From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Not today, thank you.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:19:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.065114.7551@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>> J. Stevens
>>> R. Cage
>
>In my experience, and my experience is greater than yours in this situation,
>a pregnant woman SELDOM decides to abort "uilaterally."  Unless she has an
>overwhelming not to seek advice from her support network, she will most
>certainly do so.  And if she has a good relationship with the father of her
>child, he will be the first member of her support network from whom she
>will seek advice.

It isn't quanity that I'm worried about.  I would assume that in most
cases, the father would be notified, and that the father and mother
would agree on a course of action.  It is in those cases when they cannot
agree, that law becomes necesary.

>Regardless of whether or not she makes the decision "unilaterally," SHE 
>must bear the pain, sickness, serious health risks, and possibility of
>death UNNILATERALLY.  That fact gives her the right to decide whether or
>not she will accept those risks unilaterally, although few choose to exercise
>this right.

You state your beliefs.  I, obviously, disagree.  Just make sure you realize
that you ARE stating beliefs, not facts.

>Hardly applicable.  A drunk driver enndagers the health and life of every
>other person on or near the road.  A woman seeking ann abortion enndangers
>no one's health but her own.

I disagree.  She doesn't just endager the life of her child.  She out and
out kills it.  I believe the low risk of death and damage that the average
person undergoes can be equated to the GUARANTEED death of the child.

Both are choices the woman makes, based on her personal belief system.
one carries the risk of death or injury.  The other guarantees a death.

>A drunk driver does not know his or her limits of tolerance -

Actually, most do.  Not every drunk driver has an accident.  In fact, most
don't.

>a woman seeking an abortion realizes she cannot handle
>this pregnancy and the child that would result for whatever reason.

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.

>A drunk'
>driver is recklessly and selfishly ignoring the interests of others.

A woman getting an abortion is 'recklessly and selfishly ignoring the
interests' of her child.

>A woman
>seeking ann abortion is trying to avoid becoming a burden onn others -
>taxpayers, her family.

It is not absolute that a woman MUST be a burden on others.

>>Guess what?  You are also on the side of those who want to make laws that
>>*rule out* other people being able to practice their beliefs.  You want
>>abortion legal, even though passing law to make it so would violate the
>>practice of other peoples religious beliefs.
>
>That is bullshit.  No one is forcing you to support abortion (or to have
>one, if you were female).

Wrong.  I can be legally forced to 'support' an abortion.  Remember, under
the current system, I have NO SAY AT ALL.  Just an obligation to pay
through the nose.

>It is NOT a legitimate "practice of religious
>beliefs" to force others to conform to your ideology.

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.

>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.

>As a ridiculousness test, how would you like it if my religion
>involved forcing everyone that I consider to be a pinhead to pass a physical
>test that involved a serious risk to your health and life, and to that end 
>I was forced to kidnap you and torture you to uphold my religious beliefs?

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.

>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.

In other familys, the rules that were chosen at the incorporation of the
marriage would hold sway.

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.

>Or, for a more realistic example, the religion of KKK members involves the
>continual harassment of, terrorism against, and killing select members of,the
>the following groups: African Americans, Catholics, immigrants, Jews, and
>non-traditional women.  By your criterion above, you would not stop them 
>since that would entail the enforcement of laws "that *rule out* [the KKK]
>being able to practice their beliefs." 

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.

Your analogy fails on this point.

>Damn straight.  

So it would be hypocritical of you to fight against me trying to pass laws
that restrict your right to impose your beliefs on me.

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.

>The father, IF he is responsible, IF he did attempt to prevent conceptionn in
>the first place, annd IF he has a good relationship with the mother, DOES
>deserve to have his opinion onn the matter heard.  However, as the woman is
>the SOLE bearer of threat to health and life, she makes the SOLE decision
>concerninng such risk.

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.

Personally, I DON'T think women should be allowed to go into combat, but
they SHOULD have the rigth to be equal members of the political process.
(So you see, as others have accused, I really DO hate women ;-)

You, and many other pro-aborts that I have listened to, seem to be incredibly
sexist.  You support UNequal rights based on sex.

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion