NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/58530

Text File | 1993-01-29 | 5.8 KB | 172 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!acolman
From: [e-mail] (Alison Colman)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <1993Jan15.233521. <[e-mail]
 <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 05:30:46 GMT
Lines: 155

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] write
:
>[e-mail] (Alison Colman) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ()
r
>>tes:
>>>
>>>Has anyone considered the following hypothesis:
>>>
>>>Could it be possible that the availability of abortion may influence
>>>partners to be less careful with contraception?  Could it not then
>>>ALSO be possible that were abortion proscribed, these same partners wo
l
>
>>>begin being MORE careful than they were previously?  Could this not
>>>then reduce the 1.5 million unwanted pregnancies per year that WOULD
>>>have resulted in an abortion?
>>>
>>>With respect to at least my first question, Sandra Day O'Connor seems
>>>to think so.
>>>
>>>
>>>Have a nice day,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers
>>>
>
>
>>(I am new to nyx and new to rn, so please bear with me if the attributi
ns
>>are off, or if this article is somewhat hard to read. I'm still getting
>>the hang of this.) This article is in response to edward Simmons' artic
e,
>>which should be above.
>
>>As to whether the availibility of abortion will influence the sexual
>>behavior of people in this country, it's pretty hard to predict. I know
>>for myself, if abortion was made illegal in Pennsylvania, it wouldn't b

>>much of a problem for me to go to Maryland to have an abortion. Yes, it
>>might make me wary about having sex -- then again, it might not make mu
h
>>of a difference. I know myself I would be extremely careful about using
>>effective birth control, regardless of the availability of abortion. So

>>sorry to disappoint you, Edward. Making abortion illegal would not make
me
>>have sex less, personally.
>
>I couldn't care less how much sex you have.  All I care about is that
>you do it responsibly.
>
You shouldn't care at all one way or another, in my opnion.

>>Of course, this is assuming that my sexual habits are any of your
>>business. Which they aren't.
>
>I must wonder why you assume I am in the least bit interested in your
>sexual habits.  As long as you aren't hurting anybody... what you do
>is your business.

That's right. I haven't hurt anyone thus far. As to why I assume you are
interested in my sexual habits, I think it's because you said that "all
you care about is that I do it responsibly". To me, that is showing some
sort of interest in my sexual behavior.

>
>>Going by what you said, can I reasonably assume that you are greatly in
>>favor of all forms of contraceptives being easily obtainable, and
>>inexpensive? As it stands now, some of the most effective forms of birt

>>control, such as Norplant, are not available to me. I am not poor enoug

>>to get Norplant through any public assistance program, but at the same
>>time, I am not really able to drop $800-$900 dollars for an exam and a
>>Norplant implantation. And due to the nature of my employment, I don't
>>have health insurance right now. I would really like some of this to
>>change. I would like Norplant, the Pill, and Depo-Provera to be cheaper

>>and I would like to be able to get health insurance at a reasonable cos
.
>>Is this something you would like too, Edward?
>

>I don't think Norplant would do me much good, quite frankly.  I would
>suggest to you that you go look up "free market" and "capitalist society
.

You know exactly what I was asking. I was explaining why it is hard for me
to get the kind of birth control I would like to have.


>
>>In the meanwhile, though, what would you say to someone like me? Would
ou
>>have the gall to tell me that I shouldn't be having any sex because I
>
>EXCUSE ME?  You had better show me where I said you shouldn't have sex,
>because if I haven't you have blatantly slandered me.  What I said

I can't show you. You deleted the article that I responded to.


>is the availability of abortion may lower the use of OTHER contraceptive
>methods (ie. Condoms, etc...).

I don't agree with this at all. If you would like to convince me that this
is indeed true, I would like to see some documented statistics.


>
>>can't afford the best birth control out there? And I would rather not h
ar
>>you say to me, "there are lots of other things to do besides intercours
",
>>as if I wasn't aware of that fact. If I want to have intercourse, it is
>>not within anyone's right to tell me I shouldn't. Not to mention that I
>>think that would be a really snotty motive for making abortion illegal
-
>>to try to curb the sexual habits of others.
>
>Ms. Colman, you'd better learn a little net-etiquette.  Did I say anythi
g
>about how what modes of sex you should have?  You owe me at least

Not to me, personally. But then again, I wasn't under the impression that
you were interested as to whether women who obtained abortions do it
doggy-style or missionary. I have a sneaking suspicion that you are trying
to twist my words around.


>two apologies now.
>
No, I don't owe you anything, you nasty man.


>>Alison (no .sig yet! :-))
>
>>[e-mail], Alison [e-mail]
>
>Have a nice day,
>
>
>Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers, now understands what net.clueless
is

Net etiquette, indeed.

Alison Colman'
[e-mail]

P