kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (09/13/84)
[Here we go 'round again...] > Why? Well, why should I care about the fact that someone I didn't know > was murdered for his wallet? Why should I care that 40 families were burnt > out of their home by an arsonist? Why should I care about anything or anyone? > > If you can answer that question, then you should understand why I care about > the killing of unborn children. > > Mark Terribile Why are your examples about mugging and arson analogous to abortion? Would someone please explain to me why the woman who aborts her child is acting similarly to muggers and arsonists? (Even if she "asked for it" -- that's not the point, pregnancy should not be a punishment!) The woman is exercising her property rights in having the child removed. Women who become pregnant unintentionally are similar to the the victims of muggers and arsonists, not to the criminals; all three groups of victims have had their property rights violated. Women do not have any choice about the nature of their biology. Its side effects (one of which is that they can become pregnant by accident) should not be used against them by forcing them to live through unwanted, unplanned pregnancies. -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
spw2562@ritcv.UUCP () (09/14/84)
[ I don't believe in line-eat... AAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIII!!! *gulp* ] > Women who become pregnant unintentionally are similar to the > the victims of muggers and arsonists, not to the criminals; all three > groups of victims have had their property rights violated. Does this mean if I invite someone I'v never seen before into my house, and they rob me while I'm gone, it's not my fault? > Women do not have any choice about the nature of their biology. > Its side effects (one of which is that they can become pregnant > by accident) should not... She got pregnant by accident? Gee, whatever could have caused that? Steve Wall ...!ritcv!ritvp!spw2562 flames to /dev/null, please.
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (09/16/84)
[Clean up the oceans. Buy lots of red herrings at your local fish market.] > > Women who become pregnant unintentionally are similar to the > > the victims of muggers and arsonists, not to the criminals; all three > > groups of victims have had their property rights violated. > > Does this mean if I invite someone I'v never seen before into > my house, and they rob me while I'm gone, it's not my fault? That is correct. The robber is wholly resposible for his actions; you are responsible for none of them. > > Women do not have any choice about the nature of their biology. > > Its side effects (one of which is that they can become pregnant > > by accident) should not... > > She got pregnant by accident? Gee, whatever could have caused that? > > Steve Wall > ...!ritcv!ritvp!spw2562 Yes, dammit, it CAN happen by accident. There is a small but non-zero propability of pregnancy even when several birth-control methods are used simultaneously. What does this have to do with abortion anyway? Why is a fetus a special kind of person, in that it is to be allowed to use the property of its mother against her will? Is not the fetus analogous to your robber? -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
spw2562@ritcv.UUCP () (09/17/84)
> That is correct. The robber is wholly resposible for his actions; > you are responsible for none of them. You entirely miss the point. If you don't play with, fire you won't get burned. > Yes, dammit, it CAN happen by accident. There is a small but non-zero > propability of pregnancy even when several birth-control methods are > used simultaneously. What does this have to do with abortion anyway? > Why is a fetus a special kind of person, in that it is to be allowed to > use the property of its mother against her will? Is not the fetus > analogous to your robber? Inviting the robber is analogous to the woman inviting the man. Do you see the point yet? And as far as the woman's will, if she takes the risk, she should be willing to accept the consequences. Steve Wall ...ritcv!ritvp!spw2562
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (09/18/84)
> > That is correct. The robber is wholly resposible for his actions; > > you are responsible for none of them. > > You entirely miss the point. If you don't play with, fire you won't > get burned. Bull. Fire and robbers are not analogous. Fire is a non-sentient phenomenon to which the concept of free will does not even apply. A robber is a person, and therefore a sentient entity capable of controlling his/her actions. A robber is therefore wholly responsible for his/her own actions. Fires do not have minds with which to consider the consequences of actions; fires do not even "act", in the same sense of the word as people do. People act; fires happen. By the principle you appear to espouse, criminals are blameless, and victims cause crime simply by failing to defend completely against its possibility. > Inviting the robber is analogous to the woman inviting the man. The double standard strikes again. The woman is entirely at fault. The man was "just invited in". Bull. > Do you see the point yet? What point? You haven't said anything that makes good sense to me yet. > And as far as the woman's will, if she takes the > risk, she should be willing to accept the consequences. > > > Steve Wall The very existence of the medical procedure called "abortion" indicates that an unwanted child is not the necessary consequence of an unwanted pregnancy. The very existence of fairly reliable birth control indicates that an unwanted pregnancy is not necessarily a risk associated with sex. Pregnancy is neither a necessary risk nor a necessary consequence of sex. There is, therefore, no such "risk" or "consequences" as you refer to. BTW, when you drive down the highway, you take the risk that you will lose control of your car and hit a bridge (or other large object). If this should (Otis forbid!) happen to you, should you be denied medical treatment on the grounds that you deserve to suffer the consequences of your action? -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
afo@pucc-h (Laurie Sefton ) (09/22/84)
Uh, gentlemen...
I am really getting tired of seeing this arguement of 'the woman accepts the
man's advances, ergo, she should accept responsibility.' Contraception is a
two way street, and there are methods, both temporary and permanent, that
a man can use.
<FLAME ON!!!>
So, if you are so bloody worried about the woman getting pregnant, why don't
*you* do something about it!!!!
<FLAME OFF>
Laurie Sefton
{allegra,harpo,ihnp4,}pur-ee!pucc-k!aforch@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) (09/23/84)
> If this should (Otis forbid!) happen to you,....
Pardon my ignorance, if you will, but...
Who is Otis?owens@gitpyr.UUCP (Gerald Owens) (09/29/84)
> Uh, gentlemen... > > I am really getting tired of seeing this arguement of 'the woman accepts the > man's advances, ergo, she should accept responsibility.' Contraception is a > two way street, and there are methods, both temporary and permanent, that > a man can use. > > <FLAME ON!!!> > > So, if you are so bloody worried about the woman getting pregnant, why don't > *you* do something about it!!!! > > > <FLAME OFF> > > Laurie Sefton > {allegra,harpo,ihnp4,}pur-ee!pucc-k!afo Bravo and amen! It takes TWO to make a baby, so BOTH should take the responsability for contraception. I recently looked through a history of contraception, and I noted that the original impetus for the pill was the realization that the woman would have bourne the greater share of the burdens of the pregnancy than the man (after all, you can tell who the mother is by LOOKING. Who the father is, is a bit harder to determine. And if we want to maintain the illusion of justice, we certainly can't accuse a man of being the father based >>SOLELY<< on the testimony of ONE witness, who ALSO happens to be one of the interested parties. (ditto for rape)). Thus, it was decided that the woman would have the greater "incentive" to use contraceptive methods. In fact, before the pill, there was a special dual pill that both the woman and man had to take in order to get full protection. No woman, of course, could have any assurance that the guy propositioning her actually was taking his pills, since if a pregnancy occurred, HE could say (if caught), that SHE hadn't taken her pill! Since I am rather concientious in taking medicines, I wouldn't mind a male contraceptive. Apparently, what is holding the research up is the fear that any male contraceptive of a chemical or biological kind would affect the man's libido and/or virility. And since we were (and still are) in a male-dominated society, that pretty much explains the lack of such research :-(. It's a shame, since the pill is so effective, any extra protection from the male side would only cut the margin for error down even further, and also cut down on the number of abortions gotten because of "unwanted" children. Gerald Owens Owens@Gatech.