avi@pegasus.UUCP (Avi E. Gross) (02/29/84)
I second the motion made by Debby Kirkman (hou5e!dak) about getting the abortion debate out of net.women. I am sure Sophie Quigley (I think) meant well by starting it up again, but it is growing again (as usual) into a monster. For all those people posting in an attempt to change my mind, I hereby notify you that I am not listening, so don't bother. My "n" key is being worn down to the nub, but luckily I am using my new terminal and it should last for a few more months. Seriously, why do we keep tossing evrything into net.women that involves surgical intervention? This seems to be the place to go to hear about mutilated penises and fetuses, not to mention battered women. I am not suggesting moving "abortion into my other favorite newsgroups (like flame, religion ...). It has already been everywhere else -- twice. -- -=> Avi E. Gross @ AT&T Information Systems Laboratories (201) 576-6241 suggested paths: [ihnp4, allegra, cbosg, hogpc, ...]!pegasus!avi
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley, Univ. of Waterloo) (03/01/84)
Unless a net.abortion is created, and I think it will be shortly, net.women is the best place for an abortion discussion because it is one of the most important "women" issues: the right for women to control their own bodies. I think that putting it in net.philosophy would "abstract" the problem more than it should be. This issue has already been "abstracted" to death and I wanted to show this by starting this discussion again. Whether I will manage to get this point across remains to be seen, but I haven't lost hope yet. The fact that this issue is so popular is an indication that it is an important one, so we should not censor discussion on it. Sophie Quigley watmath!saquigley
tpkq@charm.UUCP (Timothy Kerwin) (03/06/84)
! I disagree with those who would move the abortion debate out of net.women. The "pro-lifers" always present the issue as a religious or philosophical question about "when life begins," or "what constitutes human life." The woman is conveniently pushed out of the picture, and the decision about whether or not she can have an abortion is left to the jurists and the priests. From the pro-choice point of view, abortion is a WOMEN'S RIGHTS issue. It's the ->woman<- who should decide which of the various philosophical points of view she will accept.
tll@druxu.UUCP (LaidigTL) (03/06/84)
Postulates: 1) The abortion discussion belongs in net.women only if it is a women's rights issue. 2) Whether abortion is a women's rights issue or a fetus's rights issue depends on whether or not the fetus is human. Therefore, the discussion of whether or not a fetus is human belongs in net.news.group. ( :-), in case you hadn't guessed) Tom Laidig AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver ...!ihnp4!druxu!tll
ntt@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (03/07/84)
To Timothy Kerwin and others who agree with article <269@charm.UUCP>: No matter whether you believe abortion is a women's rights issue or not, you should understand that net.abortion was created so that people who like to read net.women generally, but DON'T want to read one more repetition of the standard pro- or anti- views, can unsubscribe to it. I have. Respect this attitude, please. Stay out of net.women on this. My rebuttal of Timothy's OTHER errors will be found in net.abortion. Mark Brader