gcc@ssc-vax.UUCP (Greg Croasdill [KSCA,GdS]) (09/30/86)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MaSSAGE ***
g'Day,
Looking over the news that has passed through our site here, a great trend
seems to appear. Why is it that most of the pro comments are from females
(the ones who are impregnated) and most of the anti comments are from males
(the ones who impregnate). Shouldn't dealings with/within one's own body
be dealt with by the ones who are effected? Gentlemen, you can help to
produce an unwanted child and not be inconvienced by it, not have to feel the
guilt of it, not have your body be invaded by an unwanted presence, not even
know about it. Gee fair deal huh? Don't you think if there was another
alternative it would be taken? Only in the last 50 years have most
of the world's population been talked out of simply leaving unwanted
children out to die of exposeure. Boy that's so much more humane, and cheaper.
Go ahead, loving, honorable, just members of the human race force your opinions
and moral attitudes on people in a situation you can not hope to ever
experiance. In the mean time why don't you, with the aid of the South
African Government, come up with a way go govern women so that they never
try to have an opinion or voice again. After all, what do they matter, it's
the babys and the bambis and the thumpers that we men should care about.
Greg C.
--
GregC UUCP^ (uw-beaver|fluke)!ssc-vax!gcc
ARPA^ ssc-vax!gcc@uw-beaver
SCA^ Syr Aweiodian aef Crawansdale, Earl Marshal An Tir
"Beware of a fork in the road or a knife in the water, or for that matter
any Polish film with subtitles...."
_The Profit_
Kehlog Albran
(*I standard_disclaimer.IPAS *)rha@bunker.UUCP (Robert H. Averack) (10/01/86)
In article <888@ssc-vax.UUCP> gcc@ssc-vax.UUCP (Greg Croasdill [KSCA,GdS]) writes: >*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MaSSAGE *** > >g'Day, > > >Looking over the news that has passed through our site here, a great trend >seems to appear. Why is it that most of the pro comments are from females >(the ones who are impregnated) and most of the anti comments are from males >(the ones who impregnate). Shouldn't dealings with/within one's own body >be dealt with by the ones who are effected? Gentlemen, you can help to >produce an unwanted child and not be inconvienced by it, not have to feel the >guilt of it, not have your body be invaded by an unwanted presence, not even >know about it. Gee fair deal huh? Don't you think if there was another >alternative it would be taken? Only in the last 50 years have most >of the world's population been talked out of simply leaving unwanted >children out to die of exposeure. Boy that's so much more humane, and cheaper. > >Go ahead, loving, honorable, just members of the human race force your opinions >and moral attitudes on people in a situation you can not hope to ever >experiance. In the mean time why don't you, with the aid of the South >African Government, come up with a way go govern women so that they never >try to have an opinion or voice again. After all, what do they matter, it's >the babys and the bambis and the thumpers that we men should care about. > BRAVO, GREG, BRAVO! I left your entire posting to make sure that it is read at least one more time. I made a similar posting about two weeks ago, and I applaud your offering. Maybe if more men start to think like us, newsgroups like this will no longer be needed and both men and women can enjoy a new age of sexual responsibility, mutual trust and strong families. Come on, you guys. I know there are more of you out there who feel as Greg and I do. Speak up, and let's squelch the insensitive voices of those who, as Greg has said, will never truly know the experience. To you women, keep the faith. Together, we'll withstand the clinic bombings, political subterfuging and emotional duress imposed by so-called "right-to- lifers" (whose life?), both male and female. Bob Averack. -- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (Bob Averack @ Bunker Ramo/Olivetti) {decvax!, ittatc!, philabs!} ! ! ! ! ## "Okay, you workstations, start USENET: bunker!rha ! ! #oo# singing....." UUCP: bunker!/usr/spool ! ! ###### /uucppublic/rha ! ! ##\/## "This LAN is your LAN, OFFLINE: 35 Nutmeg Dr. ! ! ###### this LAN is my LAN..." Trumbull, CT 06611 ! ! L L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (10/01/86)
In article <888@ssc-vax.UUCP> gcc@ssc-vax.UUCP (Greg Croasdill [KSCA,GdS]) writes: >Looking over the news that has passed through our site here, a great trend >seems to appear. Why is it that most of the pro comments are from females >(the ones who are impregnated) and most of the anti comments are from males >(the ones who impregnate). Just nearsightedness on your part. There are lots of pro-choice men, and lots of pro-life women. The net is hardly a representative sampling of the world in general. You are a counter-example to your own observation. >Shouldn't dealings with/within one's own body >be dealt with by the ones who are effected? Rather, shouldn't both positions be evaluated on their merits, rather than on who happens to hold them? >Gentlemen, you can help to >produce an unwanted child and not be inconvienced by it, not have to feel the >guilt of it, not have your body be invaded by an unwanted presence, not even >know about it. Abortion could make it even easier for a man to help produce an unwanted child and not feel guilty about it. "So what if you get pregnant? Just have an abortion." Maybe that's why so many *men* are pro-choice -- it lets them go about impregnating women without having to consider the potential result. And if the woman doesn't want an abortion, then that's her choice, not the man's. I really don't see how abortion has lessened the problem of irresponsible men. Nor do I see its relevance to whether the pro-choice or the pro-life position is valid. >Gee fair deal huh? Don't you think if there was another >alternative it would be taken? I get it -- the pro-choice position is that there is no choice. >Only in the last 50 years have most >of the world's population been talked out of simply leaving unwanted >children out to die of exposure. Boy that's so much more humane, and cheaper. Sure, kill 'em before anyone sees 'em. That's so much cleaner, and cheaper. Economics is one of the main arguments used in favor of abortion -- if it really were cheaper to "simply leave unwanted children out to die of exposure," would you support that option also? If not, then there must be something more important than money. Only in the last 100 years (or so) have most of the world's population been talked out of holding slaves. What has the age of an idea to do with its validity? (Stuff about South Africa totally irrelevant, and therefore deleted.) Gary Samuelson
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (10/01/86)
In article <1212@bunker.UUCP> rha@bunker.UUCP (Robert H. Averack) writes: >BRAVO, GREG, BRAVO! I left your entire posting to make sure that it is read >at least one more time. That doesn't work; and it just costs more money. Do you really think that people are going to read something twice, just because it is posted twice? >I made a similar posting about two weeks ago, and I >applaud your offering. Maybe if more men start to think like us, newsgroups >like this will no longer be needed and both men and women can enjoy a new age >of sexual responsibility, mutual trust and strong families. How does abortion on demand promote responsibility, mutual trust, and strong families? >Come on, you guys. I know there are more of you out there who feel as Greg >and I do. So much for the observation that men are pro-life and women are pro-choice. >Speak up, and let's squelch the insensitive voices of those who, >as Greg has said, will never truly know the experience. An explicit appeal to have your views prevail by overwhelming the opposition by sheer volume. >To you women, keep the faith. Together, we'll withstand the clinic bombings, Two gross overgeneralizations. Not all women are pro-choice, and not all pro-lifers bomb clinics, or approve of those who do. >political subterfuging and emotional duress imposed by so-called "right-to- >lifers" (whose life?), both male and female. "So-called?" I have no problem referring to your position as pro-choice; why do you insinuate that all who are pro-life are insincere? No doubt some are; no doubt some pro-choicers are insincere. No doubt none of us are 100% consistent 100% of the time. In what way do you think I am insincere in my position? Gary Samuelson
rha@bunker.UUCP (Robert H. Averack) (10/01/86)
At the beginning of this follow-up, I would like to point out that Gary and I work for the same organization. Therefore, I will be the first to suggest that we try and debate this offline and not tie up the net. Now, I'll begin. In article <1214@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >In article <1212@bunker.UUCP> rha@bunker.UUCP (Robert H. Averack) writes: > >>BRAVO, GREG, BRAVO! I left your entire posting to make sure that it is read >>at least one more time. > >That doesn't work; and it just costs more money. Do you really think that >people are going to read something twice, just because it is posted twice? > Yes, Gary, I think they will. >>I made a similar posting about two weeks ago, and I >>applaud your offering. Maybe if more men start to think like us, newsgroups >>like this will no longer be needed and both men and women can enjoy a new age >>of sexual responsibility, mutual trust and strong families. > >How does abortion on demand promote responsibility, mutual trust, and >strong families? > Abortion provides a means of avoiding an unwanted pregnancy, hence, unwanted child, hence, strong family, composed of the parent(s) and those children who are truly wanted and loved. In addition, men, irrespective of their feelings about abortion, must face their culpability head-on and respect the rights of their partners. Abortion, by itself isn't enough. But abortion is required, along with proper precaution and respect for the sovereign right of every woman to choose what occurs within her own body. >>Come on, you guys. I know there are more of you out there who feel as Greg >>and I do. > >So much for the observation that men are pro-life and women are pro-choice. > I think we need to discuss (offline) what you interpret Greg's and my remarks to mean. Your comments indicate to me that you do not understand. Greg noted an abundance of male, anti-choice postings on the net, along with an equal abundance of female, pro-choice postings. That's all he said. What Greg and I have also said is that no man can ever have the empathy with a woman in sexual/procreative matters. Quite simply, men are not women. Therefore, each man (myself included) is impertinent when he offers opinions on such intimate subjects. What transcends all of this, though, is the need for men to finally give women the respect that they are inalienably entitled to. >>Speak up, and let's squelch the insensitive voices of those who, >>as Greg has said, will never truly know the experience. > >An explicit appeal to have your views prevail by overwhelming the >opposition by sheer volume. > Gee whiz, Gary, I suppose you could call us a "moral majority". >>To you women, keep the faith. Together, we'll withstand the clinic bombings, > >Two gross overgeneralizations. Not all women are pro-choice, and not all >pro-lifers bomb clinics, or approve of those who do. > Your absolutely right, Gary, not all x are y. Now, am I correct in assuming that you do not approve of the clinic bombings? >>political subterfuging and emotional duress imposed by so-called "right-to- >>lifers" (whose life?), both male and female. > >"So-called?" I have no problem referring to your position as pro-choice; >why do you insinuate that all who are pro-life are insincere? No doubt >some are; no doubt some pro-choicers are insincere. No doubt none of us >are 100% consistent 100% of the time. In what way do you think I am >insincere in my position? > >Gary Samuelson Well, Gary me boy, I think you are insincere by assigning "life" to the fetus and then placing that "life" above the life of the mother. By the way, do you remember who it was who coined the quote "if men could become pregnant, then abortion would be a sacrement"? Now, you made your point and I made my counter-point. Let's spare the net a long-winded dialog and take it offline, okay? Thanks, Bob Averack. -- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (Bob Averack @ Bunker Ramo/Olivetti) {decvax!, ittatc!, philabs!} ! ! ! ! ## "Okay, you workstations, start USENET: bunker!rha ! ! #oo# singing....." UUCP: bunker!/usr/spool ! ! ###### /uucppublic/rha ! ! ##\/## "This LAN is your LAN, OFFLINE: 35 Nutmeg Dr. ! ! ###### this LAN is my LAN..." Trumbull, CT 06611 ! ! L L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
marco@andromeda.UUCP (the wharf rat) (10/03/86)
In article <1213@bunker.UUCP>, garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: > > Rather, shouldn't both positions be evaluated on their merits, rather > than on who happens to hold them? > NO. I've always thought that men should not have any say in abortion laws. It's always easy to make laws for someone else to live with; just like the way rich people make all the tax laws- who gets the shaft ? > > I get it -- the pro-choice position is that there is no choice. > No choice but pro-choice !! :-) > > Sure, kill 'em before anyone sees 'em. > No, kill 'em before they're alive. Wait, how can you kill something that's not alive in the first place ? Guess I mean "terminate" or wait, I've got it, ABORT them before they turn into babies ! > What has the age of an idea to do > with its validity? > Sometimes nothing, sometimes lots. Still believe the world's flat ? W.rat $ kill -9 baby kill: no such process