From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... TH  1/2
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 14:29:00 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


ws>In article <1992Oct10.020604.15101@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
DK>dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes...
 
I am still curious why you take out all references to the previous article.
There is no reference in your dking@raul...writes, nor is there is a 
"References:" tag in your header.  In a previous article, you appeared to 
quote me out of context, but you left nothing in the article to help me
to look up the previous article.  Why do you do this?
 
DK> I refuse to force a woman into the position of being required to inform you
DK> of something that you have said could drive you to violence.
ws>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ws>I didn't explicitly or implicity say that it could drive me to violence.  What
ws>I was trying to impress upon you, was that different people react in different
ws>ways, and that even "normal" people, when pushed beyond reasonable limits,
ws>might even react in such negative ways.  In this vein, it could therefore be
ws>said that just about *anything* could drive *anyone* to violence, given a
ws>sufficiently high amount of emotional strain and level of despair.

Can you think of other instances were the government would get involved
to force someone to be put into such a position.  I guess I can come up
with one or two, but they seem to have fairly straight forward reasons.
Like a spouse will have to have papers served to inform their spouse they
are getting a divorce.  But I can understand the justification for such 
a law.  I don't have the same clear understanding of what is trying to
be accomplished by father notification in abortion.  I guess I could
see the justification if it was prior to the abortion, but after the
abortion, while endangering the woman, doesn't appear to serve any
purpose.  
 
DK> I don't believe I know enough to make this judgement.  But I will not
DK> force a woman that does have more information about your violent
DK> tendencys into that position.                            ^^^^^^^

ws>Oh, please...I have started *one* fight in my entire life, and it lasted
ws>five seconds, at the age of *eight* years old.  I hardly have "violent
ws>tendencies," as you have implid.  Now, if I had had a consistent record of
ws>violent crimes, or especially violent crimes against women in particular, then
ws>you might have a point, but since I do not, then I can confidently say that
ws>you are not at all correct in this opinion of me.
 
And how are we to know, as society, that you do not have violent 
tendencys.  Even in this forum, all we have is your word that you are
not violent.  If push comes to shove, I would tend to believe your
word.  But since you will not be in a position were you could get
violent with me, its none of my business how violent or non-violent
you are.  However, your SO was in a position were any violence you
may or may not have been inclined to use was her business.  This is
why she makes a better judge of the risk involved than I would.  That
is why I refuse to use force of law to put her in that position.
 
ws>And you have also missed the point of my original message, *and* my reply.
ws>There is "a chance" that *anyone* "might act violently," given a certain
ws>situation and level of distress.  And there is also the fact that you have
ws>admitted that you don't really know what any given person's breaking point
ws>is.  Even trained mental health experts have difficulty in making such a
ws>judgement!
 
Because I don't know the breaking point, I refuse to be the judge.  I
figure individuals are better at being the judge in their own 
circumstances.  This paragraph above sounds like you are arguing 
against Father notification.
 
ws>So, given these facts, why do wish to punish *all* men, just because there is
ws>a *small* minority who might handle the knowledge of the loss of a child (or
ws>foetus, baby, embyro....whatever), in a violent manner?  I have already stated
ws>that I would only wish for the information to be told, when the man's emotional
ws>state is stable, and for it to be told by the hospital staff (ie., this is *not*
ws>"forcing the woman to tell the man") within a counselling context.

I have no desire to punish anyone.  In the majority of cases, the couple
will talk.  As long as communication between them is good, hey no problem.
In the case were communication is not so good, I see no advantage to
informing the male partner, if the female partner is un-willing.  As 
a matter of fact, as your original post demonstrated, I see an 
inherent danger in forcing this notification.  

ws>This is really the main reason why I am here - to start up a discussion group
ws>and a counselling and referral service.

I am glad to hear you have dropped your legislative agenda.  

ws>Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"

Dan King
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity