thoma@reed.UUCP (Ann Muir Thomas) (05/04/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Isn't it odd that the "pro-lifers" posting to this group are almost all men, while the "pro-choicers" are of both genders but more likely to be women? Makes me wonder if the pro-life men *REALLY* believe in women's right like most of them claim to. If *I* had an unwnated child, would *YOU* adopt it, or say, sorry you little slut, it's all your fault. (And it's not likely to be a healthy baby either...I have health problems that would most likely affect it) Men, if you really believe that there is plenty of space for unwanted children, put your money where your mouth is. And don't forget that this planet *IS* approaching its capacity for supporting life. ann
carlton@masscomp.UUCP (Carlton Hommel) (05/06/85)
In article <1452@reed.UUCP> thoma@reed.UUCP (Ann Muir Thomas) writes: >Isn't it odd that the "pro-lifers" posting to this group >are almost all men, while the "pro-choicers" are of both >genders but more likely to be women? You are making an unwarrented assumption, that the gender division of net.abortion readers/posters is close to 50% male/ 50% female. Computer science and software engineering are (no flames, please; its not my fault) male-dominated. Many of those are batchelors, or even worse from the standpoint of a social consiousness, college students, and have no interest in net.abortion. On the other hand, females with access to the net might tend to find this group more interesting then, say, net.sports.hockey. So, we have the following pruning: Male Programmers ------> Males interested in stating net positions ----> Males writing in net.abortion. The people in this class tend to be the same people flocking to net.politics, or net.religion. Unless they have strong opinions about abortion, they will tend to flame elsewhere. Most males (in this group) are pro-life - whether for moral or religous reasons. Female Programmers ----> Females interested in stating net positions ----> Females writing in net.abortion Women in this group will be more liberal in their thinking. After all, they are going against 'conventional sterotypes' in having a computer career, of all things, instead of making babies. (Note - I'm all in favor of this.) By the way, I am pro-dead-baby, but my wife is pro-life. Carl Hommel Wife: Pro-dead-baby! Arrrrgh! Husband: Iffin they want it dead, and it's deformed, why not?
carlton@masscomp.UUCP (Carlton Hommel) (05/06/85)
*Flame Alert* In article <1452@reed.UUCP> (Ann Muir Thomas) writes: >If *I* had an unwnated child, >would *YOU* adopt it, or say, sorry you little slut, it's >all your fault. This is the worst sort of juvenile crap I have seen in net.abortion during five months of reading drivel. Not once in two years of working in pro-life groups have I heard anyone on either side of the debate make derogatory remarks about the morality of the young women dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. There are only two places where this sort of evil badgering takes place - among the lunatic fringe of the pro-life group, and in the minds of many pro-choicers. > Men, if you really believe that there is plenty >of space for unwanted children, put your money where >your mouth is. And don't forget that this planet *IS* >approaching its capacity for supporting life. This is sheer balderdash. The average wait to adopt in the US is seven years. (See the recent articles by mel@ahuta.UUCP (m.haas) about their adoption of David in net.kids.) You sound like the doomsayers in The Club of Rome. You seem to be trying to justify a decision *you* might make (or have made) because of your particular health concerns. But anyone at Reed cannot be that badly off. You seem willing to practice eugenics on a child/fetus of yours - are you willing to to kill yourself, or submit to sterilization? Alana Hommel Wife: That'll show her! Husband: I wonder if anyone will notice the flame alert?
susan@vaxwaller.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) (05/10/85)
> *Flame Alert* > > In article <1452@reed.UUCP> (Ann Muir Thomas) writes: > >If *I* had an unwnated child, > >would *YOU* adopt it, or say, sorry you little slut, it's > >all your fault. > This is the worst sort of juvenile crap I have seen in net.abortion during > five months of reading drivel. Not once in two years of working in pro-life > groups have I heard anyone on either side of the debate make derogatory remarks > about the morality of the young women dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. > There are only two places where this sort of evil badgering takes place - > among the lunatic fringe of the pro-life group, and in the minds of many > pro-choicers. > Maybe you haven't heard that sort of moralizing. I have. I spent 3 years doing welfare casework in Missouri in the mid '70's. Since the state didn't have a whole lot to offer, I regularly sent young women (or girls - many were under 18) to whatever resources I could come up with that MIGHT help. I was told by a woman from Birthright that the woman who had come to see her could put the baby up for adoption or IF SHE WOULD AGREE TO MEND HER WAYS that perhaps a group could be found to help her if she kept her baby. And I was also told not to send girls not contemplating abortion (like they didn't need help? like life stops at birth?)