sas@lanl.ARPA (07/31/85)
It would be interesting to see where each of you ( the more flambouyant ones ) really stand. It appears to me that a lot of pro- choicers are playing devils advocate and demanding that someone prove them wrong when they don't really believe exactly what they say. Most of the pro-choice people I know will admit that they have not and probably would not ever have an abortion. At the same time they are not willing to give-up/take-away the right to do so if they wanted to. I am proud to know people like this who are defending the rights of people to choose while respecting the life of the unborn. I presume that most of you who rant and rave about how worthless the "parasitic non-living fetus" is don't really believe this. I expect that for most of you this is only relative to the value of choice and self-determination. One doesn't completely invalidate the other. I am disturbed by the polarizing effect of some of the inflammatory statements being made on both sides. I believe that the abortion issue is a delicate balance between life and choice. To run too far to one side or the other does nothing to achieve this balance. To exagerate your position to try to nullify the effect of a radical on the other side only leads to more polarization. It would be nice to see more people take a firm stand EXACTLY where they feel they need to be and then listen VERY carefully to the others who are standing EXACTLY where they believe is correct. Only after everyone agrees to try to be reasonable and to listen and to possibly accept another point of view can we hope to begin to improve our understanding. As long as we are name-calling (The president is an ASSHOLE, you are a JERK, abortion is MURDER, etc.) the issue will remain so cloudy that noone will make an inch of progress toward a better understanding. I have been participating in this newsgroup because it is an issue that is very important to me but I have no desire to listen to the views of two highly polarized factions. This is not to say that NO reasonable views have been aired here nor that ALL unreasonable statements have been made by unreasonable people. It is possible that all of us are reasonable, we are just letting the adrenaline take over. Now that MY adrenaline is taking over I suppose I should shut up and hope that this newsgroup will look less like net.flame. Steve Smith P.S. Thanks to those who responded to my last posting (positive and negative), by mail and followup. Most were reasonable, I have hope.
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy ) (08/06/85)
In article <29057@lanl.ARPA> sas@lanl.ARPA writes: > > It would be interesting to see where each of you ( the more >flambouyant ones ) really stand. It appears to me that a lot of pro- My position: Any laws realted to the abortion issue should be determined soley by women. Males roles in relation to abortion whould be limited to peaceful, personal persuasion regarding the actions of women with whom they have a direct relationship. richard
luner@uwai.UUCP (08/12/85)
> In article <29057@lanl.ARPA> sas@lanl.ARPA writes: > ...where each of you really stand... My position: [With thanks to Richard for the template] > Any laws related to the abortion issue should be determined soley by women. Even better: No regulation, save that supported by sound medical concern for the health of the mother. > Males roles in relation to abortion whould be limited to peaceful, personal discussion regarding the actions of women whom they know. WARNING: This is a statement of position. I will NOT argue it over the net [but I will respond to private mail]. /DLL
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/12/85)
What about:
Any laws related to the slavery issue should be determined solely by the
plantation owners. Even better: No regulation, save that supported by
sound economic concern for the profitability of the plantation owners.
Others roles in relation to slavery would be limited to peaceful, personal
discussion regarding the actions of plantation owners whom they know.
Sounds just about as reasonable. Oh, and by the way, have any of you 'pro-
choice' people who favor restricting pro-lifer's freedoms of speech & voting
ever heard of the U.S. Constitution or the First Amendment?
-- Thomas Newton
Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPAmjv@ihu1e.UUCP (Vlach) (08/13/85)
> My position: > > Any laws realted to the abortion issue should be determined soley by women. > > Males roles in relation to abortion whould be limited to peaceful, personal > persuasion regarding the actions of women with whom they have a direct > relationship. > > richard HEY! I like this guy. No, I didn't pay him to say this. I will be going off the net soon so he can be Ken Arndt's new target to flame at. Thanks for expressing your opinion, richard. Marcia Bear
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (08/13/85)
>What about: > Any laws related to the slavery issue should be determined solely by the > plantation owners. Even better: No regulation, save that supported by > sound economic concern for the profitability of the plantation owners. > Thomas Newton What about em, Tom? Somebody asked the net what their positions were and some people responded that they (apparently) didn't think they should deal with the issue directly. You gonna fry them for that? Every election, a large number of people choose not to choose. What about that? >Oh, and by the way, have any of you 'pro- >choice' people who favor restricting pro-lifer's freedoms of speech & voting >ever heard of the U.S. Constitution or the First Amendment? They didn't say anything about what YOUR position is/should be. I *think* (but I'm not sure) that you just jumped in without looking. Relax. Adrienne Regard
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/14/85)
> Oh, and by the way, have any of you 'pro- > choice' people who favor restricting pro-lifer's freedoms of speech & voting > ever heard of the U.S. Constitution or the First Amendment? > > -- Thomas Newton > Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA I am "pro-choice" and I respect your right to say anything you want, including sexist, self-righteous, pseudo-religious mumbo jumbo. And you can vote for anyone you want to. See! we're all nice guys and gals after all. -todd jones
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy ) (08/15/85)
In article <424@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) writes: >What about: > > Any laws related to the slavery issue should be determined solely by the > plantation owners. Even better: No regulation, save that supported by > >Sounds just about as reasonable. Oh, and by the way, have any of you 'pro- >choice' people who favor restricting pro-lifer's freedoms of speech & voting >ever heard of the U.S. Constitution or the First Amendment? > > -- Thomas Newton > Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA Your analogy to the women deciding the abortion issue is very cleaver. However it is not a good analogy. Anyone; black, white, red, yellow, male, female, neuter, could be and have been slaves and slave owners. Thus anyone is in a position to contemplate realistically the prosepects of being either the benefactor or loser of slavery. Males cannot realistically contemplate the prospect of being pregnant. A better analogy would be; the only people allowed to make rules etc rregarding removal of the foreskin of infants should be males. or Any rules laws etc regarding removal of testicles should be made by males. PS I am a strong supporter of the Entire Bill of Rights, not just the First. Thus as someone said a long time ago "though I disagree with what you say I will defend to the death your right to say it"
barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (08/16/85)
> > It would be interesting to see where each of you ( the more > flambouyant ones ) really stand.... Well said, Steve. The issue of abortion -- Right To or Law Not To -- will NEVER, I think, be resolved. After scanning the arguments from both sides (and please excuse any redundancies -- I'm a newcomer), I begin to perceive a trend (OH, MY!!). Pro-choice or Pro-Life, we (and I mean EVERY human being, no matter HOW self-claiming in our concern for the 'general good') argue our personal position and from that position often take a stance that others should adhere to it. I do not intend to criticize this, for it is a factor of our human natures. [I.E. we REALLY, in our heart of hearts, DON'T want [IDEAL] Justice, we want the scales weighted in our favor.] But I distract myself from my point. I do not wish to argue -- although I expect argument in reply -- but, as requested by Steve's posting, I WILL take a stand. First, I am a woman, and therefore feel somewhat intimately affected by the issue of Abortion. No offense, men, although your concern over the issue is commendable -- keep it up! -- you cannot POSSIBLY have the same perspective without having the risk of pregnancy. Second, if I must be forced to state my 'politico-religio-sociologico' position, I would say I am a Moderate (>gasp!<) -- of Methodist background, although I would call my current 'religion' Theist-Humanist. To the gist of the matter: I believe, like the Pro-Lifer's, that the fetus is "alive" -- perhaps for a time a part of the woman's body, but who is ANYONE to say when the spark of individuality (some call it a soul) enters the picture? Some of you Pro-Choicers are talking about the fetus as if it were a MALIGNANT TUMOR!!! In your Heart of Hearts do you REALLY believe that? Or is it convenient for arguments' sake? [NO, I am not saying that your position is baulderdash -- before you flame, I just want you to REALLY ask yourself. THINK a bit! If your position doesn't change, so be it -- I'm not trying to argue with you, just give you an alternate perspective for a moment.] Assuming the fetus is alive (and I won't get into the issue of whether or not it's 'human' -- although I don't know what else it would be), abortion is Killing. Now I suppose you expect me to take a moral stance that, because Abortion is Killing, it should be outlawed. Life should be so simple. Laws should be so simple. But Life is not -- and the Laws certainly are not. Although I doubt, unless my own life were in danger, that I could EVER have an abortion, I WILL NOT refuse another person the right to make -- and act upon -- their own decisions in the matter. Who am I to tell YOU how to live your life? HOWEVER, I will be so presumptuous as to make THRICE FLAMED sure your decision to Abort or not to Abort is made ONLY after careful -- and, insomuch as possible, logical -- consideration of ALL the alternatives. Therefore, my position is that Abortions SHOULD remain legal; but, to have one, the individual(s) involved must go through appropriate COUNSELLING. Perhaps this stance is based on a rather skeptical view of human nature. Abortions have been around at long as women have been getting pregnant. Outlawing abortions MIGHT prevent SOME persons from using that route, but I fear more HARM than good will be done by it -- for I shudder to think of the losses from ILLEGAL abortions. If BOTH woman and fetus die in an illegal abortion, Pro-Lifers, is Justice served? I think what many of us are concerned about is that Abortion might become too CONVENIENT, that it will become a prefered means of birth control. Personally, my heart grieves for the women who would think and choose so -- but I freely admit I am a sentimentalist. The POINT of legalized abortion is Safety for the woman. It is performed in a hospital/clinic/doctor's-office by a Doctor. The POINT of legalized abortion -- at least in my admittedly fallible understanding -- is NOT specifically birth control. Indeed, I would support legislation restricting subsequent abortions. The first is nearly understandable -- although often avoidable -- but to chose abortion again and again? From my own perspective, I call this a crime -- as much against the woman as the unborn fetuses. This is also why I support pre- and post-abortion counselling -- to prevent, where possible, the abortion -- and certainly prevent any repeats. In conclusion: I believe Abortion should remain legalized, and will fight in the voters' booths to defend it. I believe, however, that 'permission' to have an abortion should also hinge on appropriate counselling, with the hope that the individual(s) will weigh all the options before deciding [I know, this is rather idealistic, but it's worth a TRY]. Finally, I believe that it should be increasingly difficult to have more than one abortion -- i.e. Abortion should NEVER EVER become an easy form of birth control -- there are OTHER reliable methods, speaking as one who has used them, thank you very much. So, here I stand. Sling your arrows if you must -- but I feel as I feel -- and after years of careful thought on the matter. I do not expect you to agree with me -- although that would be nice -- it is our diversity that makes us exciting. Ever respectfully yours, ___________________ ______________\ ___________ | ______ / . / / o .ooo. ./ /. . o@ooo0 Barb Jernigan .ooooo. .ooooo. .oooo oo..oo oo...ooo ooo..ooo \ .oo oo oooooo oooooo ooo ooo
mjv@ihu1e.UUCP (Vlach) (08/16/85)
> What about: > > Any laws related to the slavery issue should be determined solely by the > plantation owners. Even better: No regulation, save that supported by > sound economic concern for the profitability of the plantation owners. What does slavery have to do specifically with plantation owners? All over the world, for thousands of years, different people were involved in slavery. It is not specific to any one race, sex, or country. There is no direct interconnection like that of women and abortion. And there is no problem outlawing slavery because unlike abortion there is no need for it. > > Others roles in relation to slavery would be limited to peaceful, personal > discussion regarding the actions of plantation owners whom they know. > > Sounds just about as reasonable. Oh, and by the way, have any of you 'pro- > choice' people who favor restricting pro-lifer's freedoms of speech & voting > ever heard of the U.S. Constitution or the First Amendment? > > -- Thomas Newton I don't know what you mean here -- who has been trying to restrict anybody's freedom of speech or voting?!? First I heard about it. Marcia Bear
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (08/19/85)
In article <389@oliven.UUCP> barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) writes: > > Therefore, my position is that Abortions SHOULD remain legal; >but, to have one, the individual(s) involved must go through appropriate >COUNSELLING. Here.Here! That's what it was supposed to be in the first place! >... Outlawing abortions MIGHT prevent SOME persons from using that >route, but I fear more HARM than good will be done by it -- for I shudder to >think of the losses from ILLEGAL abortions. If BOTH woman and fetus die in an >illegal abortion, Pro-Lifers, is Justice served? It didn't before, it won't now! > The POINT of legalized abortion is Safety for the woman. It is >performed in a hospital/clinic/doctor's-office by a Doctor. Exactly!This again was what was fought for a few years ago. THis is what we women wanted. Especially in cases where there was need, but no money. > The POINT of >legalized abortion -- at least in my admittedly fallible understanding -- >is NOT specifically birth control. Indeed, I would support legislation >restricting subsequent abortions. The first is nearly understandable -- >although often avoidable -- but to chose abortion again and again? This is the point where most Pro-lifers lose any support I might have considered. I do not understand why they not only want to do away with abortion , but birth control methods as well?!! I don't believe that banning birth control methods are going to lead us back non-sexual, pure lives. Please....There has been no time in history when this has ever been true! It's only been in the last century or so that sexuality has been so supressed! In short I agree, ABORTION SHOULD BE A LAST RESORT ONLY -- after that some precautions should be taken! >.... This is also why I support pre- and post-abortion counselling -- to >prevent, where possible, the abortion -- and certainly prevent any repeats. Amen! > In conclusion: I believe Abortion should remain legalized, and will >fight in the voters' booths to defend it. I believe, however, that 'permission' >to have an abortion should also hinge on appropriate counselling, with the hope >that the individual(s) will weigh all the options before deciding... >ABORTION SHOULD NEVER EVER become an easy form of birth control >-- there are OTHER reliable methods.... Hurrah for Barb! Finally someone whose making a bit of sense in this discussion. With this point I not only agree, but am willing to let this group know about it. (note: prior to this I wouldn't have.) Thanks Barb! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pamela M. Pincha-Wagener (!bcsaic!pamp) These are my views,I worked hard for them, Boeing can't have them! ------------------------------------------------------------------------
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (08/21/85)
Barb has just posted an article with which I fully agree. Noone has said it better. And, I think many, many so-called pro-lifers would agree with her position. I do. Abortion should NOT be a birth control method, yet when and if, after counseling, it is deemed necessary, it should be available in a safe atmosphere. Abortion should not be considered just a convenient birth control measure. T. C. Wheeler
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (08/21/85)
In article <219@bcsaic.UUCP> pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) writes: >I do not understand why they [pro-lifers] not only want to >do away with abortion, but birth control methods as well?!! Which pro-lifers are you talking about?!! The *official* Catholic position (and the position of *some* fundamentalist Christians) is against birth control, on the grounds that the purpose of sex is procreation. (I don't know many Catholics who adhere to the *official* position, though.) A *few* fundamentalist Christians are also opposed to birth control, on other grounds that I have never really understood. Both groups are also pro-life. Some other persons, generally conservative in their outlook, oppose giving birth control information to minors without the parents' knowledge and consent. These persons, who are generally pro-life, are not generally opposed to birth control for adults. However, not all pro-lifers are Catholic, fundamentalist, or opposed to birth control for minors. As a matter of fact, *most* pro-lifers, even the few who are, in one way or another, opposed to birth control in some form or another, would favor birth control if the alternative is abortion. (I am, by the way, a non-Catholic, non-fundamentalist who is opposed to providing *prescription* birth control (i.e., the Pill) to minors without the parents' knowledge and consent. The parents are, after all, responsible for the care of the minor, and would have to take care of her if she suffered serious side effects. I am in favor of birth control for adults who do not wish to get pregnant.)
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (08/27/85)
In article <205@cylixd.UUCP> charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) writes: >In article <219@bcsaic.UUCP> pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) writes: > >>I do not understand why they [pro-lifers] not only want to >>do away with abortion, but birth control methods as well?!! > >Which pro-lifers are you talking about?!! The Pro-Lifers are the political groups in Houston and Seattle (both places I have lived in recently and listen to their rhetoric) who are pushing for not only abortion BUT also birth control in general! Now I realize that the group is large enough that this stance is not a unanimous opinion. What I find irritating is that very vocal, AND INFLUENCING few that do hold this veiw point! Even 20/20 segment on the abortion issue pointed this out. When the research that was announced that 1 new form of long term birth control, and an easier chemical form of abortion were announced, did the Pro-life spokesman even comment on the bad effects of having a quicker, safer abortion method? No. The big concern was on the LONG TERM BIRTH CONTROL! That is what I'm talking about. It is that few who are setting the policy that I am worried about. The same group out to abolish Planned Parenthood (which does fill a BIG need in conseling of pregnancy prevention)is the Pro-lifers I'm talking about. The individuals with a more reasonable approach I would be willing to listen to -- but they are few and far appart -- AND NOT INFLUENCING THE LEGISLATURES!!!! My comment should have been clearer. My apologies to the reasonable few. ------------------------------------------------------------- P.M.Pincha-Wagener (bcsaic!pamp) (usual disclaimer) --------------------------------------------------------------
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (08/29/85)
pam pincha: [Pro-lifers are against birth control] me: [some pro-lifers are against birth control, most aren't] pam pincha: [acknowledges diversity among pro-lifers, and adds:] >What I >find irritating is that very vocal, AND INFLUENCING few that >do hold this veiw point! >It is that few who are setting the policy that I am worried >about. >The individuals with a more reasonable approach I would >be willing to listen to -- but they are few and far >appart -- AND NOT INFLUENCING THE LEGISLATURES!!!! I have not seen any evidence that the anti-contraception folks have had any influence on their legislatures at all. I know of no anti-contraception laws that have been introduced anywhere, let alone passed. (Not to say it hasn't happened. I just don't know about it, and consider it unlikely.) And, while I am pro-life, I would certainly oppose any attempts to ban contraceptives. I think *most* pro-lifers would agree. (P. S. - Thanks for the apology to the "reasonable few" - such gestures help me believe that this is not really net.flame.abortion.)