Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    This also means that they did not feel that the embryos had
    rights independant of the parent's wishes, i.e. they weren't
    separate human beings.

It would be fascinating to see this brought to the Supreme Court, but I doubt
it will go that far.  I wonder what Tennessee's laws on abortion are like.

			Steve

    I heard an opinion that said the judge's opnion was based on state law.
    The Supreme Court would have to find flaws in the state law or the
    interpretation of the state law before it could overturn the ruling.
    
    ed

There are a couple of interesting aspects of this case.  As one of the
previous noters mentioned the newspaper story I read indicated that the
court issued a narrow ruling based entirely on Tennessee state law and
the state constitution, making it extremely unlikely to be appealed to
the US courts.  The court ruling indicates that a man cannot be made a
father against his wishes (the ruling cited something like a person's
"rights to reproductive autonomy").  One would hope that other courts 
find this a suitable precedent to overturn anti-abortion laws which 
would force a woman to become a mother against her wishes.  If men can't
be forced into parenthood, neither should women be able to be forced.

DougO

    There is one more level before this becomes challenged. That is the
    federal level. Till then its still a challenge to be over turned in
    another month. It still is a landmark decision. And its kinda a strange
    turn in the way our system is thinking. One never know from week to
    week around these parts.

How is it a landmark decision?  What standing does it have outside Tennessee?

    re:.4
    
    There's one big difference here - the embyros are frozen and not
    growing.  Not the same as a fertilized egg that is dividing and
    growing from the moment of conception.

actually, the court in this case referred to these as "pre-embryos".
Evidently they're still at the 4-8 cell stage, not even embryos yet.
Clearly past the 'moment of conception', though.  So you're saying
that the way you read this court ruling it means that people can't 
be coerced into becoming parents if and only if the development has 
been suspended?  Stopped with the possibility of restarting?  I think
your reading of the case, if that is an accurate summary, is too narrow.
I'd like to see more details about the referenced "rights to reproductive 
autonomy"; it could be far more powerful than you suggest.

DougO

    I'm not trying to read the specifics of the case (even if I knew
    them), but I can easily imagine how some people could reason that
    since it's not growing, it's not really alive, so it's not really
    a "pre-born" and thus this situation is not related to a pregnant
    woman carrying a growing zygote/embryo/fetus.

    
    
    re -1
    
    Mike I think the only thing realy that is similar with respect
    to a woman who is pregnant is that the same right to decide
    when she will or will not become a parent is not the state's
    decision to make.  If a man in Tennessee can not be forced
    to become a father, then there is no way that a woman in this
    state could also be forced to become a parent by the state.
    With the basis of the rulings being on the right to privacy.

    
    Why was he being forced into fatherhood in the first place ?
    Was the woman doing this ? In that case then why ?
    
    JN.

Will this become known as the landmark "Leggo-My-Eggo" case?

-stephen

    I love it!! GREAT on Stephen! Hey! Leggo-My-Eggo!!! :)

>    Why was he being forced into fatherhood in the first place ?
>    Was the woman doing this ? In that case then why ?

 If I recall correctly, they stockpiled fertilized eggs when they were married.
Upon the divorce, the man wanted the fertilized eggs destroyed, and
the woman wanted "custody" of them, with the right to implant them and
then go after the father for support for his "children."

    
    re: .14 Thanks.
    
    Only in America eh ?
    
    JN.

Re: .14

You almost had it right.  The woman didn't want to go after her ex for
support, but clearly he was concerned about the possibility.  He also didn't
want to be the father of a child he had no part in raising, which I can
certainly sympathize with.  Then, the woman decided she would donate the
embryos to an infertile couple, but that was also objected to.

Isn't modern technology wunnerful? :-)

				Steve

    I find this to be the beginning of a possible solution to a long
    standing problem and wonder how far this can go. There are thousands of
    men who have been forced by the coarts to take on the financial burden
    of a womans decision to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. 
    Case in point.
    A friend met a woman about four years ago and had sexual relations with
    her under the impression she was using contraceptives. Come to find out
    she wasn't and became pregnant. He explained to her he wasn't ready for
    kids and she signed a notorized agreement freeing him from her decision
    to bring this child into the world. Just recently she sued him for
    child support. The judge threw the agreement out of coart because he
    felt she signed it under duress. The woman has a choice of either
    having a child or not but the man has to live with her decision. The
    paternity laws in this state and most other states state that the
    childs best interest over-rules the fathers or mothers. 
    
    I have nothing against kids. I love them dearly as I am a single father
    and would do anything for my son. I just feel a child has a right to
    two willing parents and if both parties are not committed then the
    responsibilities should not be imposed on the unwilling parent. I don't
    think abortion is right and should be avoided at all costs. Accidents
    do happen and will. If a woman wants to have a child against the mans
    wishes she has to be willing to tow the line financially as well. As it
    stands today she can walk into AFDC and screw the guy to the wall
    because the state doesn't want the financial burden either and goes
    after the "biological" father. If these woman knew they would be on
    their own financially you'd see a lot less of these illegitimate births
    happenning. 
    
    dan d
    
    

>I don't
>    think abortion is right and should be avoided at all costs. Accidents
>    do happen and will. If a woman wants to have a child against the mans
>    wishes she has to be willing to tow the line financially as well.

 What if she doesn't want to have the baby either? If she can't have an
abortion, what choice does she have?

    
    re .18
    
    However, right now *she* has the best of both worlds.  She can
    have the baby if *she* decides and stick him witht he support, or
    *she* can have an abortion if *she* decides and if he wants the
    baby he can do nothing.   
    
    If abortion were illegal, then *both* parents should be responsible.
    If abourion is going to be legal, I think it is also immoral to give 
    the man **no** choice in *either* decision.
    
    fred();

    I guess what bothers me about the whole show is that there is these
    options for women. And we have it open to women who are receiving
    social services and I know of a former tenant who is 21 and working on
    her third child by causal acquaintance. 

    We are all paying for her, we are all paying for her beau to father
    this child and no one is chasing him around as they do with the working
    class fathers. I am galled because we are fostering people to be
    irresponsible when we have a court and social system to indoctrinate
    responsibility of children weather or not they are the product of the
    paying father. And this paying father is a working class stiff. And
    this former tenant who has a beau, doesn't work, drifts, and lived with
    her, the tenant, illegally and our DHYS did nothing when it was
    reported by the landlord, and the real estate company that was over
    looking the whole deal. 

   	This case started because the woman wanted to use an egg herself
    after she and her husband were separated. I read this story with
    fascination when it first came out. The lower courts gave her custody
    but would not allow implantation until he had an opportunity to appeal.
    	She met the man to whom she is now married and they decided that
    they would not use the eggs themselves but were willing to "donate"
    them to childless couples. 
    	The donate part hit the former husband because a single mother
    could become pregnant and he would be the biological father, and be
    responsible for support under Tennessee law. He filed a third appeal
    claiming that he would be forced to be a father against his will, have
    no knowledge of the life that the child would be subject and he could 
    be sued by the child later in life.
    
    	The implication is that no one should be forced to become a parent, 
    but that can be pushed in two directions. One would be that any means
    necessary to prevent parenthood would be acceptable. For prochoice 
    folks it would seem a victory, but the backside of the sword is much 
    worse......a man would have the right to terminating a pregnancy that
    HE didn't want, again taking the choice away from women. The issue is
    not a simple one. I'm no lawyer but I see this more as an erosion of
    choice than anything else. All of the pro-abortionists may cheer a 
    for a brief moment, but they would quickly become anti-choice the
    minute a man demanded that a women abort his child. Can't have it both
    ways.....The court decision also makes a legal argument for any father
    to prevent an abortion. If a male is the biological father and the
    court has decided in favor of paternal rights, could he not sue to
    prevent a women from having an abortion under the same stature? 
    
    	This decidion will be viewed as very narrow. It will be seen as a
    model for invitrol pregnancy and possibly surragocy, but I hardly
    expect it to affect abortion rulings.....
    
    Ken 

        Did the court ruling permit the embryos to be destroyed? 
        Or did it only deny implanting them?
        
        Dan

    In my opinion:
    
    	(a) The man lost his right to decide not to become a father
    	    as soon as the eggs were fertilized
    
    	(b) That freezing and storing the fertilized eggs should be
    	    illegal

    re:.10
    
    With regards to abortion, the woman is pregnant at that point, so
    the situations are not as similar as you may think.
    
    Some will argue that the time to decide whether or not to become a
    parent is before sex, not once you're pregnant.

>        Did the court ruling permit the embryos to be destroyed? 
>        Or did it only deny implanting them?
        
It denied the woman's petition to donate them for use by a childless couple.
It denied that on the basis that use of them w/o the father's permission was
a denial of that man's rights.  Something that hasn't been mentioned yet but
that was a factor in the case was the father's own history as an adopted
child.  He had terrible concerns about knowing that his genetic children 
might be born and raised into circumstances about which he would know nothing
and over which he would have no control.  I believe that with all of these 
issues, given that the judge found for his right not to allow the pre-embryos
to be used at all, that there is no practical distinction in your questions.

DougO

.24>    Some will argue that the time to decide whether or not to become a
.24>    parent is before sex, not once you're pregnant.

      No argument here...  Don't YOU think it prudent?

        re .25,
        
>					   I believe that with all of these 
>issues, given that the judge found for his right not to allow the pre-embryos
>to be used at all, that there is no practical distinction in your questions.
        
        Being able to appeal the decision is a practical
        distinction.  Also, perhaps in time the father will
        change his mind, or the mother will outlive him, and
        eventually be able to have the embryos implanted.
        
        Dan

    Jerry
    
    Why do you think that freezing and storing fertilized eggs should
    be illegal? For couples with infertility problems, this often
    gives them several chances at pregnancy with only one in vitro
    fertilization. Since this is both expensive and difficult (for the
    woman at least) it allows for greater chances at pregnancy at
    lower cost and less risk to the mother.
    
    Bonnie

    No doubt there is a biblical passage that forbids it.

    
    > no doubt there is a biblical passage that forbids it.
    
      Nope! The Bible mostly deals with " Fruits and nuts" not eggs :-)
    
    David
     

So what happens to the embryos now?

    re: .30
    
    :^)
    
    Mike

what happens to the pre-embryos now?  newspaper this morning had a bit
about the doctor that runs the freezer where they are.  If they can't be
donated for use by some other couple, he wants 'em outta his freezer.
he won't destroy them without a court order, but he will sue the divorced
couple to force the pre-embryos to be moved.

DougO

    I can't understand why a woman would want to have a child by a man she
    is no longer married to.  I would think it would make more sense for
    her to find somebody new to have a child with.  I, also, think that
    both parents should have to agree in order for the embryos to be
    donated to an infertile couple.  I agree with the ruling.  If the guy
    doesn't want the embryos (whatever they are?) used, they shouldn't be
    able to.  It doesn't seem fair that she should be able to make the
    decision alone.
    
    Lorna
    

I can't understand why a woman would marry a man whose first name is Junior.

Lorna, she doesn't want to have a child, she wants to donate the
embryos to a childless couple.  The court refused to allow it.
I agree with the ruling, too.

DougO

Re: .36

That's what she wants now, but before she remarried, she wanted to have
the embryos implanted in herself.

		Steve

    This almost sounds like the woman is really just trying to harrass her
    ex-husband.  Not an unheard of situation, of course.
    
    Mike

    Well, if she could no longer produce eggs herself, but wanted a chance
    to bear her own biological child, that would seem a pretty good reason
    for using one of the embryos - though it would still have to be weighed
    against her ex-husband's wish not to have _his_ biological child
    born...
    
    I'll admit, it's tempting to just outlaw the whole frozen-embryo and
    test-tube stuff, just to avoid this kind of god-awful lawsuit. Not that
    I'm recommending that, mind you! ('sides, people never seem to run out
    of weird things to take each other to court about.)
    
    -b

.26>      No argument here...  Don't YOU think it prudent?
    
    Of course.
    
    But I also believe in the option to terminate an accidental or
    otherwise unwanted pregnancy before the fetus has developed into a
    living human being.

    I don't believe in accidental or unwanted pregnancies...

    Too bad disbelieving them doesn't make them go away.
    
    -b

    
    -1
    
      Touche'
    
    
    David

.41> I don't believe in accidental or unwanted pregnancies...

.42> Too bad disbelieving them doesn't make them go away.
    
It's because my wife and I don't believe in accidental or unwanted pregnancies
that WE have never had to make them go away...  This belief has resulted in US
being very happy; maybe it can work for other people as well.  

I'll tell you what I do believe: that Men and Women _together_ have the capacity
for solving ANY problem once it is defined.  This belief is my basis of HOPE for
the Future...

Don

    Please define what you mean by 
    
    	a) accidental pregnancies
    	b) unwanted pregnancies
    
    I can understand someome having a personal set of values such that the
    statement "My wife and I don not believe in unwanted pregnancies."
    forms a core part of their lives.
    
    In what kind of frame of reference to you intend to be saying
    
    "My wife and I do not believe in accidental pregnancies".
    Is there some kind of sense of "accidents don't happen, they are
    caused? And if so, is this sense a psychoanalytic sense, or is it a
    religious sense or ...
    Please elaborate
    
    
    
    				herb

    Herb
    
    You pose excellent questions and their answers are gonna take me some
    time.
    
    To be continued...

    As several people have mentioned: there really are accidental
    pregnancies; even birth control pills are not 100% effective 
    at preventing pregnancies.  Pregnancies of this sort, while
    unwanted, are also accidental.
    
    					andrew

    
    Well, while we're on the topic of disbelief, 
    
    I don't believe that everyone has the desire to have children.  Some
    people are born without it.
    
    Lisa

    yo Don

    From what I have been reading in this discussion, I think you might be
    wasting your time articulating what _you_ mean by unwanted pregnancies
    or accidental pregnancies. It seems clear that you have some strong
    philosophical/ethical/moral/religious perspectives about pregnancies.
    It is my sense that most -if not all- of the discussants in this topic
    have a much more pedestrian view of accidents. And a much _less_
    spiritually connected frame of reference with respect to deciding
    that a particular pregnancy is unwanted.
    I think your answers to the 'questions' I posed would be turning this
    conversation into another ethical battle about abortions or another
    religious battle about causality or another psychological battle about
    'freundian slips', or another ethical discussion about free will.
    Did you intend to be changing the discussion in such a fashion?
    
    				herb

    
    
    -1  
    
      PEDESTRIAN!!!!!
    
      Sorry if were not up there with you and the other great philo's
    of the past " Herb Socrates jr " :-)
    
    
    D

    in this case, my values _are_ the 'pedestrian' values.
    

    
    > that most if not all
    
     Gosh sounds real personalized to me :-)
    
    
    d

    
    
    
    				:-)

.49> Did you intend to be changing the discussion in such a fashion?

     Sorry, no time, off to Disneyland...

    re .54
    I think you misunderstood me pretty badly.
    
    

.41>    I don't believe in accidental or unwanted pregnancies...
    
    Do you believe that rape occurs?
    
    Do you believe that birth control can sometimes fail?

    re: .23
    
    >(b) That freezing and storing the fertilized eggs should be
    	 illegal
    
    	Actually, this practice will probably become more prevalent as we
    increase our space explorations and become increasingly dependent on
    nuclear power.   Persons who work in both environments can possibly be
    exposed to various radiations.  Freezing fertilized embryos may be
    their only way to ensure having healthy children after working in
    either of these places.  Now, if a couple happens to be married and
    works in these environments, who are you to deny them the right to have
    healthy children?
    
    George
    

    	It is logical and reasonable that people working in those
    environments might want to freeze fertilised eggs. I am not sure about
    the increase in numbers, though.
    
    	The USSR (I can't be bothered to list the various parts) is now
    doing no space exploration, and without either the competition or lots
    of spare money I don't see the U.S. doing much either. The EEC is happy
    making profits selling the services of its Ariane satellite launcher to
    launch Japanese satellites.
    
    	France is the only country that is substantially dependent on
    nuclear power (70% of French electricity) and since most of the rest
    comes from hydroelectric schemes there is not much motive to increase
    that. Other countries are not increasing their use of nuclear power
    because of incidents like 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl. And apart from
    that nuclear reactors are becoming safer for the employees.
    
    	If course, if nuclear power station accidents become more common,
    then maybe *everybody* will want a few fertilised eggs stashed away in
    a refrigerator with a thick lead outside wall.

I don't believe one can effectively avoid "morality" issues by suppressing
the technology which brings them to light.

				Steve

    Why did the original couple in question, freeze fertilized eggs.
    
    If they had frozen the eggs and the sperm separatly, the question
    would have been clear cut from the beginning. To the woman her eggs 
    to the man his sperm.
    
    I belive this is the way to go for people who want to safegard
    against future infertility problems.
    
    Also, I fully agree with the courts decision, the man has just as
    much right to decide what should be done with the fertilized eggs 
    as the woman. (Altought I find it strange the way it arrived at it,
    "privacy laws ?")
    
    The hole issue is complicated by the biological and technological
    facts.  But basically it comes down to this, a man should have as
    much right to decide what happens to his genetic material as a woman 
    does to hers. If their genetic material has joined, they nothing
    should be done without the agreement of both.
    
    Gil

    Gil
    
    I believe that when the original invitro fertilization was performed
    more eggs were harvested and fertilized than were actually needed
    for an implantation. The remained were saved for a second or
    third try so as not to have to go through the process of super
    ovulation again.
    
    
    Bonnie

    Also, as I understand how in vitro fertilization works, there is a
    relatively high failure rate of implanted fertilized eggs.
    
    BTW: Are you the Gil Andrade that used to work for Sanders in Nashua,
    NH?
    
    If so, you may recall a somewhat portly fellow that worked with you.
    
    Mike Smith

.64>                   -< I'm glad SOMEONE planned my kids ;-) >-
    
    I'm glad SOMEONE is planning all those abortions, too.  ;-)
    
    Or do you invoke a higher power only for the things you like?

    I'm confused.
    
    Is this higher power responsiblle for only the good things?

    of course Mike, the rest is ��either the responsibility of 'the
    deciever' or us sinnful humans.
    
    By the way, I'm wondering how the fact that any where from 16 to 70
    percent (depending on the research you access) of all fertilized
    eggs fail to come to term in a pregnancy fits into the previous
    world view.
    
    Bonnie
    (who does believe in the higher power btw, but not that the divine
    has that sort of minute control over our lives.)

    Whether or not you invoke the divine or believe in the higher powers is
    of no consequence in this argument.  What is is the belief that human
    beings have a right to live, flourish and grow with dignity and with
    respect.
    
    Nobody knows when a human becomes a human.  The argument is that a
    foetus which has no known means of experiencing pain or pleasure or
    fear or want should be as dispensible as earwax.  The argument
    constinues that any person who believes otherwise is practising moral
    selfrighteousness.  The fact is any person who claims to know when a
    human becomes a human is making the ultimate moral judgement.  Beyond
    what is good and what is evil lies the question what is human and what
    is not.
    
    To a person who believes that an unborn child is human, the act of
    abortion is an outrage to the dignity of the state of being human.  To
    a person who believes that an unborn child is human, people who condone
    abortions are valuing the convenience of one human above the life of
    another.
    
    People believe things which are convenient to believe.  It's convenient
    on the psyche to believe that the foetus which get flushed and poisoned
    is not a real human baby.  There have been times where it was good for
    me to believe it.  But deep down I was always dragged back, by reason
    and emotion, to the fundamental premise that nobody, no matter how
    vaulted their station in life may be, no matter how respected or
    learned they are, can decide when human life begins.
    
    I don't know how this argument will end.  Maybe someday it will become
    politically correct to value human life above the right to do whatever
    you want.  Maybe someday it will be realized that to sacrifice human
    lives for the sake of convenience is not an acceptable practice in any
    society.
    
    I would not pretend to have all the answers to the questions which are
    itching to come off of fingertips all over the net.  I haven't dealt
    with issues around rape victims or victims of incest.  But the practice
    of killing foetuses is wrong.

    Kris, speaking as someone who believs a developing fetus is not
    always a living human being, I don't consider the fetus "as
    dispensable as earwax."

    I know you don't, Mike.  Your beliefs, or rather, my impression of your
    beliefs, are much more intelligent and mature than that.  My comments
    weren't directed at at you (or anyone else, for that matter). It was
    just me flailing around.

    Kris
    
    you know that I don't believe that either..
    
    Bonnie

    Gee, if "every living being" has a right to life, I'm going to have to
    seriously re-think my diet....  Now what _can_ I eat that has never
    been alive????

re .73:

Of course, it's perfectly OK to eat things that have died a natural death.
What was the name of those people in "Erewhon" (or was is "Erewhon Revisited"?)
who held that way?

    Abortionist difinition of a human being: 
    
    If its wanted its a human being if its not then its not a human being.
    
    I am not saying that it is wrong for a woman to abort, I am just saying
    that when you do you are killing a human being. And you should do it,
    with full knowledge of the fact. An embryo just like a baby if properly
    fed and cared for will eventually become an adult human being.
    
    There are natural abortions, there are artificial abortions, there are
    natural contraceptives, and there are artificial contraceptives.  What
    it comes down to is that human fertility without check can rapidily
    lead to worst things (like killing them after their are born).
    
    In some places in Africa parents don't cound any child under 5, as
    part of the familly. With their baby mortality rate they are never
    sure it will live to be 5 years old.
    
    Similary, abortinist don't count unborn unwanted embryos as part of the 
    family.  This isn't either right or wrong its just a sad fact of human 
    biology and human sensivity. 
    
    Many species of animals to similar and worst things and aren't troubled
    by human awareness and sensivity.  Its part of the price we pay for our
    intelligence.
    
    Gil

.57> Do you believe that rape occurs?

     Rape is just _one_ form of barbarism Human Beings perpetrate against one
     another.  Is rape the worst form in the eyes of the Criminal Justice
     System?

     In the case of the base note, had the decision gone the other way in that
     the woman having been granted ownership of the embryos later resulting in
     a viable pregnancy, would this have been a case of "technological rape"
     where the male was raped?  Gonna have to wait for LA LAW...
    
.57> Do you believe that birth control can sometimes fail?

     Fact: There exist techniques of birth control which are absolutely
           foolproof so as to render abortion an unnecessary alternative.

     Paradox: In the Ideal world where all children are planned/wanted, i.e.,
              no duress involved in the decision to have the child, abortion
              _must_ exist as an alternative.

.69> I don't know how this argument will end.  Maybe someday it will become
.69> politically correct to value human life above the right to do whatever
.69> you want.  Maybe someday it will be realized that to sacrifice human
.69> lives for the sake of convenience is not an acceptable practice in any
.69> society.
    
     WOW!  Wish I said that...

.75>    Abortionist difinition of a human being: 
.75>    
.75>    If its wanted its a human being if its not then its not a human being.
    
    Why doesn't anyone ASK the other side what they REALLY think before
    they start shooting from the lip with reckless abandon, spouting things
    that are just plain false?
    
    Wanted vs not wanted has nothing (repeat after me ... NOTHING) to do
    with deciding if a developing fetus is a living human being.  Is that
    clear?  I hope so.  If you need me to repeat it again, let me know.
    
    
.75>  with full knowledge of the fact. An embryo just like a baby if properly
.75>  fed and cared for will eventually become an adult human being.

    Really?  What about miscarriage, sudden infant death syndrome,
    childhood accidents, and the like?  Just between fertilization and
    delivery, there's a 33% failure rate.  One-third of all pregnancies
    end in a miscariage, entirely on their own.

.76>  Fact: There exist techniques of birth control which are absolutely
.76>        foolproof so as to render abortion an unnecessary alternative.
    
    Foolproof, eh?
    
    Are you a Catholic, by chance?
    
    Do you believe in the Virgin Mary?
    
    
    Now tell me what methods are foolproof ...

    re .76
    well, of course abstinence is one
    but techniques _is_ plural so what _others_?
    
    re .78
    oh, i see your point, Mike something like ...
    not many beside a Catholic would argue that abstinence is a foolproof
    form of birth control and you just offered a counter example for that.
    
    I guess all's fair in love, war, and debates, eh?
    
    				herb

    Mutual masturbation

This recent debate reminds me of the part of "Monty Python's Meaning of Life"
which features the song "Every Sperm is Sacred".

			Steve

    mmmmm
    
    kinda looks like the moderator is laughing at some folks.
    

Re: .82

Well, Herb, I wasn't, which I believe you know perfectly well (dammit).

Thank you for escalating the volume level.

Besides, I didn't have my moderator hat on.

			Steve

    I believed you were laughing at folks.
    I also believe your disclaimer.
    

    I believe.

I don't see why what I said needs any explanation - I meant it exactly as I
said it.  The discussion reminded me of that particular part of the Monty
Python movie.  If you'd seen it, you'd understand.

			Steve

    In the absence of information to the contrary -such as a disclaimer- 
    I feel that it is eminently reasonable to conclude that someone is
    laughing/mocking when that person suggests a discussion reminds him
    of a song "Every Sperm is Sacred". That conclusion becomes even more
    reasonable in my opinion when one notes that Monty Python is/was a
    comedian. 
    

Re: .87

It's rather obvious, Herb, that you know very little about Monty Python
nor have you seen the film in question.  Therefore I suggest you refrain
from projecting your own view of the world onto me.

			Steve

    In the absence of information to the contrary -such as a disclaimer- 
    I feel that it is eminently reasonable to conclude that someone is
    laughing/mocking when that person suggests a discussion reminds him
    of a song "Every Sperm is Sacred". That conclusion becomes even more
    reasonable in my opinion when one notes that Monty Python is/was a
    comedian. 

    
    
     I agree with Nichols. Steve you clearly were making a funny! Repent
    and sin no more. 
    
    
    David

Re: .87, .89

Is there an echo in here?  I'd better check the disk.

			Steve

    RE: .89  Herb
    
    > ...when one notes that Monty Python is/was a comedian. 
    
    Monty Python is/was a guy who owned a flying circus.
    

    Can somebody explain to me in more detail than "he owned a flying
    circus" who Monty Python is/was please. In particular, was he a
    character played by a British comic?
    
    
    				herb

    can we PLEASE get back to the topic at hand?
    
    ok, now ... naval jelly ...

    RE: .94  Herb
    
    Sorry, Herb, I didn't realize that you really weren't familiar with
    Monty Python.
    
    A group of people had a TV show in England (which played here for
    many years on PBS) called "Monty Python's Flying Circus."  No one
    in the show was called by this name, though.
    
    When the same crew did movies later, the titles had the same format
    ("Monty Python's <Meaning of Life, or whatever>").
    
    If you haven't seen "Monty Python's Flying Circus" - it's hard to
    describe.  It had skits and little films (and lotsa strange artwork,
    some of which moved on the video screen.)  Very humorous.
    
    To give you a better idea:  When the originators of Saturday Night
    Live pitched the show to NBC (back in 1975 or thereabouts,) they
    described it as a cross between Monty Python and 60 Minutes.

    I have seen "Monty Python" (probably on PBS) on television several times.
    I am embarrassed that I incorrectly believed that Monty Python was a
    person rather that the name of a TV show.
    Nevertheless, I stick with my belief that the primarly thrust of "Monty
    Python" is/was comedy whether a person or the name of a tv program.
    Furthermore, I believe it is a reasonably conclusion that if the movie
    "Monty Python's Meaning of LIfe" (name, PBS movie, BBC television,
    whatever) contained a skit that featured the song "Every Sperm is
    Sacred " title that the skit was intended as quite broad humor,
    probably caricaturization, and that indeed it was making fun of those
    who hold the opinion that each sperm is sacred.

    That view may of course not be correct. I leave that for Monty Python
    afficionados. 
				herb

    re.86
    I saw it just thinking about it has me laughing 8^)
    
    -j
    

    People who think that every sperm is sacred deserve to be made fun of.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .99, if every sperm is sacred, why isn't every life sacred?  And,
    just one quick glance in a history book or newspaper tells us that
    isn't so.
    
    Lorna
    

    eha? Navel Jelly?.... With spam?....humm.....Sounds good! Spam, spam,
    spam, spam.

    
    
    > if every sperm is sacred,why isn't every life sacred?
    > one quick glance in a history book or newspaper tells us that isn't
    
    
      Lorna,
    
       Just because history is replete with examples of mans inhumanity
    to man is not a valid arguement that life is not sacred. I don't think
    the gentleman is suggesting that sperm in and of itself is a life,but
    rather that egg/sperm time create life, and that this life is sacred.
    
    
    
    David
      

Herb, I'll be glad to add disclaimers to my notes if you add one to yours.  I
suggest something along the lines of "The opinions expressed are not really
important.  All I really want is to start a fight."


What you weren't aware of, Herb, because you hadn't seen the movie, and I
will grant that this is indeed worthy of explanation, is that though the skit
features a song "Every Sperm is Sacred", the skit is not as one-sided as you
evidently believe.  Here's pretty much how it goes.

As Monty Python often does, they took an idea and stretched things to the
point of absurdity.  On one side there was a man who comes home to his wife
and hundred or so kids.  Dad announced that he's been laid off from his
job, so in order to make ends meet, he'll have to sell the kids for medical
experiments.  He then starts talking about how he's a good Catholic and
that's why he and "Mum" have so many kids, because...  as the kids break
out into an "Oliver" style musical number, "Every sperm is sacred, every
sperm is great, if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate..."

Viewing this from across the street are an older Protestant (I think) couple
who evidently have no children.  The husband remarks about how easy it is
to buy contraceptives, the wife (as with the other couple, also played by
a male member of the troupe) looks at him and says, with interest, "Really?"
The man coughs and says "Yes, well I've heard so, if I really wanted to I
could, that is", implying that as "good Protestants" they don't have sex
at all.


Now my personal views are that I am decidedly in the "pro-choice" camp, but
I understand that those in the "pro-life" camp have their own views which I
may disagree with, but I have no intention of forcing them to have abortions
they don't want, and don't laugh at them.  I believe that every child should
be wanted by its parents.  And I support the view of the man in the case
described in the base note that he should not be forced to become a father
against his wishes.

				Steve

The Protestant couple has one child.  The husband explains to his wife that
the reason the Catholic couple has so many children is that they believe
that they must have a child for every time they have sex.  His wife points
out that they too have a child for each time they've had sex.

    
    
    Sacks,
    
      Who are you talking to?
    
    
    David

     re .69
    
    >what is is the belief that human beings have a right to life, flourish
    and grow with dignity and with respect.
    
    I believe the quality of life as being far more important than
    the right to life.  There are far too many children on this
    earth that live miserable lives which they had no play in.
    This is a major factor in women's decision to abort.  I agree
    with you that they do have a right to flourish and grow with
    dignity and with repsect.  These imo are aspects of quality of
    life.  They are the things that the born child has to live
    with.  This is where the issues direclty affect the born child
    and noone else.  
    
    >To a person who believes that an unborn child is human
    When the decision to abort is made, this really is a minor
    part.  Do you think that women who abort don't know that
    they are aborting a potential human life?  Don't you realize
    this is crystal clear?  It certainly doesnt make the decision
    any easier.  Do you refuse to understand that there actually 
    are some women who have aborted and greive over the loss?
    Not to mention the guilt trips that folks try to lay on them.
    Just because it was a choice and not a natural act does not
    lessen the pain felt and the sense of loss.  It's been well
    over seven years since I've experienced my abortion, and 
    to this day I still feel pain over it.  Yet I know in my heart,
    mind and soul that this was the best choice for the potential
    child involved.  
    
    >It's convenient on the psyche to believe that the foetus which
    get flushed and poisoned is not a real human baby.
    I believe you truly don't understand that this doesnt play
    into the picture in the manner you believe it to. 
    
    
    
    re .75
    
    >If its wanted its a human being if its not then its not human being
    
    If its wanted and is born then it is a wanted born human being, if
    it is unwanted and born then it is an unwanted born human being.
    
    >I am not saying that it is wrong for a woman to abort, I am just
    saying that when you do you are killing a human being.
    I would phrase it a little differently,but agreed the end result
    is the end of a potential born life as we know it.  
    >And you should do it with full knowledge of the fact
    Do you think women who abort don't know this??? 
    
    >Similarly, abortionist don't count unborn unwanted embryos as
    part of the family
    Says who???  If this is the case, then why do so many women
    who have had abortions continue to remember??  Don't you understand
    that is this is something that is a part of these women's lives?
    It is an event that does not just disappear.  In fact, even a few
    of the guys I know who were fathers of aborted fetus' continue
    to remember.  
    
    Michele

    re .105, he must be talking to you.  You answered him.
    
    Lorna
    

    so one imagines that most would agree that a reasonable
    interpretation of the message in the scene characterized in .103, .104
    (and alluded to in .81) seems to be something of the sort ...
    
    "both sides are pretty silly"
     
    which interpretation seems singularly consistent with my comment in .82    
    (which of course I repudiated in .84 in response to .83)
    				herb
    

Thanks, Gerald, for correcting my description of the scene.

		Steve

    RE: .108  Herb
    
    > ...so one imagines that most would agree that a reasonable
    > interpretation of the message [is] ... "both sides are pretty
    > silly"
    
    Herb, why is it necessary that the "message" in Steve's note be
    making fun of ANYONE???
    
    Perhaps it was a matter of - "I'm watching this discussion and a
    humorous scene in a movie just came to mind (and made me smile.)
    I think I'll mention it in the file..."
    
    Of course, 40 notes (or so) later (after extensive cross-examinations
    and analyses about his off-hand remark,) it may seem a bit anti-climactic.
    
    (Yo, Steve!  Your comment made me smile - I thought it was cute!)

    
    Lorna,
    
    > you answered him
    
    
      you slay me :-)
    
    
    
    David
    

>    I believe the quality of life as being far more important than
>    the right to life. 
    
    I believe you are wrong.  Nobody can morally deprive another person of
    their life because of anything to do with "quality".  Are you going to
    define what a quality life is?  And then are you going to decide which
    unborn child may or may not have that "quality".  
    
    Part of the wonder of being alive and being human is that humans can
    overcome their situations and draw out joy and fulfillment from
    adversity.  All children who are loved and cared for do not go on to
    have happy lives.  Conversely, depriving a child of a "quality"
    childhood does not condemn the person to a life of perpetual suffering.
    
    If we killed every person who could potentially have a "low quality"
    life, there would be scant few left.
    
    I do not believe that those who choose abortion do so for the good of
    the child.  That's akin to the convoluted thinking which had Christians
    killing Muslims to save them from satan.
    
>    Do you think that women who abort don't know that
>    they are aborting a potential human life?
    
    Not a potential human life.  It is a human life.
    
>    Do you refuse to understand that there actually 
>    are some women who have aborted and greive over the loss?
    
    No, I do understand that.  Every person I know who has aborted a child
    grieves because of what happened.  I feel for those who cannot come
    to peace with it and I feel for those whose lives have been affected by
    it.  But mostly I feel for those whose lives have been taken.

    re .112
    
    I couldn't have said it better.  
    fred();

    re .112
    
    >I do not believe that those who choose abortion do so for the
    good of the child.
    
    You may believe what you wish,but in many instances this is
    a large factor in the decision to abort.  Given the fact that
    abortion is an option, the quality of the life of that child
    must come into play when making the decision.  Some would look
    at the woman choosing abortion as being selfish.  In some instances
    that is true.  However, when a woman is pregnant and faced with
    the choice, i beleive she has to do what is best for the child.
    In some cases it is far better to not bring a child into this
    world, than it is to bring a child into this world.  Maybe I
    feel so strongly about this because at the same time that I
    was pregnant a friend of mine was pregnant.  She was at the time
    recently reborn again as a Christian and admittedly against abortion.
    The result of her choosing to keep the child is that now shes
    got a six year old little girl who is going to send some 
    shrinks kids through college.  This innocent little child who had
    no say in the conditions into which she was born is a messed up
    little kid.  To me that is the greater evil in this particular
    situation.  This woman purposedly lied to the father of the child
    telling him she was on the pill.  He foolishly took her word and
    the result is this poor child's life is miserable because of
    her parents (i believe mostly her moms) ignorance.  This woman
    wanted someone to love her and she thought she could get that
    from a child.  So she brought a child into the world and put
    that child into the role of her emotional support system.
    
    This child has lived in at least three different states so far.
    She has slept for two years on a mattress on the floor behind
    a dresser in her mothers bedroom.  Is this right?  Is this the
    best thing for this child?  This is child abuse, but the legal
    system is so inadequate that nothing can be done to help this
    kid out.  Yet you beleive that this child has to the right 
    to live like this?  I don't understand that at all.  
    
    
    When faced with the decisions to make, each different scenario
    has to be thought of and played out.  Most women know what type
    of life they are going to be providing for the child.  Some of
    these lives are just not acceptable.  I think it's cruel to bring
    a child into a world where it can not be given what it needs to
    grow into a well adjusted happy human being.  However, that decision
    I can only apply to my children's lives.  I can not and do not
    wish to delegate that to anyone else.  
    
    
    >But mostly I feel for those whose lives have been taken.
    So the unborn life is more important than the already born lives
    in your eyes?  
    
    

    
    re .114
    
    Would the father be willing/able to take custody of the chid and
    provide a better life?  Is the mother able to go back to school
    to get and education so she can provide a better life?  There
    are all sorts of aid programs available.  
    
    This child's problems are not caused by the fact the the mother
    did not have an abortion.  They are caused by the fact the the
    mother is not willing to live up to her responsibilities for
    her actions.
    
    IMHO abortion should not be used as an easy-out for the parents
    irresponsible actions.  If you are not willing/able to become
    a parent, then you should examine your "right" to have sex.
    
    fred();

    
    Fred(),
    
    
       The eskimoes set there babies on ice to die if the community
    is at a point where they cannot support another one. Grandparents
    voluntarily die of exposure rather than become a burden. To us this
    might seem barbaric, but I think when the whole is taken into
    consideration that actually what is done is an honorable thing. Wymyn
    today face the same questions as the eskimoes " Can I support this
    child adequetelly (sp) if not, then abortion may be the best and most
    humane(sp) option. Regarding your remark about reviewing there right to
    have sex " ACCIDENTS happen" , and at a time like this the last thing
    a woman needs is a man taking charge of the situation and orderinig
    her womb around.
    
    
    David

    
    re .116
    
>       The eskimoes set there babies on ice to die if the community
>    is at a point where they cannot support another one. Grandparents
>    voluntarily die of exposure rather than become a burden. To us this
>    might seem barbaric, but I think when the whole is taken into
>    consideration that actually what is done is an honorable thing
    
    I'd like to think that we are a bit more civilized than eskimoes.
    
>    Wymyn
>    today face the same questions as the eskimoes " Can I support this
>    child adequetelly (sp) if not, then abortion may be the best and most
>    humane(sp) option. Regarding your remark about reviewing there right to
>    have sex " ACCIDENTS happen" , and at a time like this the last thing
>    a woman needs is a man taking charge of the situation and orderinig
>    her womb around.
    
    And this should be taken into account when deciding to have sex,
    *not* when deciding to have an abortion.
    
    fred();

    
    
    > I'd like to think we are a bit more civilzed than the eskimoes
    
      Yes I suspect you would like to. 
    
    
    David

    
    
    > and this should be taken into consideration when deciding to have sex
    
       Yeah sure Fred. Heres the scenario
    
    
    Male: Girl if we do engage in sexual intercourse tonight I suggest
       we first discuss what we will do if the preventive measures we 
       have taken fail.
    
    Girl: Yes boy I agree, lets  get form 1226 (pre-sexual agreement)and
    examine paragraph 36 section A thru Z ( Reading out loud) Herien to
    wit sperm having beaten the odds and fertilized egg must be allowed
    to continue on unmolested by the below mentioned.
    
    1.) Reality shall have no bearing in the decision to carry to term.
    2.) All the dreams and hopes of a life shall be forfeited because
        it's better to have pleased the moral majority than live your 
        own life.
    
        ETC ETC
    
    
    David

>    Not a potential human life.  It is a human life.
    
    No, not a human life.  It is a potential human life.
    
    Ray

    
    Hmmm .. how to play both sides of the fence
    
    
    re. 112
    
    I agree I couldn't have said it better ... that doesn't my pro-choice
    stand one bit
    
    
    re. 114
    
    I couldn't disagree more; IMO a classic case of blaming (and killing
    the victum) ... that doesn't change my pro-choice stand one bit either.
    
    Greg
    

    reply .119
    
    I read this as saying that we really *don't* have control over our
    sexual drives.  A lot of "date-rape" advocates are going to be
    really disappointed in that.
    
    fred();

    
    
    Fred()
    
      I've seen some severe Straw man" arguements before, but yours takes
    the case. Lets dissect it just for the fun of it.
    
     David says( abrr) people are not going to stop and fill discuss
    abortion vs term option prior to having safe sex.
    
     In Freds head
    
         If people cannot discuss the abortion vs term option prior to
    sexual intercourse they
    
    A.) Really  *don't* have control of their sexual drives(on automotic i
    guess)
    
    B.) Date rape advocates are going to be absurd.
    
    
        Therefore if you do not believe in discussinf form 1226 prior to
    sexual intercourse you are
    
      a.) unable to control your sexual drives
      B.) Advocate date rape.
    
    
           How about this conclusion
    
    > I read this as saying we don't have control over our sex drives(abbr)
    
      No how about read this as we do not have control over the failure
      of some birth control methods..
    
    
    David
         
    
    Pathetic,
    
    David                 
                              

    re .123
    
    But this is exactly what the "feminist" crowd has been screaming
    in relation to "dead-beat-dads" for years and has been the subject
    of several long and arduous discussions in this very notes file.
    
    Do I smell the stench of hypocrisy here?
    
    fred();

    
    
    > Do I smell the stench of hypocrisy here?
    
      No it's smell's more like the stench of self-righteousness here. Where
    the hell did the feminists come into play on this.
    
    > but this is exactly what the " feminist" crowd has been screaming
    
      What have they been screaming Fred? have they been saying " We must
    have the abortion option" cuz men are deadbeats?
    
    
    
    
    David

    re .125
    
>     What have they been screaming Fred? have they been saying " We must
>    have the abortion option" cuz men are deadbeats?
    
    Now who's getting obsurd.  Apparently you haven't been reading 
    _mn_ long.
    
    fred();

    
    re .115
    
    In this case the father was granted sole physical custody of the
    child and he refused to accept it.  He didnt want the responsibility.
    As for the mother being able to better herself, sure everyone 
    has the abilty, its the will to do it that is missing here.
    She has been steered in the direction of many a program to
    help her out.  
    
    >The child's problems are not caused by the fact that the mother
    did not have an abortion.
    Agreed.  My point is these childs problems could have been
    avoided if the mother chose abortion or adoption.  She was
    dead set against both.  Yet she knew she was not going to
    be able to provide the basic necessities for this child.
    
    I agree that abortions should not be used as an easy out.  
    I also think that the decision to abort is clearly not
    an easy one and that alone gets neglected alot.  
    
    >If you are not willing/able to become a parent, then you should
    examine your "right" to have sex.
    Agreed.  How would you apply this if one was taking precautions
    because they knew they were not willing/able to become a parent,
    and those precautions failed?  Clearly the intent was not to
    become pregnant and methods to prevent this were used.
    
    Mi

re: .119
    

    Actually, I've had conversations like that before I made love with a
    man.  And if we didn't agree on what would occur if birth control
    failed, we didn't have intercourse.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    
    Jody,
    
       Thanks for sharing that. Since you brought it up, would you mind
    telling us what the options were if the protection failed?
    
    
    David      P.s. And how did the male react to the discusion?

>                      <<< Note 796.129 by COMET::DYBEN >>>
>
>    
>    > apparently you haven't been reading _mn_ long.
>    
>      No but I have had alot of dealing with self-righteous bible thumping
>    every sperm is sacred  I be man obey me cuz God said so types.
>    
>    
>    David
    
    Hey Steve!  Does this qualify as a personal attack?
    
    Awh well, boy does this guy have a lot to learn.  Especially about
    *me*.
    
    fred();

    
    
    > alot to learn
    
     I've deleted it. Perhaps I should read more of your writings in this
    notesfile before I flame. My aplogies Mr. Haddock. I do still believe
    your views are a bit short sighted.
    
    
  David              p.s. > How's the foot taste
                           With a little humility it's pallatible :-)
                         

    re .127
    
>    >If you are not willing/able to become a parent, then you should
>    >examine your "right" to have sex.
>    Agreed.  How would you apply this if one was taking precautions
>    because they knew they were not willing/able to become a parent,
>    and those precautions failed?  Clearly the intent was not to
>    become pregnant and methods to prevent this were used.
    
    All precautions have failure rates.  Some work better than others.
    This too has to be ( or should be ) taken into account *before*
    sex.
    
    BTW: Since David brought it up, even abstinence has one rather
    notable "failure".
    
    fred();

    re .132
    accepted
    
    re. 128
    Well blow me down and call me Sally.  Jody and I agree on something...
    ....I think.
    
    fred();

    
    
    Fred,
    
    what if the two folks agreed that if something should fail that
    abortion was the choice the women was going to make?  should they
    still be allowed the right to have sex?  
    
    Michele

    
    
    -1
    
      Damn! Wish I had thought of that one :-)
    
    
    David

    -.2 -
    
    That's always been the way I handled it 'til I got foolproofed.
    
    Ray

    
    re .135
    
    I still believe in Pro-responsibility over "Pro-choice".  
    
    fred();

    I still believe that pro-choice _is_ pro-responsibility.
    
    Ray

    re .139
    
    I quess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
    fred();

>>     What have they been screaming Fred? have they been saying " We must
>>    have the abortion option" cuz men are deadbeats?
>    
>    Now who's getting obsurd.  Apparently you haven't been reading 
>    _mn_ long.
    
    Well, I've been reading MENNOTES a while, and I continue to have no
    comprehension of fred()'s output argument.  As far as I can tell he's
    equating consensual sex between two all-too-willing partners with rape. 
    "Consensual", got it?  Two horny teenagers not putting in all the
    safety measures (and believe me, those safety measures can involve some
    work) is not the same as one horny teenager raping someone.  Fred() is
    trying to say that all situations which include someone "not
    considering the consequences" are morally equivalent.  That mistake
    should've been caught in code review...
    
    Ray

    
    
    Ray,
    
      I know whatcha mean, I was just being nice by apologizing :-)
    
    
    
    David

    re .141
    
    Sounds to me like somebody's got a guilty conscience.  Trying to soothe
    that by name calling and trying to make me out as some sort of ogre for 
    daring to mention it isn't going to help.  Morality and responsibility 
    are *not* dirty words.
    
    When your activities may result in the murder of an unborn child, then
    you must think twice, consentual or not.
    
    I'd wager half the notes in _mn_ over the last year have been
    on date-rape and men's-rights-after-sex ( zero by the way ) and
    how if men don't want to be burdened with having their children
    butchered or paying child support, then they should be careful
    about having sex even with contraception.  I mention that maybe
    this would be a good idea for women too and I get slammed as
    a bible thumping biggot.  Equal rights?  Go figure.
    
    fred();

    re "murder of an unborn child"
    
    As you well know, many of the people in this conference consider that
    to be an oxymoron. No matter how many times you state it you are not
    going to get any converts.
    Makes about as much sense as saying Jesus is the virginal/immaculate
    conception son of God to people who are not Christians.
    All you accomplish in either case is to irritate some people, and (I
    would guess) get other people to think you are just an oafish clod who
    enjoys irritating people.
    I 'spose some other folks might consider you a missionary. (who
    many folks also find irritatiing)

    Care to point out the name-calling and ogre-making, or any attempts to
    make morality and responsibility into dirty words?  Thought not.
    
    I agree that when women are denied their right to abortion, or choose
    not to exercise it, they should be particularly careful about having
    sex (even with contraception).  I don't think women need to be told
    this.  After all, statistically, which sex worries more about birth
    control?  Which sex ends up stuck as single parents most often? 
    
    And I still don't put lack of preparation in the same category as
    raping someone.  Seems to me a different mindset is (or should be)
    involved. Although it might be true that a confusion of "enthusiastic
    collaboration" with "unconsciousness" or "fear" lies behind some number
    of rapes...
    
    Ray

re: .130

    
>       Thanks for sharing that. Since you brought it up, would you mind
>    telling us what the options were if the protection failed?
    
    The options were:
    
    To have an abortion and both pay half, with the condition that
    	full emotional support, concern and caring come from both sides
    To have the child and keep it (if we loved each other, and that 
    	seemed like a financial, emotional, reality-based option)
    To have the child and give it up for adoption 
    
    The options varied depending on who the other partner was.  
    
> And how did the male react to the discusion?
    
    One or two were taken aback.  Usually the relationship had gotten to
    the stage where mutual concern was fully in place.  I'd like to think
    that they had the same conversation with women they slept with after
    that, but I'm not sure.  
    
    -Jody
    

    
    -1 THANKS.

     re .144
    
    Being an ol' country clod, try as I might, I can only read this as
    that because some people in this file may disagree with my point
    of view, or that my openions might step on someones tender ego
    or aching conscience, or irritate somebody, then I should keep my 
    yap shut.
    
    Well, I doubt if it will take a rocket scientist to figure out
    what I think of *that* so I won't waste the disk space.
    
    fred();

    re .145
    
>    Care to point out the name-calling and ogre-making, or any attempts to
>    make morality and responsibility into dirty words?  Thought not.
    
    	Oh from about .75 on or thereabouts.  What I don't intend to do
    is get caught in the little game of "you have to prove your point to
    my satisfaction else you loose".  Which of course won't happen no
    matter what I say.  I'll just state my openion on the subject and
    let it be at that.
    
>    I agree that when women are denied their right to abortion, or choose
>    not to exercise it, they should be particularly careful about having
>    sex (even with contraception).  I don't think women need to be told
>    this.  After all, statistically, which sex worries more about birth
>    control?  Which sex ends up stuck as single parents most often? 
    
    I beleive that consideration of consequences and responsibilities
    should be the *first* line of defense (for *both* sexes), not abortion.
    
>    And I still don't put lack of preparation in the same category as
>    raping someone.  Seems to me a different mindset is (or should be)
>    involved. Although it might be true that a confusion of "enthusiastic
>    collaboration" with "unconsciousness" or "fear" lies behind some number
>    of rapes...
 
    I read this that men are the only ones responsibile for controling 
    their sexual urges.  Is if he's out of control, it's ok so long
    if she's out of control too.  Otherwise its rape?  In either case
    *his* intentions were the same.   (disclaimer:  not to construed in
    any way as condoning rape).
    
    Also don't assume that because I point out some of he harsh realities
    of life and I think that people should consider the results and 
    responsibilities of their actions that I'm some sort of evangilist.  
    There are more and more reasons these days why people should do this.  
    Antibiotic resistend gonarea (fast becomming the number one cause of 
    sterility in young women), Herpes (out of the news because of AIDS, 
    probably won't kill you but will  still make your life a living hell), 
    and HIV (makes your life a  living hell, then kills you).
    
    fred();

>    if she's out of control too.  Otherwise its rape?  In either case
>    *his* intentions were the same.   (disclaimer:  not to construed in
    
    As a wise man once said, we'll just have to disagree.  You're claiming
    that any male sexual impulse is equivalent to an impulse to rape.  That
    doesn't match the results of my introspection and it doesn't match what
    I've read about rapists.  I don't buy that line from female
    separatists.  I don't buy it from you.  
    
    And when women rape, I don't think THAT's just a release of normal
    sexual tension, either.
    
    Admittedly, as a het male, I don't exactly count as a detached
    observer.
    
    The rest of your reply completely misread me - how is accusing me of
    name-calling "just stating your opinion"? where did I say that people
    shouldn't consider the consequences of their actions? how in the world
    could anyone think I said "men are the only ones responsible for
    controlling their sexual urges"? -- but what else is new?  I gotta
    start working on those communications skills, I guess...  
    
    Ray

    Fred-
    
    I think for many women, because abortion is legal, considering it as
    an option is acting in a responsible manner when doing "crisis
    planning".  When I was in college, I seem to remember conversations
    about sex with girlfriends where in when the question of what happens
    if you get pregnant comes up, the response from most would be to 
    abort.  As a concept, it's easy to say that, much harder as a reality
    to do it.  But it is still an option and that is a fact.  This comment
    of mine is an observation based on my personal experiences and has no
    bearing on morality issues regarding human life/potential human life;
    right or wrong, etc.
    
    I agree that because of the option to abort, women do have more power
    than men in this area.  For me, the ideal interaction between the sexes
    on this issue is for both people to discuss the 'what ifs' before
    having sex.  If a woman is pregnant and both want the baby, great.  If
    the man doesn't want it, but the woman does, and this was known before
    the pregnancy, he should pay 1/2 the cost of termination and willingly
    give up all rights to the child, no support issues.  If the woman
    doesnt want it, the man does, and it was previously known that she
    would terminate, they both contribute 1/2 OR IF she was willing, carry
    to term and allow man to raise and care for child.  Again, all these
    scenarios are my opinion on what would be ideal and the communicationn
    should take place prior to pregnancy. I think the responsibility for
    birth control lies equally with both partners, so doesn't the
    responsibility to discuss your options prior to having an accident.
    
    Christine

    ::crawford
    
    I didn't address lies.  I addressed what is in *my opinion* for
    *me* what I would consider the ideal way to deal with a situation.
    Not all circumstances can be covered with any one 'solution'.  And, no,
    I would never suggest that you should have *murdered* your lovely
    child because the *sperm doner* ran off.  Without any moral platitudes,
    all I'm saying is for some, abortion *is* a choice.  Not for all, those
    who are so inclined have  a  *legal* right to terminate the pregnancy,
    those not inclined can choose not to.  That to me iswhat the choice
    issue is all about.                               

    Re: .154
    
    Ok, you don't like abortion.  Nobody forced you to have one.  You
    made your own choice and that's fine.  Why are you so upset?
    
    			Steve

    Steve,
    
    Was .155 addressed to me?  I'm really not upset.
    
    CK

Re: .156

It had been, but rereading your note I think I was really meaning it for
::CRAWFORD.  Sorry.  I seem to be misreading a lot of notes lately.

			Steve

    Response .154 has disappeared, so it's entirely possible for
    that Steve's reaction was to the now-disappeared note.
    
    					andrew

Ah, yes, that's what it was......  I didn't think I had goofed that badly
THIS time, anyway...

			Steve

    Thanks to Steve, Andrew and Suzanne.  I didn't realize either
    that the other note had disappeared and I didn't think I sounded
    that mad! :-)