From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Subject: Flamers on both sides of the Potomac (Part 4)
Summary: The best way to cross the river?  Roe vs. Wade(?!)
Keywords: abortion life comprehensive readme part4 sex
Organization: You see, Burke Lee.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 08:46:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.011150.14456@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.183819.12607@pwcs.stpaul.gov> (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>In another article (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>> Some parents have VERY strong feelings about their daughters not
>>> having abortions. 
>>> Some parents resort to illegal means by issuing threats.
>>
>>Like, "If I ever find out that you're pregnant, I'll kill you?"
>>A kinder, gentler enforcement of wholesome traditional family
>>values, wouldn't you say? 
>
>That's illegal. And it would prompt her to kill the baby by abortion. 
>
>The part that's aimed at preventing killing is, "I will help you
>enormously if you become pregnant, to carry the child to term." 
>
>The part that's aimed at preventing killing by a little more force,
>is, "..but if you decide to kill that unborn child, your ass is out of
>the house. Permanently." 

You wrote that they'd be making illegal threats...
The part that's aimed at preventing killing by a little more force...
Like Chris Lyman said, "A kinder, gentler enforcement of wholesome traditional
family values, wouldn't you say?"  That's wholesome, loving, and supportive.
                                  *NOT*
Additionally, you say that the parents would say that they "would help
[their daughter] enourmously if [she] became pregnant, to carry the child
to term."  Then what?  After she gives birth, I guess she could go out
and get a job...  We'll take time off to raise our grandkid, huh?

>A huge number of daughters would shrink way back from killing their
>unborn child, then.

More like... "A huge number of daughters would shrink way back from their
families/parents."  Threats don't promote communication, loving, or caring.
Parents should stand behind their children's decisions, and if it's wrong,
perhaps then they should _convince_ them that they might have erred.
Coersion is totally abhorrent to me.

>>> But what if they resorted to legal means to circumvent the pro-choice
>>> movement's undying quest to nullify parental authority? 
>>[I can only assume something might have been cut out of here]
>>> Why, a parent could, upon being told that their daughter is pregnant,
>>> threaten to drop her off at a home for unwanted children if she has an
>>> abortion.
>>
>>Some parents threaten their teenage children with foster homes for all
>>kinds of transgressions, some of them extremely trivial.  Actually,
>>don't you think those kinds of threats are self-defeating?
>
>Nope. It worked on my brother.

Make him miss home, huh?  Does he resent your parents at all?  As I've
said over and over, threats are no basis for any kind of relationship.

>>> That's no slight inconvenience for anyone; the daughter would be
>>> devastated, and she would have no legal action against her parents.
>>> She'd just be out of a home.
>>
>>And the parents end up looking like idiots.
>
>How? They got their way. When you get the job done, you can't look
>like an idiot. 

Yeah, who cares about the daughter, anyway?  She's merely a pawn...
("Oh, and where's your daughter?"  "We threw her out of the house because
she had an abortion."  "That's understandable."  Unforgiveable too, eh?)

>>> And where would the NARAL & Planned Parenthood be, then? They won't
>>> house her. She'll be just an insignificant casualty in this war. Or,
>>> as they say, "Another one bites the dust."
>>
>>Blaming the NARAL & Planned Parenthood for the actions of a few stupid
>>parents makes about as much sense as blaming the National Football League
>>for the increase in cheap shots in hockey games.  But when has making
>>sense ever been your strong suit?
>
>My point is, PP, NARAL & NOW won't, after all their yelling &
>screaming, be there when that daughter faces the sheer might of her
>parents, when directed towards a legal means of removing her if she
>crosses them over this issue. 
>
>The parents, once again, don't have to strike a single blow: the blow
>they strike is with the pen, signing her into an unwanted children's
>home.

How can you say that they "don't have to strike a single blow:" but then say
that "the blow they strike is with the pen..."?  Again, maybe the daughter
gets no financial support from those aformentioned organizations, but on
the other hand, it may be true that if she decides to have the baby, she
won't get any support from her parents/family, nor any long-term support
from whichever pro-life groups, let alone the father.  (Case in point:
my aunt got pregnant, married someone outside our ethnicity, and was thrown
out of her family by her father.  That's the other side of the coin.
Since we can see how both cases can happen, I dunno why we can't leave
it [the decision] up to the person who knows best--the pregnant daughter
involved.)

>>> But the parents would strike the last and final blow in the issue, and
>>> the next daughter would more likely either not get pregnant or not
>>> even consider abortion.
>>
>>You'd be surprised at the lessons drawn from such parental behavior.
>
>If it could convince my hard-headed brother, it could convince
>anyone. It was another 10 years before he acted up again, and then he
>lost the family inheritance which now has grown to 2 houses and a
>condo being purchased in Tahoe, NV. 

Aaah, nothing like a little financial arm-twisting.

>>> Sure, the tactics are heavy handed, but anything is fair in war,
>>
>>What war, Mr. Chaney?
>
>You have no common sense, do you? 
>
>Abortion goes way beyond a debate when it divides families and
>friends.
>
>That has all the qualities of a war in the brewing. 

Parent's shouldn't abandon their children because of their different
values.  (Although in the real world, they can.)

>>> and as the pro-choicers like to say, IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL TO DO IT.
>>
>>Actually, I _think_ that the daughter has _some_ legal recourse in many
>>states; that's something that might be interesting to research.
>
>What? Force her way back into the house? I think not.

Did you even bother to check?  I think not.

>Better yet, I wonder what it'd be like if a parent put a daughter out
>upon discovering she was pro-choice?

Even so, I wonder what it'd be like if a parent discovered that her
daughter "put out," let alone be pro-choice.  (What does pro-choice mean?
The ability to make a decision concerning your own reproduction.  Can we
not trust this power to teenagers?)  Well, you've got me thinking--how
would I react if my kids were "pro-life?"  I don't think I'd disinherit
them, but I would try to convince them that government intervention is not
necessarily in anyone's best interest.

>That wouldn't be any worse than women who threaten to divorce their
>husbands over spousal consent laws.

Now, what kind of husbands would they be, if their wives couldn't discuss
their pregnancy/reproductive future with?  Is this THE problem that the
state should intervene in?  Besides, husbands aren't the ones that are
going to be carrying the fetus around.  (Actually, it would make it easier
to discover adultry, if, say the hubby was away and the wife got pregnant.
Then again, it doesn't really work the other way.  (If the hubby got someone
else pregnant.))  In addition, why should there be this "double standard"?
If you're single, it's ok, but if you're married, you gotta ask someone else?
That's insane!

You should also see your article about discussing choices.  We're advocating
that people should be free to make their own decisions.  You are free to
run around telling people that they should chose to have the baby.  Others
are free to run around telling people to get abortions.  What I am saying
is that the decision is yours and yours alone...


-Richard
CHOOSE life.
(phew!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion