From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I'm Pro-Male-Choice
Keywords: RU 486; FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:02:55 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <18989@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.012850.7582@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <18971@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>>writes:
>
>>>Under the assumption that no human child exists until birth, that
>>>the only thing inside her is a clump of cells that she is using as
>>>a loaded gun to hold me up, I would have no hesitation in getting 
>>>RU-486 and attempting to prevent the birth of an unwanted child,
>>>any more than that lady who attempted to smuggle the pill into
>>>the U. S. would have any hesitation in using it to prevent the
>>>birth of an unwanted child.   [Matt Rosenblatt]
>
>>She is not "holding you up", Mr. Rosenblatt. She is committing no crime by
>>being pregnant and expressing a wish to carry the child to term. And even 
>>if it WERE a crime, there is no excuse for implementing the kind of 
>>vigilante, judge-jury-executioner chemical warfare you are offering as a
>>"solution" to the child-support crisis. Whatever happened to Due Process?
>>[Kevin Darcy]
>
>"Executioner"?  Who's being executed?  

A figure of speech, Mr. Rosenblatt. Nothing more.

>By hypothesis, "the only thing
>inside her is a clump of cells."  And the argument that RU-486 is
>"chemical warfare" is right out of the pages of the _National Right-
>to-Life News_.  Chemical warfare is outlawed by the Geneva Convention,
>so if this pill is chemical warfare, why are there people trying to
>bring it into the United States?

To have a "war", one must have two or more adversarial parties. When a woman
deliberately ingests RU-486, she is not engaging in "war" because there is no
other adversary being "attacked". In contrast, when a man slips RU-486 into 
her food or drink against her putative wishes, he *IS* waging chemical warfare 
against her. I cannot condone that. And quite frankly I'm surprised that 
someone who was recently advocating return to a medieval reproductive ethic 
would be proposing such a TECHNOLOGICAL SHORTCUT to the paternity child-
support inequity. If the Spanish Inquisition had gotten wind of your plan to 
pollute fallen women with Evil Potions, do you think they'd hesitate an 
instant before burning you at the stake?

>>Getting back to the "feminism" tangent for a moment, however, let me just 
>>say that I wouldn't be in favor of a woman doing essentially the same thing 
>>either, i.e. slipping some sort of sterility drug into his food or drink 
>>without his knowledge, just to save herself the inconvenience of becoming 
>>pregnant and having to abort. OK, now do I still sound like a feminist 
>>lackey to you?
>
>"Slipping some sort of sterility drug into his food or drink" is not
>"essentially the same thing" as terminating an existing pregnancy.
>Once she is pregnant, should she have the right to terminate that
>pregnancy without his knowledge?  The ruling in the recent _Casey_
>case says that she does have that right.  

I have not read the whole opinion on that case yet, but offhand I'd probably
disagree with that part of the ruling.

>When RU-486 becomes widely
>available, he will have the *power* to terminate that pregnancy
>without her knowledge, and the only argument that he should not
>have the *right* to do so is based on the idea that the pregnancy
>is taking place inside her body.  I don't respect that argument.

Mr. Rosenblatt, I think there are other people who could make MUCH better use 
of all of your critical internal organs than you. Report to an organ-donation 
center IMMEDIATELY for multiple surgical removal.

What's that? I don't have the right to command that? But, Mr. Rosenblatt, 
that argument is based on the idea that those organs are contained within 
_your_ body. I don't respect that argument...

								- Kevin