From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Subject: Flamers on both sides of the Potomac (Part 3)
Summary: The best way to cross the river?  Roe vs. Wade(?!)
Keywords: abortion life comprehensive readme part3 sex
Organization: You see, Burke Lee.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 08:07:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.233205.10867@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <z2hmfa+.ray@netcom.com> (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>In another article (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>>Precisely because the z/e/f dies, we are aiming to pass a Human Life
>>>Amendment which will grant them their right to live (which was a right
>>>of theirs since science first knew of their existence, in the
>>>1860's-1870's).  
>>
>>Science first discovered the existence of zygotes, embryos, and fetuses
>>in the womb in the late 19th century?!?  Well, I suppose if Margaret 
>>Sanger can get an abortion when she was in her 80's, anything is possible.
>>Still, one does wonder about those biblical references to pregnant women
>>being with child.
>
>Biblical references don't necessarily have any relevance to fact, but
>in this case, science proved that yes, fetus = person. 
>
>It was just in 1973 that some supreme court judges forgot that fact.

Please clarify this point.  (Fetus=person?)  Science dictating politics, or
vice versa?  Ha!  From the material provided, I can see that they
would have the right to live, but I'm not sure where they would go about
doing so.  ("Hey, the government says you z/e/f's have the right to live!
So you can't be dead!  Hello?  Anyone there?")  This also presumes that the
government should control/know about people being pregnant.  (Hey, maybe
we could administer pregnancy tests to women periodically!)

[...deleted insult trades with Ray...]

===============================================================================

In article <1992Jul28.004856.13701@csus.edu> (Steve Chaney) writes:
>Why is it that the typical pro-choicer: 
(Here I go again...)
>1) Opposes war because it is killing? 
No, I oppose it because someone else is telling me what to do with my life.

>2) Seeks a ban or massive waiting periods on guns because they may kill? 
I don't.  I think people should get licenses, which require some kind of
qualification/safety course, and then they can buy guns whenever they want.

>3) Favors spotted owls over the welfare of working-class human beings?
Or in your case, "Favors z/e/f's over the welfare of working-class human
beings?"

>4) Opposes the death penalty because it is killing? 
Although it's financially unsound ($3 million to execute a criminal,
including all appeals, lawyers, etc. accroding to a FL study, as opposed
to about $15-$20k/year to imprison them for life), I do support the death
penalty as an incapacitant/deterrent.  [If abortion is really really bad,
hopefully women will be deterred from getting another one.]

>5) Wants to save the dolphins?
>6) And the whales?
>7) And the eagles' eggs?
(We're humans!  We should be able to do WHATEVER we want.  Besides, our
technology is gonna wipe everything out anyway...  And do you imply
that you wanna kill whales, eagles, dolphins, owls...?  Why?)

>8) All because it is killing?
I don't think we should infringe on those outside of our bodies.

>9) But then tries to justify abortion even though it is killing? 
It's their bodies.  They can do what they want.  If they want to jam coat
hangers up their uterus, fine, but isn't there something we can do to help
them?

>10) Opposes animal testing? 
Animal research has benefited humans to many ends.  Do I support it, even
though it would be infringing on others?  Yeah.  I guess the distinction
is also made between endangered species and not, as well as how well they
model human responses, and how valuable the results are.

>11) Would rather have human fetal testing?
I leave that up for others to decide.  I wouldn't close that avenue of
research off, nor would I want to envision women being harvisted for
profit.

>12) Opposes the choice to control one's own body with whatever
>pleasure-inducing drugs they want to put into themselves, because
>drugs are dangerous? 
No, do whatever you want with your body, as long as you don't injure
outsiders.  (Do you support the idea that people should be able to put
whatever they want into their bodies?  How about if they're pregnant?
Does it make a difference if they are carrying to term or not?)

>13) Then turns around and opposes regulations on breast implants
>despite that some implants may be dangerous?
No, I think breast implants should be regulated, because there is serious
doubt about their safety.  Also, they're mostly a "vanity" item.  (Mastectomy
patients exncluded.  But that's a demand society places on them...)

>14) And then shoots the 24 year old man who screws their 14 year old
>daughter? (Which is why they turn and oppose the death penalty...) 
Depends on the circumstances.  Did she consent?  If so, then I guess it's
a result of my failure as a parent.  I don't think I'd shoot him, although
I'd be disappointed in them both.

>I just wanted to know about these inconsistencies of the pro-choice
>movement... 
Where?

>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
When is an adult and adult?  (And even adults can have legal guardians...)

===============================================================================

In article <1992Jul28.010051.14075@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.191513.102922@cs.cmu.edu> (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>In a single article, you have shown your complete lack of
>>compassion for pregnant teenagers (proving that at least
>>one pro-forcer here on the net really doesn't care about
>>children or women, only about fetuses) and provided an
>>excellent argument for doing away with parental involvement
>>laws.  
>
>This latest argument of mine is just a suggestion, Susan, of what
>parents could do to circumvent your feverish efforts to remove
>parental rights. 

What the hell are you doing?  Burying yourself?  You don't care about
pregnant teenagers at all, and it shows!  You're surely not pro-THEIR-life.
Why should we create another location for them to combat each other?

>>(To inject a little reality into your most recent fantasy,
>>I should tell you that parents may not not simply drop
>>their children off at an "unwanted children's home" without
>>legal repercussions.  I should also tell you that
>>the scenario you describe is all too common in the real
>>world, and most normal people find it a despicable solution.
>>You would not prevent any future pregnancies in the family,
>>you would merely guarantee that the other young women
>>would not discuss their pregnancy with their parents.
>
>Oh, I bet they could do a lot of damage by warning her very early that
>she'll be put out if she tries having an abortion. She's got to go to
>_someone_ for the money, right? That's another 5-10% right there
>who'll need their parents' money. Especially if the parents ask for
>receipts back. 

Oh, how caring and compassionate!  Even Dan Quayle would stand behind his
daughter!  (Geez, I'd never thought I'd use him in this manner for a pro-
choice stand.)  You're also assuming, of course, that the parents are willing
to pick up the tab for raising their grandchildren.  If they aren't gonna
pay for the abortion, nor the child-care costs, I don't think that family's
going to last very long.  (Receipts?  If it's illegal, I hope the parent's
can even get their daughter back.)

>And don't ever let the news _ever_ leak out. We're talking lost
>inheritances or being kicked out in the future. 

The whole thing is about MONEY and family unity?  Give me a break!
Don't you see?  We're advocating that the-pregnant-ones should get
some kind of say in what goes on with their lives.

>And if I were this kind of parent (which I'm not), I know of any of a
>thousand sneaky ways to find out of my daughter is pregnant. And those
>are just the ones listed in the book. I can be given to cheat. 
>
>But as they say, I would get the job done and then pass the strategy
>on. 

What job?  What strategy?  If someone feels that they cannot tell their
parents, I doubt (the state) forcing them to would make the situation any
better.  In my opinion, between the state and the-pregnant-one involved,
I would think that the latter would have the best knowledge over what
her course of action should be.

>>I would imagine that the vast majority of all judges would
>>readily grant a judicial bypass to a young woman with a
>>family history such as you describe.)
>
>Oh, yeah? My brother was put out during his teens, and they only took
>him back because they _wanted_ to (my parents, that is). Otherwise,
>he'd have been stuck in a boys' home forever. 
>
>There _was_ no way for him to prevent them from doing that. They did
>it and no cops or agency threatened to come down on them for it. BTW,
>my brother was 14 then, and the crime was talking back.  

That's awfully nice of them, but I don't understand how it relates to
the last thing stated.  (You broke the paragraph there.)

>Like I said, there would be no way of escape if the parents decided to
>put their daughter in an unwanted children's home for having an
>abortion. 

Ah...  Ok, so it would seem that the best course of action for the daughter
would be to keep it a secret.  That way she'd at least try to maintain
some kind of family harmony.

>You want to talk about fierce, Susan? Parents can be extremely fierce
>in ensuring that your pro-choice stance does not execute itself in
>their house. Not that I support this tactic; it is just one that I
>know damn well can be carried out, just like when wives threatened
>divorce if spousal consent abortion laws were upheld. 

How would you feel if you had no control over your body?  (ie:  marital
rape laws are much weaker than non-marital rape laws.  Why?  Is it more
"ok" for husbands to control their wives actions?  Didn't they promise
to "obey"?)  The state should force you to ask your hubby's permission
to get an abortion?  What if you were legally separated?  Why's there
a difference?  If there is a need to legislate "spousal consent," there
must be a problem with the marriage.  (I don't get how spouses wouldn't
talk to one another about the issue, but if they didn't, then there must
be a bigger problem with the relationship.)

>>I do hope you continue to tell the world how hateful
>>you are, though.  You are your own worst enemy.
>
>I'm just presenting a way to circumvent you, Susan. 

So much sneaking and circumventing...  Can't people make decisions in the
open anymore?

>Is that any worse than wives threatening to divorce their husbands if
>spousal notification laws were to hold? 

Is that any worse than husbands threatening to divorce their wives if they
found out that they were getting an abortion or that they decided to
continue the pregnancy?  Morally, I would think that doing either would
require communication between the two, but I don't think it is the role of
the state to force such an action to occur.

>>Susan

>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
Yeah, yeah.  I've heard it plenty of times, Mr. Borg.  ("We are Borg.  You
will be assimilated."  I hate to tell you this, but there are no individuals
in your society.)


-Richard
(Another continuation...?)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion