From: farrell@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Why restrict thi (1)
Date: 21 Jul 92 08:21:20 EDT

Subject: Re: Why restrict thi (1)
In message-ID: <1992Jul17.202646.18306@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 20:26:46 GMT
Bunch of References: <1992Jul10.191328.94122@cs.cmu.edu> <1992Jul13.223654.2182@advtech.uswest.com> <1992Jul15.162238.288572@cs.cmu.edu>

>In article <1992Jul15.162238.288572@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
JS>>#Why?  Where does it say in any biological text, that sex for the purposes
JS>>#of fun, is biologically a different act than sex for procreation?
>>
SG>>Look under "contraceptives."  Look under "sterilization."

Look under "menopause" :-)

JS>Neither of which guarantee that you won't get pregnant.  Unless you are
JS>refering to actual removal of the ovaries or testicles.

JS>This last case would be the physical equivalent of filling the barrel
JS>of a cannon with cement and welding the action shut.
JS>Now the device is designed to do something else.
                     ^^^^^^^^
There you go with that "argument by design" thing again.   Are you a
Creationist?  If not, how can you argue that the human sex drive is 
somehow "designed" for procreation only?   That belief of yours holds
up much of the weight of your views on abortion.   Then how is it that 
you believe birth control is morally acceptable, but abortion is not
because it is murder?  Why don't you accept the Catholic position that
since sex is for the purpose of creating children, all artificial
birth control methods are murder?   Please clarify your views.
In particular, what is your opinion of IUD's?
 
I look at biology in terms of what functions (plural, sometimes) each
organ or system can accomplish.  Not in terms of trying to deduce a 
"purpose" for the organ/system, and then saying anything other than 
that one purpose is somehow wrong, not valid.
You say sex is not for pleasure, but there is much evidence to the contrary:
1.  Many women continue to have sex after menopause. (and like it!)
2.  Humans have an interest in sex at all times of the year/month,
    not just during the time when the woman is maximally fertile in her
    cycle. (unlike many mammals)
3.  Homosexuals exist, and many of them have sex.
4.  Bisexuals exist, and many have sex with members of the same sex.

SG>>Susan Hagan answered this particular flight of fancy quite well.

JS>Shit!  No WONDER I got confused, TWO susans.  My apologies to both
JS>for getting confused.

John!!! You have been posting replies to Susan Garvin for at least a week.
(probably more, but older articles have expired here).  How could you not
have realized you were debating more than one Susan?   Does this mean
you don't really read the articles you reply to?  ;-)

SG>>However, I'm not using any contraception.  The act is still
SG>>physically different than procreative sex, though, since
SG>>no conception can occur.

>But we were NEVER talking about exceptional cases.  You're not
>playing fair. . . :-<

>In other words, you can NEVER have an abortion, therefore your
>body in particular has no relevance to this discussion.

Isn't this showing an inconsistancy in your views?  You have posted
thousands of lines promoting the idea that since men can NEVER 
have an abortion, laws allowing men to have veto power over
abortions must be passed in order to prevent sex discrimination 
in our criminal code.  But now you say that because Susan cannot 
become pregnant-- and therefore can't have an abortion-- her thoughts
on sexual functioning (based on HER particular sexual experience
with her partner, and thus related to HER specific bodily condition)
cannot contribute to this debate on what the laws should be.

I'd say that's a contradiction.  

>>Susan

>John
>stevens@uswest.com

Margie Farrell
in%"farrell@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu"
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion