galenr@iddic.UUCP (Galen Redfield) (08/17/85)
[Everybody's gotta be someplace] O.K., I made a few remarks on the postings of others. Do I have anything of my own to say, or am I only a critic? Let us see. I began reading this group over a year ago, and have managed to refrain from posting, mostly because it was all I could do to keep up with reading. I refuse to skip over anyone's postings. I got interested at first because the group was so busy (volume). I soon became interested in the great all-american amateur debate that was going on here. I've heard plenty. So much for history. Here's my very simple, easy to understand position on the question of: Should a pregnant woman be allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and if so, under what circumstances? In terms of human dignity, I would answer the question: NO!!! However, in terms of legality and human rights, I must, somewhat to my regret, answer: YES!!! As long as it is safe for her to do so (no physical risk). What??? A contradiction??? This guy actually thinks that we should not legislate to promote human dignity?? We should allow people to do the "wrong" thing, and terminate that which would become a person? Yup, that's what this guy thinks (sigh). Why?? That's where the simple part comes in. No funny tricks here. A mere question of freedom and equality. Here it is: As long as MEN have the freedom to engage in activities that are biologically reproductive in nature and then refuse to face the consequences, equality demands that WOMEN must have this freedom also. The only way this can be accomplished at the present time is by abortion on demand. Notice that I don't have to go against most people's concepts with this approach. It doesn't matter whether you believe that the fetus is "really" alive or not, whether it is "really" human or not, or any of the other hang-ups that posters to this group seem to have. It is based on one simple, easily observable fact, the fact that men may ignore their responsibility in the creation of human life if they so wish. No amount of legislation will ever change this, I believe. If that is true, then there must be no legislation to restrict women, either. I know that the more fanactical pro-life people will probably find plenty wrong with this idea, but that's okay with me. I don't exactly like the idea myself, but I can't think of a more fair approach to the problem. To put it quite bluntly, men have gotten away with too much, have embraced an extremely sexist attitude, for too long. It would seem that equality demands that we must have females with a sexist attitude to balance things. Is this what we really want? Just another thought, before I go. Analogies are dangerous, but they can be quite thought-provoking, don't you think?? Here's one I don't think I've seen here before, for what it's worth. Personally, I find abortion on demand (particularly the suction method) about as sophisticated, intelligent, and desirable as anorexia bulemia. For those who don't know what this is, it is a chronic digestive disorder induce by the practice of forcing oneself to vomit after eating, usually to avoid gaining weight. See any similarities?? Both involve an attempt to avoid the natural consequences of a pleasurable act, and both are legal. I apologize for the extended length of this article, but I've been thinkin' a spell, and I may not write for another year. Warm regards, Galen.
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/22/85)
> ... > Why?? That's where the simple part comes in. No funny tricks > here. A mere question of freedom and equality. Here it is: > > As long as MEN have the freedom to engage in activities that are > biologically reproductive in nature and then refuse to face the > consequences, equality demands that WOMEN must have this freedom > also. The only way this can be accomplished at the present time > is by abortion on demand. > ... > Warm regards, > Galen. Two points: (1) Any man who can be identified as the father of a child can be made to face the consequences -- have you ever heard of child support? There is the problem of identifying the father, but that shouldn't be hard if the potential candidates cooperate. If they don't cooperate, it is basically the same situation as identifying bank robbers -- and we haven't repealed the laws against robbery because some of them get away. (2) If equality applies to sex-without-consequences, shouldn't it also apply to more basic things such as life? Using abortion to minimize the effect of biological differences between men and women imposes horrible inequalities on the young-old axis; it seems to me that equality-in-general as opposed to equality- between-sexes demands that we prohibit abortion on demand. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA