From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:48:42 GMT

In article <BxFCJz.A9r@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>>Steve, I usually support most of what you say on the topic of male choice,
>>but *here* ......
>
>>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes...
>>KSL> Big deal.  LEgalized abortion overturned major precedents as well.  So did
>>KSL> school bussing, school prayer, slavery issues, etc. etc. etc.  My opinion
>>KSL> certainly doesn't mandate legal precedent.  My opinion DOES accurately
>>KSL> predict what will happen within 20 years unless RvW is overturned.  The
>>KSL> legal challenge cannot logically fail if abortion remains legal.
>>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>THE HELL IT CAN'T!!
>
>>Again, Steve, don't take this as a flame, but for crying out loud, how can you
>>be so ignorant as to think that the courts will actually be *fair* and make
>>"male choice" as much of a choice as "female choice"????  (I realise that I am
>>raving here, but please just chalk it down to anger over the results of the
>>U.S. election...)
>
>>EVEN IF abortion remains legal, the legal challenge *WILL* fail, and fail
>>horribly!  Why?  Even if Clinton appoints people to the Supreme Court, who
>>will "maintain" Roe vs. Wade, these people will probably be ardent supporters
>>of *WOMEN'S* issues.  I hardly think that the issue of "male choice" will even
>>OCCUR to them, and indeed, they will view this issue as "deadbeat dads" trying
>>to "use their children as weapons against women".
>
>The issue of "male choice" is going to be presented in court on the 20th 
>anniversary of RvW, i.e. January of 1993.  

Case cite, please.

>They will probably not win the
>first battle.  However, several elements will combine to keep this in the
>spotlight and will eventually bring about a favorable court decision.
>
>Clinton and the Democratic Congress will, of course, legalize abortion 
>across the board and in every imaginable situation.  

Oh, of course! Isn't that obvious?

>Federal funding and fetal tissue research will be jet-propelled.  

Look! It's a bird! No, it's a plane! No, it's jet-propelled fetal tissue!!

>RU-486 and other 
>abortifacients will be legalized and popularized from Hillary's bully 
>pulpit.  

This much is a given, since Hillary will occupy such an key position in our 
nation's legislative process.

>With the popularization of "post-coital contraception", fetal tissue 
>research, IVF and related technologies will come a tremendously different
>attitude even from what we see today.  Procreation will be seen as a 
>result of the woman's conscious choice not to take abortifacients.  
>Fetal tissue research will encourage the dehumanization of the unborn
>child to an even broader extent than is currently the case.  All that is
>needed for "male abortion" is a fairly widespread acceptance of the
>"duty to chemically abort" (just as women are now seen to have a duty
>to take contraceptives and men have a duty to wear condoms) and the
>further separation of the unborn child from personhood.  Once college
>graduates have been trained to accept these two prerequisites, the
>male abortion will follow quite naturally.

Well, that's probably all part of our college system's charter to brainwash 
its students, I'd imagine, so that by the time they graduate, they're all
conformist_cookie-cutterized_clones of The System...

>>So please...do NOT count on ANY support from Bill Clinton... no, no, no...that
>>would be the BIGGEST mistake of your entire life!  Indeed, his "Freedom of
>>Choice Act," which of course, applies *only* to Women's "Freedom Of Choice,"
>>is JUST the beginning of a long serious of laws which will somehow only manage
>>to favour women, despite that much ignored Amendment 14 in the U.S. Constitution
>
>That's the neat thing about being pro-abortion.  It doesn't matter that 
>Billie is ostensibly nasty towards "deadbeat dads but fully pro-choice".
>The logic of the latter, and the steps he takes to widen the choices even
>more, will eventually destroy the concept of "deadbeat dad" because it
>will destroy what little remains of the concept of "biological father"

Yes, Clinton is simultaneously FOR and AGAINST cracking down on "deadbeat
dads". Why didn't I see that before? (And what's a "biological father"?)

Thanks for interpreting life, the universe, and everything, Steven. It's
all so clear and wonderful now....

                    #     # ####### #######   ###
                    ##    # #     #    #      ###
                    # #   # #     #    #      ###
                    #  #  # #     #    #       #
                    #   # # #     #    #
                    #    ## #     #    #      ###
                    #     # #######    #      ###

							- Kevin