From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Sure.  Tell me how to go about it.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:08:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.001708.22093@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>> Stevens
>>> Ferrari
>>>> Stevens
>>>>> R. Cage
>
>>You state your beliefs.  I, obviously, disagree.  Just make sure you realize
>>that you ARE stating beliefs, not facts.
>
>It is not a "belief" that "SHE must bear the pain, sickness, serious health
>risks, and possibility of death UNILATERALLY."  It is a fact.

Yup.  And men must bear the pain, sickness, serious health risks and death
inherent in fighting a war.  Something that women are not required (in
fact, allowed) to do.

If you are saying that unequal risk should be a basis for unequal rights,
then you are implying that women shouldn't have equal rights to men, since
they don't bear equal risk.

What right's should a woman not have, since she doesn't have to fight to
defend her country?  No right to vote?

Equal rights is an ideal I support.  As soon as you have an exception, though,
you have to realize you've left the door open for exceptions you may not
like.  Be careful.

>>Not true.  Many abortions are requested for the reason that the child
>>would change the woman's life in a way she WON'T handle, not because
>>she COULDN'T handle it.
>
>Well, if you consider it selfish nnot to want to be on welfare, to complete
>your education, to be alive, thenn yes, I'd agree that she WON'T handle it.

She needn't be on welfare.  And she can still complete her education,
although it will take longer and be harder to do.  You state the risks
as if they are absolute.

As with most pro-abortionists, you argue by taking things to such extremes
that they become ridiculous.

>>It is not absolute that a woman MUST be a burden on others.
>
>In the case of a woman being forced to bear a child she does not want, it 
>is quite likely.

I disagree.

>Not to mentionn the fact that you pay a hell of a lot more for an unwanted
>child who is neglected because the mother has to work two jobs, annd ends
>up onn welfare, state supported rehabilitation, and prison.

Hence the reason that I support enforcing strict child support laws if
abortion does become illegal.  If a man and a woman are required to have a
child because abortion is illegal, then obviously both must support it.

>>Once again you state beliefs that are contradictory to facts.  There are
>>many laws on the books that enforce others to conform to christian
>>ideology.
>
>Annd if they do not prohibit direct harm to others, such as blue laws and
>sodomy laws, I oppose them too.

So what?  Your support or not does not change the fact that such laws
exist.

>>>Your right to 
>>>practice your religion ends where my rights begin, such as my right to
>>>privacy.
>
>>If this were true, prostitution would be legal.  It is not, because the
>>right you state, is not absolute.
>
>Another law that I oppose.

Again, so what?  The above were not questions about what you support, but
examples of how, whether you admit it or not, having someone elses beliefs
enforced on you is a time honored tradition in this country.

>>Correct.  Ridiculous.  Because you have no interest in what I do, but I
>>DO have an interest in what a woman does if she is carrying our child.
>
>No you donn't.  I have a HELL of a lot more interest in you, who are working
>to take away my rights, than a private woman deciding what to do about a 
>pregnancy inn which you are nnont innvolved.

Try reading before you respond.  I am involved.  See the word 'our'?

No, I didn't think so.

You are partially right, however, in that you and I will NEVER be involved,
so I will never have any interest in whether or not you get an abortion.

>>>You wouldn't *dream* of enforcing the laws againnst kidnapping and assault,
>>>now would you, since you'd be violating my RIGHT to practice my religion?
>
>>Actually, the ideal choice would be to establish a hierarchy of rights.
>>If a family agrees to follow a strictly fundamentalist christian set of
>>rules, then the man, as head of the household, would have final say.
>
>Annd families who *don'T* choose to follow "a strictly fundamentalist set
>of rules"?

Simple.  The rules that are agreed upon at the inception of a community
of any size, would be those which are inhereited from the parent plus
those agreed upon by the members of the community.

If your community agrees to follow a humanist, buddist or other set of
rules, so be it.

To make this work requires the root level to have almost no rules
at all, except for the right of community autonomy within it's own
sphere of control.

>>In other familys, the rules that were chosen at the incorporation of the
>>marriage would hold sway.
>
>No chance to change their minnd, eh?

Is there a provision in the rules for it?  If not, then no, no chance.

If so, then obviously, there would be.

>>This would resolve your point about religious freedom by allowing you to
>>exercise control over others, if your religion supports this, so long as
>>they are members of your religion.
>
>The key phrase being "so long as they are members of your religion," I
>am not a member of your religion, therefore you have no right to tell me
>not to have an abortion.

Sure, but what we were talking about above is a pipe dream, not reality.

In the current system, other people can AND DO enforce their beliefs on
you every day.

>Why do you have such a profound problem with allowing people to make up
>their own minds about the one decision that coiuld affect THEIR lives,
>NOT YOURS, so profoundly?

But the decision to abort my child WOULD affect my life enourmously!

I have a profound problem with being excluded from taking part in making
a decision of such importance to me.

>>Neat.  But dead wrong, as you totally missed the point that I do not support
>>the idea of interfering in a process that I am not involved with.  I simply
>>think that if the child is mine, I should have a say in what happens to it.
>
>I don't think there is a SINGLE soul onn this newsgroup that would claim
>that if the child is yours, you should not "have a say in what happens to
>it."

Wrong.  Dead wrong.  Almost everybody who responds to me wants to deny me
ANY control of the process.  I'm supposed to sit idly by and let the
woman do anything she wants to my child.

>Pro-choicers believe, quite logically, that the amount of "say" should
>approximate the amount of stake the individual has in the decision.

In a group that is limited to two people (since the child cannot vote)
any other 'amount' than 50% means that one person has NO control.

>Since
>NO ONE has more at stake in the decision of whether or not to terminnate a
>pregnancy than the mother, NO ONNE has more "say."  Thus, the FINAL decision 
>must be hers.

In other words, I have NO say.  Your slip is showing.

>Annd, if your statement that you "do not support the idea of interfering
>in a process that [you are] not innvolved with" is true, it must
>necessarily follow that you do not support anti-choice legislation.

Your logic. . . isn't.  I do support anti-abortion legislation, since
it does affect processes that I am a part of.  You see, anti-abortion
legislation would allow both sexes equal control of their reproductive
processes.

If abortion is illegal, I simply have to make sure that I never have
sex with a woman that I would not be willing to marry, have children
with and take care of.

Which is something I have been doing ever since I started having sex,
but which hasn't saved me from having one of my children aborted.

>>If you and your SO want to have your child aborted, do so.  But when I'm
>>involved, I should have the right to be involved in the decision making.
>
>There's nnot a soul here who would deny you that right -

You have.  Repeatedly.  If the woman has more than 50% of the say, then
she has ALL the say so, and I have no rights.

In other words, in an absolute monarchy, you may have the right to advise
the monarch, but if you have no power to force her to change her decisions,
then you have no power to control the situation.

>as long as
>beinng "involved inn the decision making" means only expressing your
>opinions, not using any kind of coercion or force.

I see.  Involved to you means I have no rights.  What I am fighting for
is the right to have control over the life and death of my child.

>>I disagree.  By this reasoning, since only MEN bear the risks involved in
>>creating and maintaining a free America, a woman should have her opinion
>>listened to, but MEN should be the sole decision makers.
>
>By WHAT fantasy criterion are men the only ones "involved in creating and
>maintainninng a free America"?  You're sure you on the third planet?

Women do not (CANNOT) take part in front line combat situations.

How hypocritical that women deny men equal rights based on sex, then scream
when men try to deny THEM equal rights based on sexual differences.

>>You, and many other pro-aborts that I have listened to, seem to be incredibly
>>sexist.  You support UNequal rights based on sex.
>
>Name ONE way inn which I support UNNequal rights based onn sex.

Abortion.  Geesh, what the heck have we been talking about?  And the name
of the news group that I am reading is alt.abortion.inequity.  Of course,
with all the cross posting going on between the two groups, who can tell
where you are reading this from?

>Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)

John
stevens@uswest.com