From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:14:30 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1992Sep10.020548.11427@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.220653.24624@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep3.152443.26511@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep1.204031.20902@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Sep1.165041.11734@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Aug31.211505.23998@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>>>>>In  <1992Aug31.145104.12528@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>>Men aren't forced to have abortions.

>For example, your argument corresponds to the argument that a ban on
>smoking in the work place is ridiculous because only the SMOKER is
>smoking!  And if you argue any different, then you obviously have a
>problem understanding the process of smoking and the definition of it.
>
>Many anti-smoking crusaders would call that ridiculously simple minded
>(if not down right deliberately acting stupid).
>
>However, I believe that you ARE aware of the relationship between second
>hand smoke and lung cancer, etc., and you are also aware that the father
>has an abortion in much the same way as the non-smoker smokes when
>forced to sit right next to a smoker.
>
>>I didn't suggest that men were not emotionally effected by abortions.
>
>Not just emotionally.  Physically, as well.  There is a physical presence
>that is missing after an abortion.

Ah, please explain to me, just WHAT physical effect a woman's abortion
has on YOU personally.  Physically.  None.  She might we now missing
1 to 2000 cells (for a very early abortion) that were residing within
her body, but *you* have not experienced any physical effect on YOUR body.
Emotional, yes/maybe, physical, no.  The loss of a "presence" from your
surroundings is not a PHYSICAL effect on you.  It might be a loss
of a potential physical effect, but the key word is *potential*.

Senario:  Your SO becomes pregnant, does not inform you and you have
no indication that she is.  She has an early/safe abortion and also
doesn't inform you.  Have you been physically affected?  Could someone
(a doctor, microbiologist,...) document a physical effect?  Would
further physical effect show up in your body at a later date?

Sheesh.  You don't seem too bright at these analogies do you.  First
(in response to an earlier post) you try to claim that I *equate* 
in all ways strep vs. fetus because you don't seem to understand that
analogies point out SIMILARITIES not equivalences; now you post this 
flawed analogy.  Second hand smoke DOES make a direct physical effect on 
MY body, and so I demand some control over it.  A woman's (my SO,
or any other random woman) pregnancy does not.

>>I didn't know that this was your only contention.
>
>It's not.  Taking away my baby by abortion is similiar to taking away my
>health by forcing me to breathe second hand smoke.

Again, fetus is not the same as baby.

>Not equivalent, though, because in the case of abortion, someone dies, while
>in the smoking example, death is not guaranteed.

Oh, now you claim analogies aren't equivalences.  Ah.  No "someone" hasn't
died.  Someone can only die, if there is a "someone".  Four cells in a
womb do not constitute a "someone" for *most* people.  They have the
*potential* for turning into a someone.

If cloning from random cells became technilogically possible, would you 
then claim anything that killed cells should also be outlawed?  At that
point the impregnated egg (just after conception) would have the same
*potential* as becoming a "someone".  Maybe the probability is higher
because of a more benign enviornment, but then you'd probably argue
for the cell police to require you to turn in all discarded cells.

>>It sounded like you were saying that men were being forced to have
>>abortions.
>
>I am.  And if you stop limiting your vision to just the actual act of
>abortion, and expand it to see the RESULTS of an abortion, you will
>see that men DO get abortions forced on them.

Oh,  I thought we were talking about the "actual act of abortion". Sorry. 

>John
>stevens@uswest.com

-robert
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36621 alt.abortion.inequity:3772