From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 20:25:47 GMT

In <RJOHNSON.92Aug18092840@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:

> >mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
> >	Mr. Johnson, Mr. Arnold believes that women--well, actually girls,
> >but he probably meant women--will go through six months or more of
> >pregancy and then have an abortion because they can't fit into their new
> >swimming suits.
> >	This seems to me to represent a particularly low opinion of women.

>That's probably because you think he's referring to lots of women, rather
>than a few irresponsible ones.  Most women don't get abortions at all,
>and fewer still because they can't fit into swimsuits, but there are still
>those who consider abortion reasonable family planning, or have them
>because pregnancy would interfere with vacation plans.  This is a real
>concern for those who consider that there may be another life at stake--
>part of my life, if it's funded by my taxes -- it is not the general slam
>at women that it would be so convenient to be able to dismiss it as.

     Don't you think that the contemptuous tone of Steve Arnold's
original posting--"the poor girl" constitutesa general slam at women?
BTW, who are these famous women wo have abortions because their
pregnancies interfere with their vacation plans? They're forever being
cited, yet I've yet to see any evidence of them. On the contrary, the
vast majority of women seeking abortions appear to me to do so after a
thorough examination of the implications of their situation and the
options available to them. The fact that this examination may happen in
a state of panic or horror or confusion or misery seems only to
substantiate the importance of abortion on demand--not
abortion-when-the-powers-that-be-decide-you-can-have-one.
     I'm not sure I understand how the life at stake is part of your
life if your taxes fund it, though. Please clarify.
> >>I guess you aren't?
> >
> >(i.e., anti-trite-reasons-for-abortion).
> >	I find it hard to believe that anyone on this group is
> >pro-trite-reasons-for-abortion. However, I am not reserving the right to
> >make the decision for an individual woman that her reason is "trite," as
> >you and Mr. Arnold seem to be doing. Moreover, I am not in favior of
> >legislating against "triteness," either.

>You don't have to be "pro-" to not be "anti-".
>By not opposing trite (or, if you prefer, trivial) reasons for abortion,
>you support the presumed right of women to have abortions for any reason.
>We disagree on this point, and that's fine.

     You're right in identifying my stance. Part of the reason for this
stance is that if my partner and I were facing a crisis pregnancy, we
would be extremely unhappy if you refused us the right to termainate it
because you didn't like our reasons.
     The fact that we disagree on this may well be fine. However, as I
have no intention of forcing you to follow my stance, I sincerely hope
that you do not support legislation which would force me to follow
yours.
     That would be far from fine.

                                                            MP
>Roy Johnson, Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
>"There's a big difference between being a lesbian and being a male!"
>and "So I guess even a sex change couldn't solve all his problems."
>			-- tabn3@isuvax.iastate.edu (Griffy)