regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (02/08/85)
Well, now I'm gonna say something that is bound to be unpopular with a number of the readers. Please be sure that I mean no personal slam, and that I am speaking from my own opinion, etc. Abortion is a very unsettled issue, and there are many points of disagreement. We will ultimately need to decide, as a democratic society, on a solution. However, since the laws of this country do not require the equal responsibility for childbearing (and I mean equal in ALL senses of emotional, financial, societal, etc. responsibility) by men, and since medical science does not definitively identify the male parent of the fetus, nor is a man capable to carry a fetus, I think this is an issue for women. Certainly men may have opinions, and notably do, across the spectrum. However, they cannot have the ultimate responsibility because their bodies, futures, careers, livelihood are not impacted by this issue EXCEPT by their voluntary consent. (PLEASE NOTE: I do, I really do, understand that both partners in a sex act are presumed in most cases to be consenting. I'm speaking now of consent to conception - women do not have absolute control over that. Note the word absolute). Frankly, I consider lack of birth control use to be nearly criminal (assuming, of course, that one does not wish to conceive). I am one of those odd people who consider lack of education and forethought in most actions of a human to be nearly criminal. However, I can't see the condemnation of so many women who haven't the smarts/education/strength of self/street-savvy/luck/WHATEVER, and I particularly have a hard time listening to men condemn them. A man never faces this particular choice, and never can. He is, sheer physical fact, one step removed. While I can respect the viewpoints of many men, and at least respect the others' RIGHTS to their viewpoints, I just wish men would hold to themselves, quietly for a moment, the realization that the issue is uncharted land to them, and a place that they cannot be. I include this in net.women in respect for the many men who contribute. I would welcome your responses in addition to the women.
vip@philabs.UUCP (V. I. P.) (02/14/85)
> listening to men condemn them. A man never faces this particular choice, > and never can. He is, sheer physical fact, one step removed. While I can > respect the viewpoints of many men, and at least respect the others' RIGHTS > to their viewpoints, I just wish men would hold to themselves, quietly for > a moment, the realization that the issue is uncharted land to them, and a > place that they cannot be. > Right on! But try telling that to R. Reagan and J. Falwell, who assume that a woman's greatest and highest calling is to be a receptacle for a man's sperm. Is there any woman in the world that wouldn't be honored with the prospect of bearing one of their children, regardless of the circum- stances? B. Day philabs!exquisit!brian
mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (02/19/85)
> ... However, since the laws of this country do not require the equal > responsibility for childbearing (and I mean equal in ALL senses of emotional, > financial, societal, etc. responsibility) by men, and since medical science > does not definitively identify the male parent of the fetus, No longer true. With enough effort, it IS possible to determine whether a given individual is a parent. >... nor is a man capable to carry a fetus, ... this is an issue for women. Red herring time, here. ``Since Northerners can't own slaves, I don't think they should be talking about the morality of slaveholding'' Not being personally involved has NEVER absolved an individual of guilt earned by standing aside and letting bad things happen. > Certainly men may have opinions, and notably do, across the spectrum. > However, they cannot have the ultimate responsibility because their bodies, > futures, careers, livelihood are not impacted by this issue EXCEPT by their > voluntary consent. I agree that nature has placed a greater burden on women in the process of creating the next generation. That greater responsibility DOES NOT MEAN that power over life and death should be granted to an individual. The issue is simple. Can we be reasonably sure that what we are destroying is not the moral/ethical equivalent of a human being? If it is, no amount of sophistry about the burdens that nature has placed can excuse destroying it. > ... and I particularly have a hard time listening to men condemn them. There is a difference between condemning a horribly mistaken act and condemning the indivisual who does the act ... although I have to admit it is difficult not to condemn those ``doctors'' who make death their profession. I also fail to understand why our society does not support women through pregnancy. If raising a future generation is important to us, women ought to be given vast allowances of time off (with pay) for childbirth and for a child's early years, and such women ought to get preferential treatment when they re-enter the workforce. This is where ``sharing the burden'' comes in. Note I said sharing, NOT destroying. NOW LET'S GET THIS OUT OF NET.WOMEN! -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
nap@druxo.UUCP (Parsons) (02/19/85)
> If raising a future generation is important to us, women ought > to be given vast allowances of time off (with pay) for childbirth and for > a child's early years, and such women ought to get preferential treatment > when they re-enter the workforce. This is where ``sharing the burden'' comes > in. "...and for a child's early years"? This is "sharing the burden"??? Nothing in "nature" keeps a woman from working during a child's early years. (I know of a company that makes it possible for women to breast feed their babies while employed.) If men are to "share the burden," they need to start thinking in terms of *their* taking time off during their children's early years, especially if they feel that children should be kept with a parent rather than left with a sitter or in daycare. (By the way, pro-lifers, it is your unwillingness to deal with this issue, more than anything else in my opinion, that discredits you in the eyes of many women who see you as utterly unconcerned for them. You are willing to tell them to sacrifice for the life of an unborn child, but are you willing to insist on men "sacrificing careers" so that the burden is shared?) No amount of "preferential treatment" is going to make up for lack of experience in a profession (which staying home, out of the profession, guarantees happening). Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/19/85)
>> listening to men condemn them. A man never faces this particular choice, >> and never can. He is, sheer physical fact, one step removed. While I can >> respect the viewpoints of many men, and at least respect the others' RIGHTS >> to their viewpoints, I just wish men would hold to themselves, quietly for >> a moment, the realization that the issue is uncharted land to them, and a >> place that they cannot be. >> >Right on! But try telling that to R. Reagan and J. Falwell, who assume >that a woman's greatest and highest calling is to be a receptacle for a man's >sperm. Is there any woman in the world that wouldn't be honored with >the prospect of bearing one of their children, regardless of the circum- >stances? > B. Day > philabs!exquisit!brian I'd like to know how the pro-choice stance in any way mitigates the attitude of men that women are a receptacle for their sperm? If anything it seems to make her a more convenient, less consequential, an reusable receptacle. Since you're imputing certain motives to Falwell and Reagan for their stance, I wonder what could be said along the same lines about men who wave the banner of "reproductive freedom" for women. Let's see, these men want women to have freedom to have sex without any unwanted consequences. Who would they want them to have this freedom with? Why *them* of course! What an honor! Asbestos sheild ready, -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
egs@epsilon.UUCP (Ed Sheppard) (02/19/85)
Nancy Parson writes: > (By the way, pro-lifers, it is your unwillingness > to deal with this issue, more than anything else in my opinion, that > discredits you in the eyes of many women who see you as utterly unconcerned > for them. You are willing to tell them to sacrifice for the life of an > unborn child, but are you willing to insist on men "sacrificing careers" > so that the burden is shared?) This is n'th time we've heard this sort of statement. I'm getting a tad sick of it myself. I'd like to find out how universal this type of sentiment is in the abortion debate. What do you (both pro-choice and pro-life) believe motivates the opposition. Do you consider them to be heartless, unconcerned, etc. pursuing a (primarily) politically motivated campaign, determined to shove their ideology/moral standards down other people's throats? Or are they honest in their convictions but simply misguided? Consider this a poll: respond to me and I'll summarize to the net in a while. BTW, Nancy. I'd be interested in how many notes you got from people about following up in net.women in addition to net.abortion. Recently, I followed up to an article here that was cross-posted to another (or maybe two other) newsgroup(s) and forgot to edit the distribution. I got several notes admonishing me for it (quite politely, I'm happy to say). As you can see, I'm being more careful now. Do net.women readers want to see the abortion debate going on there? Ed Sheppard Bellcore
zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (02/19/85)
>Right on! But try telling that to R. Reagan and J. Falwell, who assume >that a woman's greatest and highest calling is to be a receptacle for a man's >sperm. Is there any woman in the world that wouldn't be honored with >the prospect of bearing one of their children, regardless of the circum- >stances? > > B. Day > philabs!exquisit!brian ***** ME !!!! ***** =============================================================================== From the mostly vacant environment of Jeanette L. Zobjeck (ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie) All opinions expressed may not even be my own. ===============================================================================
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (02/20/85)
Ok, you said you wanted to know what I think, so here it is: First of all, though I am not in agreement with the "pro-life" point of view, I can sympathise with them (I'm sure all you pro lifers are thrilled). Unfortunately, abortion *has* become a form of birth control. For whatever reason, birth control information is not getting to those who need it most (the poor, and teenagers), and it is difficult for these groups to get hold of birth control devices. Can you believe that Blue Cross will *not* pay for IUD's, birth control pills, etc., but *will* without question, pay for an abortion or delivery? ALL options must be explained, and available to those who are contemplating sexual activity, just as all options must be explained to the pregnant woman. A point many pro-lifers are missing is that many abortion clinics are actually concerned about the woman in question, and her possible emotional trauma over having an abortion. They explain the entire procedure, and try to make sure that the decision to have an abortion is something the woman is sure of. However, perhaps some of the information about alternatives that are run by the pro-life groups, and are not known by abortion clinics (financial aid programs, group homes, adoption help, etc.) should be explained to them. If pro-lifers stopped picketing abortion clinics, and put their hysteria aside for a moment, and tried working WITH abortion clinics by distributing information about alternatives, perhaps it would cut down on the number of abortions done out of fear, and out of ignorance of other possibilities. If the "scare tactics" (pickled fetuses (seen on tv being waved by pro-lifers), explicit pictures, and the bogus farce "the silent scream" were dropped for a more reasoned approach, perhpas abortion clinics would invite pro-lifers to help council women who are unsure of abortions. Or at least hand out their literature on other alternatives. We must be able to make an informed choice. Mikki Barry
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (02/20/85)
In article <1330@hou4b.UUCP> mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) writes: > >NOW LET'S GET THIS OUT OF NET.WOMEN! One easy way to do so is with the "Followup-To" entry in the header. Simply set that field to net.abortion, as I have done in this article, and it's done (assuming up to date software, etc, etc). -- Richard Mateosian {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (02/21/85)
GO AWAY! ALL OF YOU! I try not to read net.abortion anymore because everyone always has the same silly arguments about the same old stuff. Nothing ever changes there. However, I have the right *not* to read the drivel that pours forth there. Please, please, please, leave that junk where it belongs....in the news group especially made for it. Maybe the rest of us will even read it as an example of an argument that will go nowhere, yet is perpetuated ad infinitum.
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (02/21/85)
DOES ANYONE HERE KNOW HOW TO USE AN EDITOR?!?!?!? It is very easy to take out the two little words separated by a dot "net.women" Why don't you do it? Or do you believe we really *want* to be "educated" by your ridiculous ideas? Implying that women should not have reproductive freedom does *not* belong in net.women. We've heard it all before and most of us have already made our decisions concerning it. You are doing nothing but ANNOYING people on both sides by rehashing old and moldy arguments. Or don't you realize that we are NOT INTERESTED! If we want to read your crapola we will read net.abortion. AGAIN! GO AWAY!
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (03/01/85)
[] From: mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) > ... >>... nor is a man capable to carry a fetus, ... this is an issue for women. > >Red herring time, here. ``Since Northerners can't own slaves, I don't think >they should be talking about the morality of slaveholding'' Anybody can be enslaved. Only women can get pregnant. >Not being personally involved has NEVER absolved an individual of guilt >earned by standing aside and letting bad things happen. Why does guilt accrue to innocent bystanders who had no part in creating some situation? Why are these people obligated to act? >> Certainly men may have opinions, and notably do, across the spectrum. >> However, they cannot have the ultimate responsibility because their bodies, >> futures, careers, livelihood are not impacted by this issue EXCEPT by their >> voluntary consent. > >I agree that nature has placed a greater burden on women in the process of >creating the next generation. That greater responsibility DOES NOT MEAN that >power over life and death should be granted to an individual. Most individuals have the physical capacity to kill, and thus posess "power over life and death" already. >The issue is simple. Can we be reasonably sure that what we are destroying >is not the moral/ethical equivalent of a human being? If it is, no amount of >sophistry about the burdens that nature has placed can excuse destroying it. One needs no excuse to refuse aid to another to whom one is not obligated. > from Mole End Mark Terribile -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]