From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Observations
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 04:20:22 GMT


In article <1992Aug19.163139.22864@spdc.ti.com>,
serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) enlightens us with:
# I have just recently subscribed and begun reading these groups.

Greetings. I'm relatively new to these groups as well. Actually, I'm
only subscribed to talk.abortion. I'm not sure I even want to know
what the charter of alt.abortion.inequity is.

#                                                                 I
# have never seen to sides take such reactionary and extremist positions
# on any subject. We have the pro-choicers, who feel abortion is right
# and should be made available whenever and wherever a woman wants it.

Most pro-choicers, like many pro-lifers do not have `extremist' views
regarding abortion rights.  For instance, few pro-choicers agree with
me that women should have the right to use abortion as a means of
selecting the gender of their children.

The issue itself is inherently polarizing.  The middle ground is
extremely slippery -- which is what makes people like you who claim to
occupy it such a curiosity (at least to me).

# Then, the pro-lifers at the other extreme who would eliminate the
# possibility of abortion for all circumstances. Because of these
# extremist views I can safely say that I am neither pro-life or
# pro-choice.  I will not support such extremist viewpoints.

Are you refusing to adopt those viewpoints simply because they are
`extreme?'  Because, if you are, you're probably about to learn why
people are so polarized by the issue.

# I do not agree that a woman has a right to an abortion in the case of
# consensual sex.

Why not? Why did you qualify that with the words `in the case of
consensual sex?' My initial suspicion is that it was born out of your
inherent patriarchal sexism, but I realize you *might* have a bizarre,
but reasonable alternative reason for qualifying yourself in that way.

#                  Men and women both must take responsibility for their
# actions.  If you are going to have sex you must take whatever
# precautions are necessary to prevent pregnancy, however, you must also
# be willing to accept the consequences if such precautions fail and a
# pregnancy occurs.

I expect it's very rare that anyone ever refuses to accept the
consequences of an unplanned pregnancy.  After all, the situation
rapidly becomes apparent and there's no running from it -- you either
carry to term, or you terminate, pretty much. The other alternatives
aren't much better.  Refusing to accept the consequences of
contraceptive failure, is like refusing to accept the consequences of
a parachute failure.

#                    Abortion is NOT a valid method of birth control.

Sez you, bub.

Again, why not?  Are you taking this position just because the
alternative seems `extreme?'  Because, if you are, you're probably
about to learn why people are so polarized by the issue.

# If neither the man nor the woman has the emotional or financial
# ability or desire to raise a child then one must take the only
# alternative available, DON'T HAVE SEX!  Who gave us the right to have
# sex regardless of the cost?

The same bozo that `gave' us all our other rights, of course.  Look,
do you really want to get into a discussion about the origin of human
rights?  I suspect not -- besides, it's probably not appropriate to
either of the newsgroups this thread is running in.

Your demand that people use abstinence as their only means of avoiding
unplanned pregnancies is curious, in that many people would find that
an unacceptable, if not impossible, alternative to the use of
contraceptives and the reliance on the availability of legal, safe
abortion in the event of contraceptive failure.  Furthermore, it only
serves to reinforce your argument against abortion rights for women
who become pregnant as a result of *consensual* sex.

Your reasoning seems to be circular.  Allow me to demonstrate: Women
shouldn't consent to sex when they don't want to get pregnant because
it's wrong for them to terminate their pregnancy if the pregnancy is
the result of consensual sex because consensual sex might lead to an
unwanted pregnancy.  That's silly.  It indicates that your whole
problem is not with abortion -- it's with consensual sex.

# I do not agree that a woman should not be allowed to an abortion in
# cases of rape, incest, or where the mothers life is in danger.

Do you *admit* to being a running dog sexist lackey of the patriarchy
then?  You certainly sound like one with rhetoric like that.

Basically, what you're saying is that you think women should only be
granted permission to terminate their pregnancies when they can prove
to the authorities who control access to abortion that they meet one
of the three seemingly arbitrary qualifications that you've enumerated
above.

That's Kafkaesque.

(*Now* are you beginning to see why the issue is so polarizing?)


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Tired of `short, shameful confessions?'  Too old for `one line bios?'
`Rictus Hep' just too bizarre?  Try *NEW* ----> `I resolve...'  It's
the latest craze!  Tastes great!  Low in saturated fat!  And!!  It
doesn't leave you drowsy like those other brands!  New `I resolve...'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright