NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48555

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 7.5 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48555 soc.men:19575 alt.dads-rights:2646
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!sdd.hp.com!nobody
From: [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 19 Nov 1992 09:36:26 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Lines: 150
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Karl Denninger) writes:

>The Right to Life crowd would like you to believe, however, that your right
>to kill an unborn child ended when it was conceived, as that unborn child
>has rights too, and you can no more kill it than you can force a separation
>of siamese twins.

Yeah, they probably would like me to believe that the world is flat, too.
Doesn't mean that the belief makes any sense or that we must, through force
of law, act in accordance with the belief.

>I am asking women, and men, to consider that the "mine! mine! mine!" argument
>is sexist and unnecessary.  It is unreasonably hostile to half the population.
>It is not in your best interest.  There are other interpretations available.

Sure, there are some that are 'available'.

However, since a pregnancy arguably involves a womans body, and only a woman's
body, I don't see why it should be thrown out of consideration as justification
for what action a woman may or may not take on her own body because you don't
feel it is politically 'correct' to make note of the biological difference.
Sure, it doesn't serve your view of the rights streams, but then, not every-
one agrees with your view of the rights streams.....

>When (not if) science can manage to abort a fetus and keep it >alive< do you
>then support that a woman who becomes pregnant, and aborts the fetus, should
>STILL remain liable for the child which WILL results?

Yup.

Now, as you note:

>for the cost (exhorbitant I'm sure) of providing an artificial placental
>attachment point and gestational unit?  After all, the PHYSICAL SOVERIEGNTY
>issue evaporates when that becomes possible.  With the pace of medical
>science I give it 10-20 years before this is possible -- or perhaps sooner.

because of exhorbitant costs, I don't believe this will become a common
practice, and I don't believe that the legislators will make it become a
common practice for the simple reason that it would bankrupt our country.
So, I don't much worry about this particular outcome.

But it brings us back to the point of child-support enforcment, and the
question of what are the current laws FOR.  They are FOR the benefit of
the child, and both parents (BOTH) are presumed to be serving that best
interest.  If we can bring fetuses to term in a test tube, the family
services act remains in force, because it still requires parents to per-
form to benefit the child.  No new laws required.

Society *has* to make some default assumptions, you know.

>BTW, some religious right-wing scientist is going to have a field day with
>this one.  I bet this research is going on right now.  After all, this is
>the scientific "magic bullet" that makes the entire "abortion is murder"
>argument disappear.

I personally would *love* it.  I just couldn't sit through another pregnancy,
but a third child would make me a happy woman.

>Yes it is.  One must look at the effect of a right, not just the supposed
>definition of "why" someone has it.

I think this is entirely ass backward.

Take the right to free speach.  If the 'effect' of that right were negative,
would we decide people 'ought not' to have it?  I don't think so.

>I respectfully disagree.  It is, the sexism is a deliberate product of the
>method in which women decided to get the right to reproductive freedom in
>the first place, and women have been guarding that gate from male entry for
>20 years.

I do not understand your point here.  Did women deliberately decide that
women, and only women, would be capable of gestating young?


>Yes you have.  The one which I posted.  The one which I will post again.

I don't believe that the proposal you posted serves our social fabric, though
I haven't seen an economic analysis of it, true enough.  I think that it would
leave children flapping in the breeze.

>This, in fact, is a >win< for the children -- the people the law is supposed
>to protect.  It is unarguable that kids are better off when they're not used
>as prybars in divorce proceedings.  Splitting custody 50-50, awarding no
>support to either party (you got the kids half the time, you got half the
>expense too) and placing HEAVY penalties on baseless assertions of abuse or
>obstruction of custody are all in the best interests of kids.  But it is not
>in the best interests of women.

I think this is fine as far as it goes.  But it fails entirely to address
the *new* loopholes that your 'fix' creates.

>>Ah.  You imply that you know of multiple men who have some reason to take
>>action on this front.  Which in turn implies that this concern is a 'real'
>>concern, as opposed to merely more convenient rhetoric to oppose abortion.
>>Perhaps you can help us out here on this by giving us any supporting data
>>you may have on how 'big' the 'problem' is?
>
>You have a rapidly growing group of anti-choice people.  More men than
>women are involved in this movement.  One might stop and think of the
>reasons.  Hint: It isn't all religious fanatacism.

Scuse, please, but I asked for supporting data.

>I would prefer that men take a step up the ladder.  However, if women won't
>give us a hand up we could decide to yank women down a step or two instead.

So, we see that we didn't misinterpret your statement at all, Karl?
If you can't have your own version of a flawed system, you are going to
make sure it costs someone else somewhere something?

>>>I say that if a man's choice ends when his zipper falls, so shall a woman's.
>>Please remind me again on how to interpret this comment, because I really
>>wouldn't care to misrepresent you.
>I think it is self-explanatory.
>>Would you or would you not vote to revoke a woman's right to abort?
>Under the present cirucmstances - yes - with much regret.   Only by being
>willing to vote in this fashion will women see that I am quite serious about
>this issue.

So, if we don't play by your rules, you take your ball and go home.

REGARDLESS of the fact that some of the assumptions you base your argument
upon are flawed.  REGARDLESS of the fact that you have yet to support your
contention that there is a *real* problem.  REGARDLESS of the fact that you
don't support your allegations of either the downside or the upside with
any substantive analysis.....

>My >preference< would be to vote YES to a different proposal -- one which
>guarantees reproductive rights for both genders.

Noted.  Not with a whole lot of enthusiasm, since we also note that if you
don't get what you want, you'll turn on us like a dog.

>Too bad women see it as an "absolute" right based on the wrong principle.

What exactly is wrong about the principle, Karl?

>Fact is that most abortions in this country today are for reasons of birth
>control -- "aka" reproductive freedom.  Darn few are due to bodily-health
>decisions, or rape/incest.  An alarming number of them are performed as
>>primary< birth control.  This is not a "my body, my choice" issue -- its
>a "I don't want a(nother) child at this time" issue.

Does being pregnant involve the woman's body or not, Karl?  What is faulty
about the principle, Karl?

Adrienne Regard