From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Not tonight dear, I'm organizationally challenged.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:42:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.220014.23413@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.151337.26405@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.203518.20259@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep1.172929.12103@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Aug31.220151.12113@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>>>>In  <1992Aug31.162715.17289@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>>>> In article <1992Aug27.045340.13162@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purd
>>Bearing the child is only a small part of parenting. 
>
>We weren't discussing parenting, we were discussing giving birth.

An inseparable subset of parenting.

>You have *no* part in that.

Bullshit.  It wouldn't be HAPPENING if not for me.

>You also aren't required to have a part in parenting.

Bullshit again.

>I know a number of women who raised their children just fine without the
>aid of a man.

And there are a number of men who raised their children just fine without
the aid of a woman.  So what?

>>The fact that women bear children, is not sufficient reason to give them
>>all the rights.
>
>Huh? All the rights over their bodily functions? You think they should not
>have all the control over their body

Not 'their' body.  They are pregnant.  By definition, they are sharing their
body with the baby.

>>There is already a VERY large group of people who want to make abortion
>>at least more controlled, and most want it made illegal.  In fact, the
>>registered number of anti-abortion supporters is much larger than the
>>number of abortion supporters, but due to a truly incredible media
>>slant, most people are unaware of just how large the numbers are.
>
>Really? Let's just vote on the issue then. I'm all for it.

Vote?  Sure.  And of course, which ever way the vote goes, everybody will
agree to be a good looser and just live with the results, right?

>>Feel free.  I'm busting my ass to get my rights enforced, and you are
>>equally free to attempt to get yours enforced.
>
>Your rights 'enforced'. I like that. I am only working to retain and 
>protect womens right to decide what is done with their bodies by themselves.

No, you are not.  You are working (hell, fighting) to keep unborn children
as slaves.  Slaves so despised, so utterly property, that they don't even
have the basic right to life.

Slant it all you want, but in the end, the pro-choice position is based on
one of the prime tenants of slavery, to wit the belief that the slave is
NOT human.

Interesting company you find yourself in.  The echos of those anit-abolitionist
forebears of yours are so loud, I sometimes have trouble hearing what you
are saying.

'I am only working to retain and protect [the slave owner's] right to decide
what is done with their [property] by them selves.'

>>A woman's pregnancy (when the couple are married) has always been an
>>issue of the state.
>
>Hopefully, that will be carefully monitored.

How so?

>>You act as if babies are interchangeable. 
>
>Where did I do that?

When you imply that instead of fighting to protect the life of the child
that my SO wants to abort, I should just find another woman who is
willing and have a child with her.

I'm sorry, but the baby that is being aborted is a unique individual,
irreplaceable.

>>But that isn't what this discussion is about.  It is about one particular
>>case: the woman is ALREADY pregnant, she wants to have an abortion, and
>>I, as the father, do not want her to have an abortion.
>
>Yes, then you're fucked. Give up.

Hmmm.  If abortion becomes illegal, remember that phrase, OK?

>I'm sorry. I think your attempting to have
>the state then force her to give birth is barbarian.

Just as I think that having the state allow her to murder the baby is
barbaric.

>It is no hair off your ass to go impregnate another woman.

I disagree, STRONGLY.  That baby is irreplaceable.

>>The question is: how do we resolve the conflict in her and my rights?
>
>I'd say you have no rights in that regard and you simply need to get used to it.

We already know what your beliefs are, and you probably (although I wouldn't
guarantee it) know what my beliefs are.

If abortion becomes illegal, just get used to it.

>>This must change.
>
>Good luck. One thing that might help is simply trying to get over your pain
>of your past experience in this matter. It would certainly make you
>happier and more objective.

I'm VERY happy now (as happy as any adult can be) about our baby boy.  And
I'm being very objective.

You might be a fairer, more reasonable person if you got over this 'it's
OK to murder a VERY young child' idea.

>>>I think, if I understand that sentence, that's the way to go.
>>
>>Nah.  It's a dark horse at best, much less likely to be succesful than
>>limiting or eliminating abortion.
>
>Go for what is right, not what will suffice.

Both are right.  One is more expedient.

>David Knapp                                   University of Colorado, Boulder

John
stevens@uswest.com