From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: About those UnBornThi
Organization: West by Nor'west.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:37:31 GMT

In article <Jul.24.15.02.07.1992.23324@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>If attempting to gain equal rights is an act 'too disgusting
>>to be believed', then I am happy and proud to be disgusting.  Your
>>negative judegement is a compliment to me.
>
>Forgive me for being slow on the uptake, but it has just occured to me that 
>may not understand what the term "equal rights" means.  Please define if
>for us again, so that I can make sure.

Nothing to forgive.  You are not slow on the uptake, you just have
different BELIEFS than I do.

I believe that the phrase 'equal rights' refers not to rights based on
biological equalities, but the attempt to make rights equal EVEN THOUGH
the individuals in question ARE NOT equal due to sexual or racial
differences.

In other words, the belief that biological differences should give rise
to different rights, is, IN MY BELIEF, unfair.

However, if you do believe that different biologies should give rise
to different rights, but only those differences which are 'absolute',
then perhaps you need to stop, and realize that while the ability to
carry a baby is something that only women can do, the ability to
impregnate a woman is something that only men can do.

And if a woman should have special rights due to her responsibilities
in the act of reproduction, maybe men should to.

>There is a .sig at the bottom of all my posts, which should make it
>easy to pick me out.

Sure.  Except that the other Susan simply signs her first name.  People
who know how to use .signature files for those news readers that use them,
know that a .sig file is not cast in stone, and, what looks like a
.sig file, could just be a postfix that the author types at the bottom
of every message.  In some messages, you could add it, in others, not.

I key off of the name.  I don't like thinking of people as email
addresses or signature files.  I prefer to think of David R. Newhaus,
or Jack Martin.

I don't use a .sig file, if I want to make a comment at the end, I simply
type it in.

>Also, I don't know what newsreader your are
>using, but so far, the three that I'm familiar with all state the name
>of the poster, not only at the top of the post, but in the references
>at the beginning of the text as well.

Surprise.  My news reader does not.  Isn't it nice that you very kindly
ask these questions of me, so that you might know whether or not to
flame me?

>Those newsreaders are, vnews, rn, and nn.

>>Typical.  No email address, no last name.  And she flames me for mixing
>>her up with all the other knee jerk reactionaries who unfortunately share
>>the same name.
>
>If I were simply a knee-jerk reactionary, I would have told you to
>f*** off a long time ago.

You and I define reactionary differently.  To me, it means that you
attempt to force your beliefs and attitudes on me, and if you cannot
succeed, you shift to abuse.  Since this is USENET, not a face to
face confrontation, the abuse is limited to the verbal (written?),
but it is abuse, just the same.

Strange, how someone who is horrified at the thought of abuse, is so
ready to abuse.  I guess introspection is even rarer than common sense.

Feel free to tell me to fuck off.  It hurts when people are abusive,
but IMO you have the right to ignore me, or anyone else.

Of course, if you consider me to be dangerous, you might not want to
ignore me.  Danger does not go away just because it is ignored.  Indeed,
if I spent less time posting here, I could spend more time writing letters
to my congressional representatives, news papers, etc.

In fact, ignoring me might be doing me a favor.

>Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 

I have asked a number of women what they think of the people involved in
the confrontations between pro-choicers and pro-lifers.  Strangely enough,
a lot of them think that the pro-lifers are nicer people, because most
pictures showing the choicers/lifers in face to face discussion show
a 'choicer who is screaming, with a face full of hate, while the 'lifer
is trying to calmly, lovingly talk the other side around.

These women usually hasten to add that they think that abortion should
remain legal, however.

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity