From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:11:38 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <lm97joINNh5r@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>>More exchange between Adrienne and myself.  I'm even ">"s; she's odd...
>>>We don't have that whiz bang technology yet that will render this argument
>>>moot.  So what do *you* propose we do?  I propose that we let individuals
>>>settle the matter individually, according to their own consciences.
>>
>>I simply cannot agree until you (or someone else) can convince me that the
>>life of the unborn child will not be directly threatened, or that the life
>>of the mother will be threatened more, or that the unborn child isn't alive
>>at all, or any other circumstance that would render the pro-life case moot.

>So, regardless of the needs of the woman, of the rights of the woman, of the
>desires of the woman, she *MUST* gestate that fetus, because you say so.  

>Tell you something, Paul, it is this root belief, unshakable as it appears 
>to be, that will get you branded as a mysogynist on this net.  Now, maybe
>you don't much care about that -- after all, it's only a net.

>But to those of us who are women, who do face the possibility of being dis-
>counted as human beings because we own wombs, it gets to be a pretty important
>point of view.  You would turn me into a lesser animal on this planet, because
>I own a womb.

>REGARDLESS of how responsible I am.

>REGARDLESS of how productive I am.

>REGARDLESS of how brilliant, important or useful I am.

>I become nothing more, and have no more importance to you in this world than
>a cow.

>Because *you* value the fetus.

>Now, I can understand how women everywhere are going to have a problem with
>that.

>It's also basically inconsistant on the face of it.
>There isn't any OTHER being on this planet that gets to use my body against
>my will, but you would grant that right to a fetus.  Which we have argued
>up and down about here, since it's 'personhood' and 'rights' are definitely
>not settled things.  So, for this we-don't-quite-know-what, you propose to
>abridge my rights -- given to me because I'm an UNDISPUTED person, and a 
>citizen of this country.

>There isn't a single other human being who gets to use my body against my will,
>but you figure it makes sense to make an exception -- SEIZING my rights against
>my will, and over my protest -- in the case of a fetus.

>I think that's nonsense.

>I think, if *you* value that fetus so damned highly that you would FORCE women
>through the law to surrender their HUMAN RIGHTS, then *you* are going to have
>to put a lot more behind it than "I believe".  I'd like to see your bankbook,
>to see how much money you are willing to back up your beliefs with.  You would
>INSIST (presuming your statement above correlates to a legal restriction on
>abortion) that women pay with their physical selves.  How far are *you* going
>to go in standing up for your beliefs, bub?

>>If no lives are at stake, I would be very willing to leave this matter to
>>the individual.


>Well, that's another topic for debate, ain't it?  You'll find it coming around
>about every two weeks.

>Now, before you jump into that one with both feet, ask yourself if ANYBODY
>EVER gets to use my body without my consent.  

>The answer, Paul, is "no".

The answer, Adrienne, should be "yes".  Rights are modified all the time
depending on the circumstances.  

Have you ever heard of the draft?  It's that thing where MEN are FORCED
to go GET KILLED to defend your RIGHTS to KILL babies.  

>Adrienne Regard



Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion