Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Monday, 17 Aug 1992 23:51:21 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
 <1992Aug16.154953.1952@midway.uchicago.edu> <Bt39C7.D54.1@cs.cmu.edu>
 <1992Aug16.213617.11219@midway.uchicago.edu>

In article <1992Aug16.213617.11219@midway.uchicago.edu>
>In article <Bt39C7.D54.1@cs.cmu.edu> Susan Garvin writes:
>>In article <1992Aug16.154953.1952@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>#In article <1992Aug16.134958.28706@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr writes:
>##eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes to chaneyhall:

>>#Keegan apparently wants to resume our flamewar over whether or not I'm
>>#a pro-choicer....

This, Ms. Bartley, is inflammatory and unnecessary.  You have no
idea what Mr. Keegan wants or does not want, indeed he has
consistently denied this charge.  If, as you persistently state,
you wish to avoid flamewars I suggest you refrain from attributing
motivations to people.

>>I have no quarrel with you calling yourself anything that you want.
>
>>I do have a problem with you defining "sides" and assuming that
>>many people who support legal abortion share your beliefs.
>
>Huh?  Most people around here support the right to abortion for
>reasons totally unrelated to the reasons I support the right to
>abortion.

This is what Ms. Garvin has pointed out.  One does wonder
though if, as you say, you recognize that few share your views
in this newsgroup, why you feel the need to publicly disown
people from your "side".

>##i believe mr. kaufman opposes legislation to restrict
>##abortion.  you support such legislation.
>>##abortion.  you support such legislation.
>
>>#Why don't you post the rest of the facts, Keegan?
>
>>#I support legislation to restrict third-trimester abortions to cases
>>#where the mother's life or health is in danger and very major fetal
>>#deformities.
>
>>That's certainly legislation to restrict abortion.
>
>Yes.  Note that I didn't accuse Keegan of having his facts wrong; I
>just objected that he'd told that little of it.

Facts are facts.  Legislation is legislation.

>However, it's legislation that restricts a sufficiently small number of
>abortions

If it is a small number, why the need for legislation?
Canada has no abortion laws Ms. Bartley, there has been
no increase in the number of late term abortions.

>That's especially true in talk.abortion, where I'm one of few
>(or the only?) person that supports some restrictions on abortion
>but not restrictions that would affect very many abortions.

Ms. Bartley you are certainly not the only person in this
newsgroup that supports some restrictions, and I genuinely
doubt you are one of a few.

>>For many people, "pro-choice" means "I support a woman's
>>right to terminate a pregnancy."  For you, it seems to
>>mean "I support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy
>>as long as I approve of the circumstances."
>
>This seems to be a frequent accusation leveled at me.  It is
>sufficiently inaccurate as to be wrong.  I don't support a woman's
>right to terminate a pregnancy as long as "I approve of the
>circumstances."  I support a woman's right to terminate as long as the
>fetus is not a person, or if she doesn't kill it in the process.

The fetus is not now, nor has it ever been, defined as a person
Ms. Bartley.  Until recently, personhood of the fetus was not an
issue in the abortion debate.  It was prolife organizations who
decided to utilize the success of the civil rights movement to
create a competing rights argument.

Your restrictions are indeed based on circumstances that
you find acceptable and you have stated that under anything
other than these circumstances the woman should have no
rights.

>Dammit, I recognize that it's *wrong* to deny a woman an abortion, and
>it takes more than my disapproval to be willing to do so.

Ms. Bartley I recognize that it is wrong for some women to
have abortions, but I certainly would not impose my morality
on anyone.

>I wouldn't do so at all if I didn't think that allowing the death
>of the fetus was the greater of the two evils.

Personally I think the autonomy of a woman is the lesser of
two evils.

>>I doubt that many people would be willing to waste their
>>time discussing this if you did not proudly proclaim
>>your stance in your .sig.  Believe me, if Holtsinger or
>>Chaney put "Pro-choice" in their .sigs, they would get
>>a similar response.
>
>I hope they'd get a louder resopnse, given that the legislation they
>support would have a much broader impact.

Legislation is legislation.  In the cases that you advocate,
it is nothing more than a blunt instrument that can and will
open the door for more restrictions.  Once the woman's right
to bodily autonomy is viewed as competing with the fetus within
her, it is only a matter of time before more conservative
opinions will impose greater restrictions and not just
with regard to abortion.  This has already happened in the
area of fetal protection laws which prevent women from even
training for positions in environments that may prove "unsafe"
for future offspring.

>>The broad definition of "pro-choice" is most commonly
>>used to argue that >70% of Americans are "pro-choice."
>>I wish that they would simply say that most Americans
>>support abortions in some circumstances.
>>If "pro-choice" includes people with opinions like yours,
>>then it also includes people with opinions like George
>>Bush.
>
>Here you're claiming that the word "pro-choice" can only mean two
>things: either pro-completely-unrestricted-choice or pro-any-choice.

No Ms. Garvin is simply stating that Mr. Bush has the right
to claim he is prochoice.

>But in a forum like talk.abortion, where the debate is largely between
>those who would make almost no abortions legal and those that want no laws
>whatsoever, I think the term "pro-choice" is fairly accurate when used
>to describe me.

There are some people in this forum, Ms. Bartley, who
happen to be actively involved in the prochoice movement.
Particularly Ms. Garvin, who at this moment is far from home
protesting to protect your rights, and the rights of American
women, to bodily autonomy.

That this gets lost in the nonsense that occurs in t.a is
irrelevant to the reality.  Abortion rights are but a subset
of women's rights.  It is the one area that affects women and
women only.  Without the ability to have complete control over
our bodies, we will not have control over our lives.  You wish
to take away some of that control and place it in the hands of
legislators and enforcement agencies.

Call yourself what you wish but do not insult the intelligence of
those that are involved with organizations and who are working to
make a difference that t.a should set a standard.

>>##i don't believe mr. kaufman has ever posted that he
>>##would punish women who have abortions. you have.
>
>>#I would enforce said laws with penalties to parties that broke them.
>
>>Again, that's certainly punishing women who had abortions
>>under the laws that you desire.
>
>It's another case of what he said being literally true but
>sufficiently suggestive of positions I don't hold that I find it
>deceitful.  In other words, the denotations are accurate, the
>connotations most certainly are not.

Ms. Bartley there is not a single prochoice organization
that would support punishment, particularly jail terms,
for women who obtained an illegal abortion.  Indeed the
founding principle of the prochoice movement was to eliminate
criminal sanctions against abortion.  I frankly was appalled
at your comments about jailing women, Mr. Keegan didn't
come close to conveying the connotations I got from your posts.

>>##that there should be fewer abortion rights for stupid
>>##woman than for other women. you have.
>
>>#I don't recall saying this.

I also remember this in a thread in which I pointed
out the reasons why women would require late term
abortions, in particular drug users and teenagers.

>>I didn't save the quote, either, but I do recall your statements
>>about women who were too stupid to have an abortion within
>>the time frame that you would dictate.  I really don't think
>>that it's stupidity that you're punishing, I think it's
>>poverty.  I fully understood from our discussion of waiting
>>periods that you have no problem with punishing women for
>>being poor.
>
>I'm willing to support things that will the poor more than they will
>the rich.  Pragmatically, how the hell can you *not* support some
>things that will hurt the poor more than the rich?  I do not consider
>thing "punishing" the poor and I most certainly don't "have no
>problem" with it.

Much of the support by prolifers for waiting periods is
because it will cause women to delay getting an abortion.
For poor women this delay is exacerbated by trying to obtain
funds.  If they are forced into the 2nd tri they must seek
even more funds, often with the result they enter the 3rd tri
and therefore can not obtain an abortion at all.

>It is not a safe assumption that just because I support something I
>"have no problem" with it.  I support many things that I consider the
>lesser of two evils, but don't consider not wrong.

One would think that a woman's right to bodily autonomy is the
lesser of two evils.

>>Your multiple announcements of your new killfile would be
>>more convincing if you hadn't accompanied them with an attempt
>>to get in the last word
>
>Oh, please.  Here you're just being silly.

Frankly Ms. Bartley I found your multiple announcements silly.
Personally I find this whole killfile trend childish and
reminiscent of small children who pick up their toys, stomp
their feet and say "Nyah, nyah, I'm not playing any more"

Who cares?

>>I'm sure that people who care will realize that they're not
>>allowed to discuss your position.  I just doubt that many
>>people will care about avoiding your killfile.)
>
>I'm perfectly willing to *discuss* my positions.  I think such vague
>descriptions of them are misleading, the last flamewar I had on this
>generic subject with Keegan hurt considerably

The original was a discussion of your position Ms. Bartley.
In my opinion it was you who turned it into a flame war.

>>You're free to believe what you like and to label yourself
>>what you like.  I wish that you were willing to admit
>>that you are misleading people with your .sig, though.
>
><sigh.>   But, Susan, if I thought I was misleading people with my .sig
>I wouldn't *have* that .sig in the first place....  Especially not by
>calling myself by a term I thought inaccurate.

This isn't particularly surprising is it, however it
does not address Ms. Garvin's comments.

>I'm very fond of what
>I consider the proper usage of the English language: I've gotten into
>so many debates on exactly what words meant what, I have to grit my
>teeth occasionally to stop from flaming spelling mistakes, and I just
>like to see things written properly in general.

I happen to find it ironic that you have "flamed" people for
using the word child on more occasions than I care to remember,
yet you are offended by the questioning of your usage of
"prochoice" in your sig. after it has been pointed out that
your position bears little resemblance to the philosophy of
the prochoice movement.  But then, I happen to be rather
committed to the prochoice movement as is Ms. Garvin.

>You're asking me to admit an offense that never would have occurred if
>I considered it an offense.

No one, and certainly not Ms. Garvin, said this Ms. Bartley.

>But I think the term is accurate in the context of
>talk.abortion in general, and in that context I intend to continue
>calling myself by that term.

Why?  I certainly feel no compulsion to remind everyone
with each post, my position.  Ms. Garvin has no desire.
Why do you Ms. Bartley?

>When I entered talk.abortion, I had doubts about what I thought about
>abortions in the *second* trimester (rather wanted restrictions but
>couldn't figure out laws that eould enforce them and work well in
>practice).

How nice that someone's views are influenced by t.a.

>Back then, I called myself "middle-of-the-road". When I
>began to have doubts about whether or not I wanted restrictions in the
>second trimester at all, I called myself "middle-of-the-road lending
>to pro-choice".  But now that it's a matter of the third trimester
>only and 100 abortions a year, I consider the term "pro-choice" to be
>accurate and I use it accordingly.

Ms. Bartley I suggest that you fail to understand the full
concept of prochoice philosophy.  It has nothing to do with
trimesters.  It has nothing to do with myelination, fetal
rights or religious persuasion.  The core of the prochoice
argument is a woman's right to bodily autonomy/security.
That this is being lost along the way is unfortunately a
testament to the success of the prolife movements fetal
right's argument.  A fact that I personally worry about.




Linda
--
CARAL is a national pro-choice organization that has been working for
17 years to get and keep abortion out of the Criminal Code.  We
regard the right to decide when and whether to bear a child to be a
fundamental human right. (1990)