From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Why restrict thi (1)
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:53:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not that I've been able to discover.

In article <1992Jul23.010130.204112@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.203147.26584@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>#How can her personal views (based on her physical limitations [do you
>#know the whole story, here?] ) be a basis for laws which she has no
>#interest in?
>
>I'll be interested in seeing your article attacking the Roman
>Catholic Church leaders for inserting themselves into the
>abortion debate, Stevens.

Why should I attack the RCC?  Why should they NOT insert themselves
into the debate?

>Unlike you, I have had an abortion.

And this makes you an expert on the subject, right?  It gives you one
of many possible FEMALE viewpoints, but it gives you no insight whatsoever
into the MALE viewpoint.

>I am interested in seeing this option remain for women in the future.

Actually, I never said that I want abortions outlawed.  I said that of
the several possible ways to make the situation fairer, outlawing abortions
was one possible solution.  And it is most probably the easiest solution
to enact.  But it is not the best solution, in my opinion.

>I am very
>grateful that I had the choice at the time.  I would not
>be able to look myself in the mirror if I advocated forcing
>women to carry every pregnancy to term simply because I
>myself am not capable of getting pregnant.  I know that
>this doesn't bother some people, but it does bother me.
>
>I'll satisfy your curiosity about my infertility, too, 
>Stevens.

No need.  I had no curiosity.  I already knew.

>I'm 34 now, and I intend to continue
>to have sex for a very long time, whether you approve or not.

When did I ever say that I had any interest in your sex life at all?
I have NONE.  You are defending against an attack that was never made.

I simply said that your inability to have children has no bearing on
this discussion, as you do not represent the group of people who would
be affected by this discussion.  Your inability to get pregnanat, DOES
NOT change the fact that other women CAN get pregnant.  And I'm just
as tired of explaining the obvious to you, as you are of explaining it
to me.

I had thought that you might be more mature, more reasonable than the
rest of the people who hang out on the net.  It turns out that you are
like the rest of the regulars, if someone agrees with you, then they
are a wonderful human being, full of compassion and virtue.  If they
disagree, they are slime, mentally ill, insensitive sub-human animals
who wish to enslave women. . . etc..

Surprise!  Most of the people who disagree with you, think of you much
the same way as you think of them.

Me, I was just hoping to have a polite debate.  And if we couldn't agree
(and everybody knows how unlikely it is for that to occur) then we
could agree to disagree, and still respect each other after the posting
flurry.

Seems I was mistaken.  But I will not respond (even shortly, as I did
last night) to any more personal attacks.  If you come up with new
information, a new viewpoint, etc, I will be happy to discuss it with
you.

Of course, you will probably never see my response, as you will have
probably put me in your 'kill' file.

>Susan
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.bizarre