From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Rationalization
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:25:18 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1992Sep30.162310.20463@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:

>It is interesting how people will get into deep rationalizations to
>try to justify abortion.

Oh, another deep thinking male who quickly dismisses a woman's 
choice as MERE rationalization (imbibing it with all the "bad" 
conotations he can generate, so bad that they remain unstated).
So, [sarcasm] please, pleaaase, do tell us all here what distinquishes
between rationalization and a legitimate choice?  Be clear and
concise enough to convince us all.

>Here's the basic scenario: You have sex outside of marriage, you get
>pregnant, and now you have a "problem".  So to eliminate the problem,
>you destroy the unborn child.

Don't be a twit ... we've already gone over the definitions here.
Born==child; unborn==zygote/embryo/fetus.
(okay, I'll admit: post-viablility *may* have a questionable status)

And since I see you only have a problem with pregnancies outside
of marriage I guess you'll allow abortions due to pregnancies resulting 
within a marriage.  How generous.

>   Rationalization 1: It is part of my body - I can do what I want.

 When you sign up to be the first full-time (male) human dialysis machine
 I might not consider this a "rationalization"; but then again it is
 your choice ... I guess I'll remain pro-choice.  Now if you give me
 the right to force you into that situation...

>   Rationalization 2: It is not really a viable human life, etc...

 Hey, this is no *rationalization* it's a fact.  The mole on the
 side of my neck is not really a viable human life either, so someday
 I plan on having it removed as well.

>   Rationalization 3: The child will be unwanted and suffer a terrible life.

 And what are *YOU* doing to relieve this situation for all those
 *already* born children?  Nothing?  Gee, sounds to me like you
 just want to increase the world's suffering.  Maybe you should
 rethink your religion:  Satanism is often just a means of rebellion
 in youngsters, you'll probably grow out of it.

>   Rationalization N: etc.
>Let's face it, why not just say: "I killed the unborn child because I
>wanted to."  

Besides, you being a male, DON'T ever have to face "it".  Until
you can get pregnant (and do) you have NO real understanding of
the conflicts involved.  

So what's wrong with my removing my mole because I *wanted to* anyway?

> The reason you rationalize is because you are trying to 
>avoid the guilt that you feel.  After a while in rationalization,
>you actually begin to believe in it and the guilt is gone.  But there
>comes a day of reckoning.

Ooooh, [sarcasm] please do tell us about this "day of reckoning".  Cite
reliable sources for your information.  You've never rationalized
away the guilt of eating a second scoop of ice cream?  You did?
Await the day of reckoning!!!

>   I outlined the "basic" scenario.  I will address the others in another post. 

Please don't bother, we've heard you silly handwaving arguements before.
Now, if you can *think* up some real points of discussion, lets talk.

>On the interesting rationalization:
>   "I don't want to bring the baby to term and have it adopted because it will
>have a terrible life."  - So kill it instead ?????

It's not human until it's at term (viable for the sticklers) and possibly
has fewer cells than my mole.  So should I have qualms about removing
the mole?

>            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //
>           //   "My views are my own"                              //
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ luckily .....
Unfortunately you wish to push YOUR views on others by force of law.

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 23:55:04 GMT
Subject: Forced Fatherhood Survey Raw Data
Organization: HP Western Response Center