From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Mulvihill vs Chuck Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:26:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) writes:
+In talk.abortion, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
+>mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) writes:
+>\eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
+>\>Besides, if he did kill
+>\>her, he'd be charged with TWO counts of murder.
+>\Now that should be a really comforting thought to her!
+>        About as comforting as getting an abortion, right?
+She'd be dead, you simpleton!
	Do you think her family won't stop him from killing her? He's
not going to be successful ordering out all his children and his wife so
that he can kill his daughter. (I know I brought it up.)

+>\>        I submit though that this stance is not taken by all fathers to
+>\>their daughters.
+>\Yes, but the "RIGHT TO LIFE" amendment would apply to all daughters,
+>\wouldn't it?
+>        I don't recall ever saying anything about the proposed
+>Right-to-Life amendment to the network. I am not in favor of the
+>strictness of the Republican platform since it does not account for
+>rape, incest, or medical reasons related to the life of the mother.
+
+I see, so your position is that it is murder, except if the
+"baby" is "morally defective" (product of rape), "genetically
+defective" (product of incest), or a "potential killer"
+(medical reason).
	If this is how you see it. I know I won't change your viewpoint
however I try to say it. My position is concerning abortion is that it
is an issue related to sex. That there are choices with regards to sex,
i.e., whether or not one should have sex. I assume that when two people
consent to have sex, they are mature, consenting, responsible adults who
understand the implications of the decisions they are making and the
risks of getting pregnant, venereal diseases, or HIV-exposure. This
includes knowledge of birth control that they elect to use.
"Implications" not only include personal health and their relationship,
but also their financial situation and -- yes -- family support. If one
person is coerced into having sex, it is rape (or incest if it's
family), and that person should not be held responsible for a decision
that he/she did not want. If the pregnancy endangers the mother's
health, abortion then is a medical procedure. This is my position;
abortion is treated as an issue related to sex and not pregnancy.
Personal choices are made at the intimate level of the bedroom. The
government in this forum cannot dictate your options here (albeit they
may influence them). But the choice is yours, and the decisions you make
are whether or not to engage in sex.

+>\>This story is very tough to swallow,
+>\Now, faced with a world where Beaver and Wally are only TV
+>\characters, he must reject reality and call the woman a liar.
+>        Where did I say that? Please point out to me where I have made
+>such an accusation.
+Didn't you say you found it "tough to swallow"?  Or did I misread that
+and you meant that it was somehow distasteful.  Where I come from
+"tough to swallow" means you doubt the truth of the statement.
+>        I don't doubt that the story is true. I have not said that, nor
+>did I even (intend to) state any statement that casts doubt of the
+>veracity of the story.
+Ah, my apologies.  I misunderstood.
	Sorry if you interpreted that way. Bad idiom choice; whenever a
story seems unbelieveable, it's "very tough to swallow" above should be
replaced by "it's a bitter pill to swallow." I do not mean to call
Sylvia a liar since I have no proof to the contrary. <<My policy: as a
responsible poster, when you call someone a liar, point out the
inconsistency clearly. It might be a misunderstanding as it was here.>>
When I originally wrote that statement, I meant it's difficult to face
it as reality for many people, not an indictment of the story being
fantasy.

+>        What do YOU mean by "although she is only a woman"? Women are
+>human beings, 
>That was what is known commonly as "biting sarcasm".
	I answered your sarcasm with some of my own.

+The point is that we are discussing a case, not an extremely
+rare one, where the situation is not one where you can
+have a loving discussion, followed by support.  In this
+case, restrictions such as parental consent can force
+a young person into a life threatening situation because
+of a bad law.  Such a law will not strengthen families,
+it may actually destroy the remaining threads at a time
+of crisis when a rebuilding in future was possible.
+Anyway, this has nothing to do with building or maintaining
+families.  It has to do with the life and death of a
+human being (the woman is one, beyond a reasonable doubt,
+where there is reasonable doubt about the fetus).
	I don't discount the story as being an "exception" or an
anomalous blip on the raw data chart of life. But I'm also trying to
look at the problem from a different point of view. I'm trying to frame
the story not in the abortion issue, but the "Family Values" POV. That's
where we differ in our arguments. [I've always been told to try to look
at problems differently and you may find different options or find the
real problem is not what you once thought.]
	I recall the original thread for this discussion. We were
talking about Bush and Quayle's response to their interviews on NBC and
CNN respectively concerning abortion and family values. That's why I
framed my arguments this way. It is too bad that there seemed to have
been no loving discussion about sex to Sylvia before she became sexually
active. It's a shame that her dad did not express this opinion to his
family clearly enough before this pregnancy occurred. And it is a shame
that a miscalculation or mistake could result in this life-threatening
situation.
	I cannot change the past or her decisions, but if we are going
to fully analyze this case, we must find out the factors that
affected her actions and subsequent decisions. I want to know how this
case can happen again and how it can be prevented, without even
resorting to whether a fetus is human or an aggregate of cells. That is
why the question at the bottom of this article is relevant.

+>\We are not discussing how to make families "closer and more trusting".
+>        We sure are if this is truly the situation between a
+>recalcitrant father and his daughter who wants his support.
+
+She wants support, but she NEEDS an abortion!  Her father is
+a problem she does not need or want another responsiblity
+at the time (a child).
	I agree her father's opinions give an unnecessary burden to the
already difficult dilemma she faces. But I think more that she NEEDS
support and WANTS an abortion. It is more necessary that she reaffirm
her confidence that her family will support and love her even though she
erred; the fact that her father will not, and has in fact threatened her
with death, helped to precipitate her decision to want an abortion.

+>If a
+>daughter cannot go to her father for his love and support for this
+>shattering revelation that she's pregnant (premarital), then whatever
+>she does will be met with scorn from her father.
+
+Not if he does not know.  Even someone from a "Father Knows Best"
+world will concede that fathers don't know all, I hope.
	Would you prefer not knowing if your daughter were pregnant (and
not married)? What would you do if a sibling of yours did something
wrong and not told you about it (like get suspended from school)?
	There was a movie that came out last year, a foreign film from
Italy called "Everybody's Fine" (from the same guys who produced the
Oscar-winning foreign film "Cinema Paradiso," which is also an awesome
film). In this film a father decides to go visit his five children who
are all grown up. The children live very different lives than what they
portray to their father. I suggest watching it if it's out on video; it
is a definite must-see.

+>This wall between
+>Sylvia and her dad needs to be torn down.
+That's your judgement bucko.  And at what cost?  She believes
+her life to be in danger by that man.
	That's not only my judgement, it's pretty clear. Will she ever
tell her dad that she had an abortion and almost risked her life because
of him? Or will she stay silent until either word comes to her dad
through hearsay or he dies?

+>What would her dad do if he
+>found out that Sylvia were pregnant (post-abortion)? What would you do
+>if you were her dad?
+
+What I would do is none of your business.
	Come on. Don't do a Clinton or Gore and duck the question. I've
detailed the argument on why I'm approaching this story this way.

+>        My question is -- without resorting to any personal attacks on
+>me -- telling me what you expect with a relationship with your friends,
+>your spouse, and/or your children. What constitutes a healthy
+>relationship?
+
+This is completely irrelevant.  
	Please answer the question. This is a dilemma that comes to all
families: the kids have something that they're afraid to tell their
parents because of what their parents will do if/when they find out.
Whether it's something as trivial as "I want an earring" to a more
cataclysmic "I'm gay," or "I'm HIV+", a relationship between a parent
and his/her child is always tested. You and I will both need to know
what we think constitutes a healthy relationship in order to deal with
our parents, our spouses (-to-be if that is the case), and our children
(should that be the case).
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40648 alt.activism:15096 misc.headlines:5746 sci.econ:6936