From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:48:02 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <92230.235121ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda writes:

> In article <1992Aug16.213617.11219@midway.uchicago.edu>
> >>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.

  Actually, the "competition" you speak of already exists, de facto.  Better
re-read the Roe decision.  The state has in interest in protecting life--
what other life is involved to be in competition with the woman?

>  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.

  If these women signed agreements saying they would not sue the firms that
allowed them to take these posistions (when or if something went wrong), I 
would agree.  But such statements are worth less than the paper they are 
written on.  And then we have deformed kids to worry about, too.

> >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.

  Must one be a member of "the group" to have a voice in something?  As an
individual, Elizabeth has every right to speak for what she believes is choice.
It in fact mirrors Roe almost precisely (though I am aware that Elizabeth
does not feel the Court had that power, and would prefer Roe as legislation).
Your statement is blatantly patronizing in its suggestion that YOU know better
simply because you are a formal member of a group.

> >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.

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

  Perhaps so people will not continually harass her for holding beliefs
that she does not.  Her position, like mine, is a bit unusual in this
forum.

> >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.

  If we felt they were not, then when would we bother to post here?  Why do
YOU?

> >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

  If you hold this as the core of your belief it it little wonder you are
worried, as you are missing out on half the argument.  Ignoring half the battle
can cost you all of it.  I doubt many people would be willing to go as far
beyond Roe as the the tone of your post suggests to me you would.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity