NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/49198

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-22 | 3.5 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49198 soc.men:19808 alt.dads-rights:2694
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!news
From: [e-mail] (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:16:52 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Lines: 60
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: netslip63.watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>
>>>the abortion argument is about reproductive freedom for *women*.
>>
>>If a woman got pregnant, and was unable to get an abortion, would not the
>>man be forced to become a father just as much as the woman would be forced
>>to become a mother?
>
>The woman has the legal freedom to choose in one case, but not the other.
>
>The man has no legal freedom to choose in either case.

But, assuming the couple wanted to get an abortion, the man is worse off as
well as the woman if abortion were illegal.

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In <robert.722307483@labyrinth> [e-mail] (Robert Coleman) writes:
>
>>Not *just* "in a different way".  Worse in a new way, and just as bad as
>>before in the other ways.  It's not saying, "If I can't make it better for
>>me, I'll make it worse for you."  It's saying, "If I can't make it better
>>for me, I'll make it worse for *both of us*."  That's what I think is stupid.
>>You're either making idle threats, or you're prepared to "cut off your nose
>>to spite your face".
>
>Actually, the idiom isn't really appropriate:  one is prepared to
>cut off someone else's nose.

It *is* appropriate, because it will hurt many men, also.

>And I'd think the comment is, more accurately, "If you won't help
>me find a solution for everybody because you're satisfied with an
>unfair status quo in your favor, I'll remove your advantage."

I don't see it that way.  (See below.)

>>>       It's not mine, though.  I'm pro-choice; but I'm also open-eyed enough
>>>to recognize that as long as choice for women is a bad deal for men, there
>>>will be men who fight it.
>>
>>Choice for women is not a bad deal for men.  Lack of choice for men is a
>>bad deal for men.  Taking away additional choice from everyone helps nobody.
>
>Choice for women -only- is a bad deal for men.

Taking away additional choice from everyone helps nobody.

I don't disagree that the current situation is a bad deal for men.  If you
say, "Help me make the world a better place", I'm behind you.  If you say,
"Help me make the world a better place, or I'll kill these widows and orphans",
I'll think you're pretty sick and need to be stopped regardless of whether or
not I think your cause is good.

I see taking away choice as hurting *everyone*, both men and women (although
women more).  Do you agree?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)