nap@druxo.UUCP (Parsons) (02/23/85)
Paul Dubuc: > 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. Paul, I have to agree with you wholeheartedly. Pro-choice and pro-life wear different cloaks--one arguing for "reproductive freedom" (without responsibility?), the other for "personal fulfillment" (which is somehow supposed to be found in motherhood in a way that is quite different from men's as found in fatherhood). In my opinion, pro-choice no more serves women's best interests than the traditional barefoot-and-pregnant philosophies of the past. In both, women are primarily the tools and toys of men. If the energies expended on both sides of this issue were directed toward treating women as fully human (humanists), created in God's image (Christians), etc., maybe some real progress could be made. Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/25/85)
>Paul Dubuc: >> 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. > >Paul, I have to agree with you wholeheartedly. Thank you, Nancy. To my knowledge no one has ever done that. :-) >Pro-choice and pro-life wear different cloaks--one arguing for >"reproductive freedom" (without responsibility?), the other for "personal >fulfillment" (which is somehow supposed to be found in motherhood in a way >that is quite different from men's as found in fatherhood). How is the personal fulfillment of motherhood different from that of fatherhood? >In my opinion, pro-choice no more serves women's best interests than the >traditional barefoot-and-pregnant philosophies of the past. In both, women >are primarily the tools and toys of men. I agree, exept for the inference that barefoot-and-pregnant philosophies are inherent in the pro-life philosophy. >If the energies expended on both sides of this issue were directed toward >treating women as fully human (humanists), created in God's image >(Christians), etc., maybe some real progress could be made. But what of the fetus? Tacitly you assume it's not human and bid us to do the same, right? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd