From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Not that I've been able to find. . .
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:18:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.042022.21010@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug19.163139.22864@spdc.ti.com>,
>serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) enlightens us with:
>
>Are you refusing to adopt those viewpoints simply because they are
>`extreme?'  Because, if you are, you're probably about to learn why
>people are so polarized by the issue.

IMO, an extreme law is a bad one.  And it seems not to be applied, because
it gives the judge and jury so little freedom to judge.

># I do not agree that a woman has a right to an abortion in the case of
># consensual sex.
>
>Why not? Why did you qualify that with the words `in the case of
>consensual sex?' My initial suspicion is that it was born out of your
>inherent patriarchal sexism, but I realize you *might* have a bizarre,
>but reasonable alternative reason for qualifying yourself in that way.

How do you interpret this as being 'inherent patriarchal sexism'?  Is it
the use of the phrase 'consensual sex' that bothers you?

>I expect it's very rare that anyone ever refuses to accept the
>consequences of an unplanned pregnancy.  After all, the situation
>rapidly becomes apparent and there's no running from it -- you either
>carry to term, or you terminate, pretty much. The other alternatives
>aren't much better.  Refusing to accept the consequences of
>contraceptive failure, is like refusing to accept the consequences of
>a parachute failure.

Of course, the difference in opinion is based on differing beliefs in
what the phrase 'accepting responsibility' means.  Some people do not
consider abortion to be a responsible course of action.

>#                    Abortion is NOT a valid method of birth control.
>
>Sez you, bub.

Yup.  This is an expression of personal beliefs.  And you are about to
do the same thing.

># If neither the man nor the woman has the emotional or financial
># ability or desire to raise a child then one must take the only
># alternative available, DON'T HAVE SEX!  Who gave us the right to have
># sex regardless of the cost?
>
>The same bozo that `gave' us all our other rights, of course.

What bozo is this?  A name would be appreciated.  I think he/she has
been misinterpreted on any number of occasions.

>Look,
>do you really want to get into a discussion about the origin of human
>rights?

I wouldn't mind at all.  Because it seems that this is the root of the
discussion.

On one side:

	The woman's right to bodily autononmy.

On the other:

	The right to life.

Who hands out rights?

>I suspect not -- besides, it's probably not appropriate to
>either of the newsgroups this thread is running in.

It may very well be the ONLY appropriate topic for both newsgroups.

>Your demand that people use abstinence as their only means of avoiding
>unplanned pregnancies is curious, in that many people would find that
>an unacceptable, if not impossible, alternative to the use of
>contraceptives and the reliance on the availability of legal, safe
>abortion in the event of contraceptive failure.

Ummm. . . Facts? Figures?  I would tend to agree, out of my own personal
biases, but there are celibate people.  And I myself have had long periods
of time where I did not have a sexual partner.  And besides, celibacy is not
the only way to guarantee no pregnancy.  There are many forms of sexual
expression that do NOT risk pregnancy.

>Your reasoning seems to be circular.  Allow me to demonstrate: Women
>shouldn't consent to sex when they don't want to get pregnant because
>it's wrong for them to terminate their pregnancy if the pregnancy is
>the result of consensual sex because consensual sex might lead to an
>unwanted pregnancy.  That's silly.  It indicates that your whole
>problem is not with abortion -- it's with consensual sex.

The reasoning would be circular, if that is what his reasoning is.  However,
I interpret what was said in a different fashion.  May I suggest that you
reread what was said?

The reasoning seems to be: Agreeing to sexual intercourse implies acceptance
of responsibility for any resulting consequences.  If you do not consent,
then you should not be held accountable for the consequences (rape, incest).

Abortion is not considered a responsible choice.

Also, if a choice must be made between the child's and the mothers life,
the mother should be saved at the expense of the child.  It is still
killing a human being, but in most cases, the choice is both dead, or
only one dead.

># I do not agree that a woman should not be allowed to an abortion in
># cases of rape, incest, or where the mothers life is in danger.
>
>Do you *admit* to being a running dog sexist lackey of the patriarchy
>then?  You certainly sound like one with rhetoric like that.

????  How in the world do you generate a response like this from what
was written?  Please explain the connection that you see.

>Basically, what you're saying is that you think women should only be
>granted permission to terminate their pregnancies when they can prove
>to the authorities who control access to abortion that they meet one
>of the three seemingly arbitrary qualifications that you've enumerated
>above.

The exceptions he listed are not abitrary.  They are based on reasoning
that stems from his belief system.

>(*Now* are you beginning to see why the issue is so polarizing?)

Sure.  Opposing belief systems.  And belief systems, at their very
core, have nothing to do with logic, and are not required to be
consistent.

>-- 
>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
>Space Systems/Loral

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion