NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/52870

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52870 soc.men:21768
Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!news.bbn.com!spcb.bbn.com!RMCEWEN
From: [e-mail] (Regis McEwen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men
Subject: RE: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: 23 Dec 1992 22:20:23 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcb.bbn.com


    [I'm replying to these two groups, only, because I don't get (and
    therefore my posting software doesn't me to specify) alt.dads-rights
    but I''d appreciate if someone would forward it to that group for
    completeness]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>In a previous article, [e-mail] (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>Just take a quick look at the Pro-Lifers.  Every time I've seen a demo on
>>>TV, the spokesMAN for the group is just that, a man.  The leaders of the
>>>local Pro-life group are local businessMEN.  When you see picketers at the
>>>local clinics, a large percentage of the group are men.
>>>
>>>Yep, looks like a large percentage of the Pro-life leaders are men, all right!
>>
>>Why is that surprising?
>>
>>As long as women insist on having all the reproductive rights, and sticking
>>men with all the bills, you should expect that a goodly number of men will
>>take the other side of this issue out of self-defense!
>
>This is really bizzare logic.  If pro-lifers ever managed to get abortions
>outlawed, a LOT more men would be stuck with bills.  If not getting stuck with
>bills is your goal, doesn't it make more sense to do what you can to gain
>reproductive rights for men, instead of focusing on trying to take away
>reproductive rights from women?


    Perhaps, but ironically, their problem might stand a better chance
    of being addressed if abortions *were* outlawed, even if that isn't
    one of their other goals.

    Keep in mind that if abortions were outlawed, the problems that
    these men face will be more common place and therefore will affect
    the "common man".

    It's not until these problems affect the "common man" and the people
    who care about them and are otherwise affected -- whether it be their
    sisters, mothers, brothers, fathers, new girlfriends, so-to-be wives
    or current-new-wives wanting or already having their own family,etc --
    that more people will understand their problem UP-CLOSE-AND-PERSONAL
    and, as a society, try to seek a compromise.  And, if abortion were
    outlawed, it would almost be guaranteed that a lot more people would
    be affected as there are currently and might therefore be interested.

    As more and more people are affected, this would make more people
    sympathic to their situation,  instead of people saying that "this
    isn't something I can identify with it's just something I heard about
    from a friend-of-a-friend/mens rights group/read about on the net/etc
    and besides, it hasn't happened    to me or anyone I know".

    What would happen if it was now affecting your family, your neighbor,
    your friend, your co-worker and to people in *your* everyday life?
    Imagine what might happen if it started affecting your city councilor,
    your legislator, your state repesentative, your governor as well as
    the lawyers and the judges in *your* area?


    Unfortunately, sometimes things have to get worse to get better.


                            -Regis