>you *should* be prohibited from practicing that portion of it.

I disagree.

>If your
>religion requires that you must legalize involuntary servitude for women
>I suggest you find a nice middle-east or south american country to live
>out your fantasies.

|-()  Another big laugh!  So many pro-choicers use this totally lame
accusation in the attempt to defend abortion.  As if any semi-intelligent
person couldn't tell the difference between disallowing abortion (removing
only ONE choice) and 'involuntary servitude for women'!

Sudden shudder of fear: you mean, there ARE people like that?  Horrors!

>>When you admit that at the very least, the FATHER has a stake in the abortion,
>>not just the mother, then we may be able to find a common ground.
>
>The man has a stake in abortion.  It's just such a small insignificant
>stake that it hardly qualifies subjecting the woman to slavery.

Sigh. . .  Yup, there are such people.  Thank god for the net.  Otherwise
I'd be talking to this person face to face.

I don't suppose you will admit that I believe differently?

>The government recognizes rights.  It doesn't grant them.

I'm AMAZED that you know so little about this.  Please go read the
constitution.

>Gordon

John
stevens@uswest.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35967 talk.religion.misc:16040 talk.politics.misc:44663