regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (08/12/85)
>Our society has reached a point where we rarely have to measure one >life against another in our daily lives. Many of you are asking us >to forget/ignore/disbelieve that abortion is almost always measuring >life against quality of life. At best you could say that the life >I am talking about is of little value while the quality of life is >of more. One or two will continue to insist that the life I am talking >about is not only of little value but doesn't even exist. I cannot >cope with you. Steve, you sounded like a thinking person in your posting, and appear to have considered many important angles of the question. I agreed with you most all the way 'til you got here. Maybe you cannot "cope" with me personally, but somehow hadn't you better figure out how to cope with the courts? Comparisons of life vs. life doesn't hold up legally. The courts of our land do not recognise the fetus as being a human life at any stage prior to birth, even up through the third trimester, so it is not a question (legally) of the woman's "life" vs. the fetuses "life". This is a legal convention, of course, and only tips it's hat to scientific knowledge, but the courts have to draw lines somewhere for laws to be effective. This is the going convention for our US of A. This convention can be changed through the concerted effort of a minority of citizens who convince a majority of voters to see it their way. Terrorism doesn't help their cause much, misrepresenting issues doesn't, sensationalism doesn't, hostility doesn't, ignoring the other satellite issues doesn't. It's a problem for the people on on that side of the fence. Even buying the "life vs. life" hypothesis, (which, as I've mentioned, is NOT the status quo of current government regulation) when one life is "hostage" to the other life, then it isn't a simple issue of quality vs. right to exist. One faces physical, psychological, economic and emotional risks when one bears a child -- even if one surrenders the child immediately upon birth into the arms of the benevolent government. Presuming this is an unintended pregnancy, these risks would be borne by only one of two partners in the act of conception, and cannot be delegated. Give a little thought as to why so many women consider this to be an issue of oppression*: 1. the courts have determined that the fetus does not have life, yet 2. others maintain that a woman's life should be subject to the "rights" of a legal non-entity. For the women who feel that fetuses have rights -- no problem, they can go ahead and bear it. For the women who feel that fetuses do not have rights (along with the courts) -- too bad. Other people say you gotta have it. (*this is only ONE part of the objection to the anti-abortion movement, in my opinion, comprendez? I don't make any claims for what women on the whole think, and I don't consider this to be the _central_ objection. Now let's go on.) Imagine for a moment that anytime a man had sex with a woman he faced a small, but very real, risk that he would be required to: Go to the peace corps for 9 months. He doesn't know where, and the "why" of the peace corps effort isn't his concern, and would make no difference to his required attendence. It may not be a bad tour -- he may spend the entire 9 months in an office, and not have to do anything particularly stressful. He may, of course, have to spend the 9 months cutting down palm fronds in a steamy jungle, or get severely dehydrated on a desert somewhere, and may contract physical ailments that may or may not be treatable. He does know that he will face at least one physically taxing and dangerous battle in which there is a small by real chance that he could die, before he gets to come home. He doesn't know what effect his "peace corps leave" will have on his career, and he doesn't get to postpone his tour of duty until it is convenient for his employer/career/education. He knows that he will face a negative social stigma for having gone. He may have residual physical, psychological and emotional effects to deal with. He may have to bring home an orphan with him, but he may get away with leaving it in the peace corps country. He does not get to "appeal" because he isn't a volunteer. Also, not everybody has to do this, just a random sample. There are some methods for avoiding this tour, but they are not foolproof. Now, juggle this scenario as you like to cover things I left out, or to alter things you consider off base (be careful in your assessment of the small but real dangers, people. Women do still die in childbirth, and do still suffer physical damage that affects their entire lives. Some women suffer a myriad of physical ailments during pregnancy, some breeze through.) Now, further reflect that the _requirement_ to go has been declared un- constitutional. But the bus is coming for you tomorrow. Rights? Whose rights? Adrienne Regard
plw@mgwess.UUCP (Pete Wilson) (08/15/85)
In article <661@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: > >Imagine for a moment that anytime a man had sex with a woman he faced a >small, but very real, risk that he would be required to: > > Go to the peace corps for 9 months...... > >Now, juggle this scenario as you like to cover things I left out, or to >alter things you consider off base (be careful in your assessment of the >small but real dangers, people. Women do still die in childbirth, and do >still suffer physical damage that affects their entire lives. Some women >suffer a myriad of physical ailments during pregnancy, some breeze through.) > >Now, further reflect that the _requirement_ to go has been declared un- >constitutional. But the bus is coming for you tomorrow. Rights? Whose >rights? > >Adrienne Regard Assuming, as you suggest, that it is the MAN that this risk and obligation applied to and he knew of this risk BEFORE HAND, I would say "Have a nice trip - see you when you get back!". If you're going to gamble, you know you're going to lose sometime. As applying to women, and as I mentioned in a previous article, if YOU are the one that the risk applies to, I would think that you would take every precaution known to humankind to AVOID the consequences - keeping in mind that these precautions also are subject to not working 100% of the time. There seems to be a growing trend to avoid, if at all possible, accepting responsibility for one's own actions and decisions. This avoidance takes the form of many rationalizations - 'I didn't ask to get pregnant', 'The fetus isn't alive', 'I couldn't resist climbing that tree and falling out, and breaking my neck', 'I couldn't resist climbing over that fence and almost drowning in a swimming pool that isn't mine' (you know, the 'attractive nuisance' principle), etc. Now there's an idea - declare sex an attractive nuisance! But the fetus isn't a legal entity, so we can't sue it. We can, however, place blame on it and say 'It made me have sex so it could move in and force me to give it nourishment and protection'! But the fetus isn't alive, so why does it need nourishment and protection? OK, it's alive, but it ain't HUMAN - it's an uninvited parasite! Terrific, call Orkin. This group (the USENET community) is probably the wrong group against which to direct this tirade. It is probably a group of above average, responsible people, who have the wherewithal to exercise some degree of control over their impulses. I also think that an overwhelming majority of this group are NOT advocating abortion-as-birth-control. They, the majority, are saying that abortion is, and should be, a method for relieving an otherwise almost impossible burden from those who are least able to bear it. At least that's what I'd like to think. Pete Wilson AT&T IS CGBS Montgomery Works ..!ihnp4!mgnetp!mgwess!plw <If life begins at 40, what is it that ends at 39?>
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (08/17/85)
> Assuming, as you suggest, that it is the MAN that this risk and > obligation applied to and he knew of this risk BEFORE HAND, I would say > "Have a nice trip - see you when you get back!". If you're going to gamble, > you know you're going to lose sometime. > As applying to women, and as I mentioned in a previous article, if > YOU are the one that the risk applies to, I would think that you would take > every precaution known to humankind to AVOID the consequences - keeping in > mind that these precautions also are subject to not working 100% of the > time. Ah yes, the "responsibility" argument. But why should not women have the right to reproductive freedom *and* guilt-free pleasurable sex. Men have the option to walk away after sex, never to be heard from again (some do.) The woman,of course, has no such alternative. So your argument, in effect, reduces to: the slut knew what she was getting into (or vice versa :-) so let her live with the results. How dehumanizing. Would you also establish the father's legal responsibility to this child? Would you spend the dollars necessary to enforce such a responsibility. The essence of the abortion debate is tied to a feminist issue: are women going to have the control of their bodies and equal to sexual pleasure or is a male dominated society going to retain that control? Much of the argument against abortion is of the "greater good" variety, in which the woman becomes a mere instrument for the fetus. Again, subordination. I see that as nonsense. > Pete Wilson Marcel Simon
plw@mgwess.UUCP (Pete Wilson) (08/18/85)
In article <396@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) writes: > >Ah yes, the "responsibility" argument. Exactly. > But why should not women have the >right to reproductive freedom *and* guilt-free pleasurable sex. They do. > Men have >the option to walk away after sex, never to be heard from again (some do.) >The woman,of course, has no such alternative. Really? Ever hear of condoms, diaphragms, IUD's, vasectomies, rhythm method, etc.? > So your argument, in effect, >reduces to: the slut knew what she was getting into (or vice versa :-) >so let her live with the results. Your words, not mine. I don't remember doing any name-calling. > How dehumanizing. Would you also establish >the father's legal responsibility to this child? Don't have to, it's already been done. > Would you spend the >dollars necessary to enforce such a responsibility. I'd much rather spend the dollars on that than on UNNECESSARY abortions. > >The essence of the abortion debate is tied to a feminist issue: are women >going to have the control of their bodies and equal to sexual pleasure >or is a male dominated society going to retain that control? Seems to me there are NO laws which restrict a woman's right to use conception prevention methods or to say no (except in some backward places where 'conjugal rights' supercede the woman's rights). > Much of >the argument against abortion is of the "greater good" variety, in >which the woman becomes a mere instrument for the fetus. Again, subordination. Men did not create women - blame either evolution or God. I'm sorry that you feel it is 'dehumanizing' or 'subordinate' that women are the ones who get pregnant. I think it is unfair also - both sexes should be able to bear the young and EQUALLY share the responsibility. However, that isn't the way it is or the way it's going to be in the near future. >I see that as nonsense. > >Marcel Simon Pete Wilson AT&T IS CGBS Montgomery Works ..!ihnp4!mgnetp!mgwess!plw
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (08/19/85)
> > ME > Pete Wilson > > But why should not women have the > >right to reproductive freedom *and* guilt-free pleasurable sex. > > They do. But you just said that by having sex, they implicitly take responsibility for its results. I sense a contradiction here. > > Men have > >the option to walk away after sex, never to be heard from again (some do.) > >The woman,of course, has no such alternative. > > Really? Ever hear of condoms, diaphragms, IUD's, vasectomies, rhythm > method, etc.? But since none of these or any other contraceptive method is 100% effective and/or danger-free, the woman can be stuck with unintended results, can't she? > > Would you spend the > >dollars necessary to enforce such a responsibility. > > I'd much rather spend the dollars on that than on UNNECESSARY abortions. That is a rhetorical statement. I am talking about reality: are YOU willing to have YOUR taxes increased so that runaway fathers can be tracked sown and made to pay child support? Are YOU willing to have YOUR taxes increased so that those who still refuse to do so get thrown in jail? are YOU willing to have YOUR taxes increased to pay for nurseries, day-care, baby sitters, larger schools etc.? If not, your arguments on legal responsibility are empty. > Seems to me there are NO laws which restrict a woman's right to use > conception prevention methods or to say no (except in some backward places > where 'conjugal rights' supercede the woman's rights). But where these methods fail, will she still have the right to make her own choice? Marcel Simon
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy ) (08/20/85)
In article <661@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: > >Imagine for a moment that anytime a man had sex with a woman he faced a >small, but very real, risk that he would be required to: > > Go to the peace corps for 9 months. He doesn't know where, and the > "why" of the peace corps effort isn't his concern, and would make no > >Adrienne Regard I would certainly want to have the option of not going.
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/22/85)
> Ah yea, the "responsibility" argument But why should not women have the > right to reproductive freedom *and* guilt-free pleasurable sex. Sex and pregnancy are interrelated. This is not a result of some great plot by society, but of simple biology. Except in cases of rape/incest, you *can* control whether or not you will get pregnant, and thus have no grounds for the statement 'the pregnancy was forced on me'. The right to life is much more important than the 'right' not to need to make any choices. I assume the 'guilt-free pleasurable' part was thrown in just to implicitly smear pro-lifers. There is no reason why responsibility to unborn children should at all be related to guilt/lack-of-guilt concerning sex. By the way, why is it that the people using words like "slut", "prevert", etc. in their arguments all seem to be pro-choicers? -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA