From: dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: usa
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:34:09 GMT

smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
: 
 . .
: Many of us who are pro-choice believe that the anti-choice position is
: fundamentally misogynistic because it places restrictions on the
: rights of women that are not equivalent to any placed on men.  The
: premise is simple: Men are not required to use their bodies to support
: their children.  For example, if you had a child that needed a kidney
: transplant, you would not be required to donate that kidney.  Why do
: you support forcing women to do for a z/e/f what neither parent is
: required to do for a born child?  The conclusion we come to is that
: your interest is in restricting the rights of women; hence, you are a
: misogynist.
: 
: Nyikos also makes the ridiculous implication that a pro-choice
: position is equivalent to defending a Florida physician who performed
: an abortion on his handcuffed wife against her will.  This suggests to
: me that he is a liar as well as a misognyist.  To my mind it is a
: willful misrepresentation  to suggest that supporting laws
: to guarantee a woman's reproductive choices is the same as defending
: the right of some lunatic to force a woman to have an abortion.  Lest
: there be any confusion: Mr. Nyikos, I think you are both a liar and a
: misogynist.    
: 
: SJM

I missed out on what Mr. Nyikos said, but from this message alone, I cannot
come to the same conclusion that Mr. Nyikos is either a liar or a misogynist.
It seems like Mr. Nyikos point was overlooked.  Are you addressing his point
face on or are you focusing the attention of the discussion elsewhere?  Are
you  engaging in honest logical discussion or reaching for excuses to flame
and insult your opponent away?

Sure, there are flamethrowers and mockers on both sides, but why join in and
become one of them?

Mr. Nyiko's point was not that women such as the Florida physician's wife
should be forced into abortion.  His arguement, whether a good one or not,
is that the baby's right to life is violated identically in either situation.
In one situation, the mother makes the choice.  In the other, the father makes
the choice.  Both are wrong.  Don't waste my time asking me who I am to use
the "W" word because it really doesn't matter who I am.

As for requiring fathers to support the lives of their children through
kidney donorship, etc., as a new father-to-be, I feel that any man worthy
to be called a man, should have the love and courage to do this for his
children if necessary.  If there is a law up for the vote requiring this,
I'll vote for it, too.  It does not make sense for us to demand more
responsible behavior from someone else than we demand of ourselves.

On a slightly different note, did any of you see the Bailey for Congress
advertisements on T.V.--the ones with the explicit color showing of aborted
children?  Did any of you see the interview between Bailey and two others
on CNN?  One man was suing because he felt this was inappropriate for the
viewing of children, and humorously, he fed back the same arguement the
liberals have used--"you can turn off the T.V. if you don't like it."

Questions came out like, "Why are you singling out the Bailey campaign while
you support gore on every other show on T.V.?"  Much waffling took place in
reply.  A strongly pro-choice woman expressed anger saying that this was all
inaccurate and that a one-inch fetus was blown up across the whole screen?
Baily didn't say this, but I began to wonder if she had expected the network
to shrink the screen...Bailey basically reaffirmed that these were real
products of abortion.  What was on the screen in living color could not be
refuted.  It was there for everyone to see.

Objections came back from both the feminist woman and the man who was suing
saying that this is highly inappropriate for T.V. viewing when children could
be highly upset by seeing all of this.  One child was said to have asked his
mother if his baby sister was going to end up like those babies on T.V.

This is something that is too hard for children.  But, if this is too hard
for children to take, then what is abortion?  Is it easy for a precious
child to handle *being* aborted?  How do we answer questions like this to
our children?  They want to know if we love them, or possibly if we would
have aborted them too if we had had the chance.

Let the children ask us questions.  Let's face this thing straight on.  Let's
deal with reality.  After all, seeing this thing in living color is really
nothing more or less than a spark for a reality check.  Are we killing our
children or are we not?

Hey, if there are murderous people involved who would want to hide the truth,
then we can expect as a natural result that they would raise a stink and lie
and cheat the public and hide facts, cloud issues, etc., to keep the truth
from coming out.  This is a natural course of events.

Let's just turn on the lights for a change.  If sparks fly back our direction,
if the opposition counters, and there's a chink in the armor of our side, then
let that be exposed, too.  But, let's get used to the truth.  Let's start
questioning authority in a sense.  Let's have a little courage.  Take a risk.
Be honest with the public.  This is the real purpose of freedom of speech
and freedom of the press.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion