From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 17:35:33 GMT


ps>In article <1992Nov17.171306.1666@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
dk>In article <1992Nov17.162439.18162@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
 
ps>Well Dan, I've responded to a lot of these points in other posts. I hope
ps>you read them.  Please, in the future, try not to assume how I feel or
ps>what my stance is on other issues is based on what a post.  Don't try to
ps>infere what I've done about these issues.  It only makes you look bad. 
 
I wouldn't lose any sleep over how I look Paul.  If I were you, I'd
be much more concerned with how your silly abstinence as an alternative
to abortion agenda looks.
 
Your posts to this group spouted this silly line.  I assumed you were 
a pro-lifer who wishes to take away rights from women.  If you really 
oppose restricting women's rights to abortion, i am thrilled.  
 
dk>Care to elaborate on how abortion is a societal problem.  If anything 
dk>I would say the reverse.  The forced continuation of un-wanted pregnancy
dk>is a much larger societal problem.  Many of these forced pregnancies you
dk>wish to force women through will require a large amount of societal
dk>help in being raised.  Also by denying women reproductive freedom you
dk>are denying them any chance at equality.  This denies 50% of society
dk>a fair shot which is a societal problem.  
 
ps>Well, lets start with your premise: there are more unwanted pregnancies
ps>than abortions (which is the "larger problem"?).  Give that ~1.5M abortions
ps>occur in the US alone each year (since Row), and we don't know how many
ps>"unwanted pregnancies" are carried to term (an oxymoron) I don't think 
ps>we have a basis for discussion here.
 
I am at a loss to understand how you figured the premise you claim I
made from what I posted in the paragraph above.  Between the two of us
there seems to be this very large problem with a failure to communicate.
 
But what the hell, since I'm here I'll try responding to this premise
you were so kind to assign to me.  "The World Almanac and Book of Facts:
1992" distributed by St. Martin's Press does have a section that deals 
with this.  It shows that in the 5 years from 1983 to 1988, there were
about 16,466,000,000 live births.  Of these they claim 10.3% of these 
were un-wanted and 25.0% of these were mis-timed.  (If they were unclear
on the unwanted-ness status they included that in wanted.) So if you
include mis-timed in with un-wanted you would have a total of 5.8 
million unwanted or mis-timed live births.  During the same 5 year span
there were roughly 5.2 million known abortions.  
 
ps>Now, I don't wish to force anything on anyone, but we do have laws that
ps>say simple things like you can't (theoreticly) kill someone and get away
ps>with it.  These laws are in place because we have to have them to live
ps>in an orderly/workable society.  So some forcing of rules on poeple is
ps>inevitable.
 
So why don't you tell us how restricting women's access to safe and 
legal abortion is going to make for a more orderly/workable society?

ps>I am simply advocating that men and women should not have sex if they
ps>don't want a baby at that time, but if they do have sex then they should be 
ps>prepared to, at the least, give that child up for adoption.  That *WAS
ps>THE ORIGINAL QUESTION* - "adoption is a viable alternative to raising the
ps>child, so what is a viable alternative to pregnancy".  That viable 
ps>alternative is abstinence. 

And I have been saying I hope it doesn't upset you if I totally ignore
your warped sense of responsible behavior.  I will have sex with 
intentions you do not approve of.  If they result in outcomes other
than orgasim, we will deal with those outcomes in the manner we 
decide is best for us, totally ignoring your idea regarding
responsibility.
 
ps>And that is all I'm saying.  I was not saying that abstinence is an
ps>alternative to abortion.  I'm simply saying that abstinence is a
ps>resonable behavior to expect from two people to *prevent* a so-called
ps>"unwanted pregnancy".
 
Expect it all you want.  And I'll ignore your expectations.  But
if you try to legislate your bizarre beliefs about sexuality, then
we will have a problem.

ps>See, here's where you start assuming things and start attacking me.
ps>I didn't call for government intervention, I didn't call for laws.  
ps>I simply called (dared) society to call a spade a spade and acknowledge 
ps>that killing an unborn child is wrong, and to do so to *protect* ourselves 
ps>from government intervention.
 
I am glad to hear you oppose government intervention into a woman's
personal reproductive decision.  I apologize for assuming you are
a government control freak.  I apologize for assuming you want to
force your belief about responsibility on others.  Go ahead and 
try to convince society, but don't be overly surprised if they reject
your beliefs.
 
ps>You also shouldn't assume what personal sacrifice I've made.  I have plenty
ps>of clues about responsibility.  But, I'm not here to cry on the net and play 
ps>guilt trips about how "I've done something why can't you."  That type of 
ps>argument doesn't persuade anyone, so I won't bite.  I've given plenty.  
ps>I will continue to do so.  What will you do?  Stand on the sidelines in 
ps>self-righteousness?  You seem like you might know what you will do to 
ps>protect rights and freedoms, which I applaud, but what will *you* do to 
ps>protect a child? 
 
I used a standard argument I use against those that want to force 
their ideas about responsible behavior on others.  You have cleared
up you do not belong in that camp.  Fine I am happy. 

ps>-Paul

Dan King
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh