| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 406.1 | responsibility of the law | BANDIT::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Wed Jul 22 1987 09:52 | 16 |
|
This is one of the few areas where I think something MUST be amended
to the Constitution. The current situation of piecemeal court rulings
must halt by forcing the legislature to make some kind of definition
of the exact _legal_ relationship between the mother and the fetus.
This is no easy job, and whatever they come up with will be political
dynamite, but they have been ducking the issue too long, and it
is time they faced their responsibility.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 406.2 | *child* abuse | ARMORY::CHARBONND | Noto, Ergo Sum | Wed Jul 22 1987 11:48 | 10 |
| I don't know how such laws would be enforced. I believe
there is an ethical limit to free choice - if a woman
chooses not to abort the fetus, she owes it the best possible
care. Abuse of a fetus *which you have chosen to bear* is
child abuse.
As for the legislature living up to their responsibility,
they may adress this issue the day after they balance
the budget. I don't expect it soon.
|
| 406.3 | First ideas, then laws | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | Delta Long = -d(sin A/cos Lat) | Wed Jul 22 1987 12:11 | 36 |
| < Note 406.1 by BANDIT::MARSHALL "hunting the snark" >
-< responsibility of the law >-
> This is one of the few areas where I think something MUST be amended
> to the Constitution. The current situation of piecemeal court rulings
> must halt by forcing the legislature to make some kind of definition
> of the exact _legal_ relationship between the mother and the fetus.
I must differ with you. To take your second point first: It is
important to figure out the legal resposibilities of a woman to
the fetus she's carrying. This is a very tricky problem, and there
will always be gray areas, so don't expect it to be exact. More to
the point is that in the US major political issues have often been
decided by the courts (Alexis deTocquevill commented on this a
hundred years ago), and while that is not the perfect way to come
to a decision, it allows the legislatures to look at various
decisions and their consequences, and from that experience perhaps
write a good law the first time, rather than go through several
iterations, which would take much longer and might never happen.
If we knew what a reasonable law should be, then the legislature
might enact it (when was the legislature last reasonable? :-), but
I certainly don't know what the law should be, and I suspect few
people have consistent positions on this.
A second point: There is *absolutely* no reason to ammend the
constitution over this. The constitution is a framework for a
government, and not a set of ordinances. This is a matter of how
we are going to deal with a new technology. We have dealt with
other new technologies in the past (Radio and television are now
considered part of the press, though they were unknown when the
constitution was written.), and we will do so again in the future.
The constitution should only be amended if there is a change in
the way we want to run the country.
--David
|
| 406.4 | not just new technology | BANDIT::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Wed Jul 22 1987 12:45 | 47 |
| re .3:
I am one of the most conservative people I know (in NOTES) when
it comes to questions of amending the Constitution.
> The constitution should only be amended if there is a change in
> the way we want to run the country.
That is not the only reason. As well as defining the structure of
government, the Constitution defines the PURPOSE of the government,
and the relationship between the government and the citizen. The
issue of Fetal/Mother rights is very much a constitutional one.
> This is a matter of how we are going to deal with a new technology.
No it is not. Technology has only been instrumental in presenting
the problem. The definition of the rights of the unborn with respect
to those of the mother, and government's role in protecting each,
properly belongs in the Constitution.
What I want amended would not be "just an ordinance" but a definition
of the government's role in regulating the gestation of "new citizens".
Should the government have the power to do the things it is currently
doing with regard to "uncooperative" mothers? (forcing cesarians,
protective detention, etc)?
When I said "exact legal relationship", the "exact" is used not
as in mathematics but more like in a contract. Yes there will always
be differring interpretation, but now, there is NO definition, exact,
or otherwise.
> [a number of court cases] allows the legislatures to look at various
> decisions and their consequences, and from that experience perhaps
> write a good law the first time, rather than go through several
> iterations, which would take much longer and might never happen.
I agree, I think there have been enough decisions already to start
the debates. But like Dana, I too suspect that it will be done somtime
around the day after never.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 406.5 | Another step backward? | VINO::EVANS | | Wed Jul 22 1987 13:06 | 15 |
| This is an extremely thorny issue. However, I must stand on the
side of "Do not meddle with the constitution in this case".
So long as we live in a country in which major decisions, such as
this one, which concern a woman's life - are made by MEN, and
non-feminist men at that, asking for a law which will protect the
female is definitely too much to count on.
The legal priorities in the country are very much leaning toward
the rights of a *POTENTIAL* male against the rights of an *ACTUAL*
female. I do not think we need to give the legal stamp of approval
to such an attitude.
Dawn
|
| 406.6 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | | Wed Jul 22 1987 13:30 | 23 |
| I'm glad you entered this note. I have been reading the Globe series
with a growing sense of horror and dismay. This is an extremely
personal issue for every fertile, sexually active woman in this
country (not to slight the concern of men here, but that's MY BODY!!!).
Will our government have the right to force "older" women to have
amniocentesis, even though there are distinct hazards to both the
fetus and mother?
And how on earth can we force treatment on pregnant women? Remember
depoprevera (sp) ? The things that today's science thinks are good
for mother/child could easily turn out to have long-term complications.
For example, it has been suggested that the sex of the child can
be determined VERY early (before implantation for in-vitro
fertilization). Even though a fetus remains viable and is born
with no problem, who knows what will happen later?? How can the
courts force someone to do "the best" thing for the fetus when the
way "the best" thing will influence the _whole life_ of the fetus
is unknown?
Gad, hysteria rising, maybe I'll just have my tubes tied...
Lee
|
| 406.7 | Doctors are sometimes wrong | ULTRA::GUGEL | Spring is for rock-climbing | Wed Jul 22 1987 14:11 | 11 |
| re -1:
You're right, this whole thing (and the Globe mentioned this)
arrogantly assumes that the doctor is always right and the mother
is ignorant of her body and her baby. We know that neither is the
case, look at the recent note entered on failed birth control.
Look at mothers who took DES pills in the 50s. Their doctors turned
out to be oh, so *wrong*.
-Ellen
|
| 406.8 | Don't they have anything better to do? | RAINBO::MODICA | | Wed Jul 22 1987 14:20 | 13 |
|
This is dangerous ground that they're treading on. My opinion is
that a womans body is just that, not another "something" to be
regulated. I find the ramifications of this terrifying. Can you
imagine if they did pass a law or whatever to that affect. What
then? Will women have to submit to regular "tests", polygraphs,
will they be assigned a permanent guardian during the pregnancy?
I feel that there is way too much government intrusion in our
lives already, for all people.
Ps. Re: .5 Can you further explain your last paragraph first sentence
please as I'm not sure what you meant. Thanks.
|
| 406.9 | Boys are better | VINO::EVANS | | Wed Jul 22 1987 15:31 | 24 |
| RE: .8 - asking to explain last paragraph, 1st sentence of .5
Hmmm...how to say this...The current trend, as I see it, is to give
priority of rights to a possible male fetus, over the rights of
a real, live, viable female (future parent of said fetus).
The balance is tipped in favor of the fetus, because it is possibly
male. In a patriarchal society where men are 47% of the population,
it becomes important to *some* people to assure male births.
ANother point on this discussion - I am also very afraid to let
the state decide about what constitutes "child abuse". While certainly,
protection from all forms of violence is necessary, letting the
state decide these things is...well...less than satisfactory. When
I taught school, one's job was endangered by simply placing one's
hand on a student's shoulder.
Reference the note on Gay/Lesbian Parenting RE: foster care to
get a good idea of what happens when the state decides what's "good
for the kids"
Dawn
|
| 406.10 | | BEES::PARE | | Wed Jul 22 1987 17:23 | 6 |
| Not to mention the fact that the large number of cesarean sections
performed in this country (first and repeat) are in disrepute as
being performed for the convenience of the doctor and not because
they are medically necessary. This is major surgery. It is the
mother who must pay the medical bills and assume responsibility
for the care of the infant once born.
|
| 406.11 | thanks for the clarification | VIKING::MODICA | | Wed Jul 22 1987 17:30 | 10 |
|
Re: .8
Thanks for explaining; I now see what you were saying although
I never thought sex entered into the minds of those who are trying
to "regulate" pregnant women.
Re: .9
Darn good point.
|
| 406.12 | Outraged! | DELNI::L_MCCORMACK | | Wed Jul 22 1987 17:41 | 22 |
|
I'd like to ask the question how this would affect the religious
groups that do not accept certain medical treatment, such as
transfusions, some medications, transplants, and other procedures?
Seems some sections of the religious side might even have to
object to this one.
I do not agree with forcing medical procedure on anyone, for any
reason. I do not think anyone has the right to interfere with
a woman's body. I also do not like to think that there are people
out there that think the unborn have MORE rights than the born
either, that's tipping the scales a little too much.
Seems in this age with possible urine testing, bans on smoking
in the workplace, bloodtests, and roadblocks, and now the
government groping around inside the womb, this isn't much of
a free country anymore.
|
| 406.13 | Where I stand (I think) | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | Delta Long = -d(sin A/cos Lat) | Wed Jul 22 1987 19:15 | 98 |
| < Note 406.4 by BANDIT::MARSHALL "hunting the snark" >
>
> That is not the only reason. As well as defining the structure of
> government, the Constitution defines the PURPOSE of the government,
> and the relationship between the government and the citizen. The
> issue of Fetal/Mother rights is very much a constitutional one.
The constitution doesn't have any language dealing with
competing *personal* rights. It does draw boundaries between
the federal and state governments and between government and
citizens. This would be an entirely new area for the
constitution to cover, and I don't see how it could do so
well. In addition, unless you want to simplistically say that
life begins at some obvious point (and the only two candidates
I can think of are conception and birth) I don't see how you
can describe the tradeoffs between the competing rights of the
mother and the fetus.
> The definition of the rights of the unborn with respect
> to those of the mother, and government's role in protecting each,
> properly belongs in the Constitution.
The government is not really involved here. The issue is the
rights of the woman and of the fetus. The government is only
involved as the defender of whatever rights the fetus has, as
the fetus is not competent to procure council for itself, and
the government now protects the rights of people who for some
reason cannont defend their own rights. As this only involves
the government as a proxy, I don't see that it has any place
in the constitution.
Perhaps if you could suggest some language for such a
constitutional ammendment I would see your point, but right
now I don't.
RE: various.
I'm afraid I have trouble with the argument that a woman can
do whatever she wants as it's her body. In a perfect world
where all pregnancies are wanted the mother would be willing
to make some sacrifices of her comfort (and take some risks)
for the well-being of the child, realizing that these would
just be the first of many such sacrifices the parents must
make.
This is not a perfect world. There are many unwanted
pregancies and many pregnant women who are addicted to various
drugs (legal or illegal) that are bad for the fetus. We now
allow a woman to have an abortion until the 26th? week of
pregnancy. The question is: If a woman doesn't have an
abortion by then, does she accept some responsibility to the
fetus? Legally, the answer is yes, as she can no longer have
an abortion. Must she eat well, refrain from taking drugs, or
undergo surgery for the benefit of the fetus? I wish I knew.
The question now is to draw a line between having an abortion,
which is not allowable, and protecting the fetus to the point
of killing the mother, which is absurd. Where should that line
be drawn? Can we require an addict to give up her addiction
for 9 months? Obviously not if she's a real addict.
After a child is born, there are laws against abuse and even
neglect. Should those take effect at birth, leaving a period
(the last 3 months of pregancy) where a fetus cannot be
killed, but can be mistreated in any other way? I'm inclined
to say that the fetus gains rights gradually, ending at birth
where it becomes a full-fledged human (and also where the
mother can simply give him up for adoption rather than neglect
him.)
I wish I was a little more confident in these positions, but
for now, that's where I stand. I'm quite interested in
discussing this further, as I would like to find some position
I can feel more comfortable with.
Re: .9
I don't like the state defining child abuse either, but one of
the jobs we give to the government is to protect those who
can't protect themselves, and some children clearly are abused
and need protection. The system is by no means perfect, but
it's better than nothing, and I haven't seen a better one.
(Besides which, I had to find something to disagree with you
about :-)
Re. .12
It is fairly well accepted that any "mentally competent" adult
can refuse almost any medical treatment (the exception is
psychiatric treatment for people the shrinks label as
"dangerous"), but the children of people who object to medical
treatment can be required to undergo some treatments. They are
typically only required to undergo farily conservative
treatment. Again, who looks after the interests of people who
can't look after themselves?
--David
|
| 406.14 | GAAAAAH [<==translation: author is scared] | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | | Thu Jul 23 1987 01:18 | 50 |
| re .13
> < Note 406.13 by ULTRA::WITTENBERG "Delta Long = -d(sin A/cos Lat)" >
> pregancies and many pregnant women who are addicted to various
> drugs (legal or illegal) that are bad for the fetus. We now
> allow a woman to have an abortion until the 26th? week of
> pregnancy. ...Must she eat well, refrain from taking drugs, or
> undergo surgery for the benefit of the fetus?
First one has to define drugs. Alcohol and caffeine, for example,
are definitely drugs and have a horrible effect on a fetus, but
does that make t right for the state to bar pregnant women from
having them?? What about asprin? Shouldn't the mother make the
sacrifice and suffer with t rather than subject the fetus to that
complex chemical? And what are the effects of lithium, a drug which
when taken daily can help a manic depressive lead a normal life,
what are its effects on the fetus? Are they worse than the effects
of depriving the mother? How can we leave this to be regulated?
And how can we trust today's medical wisdom so blithely?
I do not think it can be regulated in a way that does not leave
the rights of ALL women (pregnant or not) severely impaired.
> The question is: If a woman doesn't have an
> abortion by then, does she accept some responsibility to the
> fetus? Legally, the answer is yes, as she can no longer have
> an abortion.
You neglect to consider the mechanism of abortion. Last I knew,
a routine 1st trimester abortion cost upwards from $300. Some states
have clinics which fund these abortions. Some do not. Not having
the $$ for an abortion... do you "accept some responsibility" for
the fetus? It is not a case of accepting anything!! A pregnancy
can be shoved down a woman's throat and that cannot happen to a
man who decides to have sex, or who is raped. Yes, a woman must
take the responsibility. She has no choice. But how much???
Also, there are women who do not know they are pregnant for quite
some time. Obese women have been known to find out they were pregnant
when they went into labor. A short, skinny friend of mine found
out she was pregnant near the fourth month: she had two "false periods"
and has an extremely irregular cycle to boot.
No, this isn't a perfect world. But this is one area where more
regulation will mean a MORE imperfect world for both fetus and mother.
The medical and legal professions would love it, which is, I am
sure, why they support it so heavily.
Lee
|
| 406.15 | contradictions | SUPER::HENDRICKS | Not another learning experience! | Thu Jul 23 1987 08:23 | 11 |
| I wonder if any conservatives will come forward and offer to develop
a nutrition assistance and subsidy program for all poor pregnant women
to insure that they are able to eat well throughout pregnancy. Why
do few people get passionately involved on *this* level of an issue?
There is so much more that can and should be done for babies who
are already born and who are in need of food and good medical care,
too.
Holly
|
| 406.16 | A conservative who hears your request | HULK::DJPL | Do you believe in magic? | Thu Jul 23 1987 10:08 | 30 |
| re .15
See my note on a possible model in 34.55.
I tried to express my personal opinion that adoption should be a lot easier
than it is. For one, it would give some children, who would start their
lives at a serious disadvantage, a better chance. On the other hand, who's
to tell a welfare mother that she can't have her child?
Personally, I belive the government should provide for the common defense
and the welfare of those who can not provide for themselves. Note I say
CAN not as opposed to WILL not.
One thing I believe in is proper pre-natal care. If an underprivileged
mother decides to give her child up for adoption, every effort should be
made to make sure she has a healthy baby. Because she is giving the child
up, however, she should not have to go into 'mega-hock' if she can't afford
proper care. After all, she is doing someone else a big service. She
should be rewarded for it, not punished.
One other note. Someone in Soapbox said that the Roe vs. Wade decision
allowed abortions [as we all know] but there was something no everyone was
aware of. That is that the fetus can be aborted, legally, right up to the
point of birth, i.e. the fetus is not a 'person' until AFTER IT IS BORN.
If true, I have this horrible vision that somebody could literally chop the
head off an emerging fetus/baby while in the process of being born. AND
THIS WOULD BE LEGAL!
Is this true? What's the straight story?
|
| 406.17 | | ULTRA::LARU | it's not pretty being easy | Thu Jul 23 1987 10:19 | 15 |
| re .5 & .9...
have i just not been listening?
dawn, will you please point me to something that will show me how
the issue of abortion rights distills to a contest of rights between
the rights of a potential male baby vs. those of the female carrying
him?
I'm not questioning the validity of a woman's right to abortion,
I am just unaware of the conflict you describe.
thanx/bruce
|
| 406.18 | class-ism? | ULTRA::LARU | it's not pretty being easy | Thu Jul 23 1987 10:33 | 16 |
| re .15...
who decides the difference between "can't" and "won't" ????
people like the Sterns (of baby M fame) [i know it's a cheap shot,
but it *is* a related issue]
and why do you state that only underprivileged women who agree to give
up their babies for adoption (presumable to somebody more "privileged")
are entitled to prenatal care?
what about "underprivileged" women who want to keep their babies?
aren't the women and the children entitled to adequate care regardless
of who will finally have custody?
bruce
|
| 406.19 | No 3rd trimester abortions | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | Delta Long = -d(sin A/cos Lat) | Thu Jul 23 1987 10:35 | 18 |
| < Note 406.16 by HULK::DJPL "Do you believe in magic?" >
-< A conservative who hears your request >-
>
>One other note. Someone in Soapbox said that the Roe vs. Wade decision
>allowed abortions [as we all know] but there was something no everyone was
>aware of. That is that the fetus can be aborted, legally, right up to the
>point of birth, i.e. the fetus is not a 'person' until AFTER IT IS BORN.
Not true. Roe v. Wade said that in the first trimester the states
could have almost no restrictions, the state could require second
trimester abortions to be in a hospital, and apply a few other
rules, and states could prohibit third trimester abortions. I
believe this was thought to be a little after a fetus becomes
viable outside the womb. It was later found to be a little earlier
than the onset of brain waves.
--David
|
| 406.20 | | BANDIT::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Thu Jul 23 1987 11:24 | 27 |
| re 13:
> The constitution doesn't have any language dealing with
> competing *personal* rights.
"SECTION 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.
SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation." (AMENDMENTS ARTICLE XIII)
> The government is only involved as the defender of whatever
> rights the fetus has,...
True. And it must be explicitely stated somewhere exactly what those
rights are. The only place I can think of to put that statement is
in the Constitution itself.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 406.21 | I am flaming angry again... | BUFFER::LEEDBERG | Truth is Beauty, Beauty is Truth | Thu Jul 23 1987 12:30 | 24 |
|
For those that have never been pregnant, a little information.
ONE Pregnancy is not like having a cold and getting
over it.
TWO Pregnancy are dangerous to some women - believe it
or not but some women die due to pregnancy.
THREE Males are valued more than Females.
FOUR MALES do not carry fetus FEMALES do - How can males
know what it is like to be pregnant and what is best
for mother and child? - By observations and LISTENING
to mothers.
FIVE I would see this as a form of slavery.
_peggy
(-)
| The Goddess REALLY understands Mothers
Does your god?
|
| 406.22 | | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | Delta Long = -d(sin A/cos Lat) | Thu Jul 23 1987 12:39 | 31 |
| < Note 406.20 by BANDIT::MARSHALL "hunting the snark" >
> > The government is only involved as the defender of
> > whatever rights the fetus has,...
>
> True. And it must be explicitely stated somewhere exactly
> what those
> rights are. The only place I can think of to put that statement is
> in the Constitution itself.
>
You're quoting me somewhat out of context. I said that the only
reason the government is involved is that the fetus is not
"competent". The government intervenes for many "incompetent"
people for rights that are not spelled out in the constitution.
(For example, the courts supervise the trustees of a senile
person's assets.)
Again this is trying to put much too much detail in the
constitution. This is a matter of competing rights (between the
woman and the fetus) and to try to spell out the boundary strikes
me as much too delicate a line to try to put in the constitution.
The constitution does not require laws against rape, murder or
any other crime against individuals (the only crime explicitly in
the constitution is treason.) so why should it try to define the
legal relationship between a woman and the fetus she is carrying?
Again, perhaps if you were to propose language for the amendment
you favor I would see how to do this.
--David
|
| 406.23 | MY BODY, NOT YOURS | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | | Thu Jul 23 1987 13:28 | 23 |
| I don't mean to be terribly sexist here, but does anyone else feel
this wave of righteous indignation when MEN start trying to legislate
how WOMEN should care for the child they are bearing? Or MEN
legislating whether or not a WOMAN can/may have an abortion??
I'm sure you guys are interested, but it smacks of WHITES passing
laws to regulate BLACKS (like whether or not that BLACK person can
be sold into slavery). What do you (plural) have to do with a
pregnancy? You help start it, that's for sure, and you may be required
to support the woman (if she is your wife), you each are the PRODUCT
of a pregnancy, but you are telling a group of people what they
may and may not do when in a state you will never experience. Empathy
is nice, but it can only go so far.
I recognize that there are plenty of women who are fighting for
"fetal rights", but I am shocked that even a single man has the
audacity to say what we may or may not do. Women don't try to regulate
vasectomies, why do men try to regulate women's fertility?
I'm not asking the men of this conference not to debate the issue
with us, but am more shocked by what's happening outside the E-NET...
Lee
|
| 406.24 | This stuff REALLY scares me | VINO::EVANS | | Thu Jul 23 1987 14:45 | 30 |
| RE: .15,.23 - yeah. Good points.
RE: Bruce, David
This society values males more than females. The premise is that
abuse is bad. The society is against abuse. Oh yeah?
A woman is battered every 18 *SECONDS* in this country.
A woman is raped every 6 to 7 minutes in this country.
A poll taken of (heterosexually) married couples who were asked
if they could choose the sex of their child, what would it be, found
that overwhelmingly it would be MALE.
If we are so conerned about abuse, and "protecting those who cannot
protect themselves" why are we so damn concerned about a fetus when
THOUSANDS of women endure abuse daily?
I believe it is because that fetus still has a 47% chance of being
male. The chances of the mother, or any other living woman being
male are significantly less.
-------------
Also - I believe that research is beginning to show strong links
between fetal/children's health problems and PATERNAL health/habits.
Funny how nobody's getting excited over that.
Dawn
|
| 406.25 | | HULK::DJPL | Do you believe in magic? | Thu Jul 23 1987 14:59 | 55 |
| > < Note 406.18 by ULTRA::LARU "it's not pretty being easy" >
>
> who decides the difference between "can't" and "won't" ????
Easy. Offer them a job. If they don't take it, that's a "won't",
if there are extenuating circumstances [like disabilities], then it's a
"can't". That would take care of MOST, NOT ALL, of the cases.
Of course, we need to get Job Service [the unemployment people] to
do more in getting the jobs. Currently, the newspaper is the best bet for
someone with no contacts. The government agency charged with doing this
job SHOULD be best, but they aren't.
> and why do you state that only underprivileged women who agree to give
> up their babies for adoption (presumable to somebody more "privileged")
> are entitled to prenatal care?
You are quoting me out of context. What I said was
.........................................."Because she is giving the child
up, however, she should not have to go into 'mega-hock' if she can't afford
proper care. After all, she is doing someone else a big service. She
should be rewarded for it, not punished."
This is not meant to _exclude_ anyone else. What I'm about to say
is going to sound classist. What it means is that is should be an
*incentive* to choose adoption over abortion. Let's face it, the people
doing the adopting should help out the people they are adopting from.
Also, if the woman can't afford pre-natal care [something that lasts a few
months], she's going to have a hell of a time affording the baby [something
that last many many years].
> what about "underprivileged" women who want to keep their babies?
I just get tired of paying for welfare mothers. That sounds awful
and selfish but it's true. I see this every time I'm in downtown Nashua
[you don't need to go to Boston or NYC to see it]. One of the complaints I
heard a lot was along the lines of "well, I don't want to work at McDonalds
for the rest of my life bagging hamburgers". Well, most McDonalds owners
and managers started out doing just that. Hell, I could have said "I don't
want to be a data-entry clerk all my life".
What I'd rather see is more birth control made available. I'd help
pay for that. More sex education so these women and girls KNOW what they
are doing and what the possible consequences are. Better responsibility
taught to the men and boys that father these children who basically get
condemned to a "life sentence".
I can't believe that most of those people who can't afford children
are doing it on purpose. I can't believe that they would willingly subject
a child to that kind of existance. Then again, I'm not inside their heads.
I'm brought to tears when I see us attacking the SYMPTOM and not
the DISEASE. The disease is IGNORANCE. The cure is EDUCATION! And all
these fr_ggin fundamentalists who say it's wrong to give birth control to
teenagers or to teach them what their bodies are going through. DAMN IT I
HATE IT!!!!!
|
| 406.26 | reason to amend | BANDIT::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Thu Jul 23 1987 15:08 | 16 |
| re .22:
Law #1: Human life begins at conception, and shall be entitled to
the full and equal protection of the law.
Law #2: Human life does not begin until birth and shall not be entitled
any protection under the law until that time.
Now, the question is: Which of these two is constitutional and which
is not?
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 406.27 | They think they've been asked to... | HPSCAD::WALL | I see the middle kingdom... | Thu Jul 23 1987 15:11 | 40 |
|
re: .23
treading with little cat feet (which is tough at my weight)
>I recognize that there are plenty of women who are fighting for
>"fetal rights", but I am shocked that even a single man has the
>audacity to say what we may or may not do. Women don't try to regulate
>vasectomies, why do men try to regulate women's fertility?
Becuase they have been charged by their electorate to do so.
(I presume you mean the men in government).
"Not me!" you will doubtless reply. Very well, not you. This is
the flaw in government by majority. The majority may not know what
the hell it's talking about.
While I happen to agree with your basic point, I would have to take
issue with your example. You can't compare vasectomy with abortion.
One is before the fact, and one is after. That sounds like I'm
bandying semantics, but that's an awful lot of what legislating
is about.
To my mind, this is not a legislatable issue, and I think that was the
one overwhelming tragedy of Roe vs. Wade. True, it struck down a lot
of abortion laws that really sucked, which was good. However, it seems
to have planted the notion in everyone's heads that there must be
*some* *way* that law applies to the decision of whether or not to get
an abortion, and I don't think that it does. The law applies to the
mechanics of getting one (licensing physicians, regulating the
inspection and condition of facilities, etcetera). The decision to get
one is that of the expectant mother. The decision to perform it is
that of the attending physician.
It took me a long time to arrive at this conclusion -- I once held
the Roman Catholic stance on this issue and was completely convinced
that I was right. Life experience has altered my view.
DFW
|
| 406.28 | | GOJIRA::PHILPOTT | Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott | Thu Jul 23 1987 15:22 | 9 |
| �< Note 406.26 by BANDIT::MARSHALL "hunting the snark" >
You missed the obvious compromise:-
Law #3: Human life begins at the onset of f�tal viability, and shall be
entitled to the full and equal protection of the law.
/. Ian .\
|
| 406.29 | trying to cool things down a bit.... | HULK::DJPL | Do you believe in magic? | Thu Jul 23 1987 15:27 | 41 |
| > < Note 406.24 by VINO::EVANS >
> A woman is battered every 18 *SECONDS* in this country.
> A woman is raped every 6 to 7 minutes in this country.
Tragic and sad. But women aren't the only ones. Granted women get
it more often, though. More in a moment...
> A poll taken of (heterosexually) married couples who were asked
> if they could choose the sex of their child, what would it be, found
> that overwhelmingly it would be MALE.
We [my wife and I] have decided on [hopefully] 4 children. My
_only_ wish is that 1 or more be male. This doesn't mean that, if we have
4 girls, I will love them less. Ideally, I'd like 2 girls and 2 boys.
> If we are so conerned about abuse, and "protecting those who cannot
> protect themselves" why are we so damn concerned about a fetus when
> THOUSANDS of women endure abuse daily?
Can't we be concerned about both at the same time? There are other
notes on the abuse women get. I didn't think _this_particular_note_ was
the one to raise that in.
> Also - I believe that research is beginning to show strong links
> between fetal/children's health problems and PATERNAL health/habits.
> Funny how nobody's getting excited over that.
Interesting. Can you point to a source? I realise that specifics
may be impossible, but if given a direction to look in , maybe someone else
has heard it too.
Lee brought up the point of why men should be regulating women's
bodies. Well, in case my memory fails me, there _are_ increasing numbers
of women in high positions, like governor and senator.
If I really went into the details of why I think the fetus should
be given more protection than it gets, I would probably only fan the flames
higher. That goes against my general nature. I understand your point
completely. That doesn't mean I agree with it. That also doesn't mean I
completely disagree with it either.
|
| 406.30 | Legal vs. Wise | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | Delta Long = -d(sin A/cos Lat) | Thu Jul 23 1987 15:50 | 37 |
| >< Note 406.28 by GOJIRA::PHILPOTT "Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott" >
>
>
>�< Note 406.26 by BANDIT::MARSHALL "hunting the snark" >
>
> You missed the obvious compromise:-
>
> Law #3: Human life begins at the onset of f�tal viability, and shall be
> entitled to the full and equal protection of the law.
>
> /. Ian .\
>
Thanks, Ian for stating one compromise. Let me state another:
Law #4: Human life begins at the onset of brain activity.
This is symmetric with what is becoming the standard definition of
death, and is relatively easy to measure. I believe that viability
is now around 25 weeks, brain waves around 29 weeks, and Roe v.
Wade allows abortions until 26 weeks.
In answer to .26's question about which laws are constitutional:
Law #1 is prohibited by Roe v. Wade, Laws #2 and 4 are permitted
by Roe v. Wade, and Law #3 is close to what is allowed. Note that
a state cannot prohibit abortion before the 26th week of
pregnancy, but need not prohibit it later.
It is perfectly constitutional to make it legal to kill any person
younger than 60 years. (The state can't actually kill the people,
but it doesn't have to prosecute those who do.) It is probably not
constitutional to allow men but not women to be killed, and it is
not constitutional to allow blacks but not whites to be killed. I
don't recomend any of these as laws, as what is constitutional and
what is wise may not be the same.
--David
|
| 406.31 | I suppose this really belongs in soapbox | MAY20::MINOW | Je suis Marxist, tendance Groucho | Thu Jul 23 1987 15:59 | 13 |
| re: .26
If the fetus is entitled to the full and equal protection
of the law from conception, should a fetus that caused the
death of its mother (from childbirth) be tried for manslaughter?
Should police laboratories examine all sanitary napkins to
make absolutely sure that a woman didn't kill a citizen?
Sorry, but simple solutions are not always reasonable.
Martin.
|
| 406.32 | can the fetus and the woman be "separated"? | DINER::SHUBIN | Time for a little something... | Thu Jul 23 1987 16:10 | 30 |
| re: .23 (Lee -- men legislating women's lives)
> I recognize that there are plenty of women who are fighting for
> "fetal rights", but I am shocked that even a single man has the
> audacity to say what we may or may not do.
There are competing problems here, although it may be splitting hairs
to try to treat them separately.
If it were just women's pregnancies that were being legislated, without
a fetus involved (yes, that's a contradiction, but bear with me), then
it would be men, and some women, regulating what is solely a woman's
situation. It would be like men regulating aspects of a woman's
menstrual period (as was done in NY state in the '70s, when stores
could be open on Sunday, but not sell tampons because they were "not
necesary" or something).
I think that the real target in this case is (or should be) the effect
of various things on the fetus, not an attempt to regulate the
pregnancy itself, but it is impossible to separate them. It will
probably be the case that the result will be an infringement on women's
rights, just because the two can't be separated. That's unfortunate. If
the law goes as far as requiring women to submit to a slate of tests
and other measures, then it'll be beyond unfortunate.
Perhaps a fair solution requires finding a way to distinguish between
the two. "Fair", that is, except to those who are trying to find a way
to turn the clock back and have women be solely child-bearers and
child-rearers.
|
| 406.33 | | MAY20::MINOW | Je suis Marxist, tendance Groucho | Thu Jul 23 1987 16:15 | 18 |
| re: .23
I don't mean to be terribly sexist here, but does anyone else feel
this wave of righteous indignation when MEN start trying to legislate
how WOMEN should care for the child they are bearing? Or MEN
legislating whether or not a WOMAN can/may have an abortion??
Yeah, I think you are being terribly sexist. If you feel strongly that
women should legislate, then run for office (even if it's for town meeting
member, where you probably need only 10 votes to get elected). I'd
probably vote for you.
If you think you're making a better contribution to society by being an
engineer (I would agree), then don't complain when someone else chooses to
seek the right to make decisions about your life.
Martin
|
| 406.34 | nobody belongs to the state | ULTRA::LARU | don't tread on me | Thu Jul 23 1987 16:32 | 12 |
| re .33
c'mon, martin... what about the consent of the governed.
I get po'd when somebody tells me I *must* wear seat belts (or do
*anything* 'for my own good'...
I think Lee is absolutely correct. When men and women share power
equally so that half the legislators *know* what they are talking
about, we'll have a chance of having a reasonable resolution of
this issue...
bruce
|
| 406.35 | Another viewpoint | DELNI::L_MCCORMACK | | Thu Jul 23 1987 17:08 | 55 |
|
O.K. Let's say the worst does happen. As women, what could we
do? What would I do?
I'm pregnant right now so I feel strongly on this issue. I want
this child and it was planned so of course I'm going to take care
of it and not do the things that could complicate my life or the
fetuses? But I'm not going to live in a cocoon for nine months
either. I ride horses every day, (wicked dangerous, I could be
kicked or thrown), ride my ten-speed, exercise, and swim. My
doctors (two women, please note) are all for this. I'm six
months along and I'm still able to do these things BECAUSE
BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER I've got an exercise program that is
keeping me healthy and will probably make delivery less painful
and dangerous. Now, I'd like to see someone try to tell me I
can't ride my horse, or my bike, or do whatever because I would
be endangering my fetus. I trip over my own feet about twice
a day and fall down yet manage to stay on a cantering horse's
back. I'm just saying this because if legislation starts,
there's no stopping at drugs, alcohol, caffeine, and even
interferring with daily activities such as sports, work, or
dangerous activity. I take my chances just like anyone else.
I can be hit by a car tomorrow, and my fetus would probably
be killed too, but you can't live in a cocoon and I'm not
about to.
So.... let's say regulations do come about that govern my
pregnancy. Do you think I'd tell ANYONE I'm pregnant? No
way! You can hide pregnancy tell past the fifth sometimes
six or seventh month. Do you think I would go to a doctor?
Probably not. After my present experience, I would pick
out the literature they handed me, measure my own belly,
take my own pulse, and keep my own weight, because that's
about ALL my doctor has done for the last six months.
I can handle that. In fact, I see this as a better alternative
than what is being suggested.
I just think this would be almost impossible to regulate
except by putting each female in a cage, taking urine
samples every so often to determine if she's pregnant,
then overseeing her nutritional program, habits, and
behavior for the next 9 months until the baby is born.
Goodluck! We can't even find obstetricians today that
will take new patients never mind shoving all these low-
income pregnant women into their offices for pre-natal
care, because of mal-practice suits. If the medical
profession is behind this monstrous program againstwomen,
they've got a funny way of going about doing it. They're
turning down the women, not the other way around because
THEY"RE afraid of us!
Just my thoughts.
|
| 406.36 | | SUPER::HENDRICKS | Not another learning experience! | Thu Jul 23 1987 17:12 | 4 |
| Some of the scenarios in this note are beginning to resemble "The
Stepford Wives" and "A handmaiden's Tale".
Very frightening.
|
| 406.37 | Responses to .25 and .29 | ULTRA::GUGEL | Spring is for rock-climbing | Thu Jul 23 1987 17:20 | 29 |
|
re .25:
I agree with you totally about education, but the following doesn't
quite compute:
>Better responsibility taught to the men and boys that father these
>children who basically get condemned to a "life sentence".
Are you sure you don't mean the women and girls who mother these
children (as well as the state who pays welfare). I thought you
were talking about welfare types here. In the case of a mother
on welfare, the boy or man who fathered the child is not around,
let alone "condemned" to a "life-sentence". If they were around to
help out, then we probably wouldn't have to pay welfare to the
mother.
And in .29:
>We [my wife and I] have decided on [hopefully] 4 children. My
>_only_ wish is that 1 or more be male. This doesn't mean that, if we have
>4 girls, I will love them less. Ideally, I'd like 2 girls and 2 boys.
See, you also wish for a male more than a female (which supports
the results of the survey taken). Why is that? That *is* sexist,
isn't it? Doesn't that bother you any?
-Ellen
|
| 406.38 | | COLORS::IANNUZZO | Catherine T. | Thu Jul 23 1987 18:05 | 16 |
| For all of you who think the horrors of governmental control of fetuses
is only theoretical, you should be aware of the recent case of a woman
in California who was basically tried for manslaughter because
of inadequate pre-natal care. Her child was stillborn, then
revived and placed on life support and lived for a couple of days.
The woman had a condition where the placenta is over the cervix or some
such thing, and where the risk of the placenta becoming detached was
high. The woman was poor, and married to an abusive man who beat her
and had intercourse with her just before she went into labor. The
intercourse apparently brought on the premature labor. There was a long
delay in getting to the hospital, and she was charged with negligence
leading to the baby's death.
There are lots of circumstances around this case, and I won't get into
them all. The fact that it happened at all is quite frightening.
|
| 406.39 | Fetal Child Abuse | CSC32::JOHNS | My chocolate, all mine! | Thu Jul 23 1987 19:33 | 25 |
| First of all, the stats about the sex most heterosexual married
couples want represents what sex they want for their FIRST child.
Secondly, it is not sexist to want a boy. I want a girl. Does
this make me sexist? In 3-4 children, I want *at least* one girl,
and would not mind it if they were all female. Does *this* make
me sexist?
As for regulating pregnancy for child abuse, I am undecided. I
have a friend who was quoted in MS magazine recently on this case
in San Diego. She is for the woman. I think I disagree, that a
woman who *knows* not to have drugs or alcohol when she is pregnant
is committing child abuse by neglect at the least. On the other
hand, as a pregnant woman, I tend to get a little uncomfortable
at the thought that the government is going to be trying to blame
me for any problems with the child. Even if I did all I could to
create a healthy environment for the fetus, it could still be stillborn
or deformed/retarded. Who is to tell me that I am at fault? Are
they going to examine this possibility with all women, or are they
going to focus most of their attention on women who are not having a
baby within a stable, heterosexual marriage?
Call me paranoid, but that doesn't mean "they" are not out to get
us.
Carol
|
| 406.40 | Power affects everyone. | ARMORY::CHARBONND | Noto, Ergo Sum | Fri Jul 24 1987 06:52 | 19 |
| RE .23 Sorry Lee, but I must disagree. What women do with their
bodies/wombs/fetuses affects us all. To say that men must not
try to act on their judgement isakin to saying "Atom bombs are
handled and controlled by men. We assume the risks of living in
close proximity to them, we must judge if/when to use them. Women
have no right to speak about/act on nuclear weapons."
Such an attitude neglects the fact that nuclear weapons and wombs
are both POWERFUL instruments, whose use or abuse affects ALL
of us. Any power must be accompanied by commensurate responsibility.
Granted, most women have handled this responsibility very well,
the chance exists that a *few* do not. This is the source of my
concern. This is why women should vote on nuclear issues.
I know a woman who became infertile as a result of using the
Dalkon sheild. She did not have children, though she had
hoped to. Her sorrow affects me. Another woman I know drank,
smoked, and used drugs during pregnancy. Her son is severely
retarded. What can I say ? Must I stand silent because I can't
bear a child ?
|
| 406.41 | | 25727::SONTAKKE | Vikas Sontakke | Fri Jul 24 1987 09:59 | 11 |
| Two points:-
Is it considered the abuse when I smoke or drink? Am I harming
my own body? Should it be legislated against?
How far do you want to go in protecting rights of "potential citizens"?
Mind you, there are millions of "potential citizens" in this country
and from my own experience I can definitely assure you that they don't
exactly get the "citizen treatment".
- Vikas
|
| 406.42 | the 14th | BANDIT::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Fri Jul 24 1987 10:51 | 37 |
| re .41:
There are lots of self-abuse (get your mind out of the gutter) actions
that ARE illegal (drug abuse) whether they SHOULD be or not is another
matter (I think they shouldn't be).
However, smoking and drinking while pregnant is entirely different.
If the fetus is considered as just a part of the mother's body then
it is as before, if it is considered a seperate person then the
mother is inflicting damage on another who has no choice.
The Constitution does not protect ONLY the rights of citizens. Murder
is murder, whether you kill a citizen or a non-citizen.
(AMENDMENTS, ARTICLE XIV)
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
~~~~~~
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
~~~~~~
I think that the words "citizen" and "person" are used in a very
careful way. This is the basis for my claim that there needs to
be an amendment added that defines when a fetus becomes a person
(in the eyes of the law). I think that this must be done by the
legislature and not by judicial fiat. Roe v. Wade is inadequate.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 406.43 | | DELNI::L_MCCORMACK | | Fri Jul 24 1987 12:12 | 44 |
|
The only reason I used the word "paranoid" pertaining to this
problem is because I really don't understand how this could ever
be implemented and work. That is, regulating pregnancy. I
think I mentioned the unavailabiltiy of oby's, because they do
not want to take on new patients because of mal-practice suits.
If we don't have enough doctors to serve those woman who do
seek prenatal care, how on earth will there ever be enough
doctor's to add to this all the many woman who do not seek
pre-natal care, be it because they cannot afford it, do not
want it, or don't even know they're pregnant.
I can see the point about the abuse mentioned two notes before,
and do not think it is right. But there are many cases that have
been tried that I do not think are right, and they've had nothing
to do with this. Look at the guy jailed for rape even after
the victom stepped forward and admitted his innocense. That's
a problem with our judicial system and as far as I know, that
guy is still in jail and nothing has been done about it.
I don't care what kind of legislation may or maynot be implemented,
there will always be the exception. Some mothers will still abuse
their fetuses, just as some abuse their children but there is no
way that each case can be detected. Many abused children are never
discovered. So, are we to subject all women to monitoring, just
because the exceptions (which there are always going to be) exist?
I do agree with one note that pointed out the responsibiltiy of
the male. Men who take drugs also pass this on to the fetus as
far as changing the genes? or chromosomes? in later generations.
They are also beginning to understand that an alcoholic father
can pass this DISEASE on to the child. So a woman could be
perfectly healthy herself, take care of herself, and still have
problems caused by the father. And remember, the environment
has a lot to do with it to. The air is polluted. Water is
filled with sewerage, toxic chemicals, and pollutants. Even
household products we work with every day may or may not be safe.
How on earth can we determine WHAT caused retardation, handicaps,
or stillbirths with all these other outside factors. Maybe
we should be looking more at our environment than at women to
solve this one.
|
| 406.44 | NOBODY should be abused | VINO::EVANS | | Fri Jul 24 1987 12:48 | 46 |
| PAternal age has also been identified as a factor in Down's Syndrome.
This was formerly always hung on the mother, if she was over, or
nearing the magical age of forty.
There are entirely too many issues around this situation to aloow
it to be legislated. If women are to be told how to act when pregnant,
when we may be pregnant, when we may not be pregnant - what's to
say a state that gets seriously into Mr Wattenberg's hyposthesis
won't decide that X number of middle-class women have to produce
X number of middle-class children.
An X number of lower-class women have to refrain from having X number
of lower-class children.
Until the balance shifts, and X number of <other> woman have to
produce X number of <other> children.
Creepy.
RE: .43 - I think paranoia is a reasonable state of mind, given
this issue. (Even paranoids have enemies)
RE: _ I forget the not number. Why can't I be _equally_ concerned
about fetal life vs. maternal life? Because women are overwhelmingly
the abused. I simply can't understand all the hoo-hah about *PERCIEVED*
(not necessarily *ACTUAL*) "abuse" of a fetus, when real, live women
are betan up on EVERY DAY. I find these priorities frightening and
screwy.
I am NOT for abusing fetuses, or any other form of life, but it
seems to me thabn a *LOT* of people are getting upset about a
*PERCIEVED* case of abuse, when there are THOUSANDS of real,
documented, cases to get upset about. The *percieved* case concerns
an entity which may or may not be a viable human being at some point.
The *actual* cases concern women who are viable human beings.
I find these priorities frightening and screwy.
NOBODY should be abused, but My God, can't we deal with real, live,
beaten and raped women before we go out of our way to find *possible*
abuse elsewhere?
Oh, *sigh* .
Dawn
|
| 406.45 | | ARMORY::CHARBONND | Noto, Ergo Sum | Fri Jul 24 1987 13:13 | 7 |
| A beaten, raped or abused woman at least has a chance. She can run,
study self-defense, divorce. A fetus has no such options. I am
appalled at violence perpetrated on women. I am also appalled
at the number of women who submit to it. But women can choose how
they deal with it. I agree, legislation on this subject would
likely do more harm than good. Maybe NOW should be adressing this
issue.
|
| 406.46 | to clarify | HULK::DJPL | Do you believe in magic? | Fri Jul 24 1987 13:47 | 46 |
| PLease note that I haven't read .38-.45 yet, but I have to respond to this.
>< Note 406.37 by ULTRA::GUGEL "Spring is for rock-climbing" >
> I agree with you totally about education, but the following doesn't
> quite compute:
>>Better responsibility taught to the men and boys that father these
>>children who basically get condemned to a "life sentence".
>
> Are you sure you don't mean the women and girls who mother these
> children (as well as the state who pays welfare). I thought you
> were talking about welfare types here. In the case of a mother
> on welfare, the boy or man who fathered the child is not around,
> let alone "condemned" to a "life-sentence". If they were around to
> help out, then we probably wouldn't have to pay welfare to the
> mother.
Many of the ones around here [Nashua] are 'around' but very
irresponsible. They don't have very good [if any] jobs and look for all
the world like high-school dropouts. I know that's a generalization.
As far as the 'life sentence', I was referring to the newborn. I
grew up fatherless and [especially at the start] poor. had it not been for
my mother's guts and determination, we never would have made it anywhere.
>>We [my wife and I] have decided on [hopefully] 4 children. My
>>_only_ wish is that 1 or more be male. This doesn't mean that, if we have
>>4 girls, I will love them less. Ideally, I'd like 2 girls and 2 boys.
> See, you also wish for a male more than a female (which supports
> the results of the survey taken). Why is that? That *is* sexist,
> isn't it? Doesn't that bother you any?
No, I don't see how that is sexist. I can see [by stretching a
bit] how it could be interpereted as such. Maybe I can explain.
Does it help if I also state that I would wish for at least 1 girl
as well? That was something I left out, by accident. Heat of the
discussion and all.
What I want is for my son(s) and daughter(s) to grow up with both
sexes around so that [ideally] we can start treating them as equals from
day 1 and keep the sexism out.
Remember, I stated "Ideally, I'd like 2 girls and 2 boys." I
apologize for any confusion.
|
| 406.47 | | BUFFER::LEEDBERG | Truth is Beauty, Beauty is Truth | Fri Jul 24 1987 13:52 | 35 |
|
The direction this note is taken is really bothering me.
Why is it that when someone mentions "fetus" - some people
are ready to back the right of continuation of its existance
to the point of changing the consititution but if someone
mentions battered women (it seems to me) these same people
push the issue aside and say its their problem, they are
adult humans and they can do things for themselves.....
FLAME SET AT ATOM SPLITTING LEVEL
THE ISSUE IS THAT WOMEN ARE AND CONTINUE TO BE THE ONE TO
CARRY THE STIGMA OF NOT CITIZENSHIP NOT THE "FETUS".
I WISH THAT INDIVIDUALS WOULD LOOK AROUND THEMSELVES AND
COUNT OFF EVER 10 WOMEN THEY SEE AND THEN REALIZE THAT OVER
HALF OF THAT GROUP OF WOMEN HAVE BEEN *****RAPED****BY SOME
ONE THEY KNOW AND OR BEEN ****BEATENED**** BY SOME ONE THEY
KNOW.
THIS IS THE REALITY TO BE DEALT WITH - CHANGE SOCIETY - KEEP
WOMEN FROM BEING NON-CITIZENS AND ALL THIS ***SHIT*** ABOUT
"FETUS" ABUSE WILL GO AWAY. IT IS ONLY ANOTHER WAY TO KEEP
WOMEN IN THEIR PLACE.
FLAME EVEN HIGHER
*** WHAT ABOUT THE MALE THAT PUSHES THE PREGANT WOMAN DOWN
STAIRS IS THAT ALSO "FETUS" ABUSE OR JUST FEMALE ABUSE.
FLAME OFF
|
| 406.48 | | DELNI::L_MCCORMACK | | Fri Jul 24 1987 14:04 | 32 |
|
Regarding the note 405 or 06(?) that says any woman that can't
defend herself against being raped or beaten has something wrong
with her, I think this is a very unwise statement. I would never
put up with a male hitting me and have had occasion to strike
back and break a nose or two but not ALL WOMEN are physcially
or mentally capable of this. You are putting the blame on the
woman for being beaten or raped and unable to take care of herself
rather than seeing her as the victom of someone else's wrong,
the beater or the raper.
And also, have you ever been 6-9 months pregnant? I'd like to
know how you know how it feels to have 20-40 lbs of weight you've
never had before on a part of you that can throw your balance
right off and discribe to us noters out here how you would ward
off 200 lbs of mad and vicious person intent on raping or beating
you.
Sure, there are women out there that are emotionally burnout out
there that can't get away from an abusive husband or boyfriend,
but let's give innocent women the benifit of the doult when it
comes to being raped or trying to beat off a husband when she's
pregnant and physically unable to defend herself. Not too men-
tion, that by further provoking her attacker or trying to fight
back, she is leaving the fetus more vunerable to more vicious
blows and possible miscarriage.
Let's be real.
|
| 406.49 | clarification | ARMORY::CHARBONND | Noto, Ergo Sum | Fri Jul 24 1987 14:21 | 4 |
| I did not say that there was something was 'wrong' with such
a woman. She may be a true pacifist. I made the point that
women have a *chance* to defend themselves. They may or may
not avail themselves of that chance. A fetus has NO choice.
|
| 406.50 | | DELNI::L_MCCORMACK | | Fri Jul 24 1987 14:35 | 8 |
|
I think a fetus has just as much of a chance of surviving as
does a child or adult that faces the daily dangers of kidnap,
rape, murder, car accident, disease, natural disaster. Perhaps
the fetus is safer in the womb than out of it, at least nowadays.
|
| 406.51 | Negligent with her beatings...argh! | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | I haven't lost my mind - it's Backed-up on tape somewhere | Fri Jul 24 1987 15:24 | 12 |
| I did not know that that woman in California who is being charged
with manslaughter of her fetus was an abused wife (or girlfriend).
Doesn't this man have any responsibilities in this situation? If
he was beating her while pregnant, and raping her (sex right before
labor - sounds like rape to me), shouldn't he be charged with the
manslaughter of the fetus, and every other crime that he could be
charged with (spouse abuse, rape, etc.) BTW, beating a woman while
she is pregnant in some states can get you 30 years...
Elizabeth
|
| 406.52 | no half measures | ARMORY::CHARBONND | Noto, Ergo Sum | Fri Jul 24 1987 15:26 | 1 |
| IT *SHOULD* get you dead !
|
| 406.53 | 2 Different cases?? | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | Delta Long = -d(sin A/cos Lat) | Fri Jul 24 1987 15:54 | 21 |
| < Note 406.51 by SSDEVO::YOUNGER "I haven't lost my mind - it's Backed-up on tape somewhere" >
> -< Negligent with her beatings...argh! >-
>
> I did not know that that woman in California who is being charged
> with manslaughter of her fetus was an abused wife (or girlfriend).
There may be two different cases, or biased reporting. The
report in the Boston Globe said that she was told to refrain
from sex, and to come to the hospital immediately if she had
any bleeding. It said that she had some bleeding and didn't
go to the hospital for quite a while (several days?) and in
the meantime had sex. The Globe didn't mention any violence
on the part of her boyfriend. Since the Globe has been
strongly arguing for judicial protection of women from
abusive lovers, it seems likely that they would have
mentioned abuse if it was present.
If she was abused it would clearly be assault and battery by
the man, and I could see no case against her.
--David
|
| 406.54 | more on fetal manslaughter case | COLORS::IANNUZZO | Catherine T. | Fri Jul 24 1987 16:45 | 22 |
| re: manslaughter case
The woman's defense claimed that she was never informed about the exact
nature of her condition, did not understand its severity, and did not
know she was not supposed to have sex.
The woman had been having bleeding throughout her pregnancy. Her
reports of it had been ignored by the hospital previously.
The woman had a long and documentable history of abuse from her husband.
Unfortunately, like many abused women, she still "loved" him and
"understood" that he had his problems. I believe she is still married
to him.
I believe she took drugs during her pregnancy. This a tough one to call,
but I don't think anyone has the right to legislate her behavior on this
matter. I'm sure there is more than one parent out there who smokes,
when it is a proven fact that aforesaid smoking is damaging your health,
the health of any potential or actual fetus, and the health of any
children who live with you. Should all smoking parents have their
children taken away from them? These kids will have more respiratory
infections, asthma and other problems.
|
| 406.55 | Argh | VINO::EVANS | | Tue Jul 28 1987 14:47 | 12 |
| RE: .54
If it's the case I'm thinking of, not only is she still married
to him SHE'S PREGNANT AGAIN.
RE: smoking, etc.
My mother smoked and drank during her (only) pregnancy. Maybe we
oughta rescind my health? :-}
Dawn
|
| 406.56 | | DELNI::L_MCCORMACK | | Tue Jul 28 1987 16:25 | 13 |
|
I'll second that. My mother smoked (didn't happen to drink)
for all three of us. All of us are quite healthy, espescially
as far as breathing or respiratory problems. However, she
was a light smoker and I think most of the advertising against
smoking and drinking is aimed at the heavy users who are abusing
and using to excess.
However, if you visited Pittsburgh, Pa in the summertime
espescially, and were pregnant, you would be warned that it
could be dangerous to go outdoors because of the polution
levels.
|
| 406.57 | | AKOV04::WILLIAMS | | Wed Jul 29 1987 10:08 | 16 |
|
My mother was a chain smoker and an alchoholic from her early
teens to her too early death. She gave birth to five children none
of whom has any known to be related health problems save for too
strong an attraction to heavy drinking. Only one of us has ever
smoked, me.
The effects of her addictions can be seen in the heights and
IQ's of her children, the first was the tallest and has the highest
IQ (not me) and each in turn is about two inches shorter and has
a measurably lower IQ. The children were born over a nine year
period. While I attribute the physical and intellectual differences
to our mother's drinking and smoking I don't know the full effect
our poverty had on her health.
Douglas
|
| 406.58 | ask not for whom the bell tolls | IMAGIN::KOLBE | Penguin Lust | Wed Jul 29 1987 16:52 | 17 |
| RE: some notes further back
Flame = on
I suggest we stop this at the root. Lets make men responsible for murder
whenever they masturbate and 'spill their seed upon the ground'. Then if
the husband of a pregnant woman smokes he's put in jail for child abuse
since second hand smoke is now being considered worse than smoking.
Emotional distress of the mother is supposed to be bad for fetuses, so anyone
who upsets a pregnant woman is guilty of child abuse.
I mean really, lets take this to it's logical end. If only the mother or
child will survive the birth, kill the mother and save the baby. Kill the
father cause he got a woman pregnant that couldn't take care of the fetus.
No smiley faces here. liesl
|
| 406.59 | priorities, priorities | VINO::EVANS | | Thu Jul 30 1987 15:51 | 8 |
| It's also occurred to me that the patriarchal medical establishment
is responsible for more harm to fetuses than ANYONE.
I agree with .58 - this can be taken to some ridiculous extremes.
(Assuming it hasn't been, already)
Dawn
|
| 406.60 | Who owns the children? | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Fri Aug 07 1987 15:29 | 73 |
| Is it her body or is it society's child?
It seems as though male legislators feel that it's most unfortunate
that only women can produce soldiers, voters, Einsteins and Beethovens.
It seems almost like they feel that women must NOT be allowed free use
of this power - that women's singular ability to bear children is just
a fluke of nature, (SOMEBODY'S gotta do it), and so women must be con-
vinced that the conceptus in their bodies isn't really a part of "just"
them and therefore doesn't belong to them as much as it belongs to
"society".
That a woman can be "penalized" for any otherwise legal behavior that
may negatively affect "society's child", regardless of her personal
rights, is deplorable. As one other noter stated, the woman is a viable
and full, (and tax-paying!), human being but "only" a female one. The
unborn is a potential male.
Male people being considered superior to female people is sexism enough
but a POTENTIAL male being considered superior to an ACTUAL female is
sickening.
Like everything else in a sexist society, qualities that are uniquely male
are highly valued and qualities that are uniquely female are suspect at
best, worthless at worst. The ability to bear children is a uniquely
female quality that male legislators simply cannot reconcile. It wasn't so
long ago that women weren't allowed the power to vote and in that context
it's not surprising to see that male lawmakers cannot allow the power to
bear human life to rest solely with women. It's too great a power. Male
legislators believe they MUST have the right to not only include them-
selves in the decisions to regulate this power but to exclude women from
them!
Males have regulated women's bodies routinely throughout human history
and until this generation, women, pregnant and raising children, have had
no alternative. We've gotta eat and feed our kids and that has tradition-
ally meant staying in men's good graces.
In the societal view, (and like it or not that's the MALE view), this
ability to bear children has been seen as an inherent WEAKNESS of being
human - that the hormones and cycle involved in this ability is exactly
what makes women "unfit" for [the military... politics... business...].
No on will actually admit to the power in the ability to bear children,
but male legislators fully understand it, nonetheless, and will not allow
a society where they fear men will be "left out" of it.
I say "sh*t or get off the pot". It either IS the most power possible in
existence, in which case we need to rethink "superiority vs. inferiority"
issues between men and women, or it is no big deal in which case women
should be left alone to make their own decisions about their bodies and
their lives.
It seems that neither of these ways of thinking is acceptable to males
since both of them leaves males "out", so pregnancy is viewed sometimes
one way and sometimes the other way, depending on what aspect of it we're
talking about. In terms of female freedom, pregnancy is viewed as the
ultimate "responsibility" in society which she alone bears. Note that
men's nutritional and social habits, though significant to offspring has
never even been considered yet women can be jailed for infractions!
And in terms of female equality pregnancy is viewed as the ultimate
"weakness" a person can have. Since it is a quality that only women
share and men never will, it can be easily used as proof of inferiority
in any arena men are looking for proof, such as in business, in the
military, the killing of the ERA.
The last bastion of male control over women is control over their sexuality
and reproduction. That is why abortion is such a hot political issue.
One of these days women will be free to have sex and bear children and
use and enjoy life and their own bodies as they damn well please but not
without a long hard fight from males who do not want to be left out of
what they sense may really be the most awsome power on earth.
|
| 406.61 | We're discussing it on the wrong level | AITG::SHUBIN | Time for a little something... | Fri Aug 07 1987 15:56 | 27 |
| re: .60
I agree with alot of what you say, but I think that you (or "we" or "we
all in this conference") think differently from much/most of "them"
(middle America, that is). It's them, after all, who make the rules,
not us. That's why Reagan won twice, and why Oliver North day will be
celebrated in Philmont, NY (instead of putting him in jail), etc.
The problem may be partly unborn-possible-male vs living-female, but I
think there's more to it. "They" consider a fetus (at, say 2 months) to
be a human life, equivalent to any other post-natal human being.
Society therefore has the right to care for it. In fact, society is
*required* to care for it as much as for any other human being. In this
situation, the fetus "belongs" to society as any other human being
which cannot care for itself does.
However, if you think of it as simply a fetus, as a mass of cells which
is not yet viable, then it "belongs" to the mother, and decisions are
entirely up to the mother (or to the mother and father, but that's
another discussion).
We tend to look at this problem very differently from "them". If we're
going to discuss this issue with "them", or even amongst ourselves, we
have to deal with it on their level. "They" really look at it
differently.
-- hs
|
| 406.62 | Interpretations biased by perspective in .60? | TLE::FAIMAN | Neil Faiman | Fri Aug 07 1987 16:09 | 66 |
| I believe that note .60 views a situation with a particular
perspective, creates a particular interpretation, and then
takes this interpretation as a factual basis for further
argument. I believe that there are other interpretations
which are at least as reasonable as those made in .60.
> rights, is deplorable. As one other noter stated, the woman is a viable
> and full, (and tax-paying!), human being but "only" a female one. The
> unborn is a potential male.
>
> Male people being considered superior to female people is sexism enough
> but a POTENTIAL male being considered superior to an ACTUAL female is
> sickening.
I almost responded to this assertion the first time that it was
made. It has a certain elegance to it, but I believe that it
is totally fallacious. Consider the following thought experiment:
It is known (from ultrasound) that woman A is carrying a
male fetus and woman B is carrying a female fetus. Woman
A and woman B abuse their bodies throughout the pregnancy,
and give birth to deformed infants (or have miscarriages).
(Alternatively, the sex of the fetuses isn't known until
after the infant is born or miscarried.)
Do you believe that the condemnation (if any) that would be focussed
on women A and B would be different because of the known sexes
of the fetuses that they had been carrying? If you do, then
you and I are living in completely different worlds.
I believe that a far simpler explanation is simply this: the
cost to the mother of taking proper care of herself is nine months
of relatively minor inconvenience (especially when we are talking
about care like getting good nutrition and avoiding drugs).
The potential cost of her not taking proper care of herself is
the death or lifetime disability of a *potential human being*.
If I ran down a child because it was too much of a nuisance to
stop at a stop sign, would society be sympathetic to me? Would
it matter whether the child was a boy or a girl?
> Like everything else in a sexist society, qualities that are uniquely male
> are highly valued and qualities that are uniquely female are suspect at
> best, worthless at worst. The ability to bear children is a uniquely
> female quality that male legislators simply cannot reconcile. It wasn't so
> ...
Perhaps. But how about the following alternative interpretation:
Bearing children is the one thing that men absolutely cannot
do. Thus, they are in such awe of this ability that the
abuse of it seems like a kind of sacrilege.
Is this inherently less plausible?
> ultimate "responsibility" in society which she alone bears. Note that
> men's nutritional and social habits, though significant to offspring has
> never even been considered yet women can be jailed for infractions!
If you can provide examples of cases where *comparable* behaviour
on the part of men and women can have *comparable* consequences
to a fetus, but women are more severely censured for that behaviour
than men are, then I will find this argument compelling.
-Neil
|
| 406.63 | | DELNI::L_MCCORMACK | | Fri Aug 07 1987 16:44 | 22 |
|
To .62
I do believe there has been research that proves pot and other
drugs used by either parent can cause damage to the genes in the
next generation, being that child's children. That would mean
that a mother that has never used pot but a father that may or
may have in the past, can still affect the fetus.
This was the direction that the medical profession was going
in a couple of years ago. I don't know if they are still re-
searching this or ever came to any solid conclusions.
However, if we are to scan everyone, male/female, for nicotene,
cocaine, caffeine, nutra-sweet,diet, lifestyle, etc etc etc,
then I guess BIG BROTHER is already here.
I think I'd rather take my chances on my own. I don't think
ALL should be punished for the ignornance of a few.
|
| 406.64 | | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Fri Aug 07 1987 18:19 | 64 |
| re: 406.62 TLE::FAIMAN
> It is known (from ultrasound) that woman A is carrying a
> male fetus and woman B is carrying a female fetus. Woman
> A and woman B abuse their bodies throughout the pregnancy,
> and give birth to deformed infants (or have miscarriages).
> (Alternatively, the sex of the fetuses isn't known until
> after the infant is born or miscarried.)
> Do you believe that the condemnation (if any) that would be focussed
> on women A and B would be different because of the known sexes
> of the fetuses that they had been carrying? If you do, then
> you and I are living in completely different worlds.
Of course not. To do so would ADMIT that "it is thought" that males
are more valuable than females. No one wants to actually admit that.
Besides, it's just plain easier to deal with pregnancy per se rather
than take each woman on a case-by-case basis. And if such global prov-
lamations infringe on her rights, well that's the way it goes because the
idea isn't to look for ways to protect HER rights anyway - just the po-
tential within her.
>the cost to the mother of taking proper care of herself is nine months
>of relatively minor inconvenience...
The point isn't how minor or major the inconvenience is, the point is
that who has the right to tell her how to live? What to eat and drink and
when? Why should women lose their rights to privacy once they become pregnant?
> If I ran down a child because it was too much of a nuisance to
> stop at a stop sign, would society be sympathetic to me? Would
> it matter whether the child was a boy or a girl?
Yeow - what a comparison! You're still assuming that the contents of a
woman's womb do not belong to her the same as a child is no one's to do
with as they please. This is the fine line we're arguing here. To whom
does a woman's womb belong?
> Bearing children is the one thing that men absolutely cannot
> do. Thus, they are in such awe of this ability that the
> abuse of it seems like a kind of sacrilege.
Fine. No one's arguing men's right to have feelings and opinions on the
subject. What we are arguing about is men deciding their feelings and
opinions on the subject weigh far more than the woman's do regardless of
who's body we're talking about. For the record though, assuming that women
would make lousy presidents, doctors, executives, etc because of their raging
hormones, monthly "sickness" and pregnancy potential hardly smacks of "awe".
> If you can provide examples of cases where *comparable* behaviour
> on the part of men and women can have *comparable* consequences
> to a fetus, but women are more severely censured for that behaviour
> than men are, then I will find this argument compelling.
Well how about the woman referred to in this very note who was held
responsible for the death of her baby because SHE had sex just before she went
into labor? That sounds pretty comparable in behavior and fetal consequences
and very different in "blame" and "punishment".
The whole series of articles in the Boston Globe will provide you with the
case examples you are looking for.
|
| 406.65 | One more thing and then I'll shut up | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Fri Aug 07 1987 19:23 | 28 |
| And let's just give a passing nod to the blatant hypocrisy in this
issue, shall we?
The very existence of war, capital punishment, euthanasia, killers
as heroes in folklore and media, etc proves that "society" does in-
deed believe there are instances where the "sanctity of human life"
does NOT automatically reign supreme. Legislation to cut welfare
for senior citizens resulting in too brief hospital stays HAS resulted
in dealth of THAT segment of human life.
The problem here is that men have reserved for themselves the power
to make the judgement of when "the sanctity of human life" is more im-
portant than the reasons for ignoring it.
Abortion is a woman making an intensely personal and difficult decision,
the result of which will profoundly affect her entire life. War is a man
making a difficult but necessary by design impersonal decision, the results
of which can profoundly affect the lives and deaths of millions and most
likely not him.
The "sanctity of human life" is a guilt trip that applies only to women
because it applies only to the abortion issue! Please understand that I
am not saying that calling respect for human life JUST a guilt trip - I am
objecting to male legislators using such an argument AS a guilt trip for
women who are already in a heartbreaking situation and even the average
among them has the capability to come to the best decision for herself and
her life and live with it.
|
| 406.66 | definitely! | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the side walk ends | Fri Aug 07 1987 22:17 | 8 |
| Very well spoken Sandy. I personally believe that anyone
who is anti abortion, and not also anti war and not also working
to find homes for all the handicapped and abandoned children
in the world, and not supportive of helping the elderly, has
so narrowly defined their meaning of prolife that they lose any
credibility with me.
Bonnie
|
| 406.68 | Getting a bit testy, Rik? | MAY20::MINOW | Je suis Marxist, tendance Groucho | Sat Aug 08 1987 01:20 | 4 |
| C'mon guys, let's stop playing passive-agressive games with each other.
Martin.
|
| 406.69 | I lied - sorry. More flaming follows! | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Sun Aug 09 1987 09:52 | 50 |
| Facts making you nervous?
Can it really be true that our government wants to convince women
that pregnancy is a sanctified gift from God that she has no power
nor any right to control? Can we be just a little bit suspect if
that same government tells us we must turn our male "gifts" over
to the government at age 18 just in case they need them to die for
gold, for oil, for land, for religion, for nationalism, etc? Is
our pregnancy really thought of by our government as a "gift" to the
military? And if it's female, well, while not such a "gift" herself,
she does carry the ability to make more "gifts"!
I've seen a man being led to the electric chair. He was sweating
profusely and he was panting. Is that not a "silent scream" in
the face of death? What's the real difference between this and
abortion? Because capital punishment is death for male reasons.
And think about the question "When does life begin"? Doesn't that
make the assumption that there's a period of time where there is
"non-life"? Life "began" way back when and a woman's body is not
dead until she conceives. All her own organs are just as much "life"
as the cells within her uterus which may specialize and grow. To
separate an embryo, (or more specifically a blastocyst), from a
human being and calling only one of them "life" is a pretty contorted
type of reasoning fashioned by men for their own purposes.
Doctors routinely whip out uteruses at the drop of a hat, in many
cases simply because it's easier and more lucrative than spending
time trying to isolate and treat the actual problem.
Government concerns itself with the quality of its men's lives and
individual men are supposed to control the quality of "their" women's
lives. That's why government is so loathe to step in between men and
this unspoken authority to control their own women just as your boss's
boss would NEVER deal directly with you, ignoring your boss, and
give you a raise or promotion.
Granting women full citizenship and full sexual and reproductive
freedom that men automatically enjoy is to undermine the authority
of individual men to control the mating game. No male legislator is
going to legislate away his personal control over the women in his
life and understands that his male constituency feels the same way.
Get with the program, folks. Men have always been the rutheless
killers in society and probably always will be. To guard that precious
"right" for themselves and feed women a load of crap and a ton of
guilt about their "responsibility" is just sheer hypocrisy and another
attempt to pull the wool over our eyes and keep us off balance and
pregnant, dependent on and in need of men, our "knights in shining
armor" who will protect us from the "big bad world" of other men!
|
| 406.70 | Paranoid? | NEVADA::HOLT | Rattus Occidentalis Excavator | Sun Aug 09 1987 13:40 | 6 |
|
re -.1
You really believe all that? You must be kidding.
Facts? Haven't seen any yet.
|
| 406.71 | | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Mon Aug 10 1987 09:39 | 7 |
| Read the Globe articles for facts. Read any newspaper for some
facts.
You are welcome to present some facts to the contrary. You sound
like you assume your view is the true assessment of the situation
and stands unless someone gives you unrefutable facts. Let's assume
my view is the correct view just for balance. You sway me.
|
| 406.72 | Is "right-on" passe? | VINO::EVANS | | Mon Aug 10 1987 12:29 | 6 |
| Way to go, Sandy!
You've said it better than I ever could.
Dawn
|
| 406.73 | No just out of place | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Mon Aug 10 1987 23:58 | 43 |
| Suzanne Conlon, back when she was in WomanNotes more actively,
used to use all sorts of graphic ways to indicate that she was
not talking about all men, but just **S*O*M*E** men and then
would wonder why people came away from WomanNotes with the
feeling that the women there bashed on men in general. The
reason is illustrated in the last few notes. No matter how often
some women stress that they are just talking about some men,
some other women consistantly resort to reverse sexism and paint
all men with the same brush.
When phrases like "No male legislator is...", and "Men have
always been the rutheless killers in society and probably always
will be" are thrown around it makes it pretty clear that we're
talking about all men. It's also patently false. There just
aren't any issues that get a guaranteed 100% legislative
approval. It's pretty clear that we're not talking facts here.
We're talking sweeping false generalities. We're talking
bigotry. We're talking bigotry that guets a "right on!" "telling
it the way it is" reaction.
It's quite clear that this is a minority of the members of this
conference who feel that way. Very few of the women in this file
are bigotted against men. Very few support bigotry. Yet, as is
often the case with bigots and zealots, they stand out in one's
mind. Bigots are almost always a small minority of their segment
of the population, but they stick out. They get remembered.
It is not the case that all middle class white Anglo-Saxon
protestant males are racists either, or that all Southerners
were slave owners. The Nazis weren't the only Germans. Yet we
often think of these people and remember the most extreme
members of their group. People thinking of WomanNotes often
remember the "feminist" bigotry and miss the good stuff.
It's sad because the female bigots just perpetuate the problems
that they suffer from. Just as they have failed to see the good
men (and the good whites and the good heterosexuals), they help
the men fail to see the good WomanNoters, the good feminists,
the good women. They're so blinded by hate and anger that they
induce hate and anger. And so hate and anger and bigotry
perpetuate themselves. The labels change but the venom stays.
JimB.
|
| 406.74 | I am *NOT* part of a conspiracy! | VINO::MCARLETON | Reality; what a concept! | Tue Aug 11 1987 00:29 | 52 |
| Re: .60, .64, .65, .69, .71 (CSSE::CICCOLINI)
.60> Protect the baby because it might be a potential man.
.64> Of course not. To do so would ADMIT that "it is thought" that males
.64> are more valuable than females. No one wants to actually admit that.
.69> Can it really be true that our government wants to convince women
.69> that pregnancy is a sanctified gift from God that she has no power
.69> nor any right to control? Can we be just a little bit suspect if
.69> that same government tells us we must turn our male "gifts" over
.69> to the government at age 18 just in case they need them to die for
.69> gold, for oil, for land, for religion, for nationalism, etc? Is
.69> our pregnancy really thought of by our government as a "gift" to the
.69> military? And if it's female, well, while not such a "gift" herself,
.69> she does carry the ability to make more "gifts"!
.69> No male legislator is going to legislate away his personal control over
.69> the women in his life and understands that his male constituency feels
.69> the same way.
As a male noter in this file, I take offense to any line of argument
that contends that I am part of a global conspiracy to exert my
power and do many bad things to all women kind. The noter seems
to be able to read my mind and tell me what I think and why I think
it, even to the point that she understands my thoughts better than
I do.
Oh sure, I could come up with an equally plausible line of argument
that says that society is controlled by a matriarchal power structure
that enslaves men to provide for women and their children and even
sends men out to war to die to protect them. Sure I could do that
but I don't because I don't believe that there is a conspiracy by
all women against all men. I believe that trying to seriously defend
such a position would be an insult to the women in this file. Why
is the reverse not only not an insult to the men here but is also
cheered on?
.71> You sound like you assume your view is the true assessment of the
.71> situation and stands unless someone gives you unrefutable facts. Let's
.71> assume my view is the correct view just for balance. You sway me.
You are the one trying to defend the existence of a global conspiracy
of men against women. Wow can I prove that I am not part of a
conspiracy? Clearly the ball is in your court to prove that the
conspiracy really exists. It's like the old question "Have you
stopped beating you wife?" You must prove your allegation before
any one is obliged to defend themselves against them.
MJC O->
|
| 406.75 | | AKA::TAUBENFELD | Almighty SET | Tue Aug 11 1987 00:38 | 10 |
| re .73
Just to be nitpicky:
Don't you mean the Germans weren't the only Nazis, not the Nazis
weren't the only Germans. The Nazis were the bad guys, not the
Germans.
I know, I'm being nitpicky, but 2 years of German kind of drills
these things in ;-)
|
| 406.76 | | MYCRFT::PARODI | John H. Parodi | Tue Aug 11 1987 09:39 | 41 |
|
Re: .74, .73
I don't see bigotry or any accusation of conspiracy in this topic
(though it is pretty obvious that a nerve or two has been struck...).
What I see is a plausible hypothesis that explains some otherwise
puzzling things.
The hypothesis is that some humans want other humans dead for their own
reasons. And while they see their own reasons as valid, they are not
willing to ascribe validity to other people's reasons for wanting people
dead. So, for instance, we have people who believe that capital
punishment is fine but that abortion is murder. (And, by the way, I
think that justifying abortion by redefining "when life begins" is the
worst sort of intellectual dishonesty. I am completely pro-choice but I
don't kid myself about whether or not abortion means the end of a human
life. I'm in favor of capital punishment, too.)
Sandy's point about legislators who on the one hand engage in sabre-rattling
and vote for things like aid to Nicaragua -- and on the other hand prattle
about the sanctity of human life -- is a telling one.
So the hypothesis merely states that people can "compartmentalize" their
thinking in such a way that they can simultaneously hold multiple sets of
conflicting beliefs. And Sandy is perfectly justified in asking others
for facts that contradict the hypothesis. I don't have any such facts.
Do you?
JP
P.S. Conspiracies don't explain anything. I do not believe that you can
possibly keep a conspiracy of 100 people secret, much less a conspiracy
that includes half of the human race. It's similar to explaining
a UFO sighting as "mass hallucination" -- the problem is that "mass
hallucination" is a lot harder to believe than the existence of
little green men!
It's much easier to explain mass male behavior as lots of men
recognizing a good thing when they see it. Or even recognizing
a bad thing but not having the time/energy/inclination to do
anything about it.
|
| 406.77 | Let's all calm down a little, PLEASE! | SSGVAX::LUST | Reality is for those that can't handle drugs | Tue Aug 11 1987 12:31 | 69 |
| I feel that it is time to insert some reason into the general hysteria of this
topic.
RE: Sandy Ciccolini(sp?), et al;
I find it to be a bit too much for me to comprehend when you start defining
this issue in terms of a male "conspiracy". Admitted that men make up the
overwhelming majority of law-makers at all levels, but how can you deduce from
that a male conspiracy? In our form of government, the law-makers are the
representatives of the people, not autocrats who are not answerable to those
they represent.
Over 50% of the voting population is female, and studies show that the numbers
of women who vote are in proportional to their percentage of the population.
If this is true, then male legislators are elected by women as well as men.
It must be also true that legislator's positions can not be too antipathal
to women or women (since they outnumber men) would vote them out.
PLease give us a break from illogic. I understand your frustration but I
fail to see how over-dramatization can help us solve this dilemma.
Abortion, and (by extension) fetal-rights are highly charged issues which
are more likely to call forth reactions which are not necessarily based on
logic but on feelings. It is true that many opponents of abortion are
male, whoever just as many if not more are likely to be women. The fact
that you may disagree with Phyllis Schaffley (and may consider her a
traitor to 'women') does not make her wrong -- she is entitled to her opinion.
And while I may not agree with her and consider her to be sadly mis-informed,
that doesn't make her wrong either -- she is still entitled to her opinion!
The fact of the matter is that there are all kinds of reasons why some people
feel they must interfere with other's people choices about how they lead their
lives -- and many of them even do so with the very best of intentions. It's
just that so many of them, precisely because they do believe they know better,
get into politics.
I cannot remember the author, bu someone once said, "Never ascribe to
malice or premeditation anything which can be explained by stupidity or
ignorance." I think that this is true in the issues of abortion and fetal-
rights. I think that the people who are against abortion and push "fetal-
rights", are for the most part decent, caring people who all too often take
their religious teachings instead of logic or common-sense. This does not
make them wrong, but it usually means that there are few means to a workable
compromise.
I personally can not imagine any form of child-abuse which is worse than
bringing a child into a life of poverty, abuse, and neglect. But I have
to allow that I am not "god" (whatever that may be), so I can't be the one
who decides that a woman must have an abortion -- neither am I the one who
says that a moman may not have an abortion. I wish that others would see it
with that kind of humility.
However, I also feel that saying "only the woman can decide" is a cop-out as
well. The woman is usually not the only one involved - the father also has
rights, along with society. Clearly society (the law) has no right to
order an abortion, but society has some right in determining the health
of a fetus which will be carried to term. That doesn't give society to
meddle, and I think "fetus-abuse" cases are also a mockery in all but a very
few cases. Again education and better health/prenatal care at affordable
costs are the answer -- not criminal charges.
Sandy, I am not trying to pick on you (or the others who have expressed
similar viewpoints), but I do feel a calmer, more reasoned voice is more
likely to get the ears of those in power. All to often, we turn our ears
off to the strident voices even when what they are saying makes good sense.
In love and fellowship.
Dirk
|
| 406.78 | Calm, cool and collected! | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Tue Aug 11 1987 12:54 | 180 |
| HUMAN::BURROWS "Jim Burrows" 43 lines 10-AUG-1987 22:58
> When phrases like "No male legislator is...", and "Men have
> always been the rutheless killers in society and probably always
> will be" are thrown around it makes it pretty clear that we're
> talking about all men. It's also patently false.
Sorry - let's change that to "only a rare legislator is..... and it will
be the rarest among THEM who will not succumb to his peer pressure".
If you refute my contention that men have always been the rutheless killers
in society, please offer some facts to support your theory. We're all
waiting for them, I'm sure.
>We're talking bigotry.
Sounds like we're talking name-calling. I would think a calm explanation
of the facts which contribute to YOUR reasoning would be more effective
than name-calling. I'd hate to see you dilute the messages in your notes
with blind anger that you can only express through name-calling. You mention
a form of the word bigot at least 7 times in your short message. I didn't
bother to count "zealot" and "nazi" or "slave".
> It's quite clear that this is a minority of the members of this
> conference who feel that way. Very few of the women in this file
> are bigotted against men.
'Scuse me - are these statements passing for "facts"?
>People thinking of WomanNotes often remember the "feminist" bigotry and miss
>the good stuff.
Is this true folks? Shall we take a poll to see if Jim's facts are indeed
correct?
> It's sad because the female bigots just perpetuate the problems
> that they suffer from.
In what ways? Please explain.
>Just as they have failed to see the good men (and the good whites and the
>good heterosexuals), they help the men fail to see the good WomanNoters...
You don't see ONLY the good or ONLY the bad, Jim. Well, maybe you do.
I see plenty of good men. I even have one! But if the "good" men were not
the exception rather than the rule, how do YOU explain the fact that the
ERA hasn't passed yet? Where are all these "good" men when we need them?
How do YOU feel about fetal rights vs. maternal rights anyway? And why?
And gee, women like us bigoted feminists "help men fail to see..."?
Come on! Men are responsible for what they see or don't see. I truly
believe that men have actual minds of their own and are not just empty
slates for women to write on!
>They're so blinded by hate and anger that they induce hate and anger.
"Induce hate and anger"? You sound like you are admitting anger and blaming
it on us bigoted feminists for "inducing" it. Have we helped you "fail to see"
the light? Shame on us for being so irresponsible with our power to com-
pletely shape men's attitudes and the way they run their world. How was I
to know this was all our fault after all?
****
VINO::MCARLETON "Reality; what a concept!" 52 lines 10-AUG-1987 23:29
> As a male noter in this file, I take offense to any line of argument
> that contends that I am part of a global conspiracy to exert my
> power and do many bad things to all women kind.
Who said anything at all about you? Either YOU include yourself in the
group of male oppressors or you don't. I haven't met you so I wouldn't
venture a guess as to what side of the fence you personally sit on this
issue.
>The noter seems to be able to read my mind and tell me what I think and
>why I think it, even to the point that she understands my thoughts better
>than I do.
I think your original intent was sarcasm here but Freud would be tempted
to take the words at face value and so would I. The sarcasm is duly
noted but I think the words used are far more telling.
> Oh sure, I could come up with an equally plausible line of argument
> that says that society is controlled by a matriarchal power structure
> that enslaves men to provide for women and their children and even
> sends men out to war to die to protect them.
You COULD? Why don't you try it and let's let the noters decide if it's
"equally plausible" or not.
> Why is the reverse not only not an insult to the men here but is also
>cheered on?
Why indeed. Maybe because of the phrase "if the shoe fits". I have said
before that the men at Digital are among the most liberated cross-section
of males in the world. To take my allegations about the state of the
world, or the nation as a pronouncement of your personal MO and then dis-
miss me because I'm "wrong about you" is pointless. Of COURSE I know
nothing about you. But I know plenty about sexism. If you do not feel
that you are personally part of the sexism issue then good for you. I hope
you aren't. If you ever get in a position of power to USE your ideas, to
really vote your conscience on an issue that counts, I hope you do. We
need you. Don't let us down. Plenty of "some men" have.
>How can I prove that I am not part of a conspiracy?
I'm sure you get chances to prove it every day. Take them all. You can't
prove anything with words - only deeds.
>Clearly the ball is in your court to prove that the conspiracy really exists.
To paraphrase "Sexism is here to stay until YOU can prove it's existence"
Shall we spend a day together? Let's dress you up as a female and send you
out with some sterling credentials on a few job interviews. Let's send you
to the store for a simple gallon of milk. Let's walk you past a group of
men. Let's see you apply for a mortgage. Let's get you a first date. Let's
send you alone, at night, to park your car in a public garage. Let's get you
scared. Let's get you raped. Let's kill your son. Let's get you pregnant
and see how well you listen to our proclamations on the sanctity of human
life and your singular responsibility toward it.
***
MYCRFT::PARODI "John H. Parodi" 41 lines 11-AUG-1987 08:39
> I don't see bigotry or any accusation of conspiracy in this topic
> (though it is pretty obvious that a nerve or two has been struck...).
> What I see is a plausible hypothesis that explains some otherwise
> puzzling things.
Thanks John. Unfortunately your endorsement will carry more weight with
SOME noters than if it were a woman saying the same things!
> The hypothesis is that some humans want other humans dead for their own
> reasons. And while they see their own reasons as valid, they are not
> willing to ascribe validity to other people's reasons for wanting people
> dead.
Amen. That's it. "It's ok for me but it's NOT ok for you".
> Sandy's point about legislators who on the one hand engage in sabre-rattling
> and vote for things like aid to Nicaragua -- and on the other hand prattle
> about the sanctity of human life -- is a telling one.
I should have said it so well!
>It's much easier to explain mass male behavior as lots of men recognizing a
>good thing when they see it.
Yep. It's not MEANT to be outright mean, nasty and petty to women, it's
just simple opportunism. I believe men have NO respect for those they
can push around and the UTMOST respect for those who engage successfully
in a little opportunism of their own. But that's in general. When it's a
woman engaging in a little opportunism that's treason. And if it takes a
little hypocrisy to try and sell her a bill of goods to prevent any oppor-
tunities for such treason, so be it.
And Dirk, I never used the word "conspiracy". Someone else brought
it up. Also, you seem a bit naive about the workings of government.
When the legislators of Massachusetts wanted to vote themselves
a raise this year they knew they couldn't get it past "the people"
so you know what they did about it? They tacked it to a bill concerned
with something about Massachusetts judges which is an issue that
does NOT have to be brought before the people! So the men got their
raise and the people never got to say boo about it. Now you don't
really think this is an isolated case, do you? These people work
full time at how to get what they want done regardless of the poor
slobs who pay for it all.
And if you want to cite statistics as in the women having half the
vote - I have seen more than one pole showing that the majority of
Americans, (somewhere around 75%), believe that abortion should
be a private matter between a woman and her doctor in the first
trimester. Why is that not the end of the issue then, in a democracy?
Isn't the majority opinion reflected in our laws? What more needs
to be served except the "majority"? What indeed.
|
| 406.79 | A Nit | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | | Tue Aug 11 1987 13:25 | 16 |
| re .77
> All to often, we turn our ears
>off to the strident voices even when what they are saying makes good sense.
"strident" is one of those words that is almost always applied to
women, almost never to men. Sort of like the term "domineering."
Not to distract from the point(s) of the note, but I'd appreciate
it if you'd (not just you, Dirk: men and women in this file) hesitate
before using such a term: is it a put-down that only applies to
one gender or another? If so, is there another way to say it without
pushing someone's hot button? [I find it a very rankling form of
subtle sexism, and it bugs me an awful lot]
Lee
|
| 406.80 | | DELNI::L_MCCORMACK | | Tue Aug 11 1987 13:48 | 69 |
|
I too think the conspiracy issue has gone off onto it's own issue
rather than the one at hand. After re-reading the orginal note
406, it is obvious that we have gotten away from the original
intention of the note, and that is this:
Is a fetus more important than the woman carrying it?
If a woman will lose a fetus without surgery etc, should she
be submitted to a life-threatening operation to save the fetus,
therefore making her life of secondary importance?
If certain women (and men) belong to formal religions that
do not believe in certain types of medical care, should the
woman (or couple) be forced to undergo treatment that would
save a fetus whereby nature may not have even endeavered do
do this? (ie- blood transfusions)
I think if we spend too much time trying to prove conspiracies
against men we could eventually convince ourselves there is
one even though the majority of people that I have met that
are not very sympathetic to this issue is WOMEN not men. I
also find that it is usually because they are looking at
abortion or fetal-rights by themselves, rather than the adverse
way some regulations could affect women as a whole for generations
and generations to come.
My own sister does not believe in abortion or that it should be
available for her daughters if they ever needed it. I can't
understand this because my sister is neither religious or
against the ERA. She is just unwilling to accept the fact that
her daughters could one day end up in a position where they could
be raped or have used a faulty birthcontrol method and what would
happen to them if they had to go into some back alley somewhere
to have it done. My sister answered me that this would never hap-
pen to her children nor would her children EVER consider
abortion, again, not really allowing herself to look at reality
and the way our society is today as far as the chances of being
raped or "having an accident" due to ineffectual birth control.
Then too, she is speaking for her children instead of realizing
that once they are of age, they will make their own decisions,
not her. My sister is convinced that she has brought them up not
to ever do anything like this but I don't think there's anyway of
really accomplishing this short of brainwashing.
My sister, when she married, married a catholic and told me some-
thing about an agreement she made with her husband that if any-
thing ever happened while she was pregnant or in labor that they
had agreed to save the baby. I don't know how many of you feel
about this, but I was horrified that my own flesh and blood could
feel herself so much less important than her unborn child as well
as leave two children motherless and put a lot of people that love
her through such pain and loss. And her husband agreed with her!
I guess by these examples I am just showing that their are woman
out there (not only men), who are just as willing to slit their
own throats and ours along with them. In these examples, I think
it is because of ignorance and an unwillingness to face reality.
My sister's argument to all debates concerning fetal-rights or
abortion is: "Then she shouldn't have gotten pregnant!"
Again, placing the blame on the woman and putting her life and
mental wellbeing second to a possible human-being.
|
| 406.81 | You can't observe and direct at the same time | PSYCHE::SULLIVAN | | Tue Aug 11 1987 14:02 | 24 |
|
If this were Human_relations, I guess I'd feel pretty bad if a man
or a group of men complained that the women in the file were painting
them with a black brush. But since this is *WOMAN*NOTES, I honestly
don't feel bad. This file serves a number of functions for its
members, and one of those functions is to allow women a chance to
express their rage (if they wish) at the injustices of the world
around them. Sometimes that means that a lot of anger gets expressed
toward men, not because all men are oppressive, but because it is
that political entity called white males who hold so much power
and who create or encourage the injustices that make us angry.
The men in this file have said repeatedly that they are here because
they want to "understand women." If that's true, then the men in
this file need to understand that sometimes some of us need to express
our anger, and as many other noters have said: You ought to know
whether or not you are a member of that group of oppressors. If
you are not a member of that group, then I honestly don't understand
your discomfort, although you are certainly entitled to it. I just
don't think that the women of WOMANNOTES should take responsibility
for the hurt feelings of men who have insisted on participating
in this file.
Justine
|
| 406.82 | off-track noting | VINO::EVANS | | Tue Aug 11 1987 14:53 | 34 |
| I must say (well, I don't *HAVE* to. But I'm *GOING* to) that I
think this issue got sidetracked in the classic manner. i.e., a
woman says something; a man (or men) object to stridency, dark
allusions to conspiracy, "man-hating", or whatever; and *WE'RE OFF!*
Out of the gate, and gallopping towards....what?! Well, definitely
gallopping *AWAY* from the topic at hand. As I said in another
note - "God forbid we should be *Strident*". Seems like when a woman
gets (*gasp*) STRIDENT, all h**l breaks loose. Listening drops to
zero, and the "more-heat-than-light" principle comes into play.
AND.....AND....not even on the subject at hand! That's gotta be
some kind of interesting sociological phemomenon....
TO address the subject. I've noticed that those individuals who
are defending the "rights of the fetus", are doing so on the basis
of "defending the rights of *children*", and denying any interest
in controlling the (potential) mother.
If the interest were for the "children", there would be more Big
Brothers than kids who want one. The Boys and Girls Clubs wouldn't
have to constantly beg for volunteers and money. There would be
more adoptive parents then kids waiting to be adopted. There wouldn't
be 10 million kids abused in this country in a year. There would
be more volunteers than the schools could handle. There wouldn't
be homeless children.
The "interest" stops at birth. Therefore, I must conclude that it
is NOT concern for the "child", but control of the woman, that is
the issue
....ahem.....for *SOME*.....
Dawn
|
| 406.83 | exit | BUFFER::LEEDBERG | Truth is Beauty, Beauty is Truth | Tue Aug 11 1987 15:04 | 16 |
|
re: 406.69
I did not notice flames, I notices the courage and truth in your
statements, which I have a strong leaning towards.
"Sancty of life" includes ALL LIFE not "just our kind" of life.
_peggy
(-|-)
| The Goddess is LIFE
| She does not take away and she does not give
She just IS.
|
| 406.84 | Click | ULTRA::GUGEL | Spring is for rock-climbing | Tue Aug 11 1987 15:12 | 19 |
| re .82, Dawn:
>...is NOT concern for the "child", but control of the woman, that is
>the issue...
Exactly! I had been trying for some time to figure out why
I was uncomfortable with the argument of "the rights of the potential
male are more important than the rights of the woman". I *do* think
that's hogwash. Now I know why. The *real* issue is *control* of
women and their bodies. The oppressors care zilch for that baby.
As Barney Frank (?) once said:
"The right-to-lifers' concern for life begins at conception...
and ends at birth."
-Ellen
|
| 406.85 | More conspiracy | VINO::MCARLETON | Reality; what a concept! | Tue Aug 11 1987 15:47 | 63 |
| Re: the conspiracy issue
I have no objection to the ideas that have been expressed here regarding
the relative rights of the fetus and the mother. I agree that the
rights of the mother to control her own body have to take precedence
in all but the most extreme cases (and I have a hard time imagining
a case extreme enough). My opinion on the issue at hand having
been stated, let me continue to dig at this conspiracy rat hole
(I'm sure that there is a rat down here somewhere :-) )
The point I wish to make is the fallacy of trying to pin down why
other people do what they do. You can construct all the logical
arguments you want proving that sexism and the need to make women
a second class are behind all the fetal rights issues. This only
serves to prove to me that you don't want to understand the *REAL*
reason that there is a fetal rights issue. Trying to pin it all
down to the protection of a potential male over and actual female
my make you feel better but I don't believe that it has anything
to do with reality.
>...let's let the noters decide if it's "equally plausible" or not.
I don't think that either argument is very plausible. I'm pushing
back on the plausibility of your argument and I'm sure that you
would push back on mine. Your argument has been developed over
years by many authors. There are scarcely any authors that have tried to
develop the opposite argument (one that I know of).
> If you do not feel that you are personally part of the sexism issue
> then good for you.
My personal part of the sexism issue is not the point. I find it
hard to believe that *ANY* man thinks the way you claim they do.
The shoe does not fit anyone.
>> Clearly the ball is in your court to prove that the conspiracy
>> really exists.
> To paraphrase "Sexism is here to stay until YOU can prove it's
> existence"
I'm not trying to deny that men do things that are sexist or at
least things that appear sexist. Sure, some of the things men do
are done to oppress women. That fact does not prove that all things
that have a negative effect on women exclusively are the result of
male sexism. Open your mind to some of the other ideas about
fetal rights. You might even find that there are some points that
you can agree upon.
After you get through putting me through your day of hell being
a woman in this society do I get the chance to put you through
a day of hell as a man in the same society? I agree, life is
rough, but I don't blame all my problems on the opposite sex,
you do. I don't think you are right as often as you think you
are.
What is truly sad about addressing an issue with the hard line
is that there are many points than you made in the same notes
that I agree with. Because of your hard line I end up coming
out against you instead of with you.
MJC O->
|
| 406.86 | A little understanding, please | MAY20::MINOW | Je suis Marxist, tendance Groucho | Tue Aug 11 1987 17:38 | 16 |
| re: .85
I'm not trying to deny that men do things that are sexist or at
least things that appear sexist. Sure, some of the things men do
are done to oppress women.
If we replaced "are done to opress women" by "have the effect of
opressing women" we might be able to "separate the sin from the
sinner" (to quote another ongoing discussion).
I rather doubt that many men are doing things explicilty to opress
women. If they motivate their actions at all, they might say
"we're sorry you're being badly paid, but we have to make a profit
or the Japanese will steal our market" or somesuch.
Martin.
|
| 406.87 | | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Wed Aug 12 1987 11:47 | 98 |
| VINO::MCARLETON "Reality; what a concept!" 63 lines 11-AUG-1987 14:47
> The point I wish to make is the fallacy of trying to pin down why
> other people do what they do.
Fallacy? You think the reasons make no difference at all? The reasons
ARE the problem. It's the reasons we're attacking. Not exactly WHAT
they do, (protecting life is commendable. No one can argue with some-
one's desire to do so), but it's the REASON they are doing it, which
is to control women that is the problem. And we KNOW that the reasons
are control of women because "protecting life" is not a blanket concern
of our legislators - it's only a concern as it applies to women. The
reasons are very much the issue and it's a fool who would attempt to
try and change things, (which we are trying to do), without making any
attempt to understand the reasons behind the behavior. Maybe YOU don't
care about the reasons but women certainly do.
>This only serves to prove to me that you don't want to understand the
>*REAL* reason that there is a fetal rights issue.
It does, huh? What IS the real reason? Your note doesn't say.
> My personal part of the sexism issue is not the point.
Right. That's why I was wondering why you'd brought it up. You used
your personal feelings to refute my contentions as in "I object to being
considered part of a conspiracy..." I forget the actual quote - it's
in your note.
>I find it hard to believe that *ANY* man thinks the way you claim they do.
>The shoe does not fit anyone.
Probably because you have never been, nor ever will be the target of such
thinking. You still have not presented YOUR ideas on the issue and YOUR
reasons for them. I'd like to know why YOU think our legislators are so
concerned over fetal "life" while taking it routinely for gold, oil, land,
punishment, religion, nationalism? Why do YOU think aid to mothers of
dependent children is chipped away year after year if our legislators are
so concernced about children? Why do YOU think the largest growing seg-
ment of poor people in this country are mothers and children if our legis-
lators are so concerned with the sanctity of "motherhood and children"?
>Sure, some of the things men do are done to oppress women. That fact does
>not prove that all things that have a negative effect on women exclusively
>are the result of male sexism.
Did I read this topic wrong? I didn't think anyone said anything to the
effect that "all things that have a negative effect on women exclusively
are the result of male sexism". What a sweeping generalization! Let's
deal with your first statement here = "some of the things men do are done to
oppress women". Do you think their "rules" about abortion are one of them?
Let's get back to the topic.
>Open your mind to some of the other ideas about fetal rights. You might
>even find that there are some points that you can agree upon.
Maybe. Give me some of those other ideas about fetal rights. I'm willing
to discuss them.
> After you get through putting me through your day of hell being
> a woman in this society do I get the chance to put you through
> a day of hell as a man in the same society?
Day of hell? I was just going to give you a normal day in the life of the
average woman. Looks like you've interpreted that to be "hell". And you
don't even have to be raped or have your son killed. We'll just give you
everything else. That's hell enough compared to the freedom and respect
you now take for granted.
And sure, I'd love to be a guy for a day. I can use the raise! :-)
>I agree, life is rough, but I don't blame all my problems on the opposite sex,
>you do.
No I don't. You're assuming you know "all my problems".
We're not discussing my state of mind - we're discussing fetal rights vs.
maternal rights. I don't understand why it's so difficult to keep *some*
men focused on that issue! It's amusing that *some* men digress so easily
to discuss the messenger rather than the message. I'm tempted again to
think about the reasons why. There's no argument going on this topic at
all. There are people presenting ideas and there are some other people
flaming at them. It takes two to make an argument and I refuse to stoop.
These guys are flaming all by themselves.
>I don't think you are right as often as you think you are.
I don't profess to be "right". I am presenting my ideas on the topic and
my reasons for them. That's ok, isn't it? And you can disagree with me
and present YOUR ideas and your reason's for them too. Aren't notesfiles
wonderful?
>Because of your hard line I end up coming out against you instead of with
>you.
Aw, c'mon, I thought women were supposed to be the emotional ones! Where's
your cold logic? :-)
|
| 406.88 | An opposing view does not imply a sinister motives | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Wed Aug 12 1987 13:01 | 14 |
| re .87:
The cynical viewpoint expressed in this note -- that "the reason
[anti-abortion people seek to eliminate or limit abortion] is to
control women" makes as much sense to me as when some right-wingers in
the 60's and early 70's questioned the patriotism of anti-war people.
A refusal to acknowledge that someone else can sincerely believe
something that is contrary to your own beliefs (e.g., that abortion
might be sufficiently wrong to enact laws prohibiting it, or that
someone could protest against US policy in SE Asia without being a
dupe of the Soviet Union) serves neither the cause you support nor
your own credibility.
--Don Topaz
|
| 406.89 | | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Wed Aug 12 1987 14:10 | 15 |
| <--(.88)
Don, how would you respond to the contention that there is a (generally
sub- or pre-conscious) "hidden agenda" of some kind in at least some,
and from my observation, many) anti-abortion people's stance? I offer
as evidence, as have others, the lack of concern that many such people
show for other, equally innocent human life, e.g.: soldiers who are
drafted and sent to war; abused children; the economically-displaced
who freeze and starve in the streets.
Would you agree that some sort of hidden agenda appears to exist?
If not, how do you suggest that we account for the evidence offered
above?
=maggie
|
| 406.90 | | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Wed Aug 12 1987 14:43 | 3 |
| I hope somebody answers your tantalizing questions, Maggie.
We sit and wait...
|
| 406.91 | Mothers were fetuses too | MANANA::RAVAN | | Wed Aug 12 1987 15:02 | 36 |
| Margaret's note (.89) triggered something for me. While I don't
swallow the "male conspiracy to keep women down" theory, it's still
obvious that there's an inconsistency between wanting to preserve
the life of a fetus while not caring about the lives of post-fetal
humans - kids, mothers, and so forth.
I think the abortion issue is not a matter of saving the fetus so
much as of punishing the sexually active mother. The argument seems
to be, "If we allow these people to dispose of the fetus they won't
have any incentive not to go out and be immoral all over again."
(The logic of this is a bit faulty, of course, but that's never
stopped people before.)
This is NOT the sole motivation of anti-abortionists, I hasten to
add. I'm sure many, perhaps most, of them honestly respect life,
all life, and would decry the abuse of children, the drafting of
unwilling soldiers, and other forms of causing harm or death to
the innocent. But if I find someone who doesn't want to permit
abortions but at the same time won't help orphaned children, I have
to suspect that they want to punish the perceived sin rather than
preserve a life.
"Fetal abuse" is a very touchy subject. If a mother abuses her children
they can - and should - be taken away from her for their own protection
until she can adjust her behaviour. It seems a bit unfair that a
mother could "abuse" via substances or behaviour an unborn child,
and there would be no legal recourse until that child was born -
but at the same time I would never advocate laws that would restrict
a woman's actions because she was pregnant. Push education, peer
pressure, societal pressure; make health care and information
available; do the best we can, but do *not* confine a woman to keep
her from doing something that might be harmful to her unborn child.
It's too hard to draw the line - drugs? Smoking? Caffeine? Walking
too fast? "The Handmaid's Tale," indeed.
-b
|
| 406.92 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Wed Aug 12 1987 15:19 | 34 |
|
re .89:
Frankly, Maggie, I don't think there's a whole lot of consistency to
much of the standard right-wing agenda: many of the most vociferous
backers of "freedom-fighters" are the same people who support foreign
political leaders who are best known for their repression of freedoms.
I'm not suggesting that the conservative crowd is consistent. And I'll
hardly try to explain the inconsistencies of the right. (It is,
however, tough to see how the same people that would control women
would also draft soldiers and send them to war -- you surely weren't
referring to female soldiers, were you?)
Neither am I suggesting that, on some level of consciousness, some
percentage of those who call themselves "pro-life" have taken an
anti-abortion position because of a notion that women ought to be
controlled. (For that matter, how can any of us know how many of our
views are influenced by our own sub-conscious prejudices?)
I do, however, contend that it is cynical, prejudicial, and arrogant
to make a blanket statement that those who support anti-abortion laws
do so out of a desire/need/urge to control women. There are lots of
people, men and women, who believe as an article of faith that a fetus
is human life, and that the willful termination of that life is no
different from the willful termination of other human life. I'd
equate ridiculing those beliefs, or assigning ulterior motives to
those beliefs, in the same category as ridiculing someone's religious
beliefs, or questioning the patriotism of an individual who speaks
out against the policies of the current government.
How can you or anyone else presume to decide another's motives,
or presume to see inside another's heart?
--Don
|
| 406.93 | What are we really saying? | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | Soon to be millionaire | Wed Aug 12 1987 15:27 | 11 |
| Whoa....
There are some people who sincerely believe that life begins at
conception, do not believe in abortion, and do care about the
quality of life for children, mothers and adolescents.
Because one does not believe in abortion does not mean that one
believes in war or any other activity which is detrimental to the
health of humans.
Let's be realistic....
|
| 406.94 | this 'conspiracy' thing has got to stop | TSG::PHILPOT | | Wed Aug 12 1987 15:35 | 32 |
| I can't speak for all anti-abortionist, but I (being one) can't
believe what I'm reading in this note! To think that being against
abortion is a "plot" to control women's bodies, or punish the sexually
active is, to me, ludicrous. I do not believe in or agree with
abortion, war, child abuse, or any of the other horrible things
mentioned in this note. But just because I'm not out "helping orphaned
children" (I can't remember the number of that reply) does not by
any means lessen my conviction that killing an unborn child is wrong.
I also don't picket abortion clinics, but I don't agree with what
they do.
And although I think war is one of man's most horrible inventions,
I can see why a person could be anti-abortion and not anti-war.
There is a big difference between a grown man being drafted (which
by the way not longer happens in the US) and having the opportunity
to leave the country, or at least fight for his life in a war, and
a fetus that has no means of defending itself or speaking up for
its rights.
I've been reading this note and keeping my thoughts to myself for
a long time. But the recent 'attack' on anti-abortionists has really
gotten to me. I just can't see how a woman can have an abortion
for an 'inconvenient' pregnancy (and please, I am not talking about
an abortion for a pregnancy that was caused by a rape. While I
can't advocate abortion for any reason, a pregnancy under those
circumstances has its own special emotional problems) and then
cry out to others for help in dealing with it. If you truly believe
that that fetus does not represent a human life, where is the trauma?
Think I'll go calm down now...
Lynne
|
| 406.95 | | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Wed Aug 12 1987 15:43 | 25 |
| <--(.92)
Well, although it's not possible to say _with certainty_ what
anyone's motives (often including our own) are, we can certainly
speculate and postulate, Don. I mean, that's what science is all
about after all. And when we observe a discrepancy between a global
profession --e.g., "pro-life"-- and everyday action, we're entitled
to suggest that actual motivation may not be as advertised. I don't
think anyone suggested that the control of women is the sole
explanation of all actions. You're quite right in suggesting that
that would fail to explain the drafting of men.
The argument being advanced by us is that the anti-abortion position
is in many cases more plausibly accounted for by some reason other
than the stated "pro-life" one. Our hypothesis is that social
control (which in this case equates particularly to the control of
women) is what's really behind the rhetoric. Actually, a good case
could be made that it also tends to the control of the poor in
general, as does the drafting of men (who tend to come *very*
disproportionately from the lowest socioeconomic classes as I'm
quite sure you know).
Do you have an alternative hypothesis?
=maggie
|
| 406.96 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Wed Aug 12 1987 16:08 | 23 |
| re .95:
By gosh, I think we agree, for the most part. Where we might disagree
is where you say that you "don't think anyone suggested that the
control of women is the sole explanation [for anti-abortion
activities]". Here's part of what Sandy said in .87 -- it's this
concept to which I take objection:
The reasons ARE the problem. It's the reasons we're
attacking. Not exactly WHAT they do, (protecting life is
commendable. No one can argue with someone's desire to
do so), but it's the REASON they are doing it, which is
to control women that is the problem.
I read those words, both extracted here and in the context of the
note, as stating that the true rationale (or hidden agenda) of the
anti-abortion people is to control women. I read nothing in .87 that
says that at least some, if not many, of those favoring limiting or
prohibiting abortion might be sincere.
Am I reading something wrong?
--Don
|
| 406.97 | What about China! | BRUTUS::MTHOMSON | Why re-invent the wheel | Wed Aug 12 1987 17:03 | 14 |
| I'm wondering if controling women's bodies is indeed not the hidden
agenda for men when it comes to the abortion question. This is
why I'm wondering this. Some time ago CBS (White paper) on China,
the state dictates how many children women can have. Women are
forced to stay within the one child per couple guideline. Women
are sometimes forced to have abortions.
In this culture we value life before birth? In China they do not?
Is it that simple? Or is it that me want to control women's bodies?
Just wondering out loud.
MaggieT
|
| 406.98 | | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Wed Aug 12 1987 17:47 | 149 |
| re: -1 Great point about China! And it's irrefutable proof that
male leaders believe that birth is something that they should control
whether or not that control means that women should NOT have abortions
or that they MUST have them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MANANA::RAVAN 36 lines 12-AUG-1987 14:02
>I don't swallow the "male conspiracy to keep women down" theory...
>I think the abortion issue is not a matter of saving the fetus so
>much as of punishing the sexually active mother.
What's the difference in these two statements? Punishing a sexually
active female IS an attempt to "keep her down", is it not?
>This is NOT the sole motivation of anti-abortionists, I hasten to
>add.
I see a blurring here between the people of our nation who are anti-
abortionists, (of which I have made NO statements regarding THEIR
motives or reasons), and the male legislators who make decisions and
laws regarding abortions, (which I AM talking about).
>It seems a bit unfair that a mother could "abuse" via substances or
>behaviour an unborn child...
"Unfair"? That's just biology. Whatever a woman puts into her body
affects her unborn child because that unborn child IS her body! It
is this that bothers our government. They don't WANT it to be her
body - they want it to be THEIRS to control!
CALLME::MR_TOPAZ 34 lines 12-AUG-1987 14:19
>For that matter, how can any of us know how many of our views are influenced
>by our own sub-conscious prejudices?
Really? Don't you ever challenge your own views? Don't you ever trace
your conclusions back through your own thought process to be sure that your
views are logical and NOT the result of sub-conscious prejudices? I do,
routinely! I'm surprised to think that people just think things, decide
things and dismiss the issue without any logical thought whatsoever. How
do you defend any of your own statements if you never really know if they're
just the result of sub-conscious prejudice? How foolish you risk looking!
> I do, however, contend that it is cynical, prejudicial, and arrogant
> to make a blanket statement that those who support anti-abortion laws
> do so out of a desire/need/urge to control women.
So do I. That's why I would never say such a thing. I didn't read here
anyone else saying such a thing either. Those who only "support" the laws
and those who "make" them and "enforce" them are not the same group of people!
I am dealing only with the latter group.
> How can you or anyone else presume to decide another's motives,
> or presume to see inside another's heart?
No one has "decided" anyone's motives. I've presented my theory and my
reasons for it. I have a right to do that. You have a right to present your
theory and the reasons for it. Don't pass up on that right and then just try
and trash me because I didn't.
>To think that being against abortion is a "plot" to control women's bodies,
>or punish the sexually active is, to me, ludicrous.
Again, the blurring of the people who MAKE the laws and ENFORCE them with
the people who SUPPORT them. NO ONE has said that merely BEING against
abortion is a "plot". Trying to make abortion illegal IS a plot. If I
say I don't think those sweet manatees in Florida should be protected, is
that a plot to do away with them? Of course not. If I work to repeal the
laws that protect them is THAT as plot? Yes it is. This is a big issue here
and we must deal with it one point at a time.
> There is a big difference between a grown man being drafted (which
> by the way not longer happens in the US) and having the opportunity
> to leave the country, or at least fight for his life in a war, and
> a fetus that has no means of defending itself or speaking up for
> its rights.
Don't say the draft "no longer happens". It is not currently in use. It
will be resurrected without hesitation as soon as it's needed. They've
already considered it a couple of times in the past few years. And you
think a draftee who can leave the country or fight for his life is looking
at two "opportunities"? Opportunities to NOT be killed for the sanctified
male reasons? The draftee is NO different except HIS death is glorified
with brass bands, medals, uniforms and ticker-tape parades. To kill a young
man for "freedom" is glorious while to abort a fetus for a woman's freedom is
heinous. Gag.
> But the recent 'attack' on anti-abortionists has really gotten to me.
Again, there has been no attack on anti-abortionists. The attack is on
the motives of the legislators who wish to regulate this technology.
>I just can't see how a woman can have an abortion for an 'inconvenient'
>pregnancy
That HAS to be because you personally have never had an inconvenient
pregnancy or because you have a certain definition of what constitutes
"inconvenient". Pregnancy is "inconvenient" to any woman, (any PERSON),
not prepared to bear, support and raise a child for at least the ensuing
20 years.
>(and please, I am not talking about an abortion for a pregnancy that was
>caused by a rape.
This is where you personally draw the line. Are you suggesting that this
is where everybody should draw their lines too?
CALLME::MR_TOPAZ 23 lines 12-AUG-1987 15:08
> The reasons ARE the problem. It's the reasons we're
> attacking. Not exactly WHAT they do, (protecting life is
> commendable. No one can argue with someone's desire to
> do so), but it's the REASON they are doing it, which is
> to control women that is the problem.
> I read those words, both extracted here and in the context of the
> note, as stating that the true rationale (or hidden agenda) of the
> anti-abortion people is to control women.
Not of the "anti-abortion people" but of the legislators who want to make
abortion illegal. There ARE anti-abortion people who are sincere in their
beliefs so I would not be so general as to include ALL of them in my state-
ments. I AM including our male legislators who make the "rules" about
abortion and ONLY them.
I'll state it clearly here so that no one has to wonder about what I'm saying:
I believe that the true rationale, (hidden agenda), of those who work to make
abortion illegal is control of women and their sexuality. If you want to
disagree with that, fine, but please also enlighten us to YOUR thought
process which makes you think the way YOU do!
Female birth control was illegal in this country while condoms were legal.
Explain why you think THAT was so. When vascectomy and tubal ligations became
accepted procedures, a man could get one on request. A woman had to be
married, already have 3 children, (yes - THEY decided three would have filled
her "quota"!) AND have the consent of her husband. Explain please why that
was so.
If control of women's sexuality was NOT the reason behind all these dis-
crepancies, (and which helps me to suspect that abortion is just the latest
arena for this battle for control), then what was?
|
| 406.99 | Guess it's how you look at it | MANANA::RAVAN | | Wed Aug 12 1987 18:29 | 31 |
| Re: "what's the difference between those statements":
Simple. I don't believe there's a conspiracy to put women down, in the
sense that I don't believe in halls full of males saying "We can't
allow these women to decide things for themselves; let's pass some more
laws to keep them in their place." (Oh, lots of men - and women! - may
be *saying* things like that, but I doubt it shows up on many agendas.)
On the other hand, I can easily imagine a board room or meeting in
which it is bluntly stated that easy access to abortions will encourage
promiscuity, and therefore should be avoided. I see this as a
"conspiracy" against sexuality, not specifically against women -
although the bias is obvious - but against the most noticeable
side-effect of such promiscuity. The double standard is still with us,
and even with the AIDS situation many people seem to think that it's
"more OK" for males to have multiple and/or pre-marital sexual partners
than for females to, but I still think that if there's a conspiracy at
all - and I am *not* saying there is, just that I'd find it more
believable than some of the things suggested here lately - that it is
more likely to be based on punishing promiscuous females *and males*
than on explicitly "keeping down women". It's just a lot harder
to tell by looking that a man has been promiscuous.
The biological fact that it's the women who bear the babies complicates
the situation. How can we tell whether a group is making restrictions
based on the condition of pregnancy (and would be willing to restrict
pregnant males if that were possible), or if they're "conspiring"
against women? And if it isn't possible to tell, wouldn't it be
more effective to address the specifics instead of guessing at motives?
-b
|
| 406.100 | Let's try one more time. | SSGVAX::LUST | Reality is for those that can't handle drugs | Wed Aug 12 1987 20:22 | 135 |
| < Note 406.98 by CSSE::CICCOLINI >
-< >-
< re: -1 Great point about China! And it's irrefutable proof that
< male leaders believe that birth is something that they should control
< whether or not that control means that women should NOT have abortions
< or that they MUST have them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think that you have once oversimplified the situation to your own advantage.
The question in China would seem to me that the government is trying to
control the *NUMBER* of births not the births themselves. It is an official
policy in China that a family should have only one child. The government
goes to great lengths to make all *FAMILIES* (not just the woman) adhere to
that goal. It is however true that only women carry babies, so it is not
possible to make the father undergo the abortion. Vasectomies are also
strongly encouraged for all mem who have had their one child - as are
tubal ligations for women who have had one child. If a couple tries to
(wants to) have a second child, the entire family (mother, father, and the
grandparents) are placed under a great deal of pressure to abort, not just
the mother-to-be.
I do not approve of their methods, but I do feel rather strongly that their
policies and procedures can be cited as proof positive of a desire/need to
control women -- they are trying to control their population.
And I might add, that it isn't fair to say that their policies are only being
determined by men -- women make up a far greater percent of China's ruling
elite at all levels than in the US.
You go on to say several times that your only concern is the rule makers,
not the ones who are against abortion, but you clearly trap yourself --
the following are excerps from your replies:
*<>This is NOT the sole motivation of anti-abortionists, I hasten to
*<>add.
*<
*<I see a blurring here between the people of our nation who are anti-
*<abortionists, (of which I have made NO statements regarding THEIR
*<motives or reasons), and the male legislators who make decisions and
*<laws regarding abortions, (which I AM talking about).
*
*
*CALLME::MR_TOPAZ 23 lines 12-AUG-1987 15:08
*
*
*> The reasons ARE the problem. It's the reasons we're
*> attacking. Not exactly WHAT they do, (protecting life is
*> commendable. No one can argue with someone's desire to
*> do so), but it's the REASON they are doing it, which is
*> to control women that is the problem.
*
* > I read those words, both extracted here and in the context of the
* > note, as stating that the true rationale (or hidden agenda) of the
* > anti-abortion people is to control women.
*
*Not of the "anti-abortion people" but of the legislators who want to make
*abortion illegal. There ARE anti-abortion people who are sincere in their
*beliefs so I would not be so general as to include ALL of them in my state-
*ments. I AM including our male legislators who make the "rules" about
*abortion and ONLY them.
*
*I'll state it clearly here so that no one has to wonder about what I'm saying:
*
*I believe that the true rationale, (hidden agenda), of those who work to make
*abortion illegal is control of women and their sexuality. If you want to
*disagree with that, fine, but please also enlighten us to YOUR thought
*process which makes you think the way YOU do!
*
"... those who work to make abortion illegal ..." (your exact words);
Unfortunately for you, this doesn't hold water. Many people "work to
make abortion illegal" who are not legislators. They are both men and
women who work against abortion for many diverse reasons. Are the women
who oppose abortion and work toward that end also trying to control women?
I hardly think so.
I feel that the sad fact is that many people do of course take positions
without ever examining the logic of those positions in light of their
past (social, religious, familial, etc.). I agree with you that it is
sad indeed, I am on your side in this and in most "feminist" (humanist?)
causes. I only disagreed with you in your tendency to ascribe some form
of evil intent to those who are on the opposite side.
Legislators are not one of my favorite forms of people, but I don't think
they are given to evil intentions concerning the need to control women.
In fact I feel that most of them aren't capable of thinking clearly enough
to frame that kind of a program. I do feel that a lot (an awful lot) of
them are dumb, bigotted, pig-headed, mis-guided, mis-informed, etc. (add
your own favorite adjective here). And the more conservative of them tend
to think in terms of "THE BIBLE" and equate morality with their biblical
teachings. They fail to remember that many of us in the world do not
accept the Bible as our (you should excuse the expression) "GOSPEL".
They tend to think in terms of what a person *CAN"T* do. They don't like
abortion, sodomy, polygamy, etc.
On other end, the liberals tend to think in terms of what you *MUST* do.
They are the ones who will be push the idea of fetal rights. Unfortunately
both sides think they have a divine right to tell you how to live your
life -- neither one thinks we can be allowed to make our own choices. But
always out of the purest motives. BAH!!!!! Both of them make me want
to VOMIT.
My only disagreement with you is in your determination to see some form
of "conspiracy" by (some) men to try and dominate women. Why can't you
allow that most of what is happening is a case of most men not even real-
izing that what they are doing is having the effect of oppressing women
without necessarily having that intention? I know I still have a lot
of character glitches which could be construed as being condescending
or demeaning to women (or to other groups). Much of it is due to my
manner of speech, but much of it is due to ignorance or due to lack of
forethought. *NONE* of it is ever as a result of deliberate intention
to harm -- but you on the recieving end of it can't make that determination
without asking me what my intention was.
On another topic: You point about a woman having to get her husband's
permission in order to get a tubal-ligation is absolutely dead on --
my current SO had to get her husband's permission. But when I had my
vasectomy in 1972, I had to get my (ex-)wife's permission before the
doctor would consent to "tie the knot". It wasn't right for me, and it
isn't right for anyone else. (As an aside, let me say that if you are
married, or in any kind of long-term relationship, I feel that it would
be highly unethical to procede with such a procedure without having
obtained your partner's approval.)
While I disagree with the meaning you have chosen to place on motivation,
please let me reassure you that I heartily agree with your basic cause;
and I will be proud to in the fight to exterminate sexism, racism, etc.
In love and friendship!
Dirk
|
| 406.101 | The infernal meddlers. | SSGVAX::LUST | Reality is for those that can't handle drugs | Wed Aug 12 1987 20:37 | 25 |
| RE: .100
In an attempt to clarify what I said about people trying to determine how
you should act:
I feel that the situation vis-a-vis abortion and fetal-rights can be compared
to the person who while having no children of their own has no compunction
whatever about telling you what you are doing wrong with your children.
Call it the uncontrollable urge to meddle. Because they want to control
the world -- not just you (or in the case of abortion/fetal-rights not
just women - they wouldn't let men have abortions either. Remember, until
sometime in the late 60's - early 70's, the law in Massachusetts specified
that the "missionary position" was the only legal one.
I always did wonder - since voyeurism was also illegal - how did they know?
Sodomy is illegal in most states - how many heterosexuals have been prosecuted
for this "unnatural act"?
Lots of people just can't help themselves - they just want to interfere with
everyone's life not just yours. Its a sickness.
In love and peace.
Dirk
|
| 406.102 | If it's Tuesday, is this Belgium?? | VINO::EVANS | | Thu Aug 13 1987 13:46 | 15 |
| I don't know about anybody else, but the statements I've made in
this particular note have been responses to the situation of a woman
being "brought before the law" because she did "X" while pregnant,
therefore (supposedly) causing harm to the fetus.
How the (%%*&^ did we make the de-railment to abortion rights?
While my feelings would be similar discussing these two situation,
they would NOT be identical. I would (and HAVE) said different things,
depending on which subject was under discussion. Certainly, however,
the statements regarding "protect (possibly future) human beings,
but once they're born, they're on their own" still obtain.
Dawn
|
| 406.103 | because abortion rights are maternal rights | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Thu Aug 13 1987 16:18 | 117 |
| MANANA::RAVAN 31 lines 12-AUG-1987 17:29
>(Oh, lots of men - and women! - may be *saying* things like that, but
>I doubt it shows up on many agendas.)
You think people "talk" a good game about the existence of a double
standard based on sex, (why would they want to?), but no such thing really
actually exists?
>I see this as a "conspiracy" against sexuality, not specifically against
>women - although the bias is obvious -
Fine. We're dealing with what you call the "bias".
I don't like the word "conspiracy" either. It's getting too many
people sidetracked into thinking we, (or more specifically I), think male
legislators are sniggering at "stupid little girls" behind closed doors
with pen in hand. Not so. Sexism is much more dignified, (and subtle),
than that. I'm sure they act to each other as though this is a very
great thing they are doing for the unborn and that they are indeed moral
legislators. I don't think the "effect" or the "bias" is ever really
discussed seriously. As someone else said, they can imagine the
discussion in a corporate boardroom and so can I. When the "effect" is
actually being "enacted" it is not discussed.
>but against the most noticeable side-effect of such promiscuity.
Pregnancy is the most noticeable side-effect of promiscuity? Men are far
and away the more promiscuous sex and pregnancy occurs in "good" girls who
may have had sex only once. If by "noticeable side-effect" you mean
"most public, visible proof of ever having had sex", then yes, pregnancy
is a good "mark". But the legislators aren't concerned with just identi-
fying people who've "ever had sex", (and, well, we just happen to have only
this ONE way of knowing!) - or are they?
The most noticeable side-effect of promiscuity is venereal disease. Let's
"punish" them, if we must, at the clinics and in the hospitals. That will
get promiscuity down. AIDS has done an incredible job on decreasing pro-
miscuity. Because the consequences are severe and are directly linked to
promiscuity. The abortion issue is not. It is based on something else.
>it is more likely to be based on punishing promiscuous females *and males*
>than on explicitly "keeping down women". It's just a lot harder to tell
>by looking that a man has been promiscuous.
So the legislators got together and said "Men (!), we've got to stop this
here promiscuity thing once and for all! Buford! Now how can we tell if
someone's promiscuous?"
"Well, someone's eventually going to end up pregnant!"
"Buford, the men ain't gonna end up pregnant!"
"Well that just cuts our job in half, don' it?!"
With men free to abandon pregnant women at any time, (and I think we're
all aware of the ever-increasing numbers of single mothers), I fail to see
how regulating pregnancy "punishes" both sexes equally for their alleged
"sin". Further, I don't even want to get in to the other part of your
message which somehow sounds as though you think seeking and out and punish-
ing certain kinds of sex is a proper function of government.
> The biological fact that it's the women who bear the babies complicates
> the situation.
The first step toward more egalitarian thinking is that you don't
automatically, always blame the woman. Life started with men and women
together, side by side. What kind of "situation" has developed that
women suddenly complicate by their pregnancies? Men's moral decisions?
Do we make it tough on the heavy thinkers in our society who have a hard
time reconciling their ideas of life with our realities of it?
I'm trying to be calm here. This "situation" belongs as much to women
as it does to the men. If ANYthing complicates the situation it is the
unwillingness of EITHER sex to recognize the other as having opinions and
concerns which are VITAL to the shaping of this "situation". If we don't
"fit" the situation then perhaps it's the situation that needs a bit of
adjustment.
>How can we tell whether a group is making restrictions based on the
>condition of pregnancy (and would be willing to restrict pregnant males
>if that were possible), or if they're "conspiring" against women?
You look at the effect of what you're doing. You listen to the people who
are affected by it and are trying to tell you something you just may, (and
that's giving the benefit of the doubt!), not have seen. I say the effect
is very clearly seen but I'd be willing to accept a plea of ignorance on the
issue to begin designing equality into our lives from this day forward.
SSGVAX::LUST "Reality is for those that can't handl" 25 lines 12-AUG-1987 19:37
>Call it the uncontrollable urge to meddle.
Call me irresponsible - but this is not going to make anyone say "Oh, OK -
never mind".
>Sodomy is illegal in most states - how many heterosexuals have been prosecuted
>for this "unnatural act"?
Not many. The practice is enjoyed by some men. Sodomy includes animals.
And it well may be as "illegal" as some legislators would like to see abortion
but it never has nor ever will be as voraciously enforced. The law exists
as a token nod to morality. Men are rarely "punished" in the legal sense
for their sexual "leanings" including promiscuity. Only a blatant infraction
of usually some OTHER existing law can get him in real trouble. Only recently
has a rape charge been a serious and prosecutable charge on its own. Until
recently, (10 years ago?), he had to have beaten her too or broken into her
home too or stolen something too.
>Lots of people just can't help themselves - they just want to interfere with
>everyone's life not just yours. Its a sickness.
So it's because the people who run our country are sickies, eh? I find it
still difficult to say, "Oh, OK, never mind".
|
| 406.104 | Killing unborn is not murder | VINO::MCARLETON | Reality; what a concept! | Thu Aug 13 1987 16:30 | 73 |
| Re. .87
> And we KNOW that the reasons are control of women because "protecting
> life" is not a blanket concern of our legislators - it's only a concern
> as it applies to women.
Protecting life is a concern of our legislators. They may not be
too concerned with the quality of life once people are born but,
as they see it, a human being is protected by their laws against
murder for all of their life...except before they are born. The
problem is that it is legal to kill any unborn person. This assumes
that you believe that an unborn baby is a person with rights. I
don't happen to believe that an unborn baby has rights as a person.
>>This only serves to prove to me that you don't want to understand the
>>*REAL* reason that there is a fetal rights issue.
>It does, huh? What IS the real reason? Your note doesn't say.
The real reason is above. If you insist that a unborn baby is a real
person, than you are forced to conclude that it is now legal to
kill people (or abuse them)...as long as they are not born yet.
> Aw, c'mon, I thought women were supposed to be the emotional ones!
> Where's your cold logic? :-)
Were do you get off making personal attacks against my masculinity?!?
Personal attacks have no place in this or any other notes file.
> Again, the blurring of the people who MAKE the laws and ENFORCE them
> with the people who SUPPORT them.
I can't see how you can make such a distinction between the law
makers and the law supporters. As I see it the supporters of
anti-abortion laws and fetal rights intervention are pressuring
their law makers to make the laws which you appose. You see
the lawmakers being disconnected from the influence of the
people. I only see law makers responding to the loudest voices
and ignoring the weaker opinion.
> NO ONE has said that merely BEING against abortion is a "plot". Trying
> to make abortion illegal IS a plot.
Yes, a plot to protect unborn people against murder but not a plot to
control women. The effect of protecting the unborn child is too much
state control over the woman's body...but that is not the intention of
the law.
> I believe that the true rationale, (hidden agenda), of those who work
> to make abortion illegal is control of women and their sexuality.
And I and others here don't agree with you. The problem that I
have with this is that I don't see any other method that is also
being used by the same people to achieve the same goal. Did they
choose to use only one method or is there other equally devastating
laws focused on women that have the same effect?
Re: the draft rat hole
Does the existence of the draft prove that legislators do not really
care about life? I don't think so. I see war as an inevitable
consequence of a species that thinks it's OK to take what is not
freely given (as well as hoard what should be shared). The idea
of the draft is to fill the ranks for modern wars that require much
more man power than would walk in off the street to volunteer.
The draft becomes a problem when the young men dieing for the cause
do not include the sons of those making the decisions that the
cause is worth given one's life for (It's worth dieing for as long
as it's not my son that has to die).
MJC O->
|
| 406.105 | Last try | XANADU::RAVAN | | Thu Aug 13 1987 17:47 | 30 |
| Re .103:
Sigh. I am not going to try a point-by-point explanation of the
ways in which you seem to have misinterpreted my statements; let
it suffice to say that we probably agree on more things than it
would appear from your reply. Perhaps this is what I get for trying
to avoid making absolute statements; I over-qualify, and then get
jumped on for supposedly supporting the exceptions that I state.
(Those who *don't* state exceptions have sometimes been pounced
on for being too general, so there's no easy way out.)
Simply: Yes, sexism exists. No, I don't believe that legislators
deliberately set out to suppress women. I do believe that they *may*
set out, intentionally or otherwise, to control "for their own good"
such groups as the young, the infirm, the poor, and the minorities.
A nation-wide plot? No. A likely consequence of power? Yes. Heck,
don't parents have to fight the tendency to make a child do "what's
good for you", when it finally comes time to let the child learn
to grow up? I think lots of governing bodies mistake their
responsibility to their people for that of a parent to a child.
This is a possible explanation, *not* an excuse, nor is it my belief
of how things ought to be.
Moving deftly back to the original topic: I believe that if one wants
to fight attempts at limiting maternal rights in favor of the fetus, it
would be more effective to challenge such attempts as restrictions of
Constitutional freedom rather than as a plot against women.
-b
|
| 406.106 | | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Thu Aug 13 1987 18:15 | 140 |
| Sigh - do you think government has a right to legislate you or your
sexuality for YOUR own good? Should a government of the people,
by the people and for the people act like a separate entity from
us looking down at us, clucking their tongues and treating us like
children? Is that how you want your government to view you? Is
that how you want them to run your life because of that view?
And we ARE fighting the attempts at restrictions of constitutional
rights. The problem here is that our government is trying to tell
us that if we are pregnant we have LOST some of our constitutional
rights. Isn't that frightening? We have to get the government
first to realize that we are real people who deserve constitutional
rights, pregnant or not. They are unwilling to see it that way.
It is the government who has really posed the issue fetal rights
vs. maternal ones. They are trying to separate the wombs from the
women - not us.
> Protecting life is a concern of our legislators. They may not be
> too concerned with the quality of life once people are born but,
> as they see it, a human being is protected by their laws against
> murder for all of their life...except before they are born.
That's simply not true! When the government decides to put its draft
into effect, suddenly no eligible young man is protected from murder
either committing it or having it committed against him by any laws.
Similarly every time an execution takes place in this country you are
looking at another human being who is not protected by any laws. Pull
yourself back from the details of all of these situations - abortion,
war and capital punishment and get as general as you need to to find
the common ground. "Concern for life" is too general a statement to
apply to all three so why should it apply to only one of them?
> The problem is that it is legal to kill any unborn person.
It's legal to kill born persons too. See above. The difference is
the REASON for killing and reasons deemed by males to be "right" are
acceptable to our male legislative body. Reasons deemed right by females
get a great big "Whoa, baby - let's see just what we're doing here -
you're proposing MURDER! How can you ask me to sanction that?"
>I don't happen to believe that an unborn baby has rights as a person.
I don't either but I didn't know if that wasn't too hot a potatoe to
handle here.
> > Aw, c'mon, I thought women were supposed to be the emotional ones!
> > Where's your cold logic? :-)
> Were do you get off making personal attacks against my masculinity?!?
> Personal attacks have no place in this or any other notes file.
Sorry - I didn't want to flame at you for blaming me for your view, (you said
it was my words that made you discard the sympathy you would have felt for
the issue), but I couldn't let your blame go unacknowledged. I didn't mean
to attack your masculinity. Heavens. Sorry.
> Again, the blurring of the people who MAKE the laws and ENFORCE them
> with the people who SUPPORT them.
>I can't see how you can make such a distinction between the law makers and
>the law supporters... You see the lawmakers being disconnected from the
>influence of the people.
Yes I do. How do you explain that even though in more than one pole the
majority of Americans have stated, (something like at least 75%), that they
believe that abortion should be a private matter between a woman and her
doctor the first trimester and that government has no business in the issue,
and the continued attempts to reverse the 1973 Supreme Court Decision that
agreed? If our government truly reflects the majority opinion, why isn't
this issue settled? I'd really like to hear your answer to these questions.
>I only see law makers responding to the loudest voices and ignoring the
>weaker opinion.
And do you think such a governement, professing to be "Of the people, by
the people and for the people" is working properly? What if the "weaker
opinion" was one of yours?
> Yes, a plot to protect unborn people against murder but not a plot to
> control women.
Why are unborn people so much more important than born people? I was thinking
about the noter whose sister agreed with her husband that if/when she got
pregnant they would agree that her uterus would take precedence over the
rest of her in the event a choice had to be made. I'm sorry, but I think
that's as presposterous as the noter did. If life is so precious, than the
woman who is of child-bearing age is perhaps MORE important than a potential
infant who would not be producing life for at least another 15 years, give
or take local circimstances - and THAT's if the potential life is FEMALE!
How can a fully functioning human being be diminished in value by a mere po-
tential of anything? I just don't see this point. The born can make all
the unborn they want. The unborn can do nothing.
>The effect of protecting the unborn child is too much state control over
>the woman's body...but that is not the intention of the law.
If the effect is known, and it is, and is complained about, which it is, and
it continues, which it is, then there is something more going on. None are
so blind as those who will not see.
>The problem that I have with this is that I don't see any other method that
>is also being used by the same people to achieve the same goal.
That's because the goal is not what you think it is. The goal of preserving
human life is an honorable one. But when it is applied STRICTLY to one seg-
ment of society and when it limits the freedom of only ONE gender in
society while the other gender is free to ignore said noble goal at will,
I can't help but be suspicious of the "goal" as it is presented to me.
> Does the existence of the draft prove that legislators do not really
> care about life? I don't think so.
It proves that the value of life is relative. Compared to gold, oil, land,
nationalism, religion, punishment, "freedom", life has one value. Compared
to female sexual and reproductive freedom, life has for some reason an
extremely high value. Tell me why you think this is so.
>I see war as an inevitable consequence of a species...
You're justifying death.
>The idea of the draft is to fill the ranks for modern wars that require much
>more man power than would walk in off the street to volunteer.
We know that.
>The draft becomes a problem when the young men dieing for the cause
>do not include the sons of those making the decisions that the
>cause is worth given one's life for (It's worth dieing for as long
>as it's not my son that has to die).
Oh, really? That sort of injustice bothers you? Then maybe in that con-
text you can begin to understand why women get so angry when the limits
on freedom imposed by "sanctity of life" rules "do not include the sons OR
those making the decisions.
They don't suffer from the consequences of their decisions, do they? So
it doesn't seem fair, does it? It "becomes a problem" in your words.
|
| 406.107 | A datum. | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Thu Aug 13 1987 18:54 | 8 |
| Some people in this file are equating abortion with murder.
Okay, they're doing that.
However, it seems as if some people believe that abortion was
illegal because it was murder. This is not true. Causing an
abortion was a felony, but it was not a homicide in any degree.
Ann B.
|
| 406.110 | Relative rights | VINO::MCARLETON | Reality; what a concept! | Thu Aug 13 1987 21:22 | 117 |
| Re: .106
> We have to get the government first to realize that we are real people
> who deserve constitutional rights, pregnant or not. They are unwilling
> to see it that way.
The problem is that don't see a pregnant woman as one person with.
her constitutional rights. They see two people and a situation
where they can't grant full rights to one unless they are also willing
to deny all the rights of the other. Since there is no way to
grant full rights to both their solution is to take away part of
the rights of the mother so that they can grant rights to the unborn
child.
> Pull yourself back from the details of all of these situations -
> abortion, war and capital punishment and get as general as you need to
> to find the common ground.
If you pull back so far that you truly see a common ground I believe
that you will loose sight of all of the pertinent facts. Sure,
if you pull back far enough and look through a distorted lens you
can make a dog look like a cat but what does that prove? It's
just too long of a stretch to expect it to hold up the extremely
heavy thesis that you are trying to support.
> Sorry - I didn't want to flame at you for blaming me for your view,
> (you said it was my words that made you discard the sympathy you would
> have felt for the issue), but I couldn't let your blame go
> unacknowledged.
I think you misunderstood. My sympathy is still with the rights
of the mother. It's just that, in the interest of the debate at
hand, I have to defend the position of people that I don't agree
with in order to oppose your thesis. I take issue with the existence
of a conspiracy against women, not with the rights of mothers.
> If our government truly reflects the majority opinion, why isn't this
> issue settled? I'd really like to hear your answer to these
> questions.
If your statistics are really true than it is a case of a vocal
minority taking precedence over a the silent majority. So why
is the majority still silent in this attempt at their constitutional
rights? Part of it could be that (I think) that you statistics are
skewed. I am sure that there is a strong majority that believes
that abortion should be legal in the case of rape or incest or if
the life of the mother is in danger. I believe that there is less
than a majority in favor of abortion on demand. Part of it could
be that the percentage of child bearing women who need the right
to abortion is smaller than the percentage of people who subscribe
to the right-to-life credo. The rest are just not vocal one way
or the other.
> And do you think such a government, professing to be "Of the people,
> by the people and for the people" is working properly? What if the
> "weaker opinion" was one of yours?
It is possible for the government to decide that a convicted murderer
is not being denied his constitutional rights when a state executes
him. It is also possible for the government to decide that you
have no constitutionally guaranteed right to an abortion. I don't
think that a conspiracy against women is necessary for either one
of these.
> I'm sorry, but I think that's as presposterous as the noter did. If
> life is so precious, than the woman who is of child-bearing age is
> perhaps MORE important than a potential infant...
And I agree with you.
> If the effect is known, and it is, and is complained about, which it
> is, and it continues, which it is, then there is something more going
> on.
Not necessarily. The belief that " there is something more going
on" is a large leap from the previous if you relay understand the
opposing arguments. Nonsequitur.
> Compared to female sexual and reproductive freedom, life has for some
> reason an extremely high value. Tell me why you think this is so.
In the case of war I think that young male life is undervalued.
It could be that those you oppose do not place the extremely high
value on female sexual freedom that you do. After all, you are
asking a potential child to give up life to provide you with freedom.
The value of human life, as judged by legislators, may not be all
that relative but the value placed on sexual freedom seems to be.
> But when it is applied STRICTLY to one segment of society and when it
> limits the freedom of only ONE gender in society while the other gender
> is free to ignore said noble goal at will, I can't help but be
> suspicious of the "goal" as it is presented to me.
But notice that the only time that female sexual freedom in questioned
is in the case when we have to make a choice between that and the
life of the potential person. In all other cases your sexual freedom
is defended by the same legislators.
> They don't suffer from the consequences of their decisions, do they?
> So it doesn't seem fair, does it? It "becomes a problem" in your
> words.
Only the potential child suffers the consequences of your decision to
abort. This is unfair to the child for the same reason that the
generals are unfair to the young men of the lower class that they
send to their deaths. If there were a large risk of death from
abortion for the mother then she might have a chance to suffer
from the consequences of her actions.
Women the the unique ability to create life. If you insist on
granting any rights to the unborn child separate from the mother
than you must, necessarily, take away some of the freedom of
the mother. For this reason I think that you are forced to grant
no rights to the child until it is born.
MJC O->
|
| 406.111 | | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Fri Aug 14 1987 08:46 | 15 |
| <--(.110)
" But notice that the only time that female sexual freedom in questioned
is in the case when we have to make a choice between that and the
life of the potential person. In all other cases your sexual freedom
is defended by the same legislators.
"
I think you tripped yourself here, Mike. Remember that prostitution
laws are still enforced mostly against women rather than their
male clients even where the law as written criminalises the client
role as well. (And even that paper equality is, to my knowledge,
still not the norm!)
=maggie
|
| 406.112 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Fri Aug 14 1987 08:52 | 30 |
| re Ciccolini (in particular, .103):
I don't expect to change your opinions, but neither will I let
sit your generalizations and gratuitous comments.
In particular, a statement such as "Men are far and away the more
promiscuous sex..." is the type of broad-brush slander that, one
would have hoped, people would recognize as a characterization of
a group that utterly ignores the individuals within the group;
it's no less silly than saying that men are better mathematicians
than women. Now, Maggie has told me that Kinsey came up with some
sort of statistics that makes the same suggestion (about
promiscuity, not math): I'd classify this right up there with Dr
Shockley's studies about the intelligence of black people -- they
promulgate vicious stereotypes and are grotesquely unfair to the
*individuals* within the group that is being characterized.
Similarly, the purported colloquy between "Buford" and some other
male legislator is demeaning, degrading, and downright dumb. It
has as much validity as a similarly concocted colloquy between
two female legislators who chat about hair styles and the latest
recipe for apple cobbler. In short, it's garbage.
Generalizations and characterizations like those spouted in .103,
whether they pertain to members of a gender, religion, race, or
any other group, ought to be exposed for what they are: bigotry,
plain and simple.
--Don
|
| 406.113 | | MYCRFT::PARODI | John H. Parodi | Fri Aug 14 1987 10:04 | 46 |
|
Re: < Note 406.112 by CALLME::MR_TOPAZ >
> Generalizations and characterizations like those spouted in .103,
> whether they pertain to members of a gender, religion, race, or
> any other group, ought to be exposed for what they are: bigotry,
> plain and simple.
Well, if such remarks are bigotry, then they should be exposed as such.
But calling them bigotry doesn't make it so. I fear that the real problem
with these remarks are that they are not politically correct. You've
now put us on guard against it, though, so we should be able to figure it
out for ourselves.
> I'd classify this right up there with Dr
> Shockley's studies about the intelligence of black people -- they
> promulgate vicious stereotypes and are grotesquely unfair to the
> *individuals* within the group that is being characterized.
The problem is that I don't know what William Shockley's opinions are in this
matter. What is worse is that I don't even know what his *data* were because
he was almost invariably booed off the stage before he ever got a chance
to show it. And I think that is because people feared that his data would
lead to conclusions that were not politically correct.
[My foggy understanding of the issue is that Shockley's studies showed that
on average, blacks scored 7 points less on standard IQ tests than whites.
They also showed that, on average, orientals scored 15 points higher than
whites. But maybe I've got those numbers backwards. I also believe that
Shockley was well aware that the score of an IQ test measured nothing but
the ability to answer questions on the IQ test; i.e., there were no value
judgements about racial superiority.]
Of course, suppression of information based on political incorrectness
causes a much more serious problem than the information itself. Now there
are people who believe that Shockley's studies really did show evidence
of racial "superiority" and that the information was suppressed. Had we
been able to examine the data and determine the value of the study based
on that, then we could have *known* whether it was bigotry or a straight
scientific inquiry.
I'm in favor of free exchange of information, so that we can separate
the reliable from the unreliable. And let the chips fall where they may.
JP
|
| 406.114 | | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Fri Aug 14 1987 10:50 | 27 |
| <--(.112 [originally.108])
Don, I think you mistook what I was saying: the Kinsey Institute
studies that support Sandy's comment about male promiscuity are, as
far as I can tell and as far as I've read elsewhere, as
methodologically sound as any sociopsychological studies can get.
That being so, the rules of science require that we accept the
factual findings. There is some evidence (and most researchers
believe) that the magnitude of the difference between men and women
is an artifact of socialisation differences, but so far it is
believed on cross-cultural grounds that a clear difference does in
fact exist, although causal determinants are by no means clear.
Schockley has taken more heat than he deserved on strictly
scientific grounds. His problem was that he hypothesised about
causality in a way that was both unwarranted by the facts and that
was insensitive to the probable societal consequences for black
people. Individuals of his professional stature need to be *very*
cautious about the potential consequences of their pronouncements.
He wasn't.
The fact that certain findings are statistical in nature, and have
no predictive value for individuals, does not make them worthless
EXCEPT as justification for restrictive social policies.
=maggie
|
| 406.116 | In conclusion... | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Fri Aug 14 1987 12:29 | 42 |
| I propose we die-hards who are still here after the 100th reply gather
in a bar and settle this once and for all! :-)
We heterosexual women love men. We want you in our lives because
you bring us beauty and love. But you also bring us war and death.
You bring us your pain and your reasons. We don't like that part
of you but we love you and we have accepted it to keep you in our
lives. Sure, we'd change it if we could - we'd eliminate your dark
side but we can't. The good and the bad is a package deal.
Women are not all beauty and sweetness as you would idealize. Maybe
we have a dark side too. Maybe pregnancy really isn't always the
blessed result of your favorite sexual tryst. Yes we can be light
in your lives but we can also be darkness. The bottom line is that
you must accept the dark side of us if you want the light we have to
offer just as we have to accept men's darker side.
Or you can continue on seeing women only as one-dimensional beings
here to either bring beauty and sweetness to your life or to have no
effect on it at all. You can't have that. You never could. Our
legislators are trying to have that. They want to legislate that
women will indeed be always sweet and always moral. They won't win.
They haven't yet. And we abhor their intent to demand moral perfection
from us while engaging in their own dark side at their discretion.
It's not that we want the same opportunity to kill as you do -
we don't. Believe me. What we want is the same human acceptance
that you enjoy. The beauty AND the pain. The light AND the dark.
No abortion is undertaken casually by liberated women who'd rather
just be free. It is at least as deep and painful a decision wrought
with moral teachings and spiritual searchings as men claim the issues
of war, capital punishment and euthanasia are. We are not silly
little career girls with flashy cars on our minds. We are adults
who are fully capable of understanding the consequences of abortion
AND the consequences of a full-term pregnancy. We don't need the
government to tell us anything "for our own good". You handle your
pain - we can handle ours.
Hopefully everyone of us will be touched by more of the other's
light than their dark. But to insist upon it is sheer folly.
|
| 406.117 | Beware of bias in IQ research | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | Delta Long = -d(sin A/cos Lat) | Fri Aug 14 1987 14:44 | 40 |
| < Note 406.113 by MYCRFT::PARODI "John H. Parodi" >
>
>
> The problem is that I don't know what William Shockley's opinions are in this
> matter. What is worse is that I don't even know what his *data* were because
> he was almost invariably booed off the stage before he ever got a chance
> to show it. And I think that is because people feared that his data would
> lead to conclusions that were not politically correct.
>
> [My foggy understanding of the issue is that Shockley's studies showed that
> on average, blacks scored 7 points less on standard IQ tests than whites.
> They also showed that, on average, orientals scored 15 points higher than
> whites. But maybe I've got those numbers backwards. I also believe that
> Shockley was well aware that the score of an IQ test measured nothing but
> the ability to answer questions on the IQ test; i.e., there were no value
> judgements about racial superiority.]
The problem with many (if not all) such studies is that they tend
to reflect the prejudice of the scientists involved. For an
excellent discussion of this issue see "The Mismeasure of Man" by
Steven J. Gould. He starts with measurements of the brain size in
various groups and continues up to various IQ tests. One of the
things that he points out is how much people can change data
subconciously to support their positions.
I've only read part of the book, but I have strong doubts about
the ability of anyone to do unbiased studies of such emotionally
charged areas of social science. (Even physical sciences can be
used in this way, but it's a little easier to catch the problems
there.)
Re: rules to control women's bodies
Since many of the people who are arguing for fetal rights who seem
to generally oppose abortion (which is consistent) also often
oppose birth control, it is reasonable to assume that they may be
trying to control women's sexuality, rather than just saving what
they perceive to be lives.
--David
|
| 406.118 | ? | MYCRFT::PARODI | John H. Parodi | Fri Aug 14 1987 16:00 | 10 |
|
David, are we in agreement here? I'm saying that you find these biases
and "subconscious" changes to the data only when the data is given a
complete airing in the scientific community. The only alternative I can
see is to post some areas of inquiry as "off limits" and I don't like
that idea at all.
Thanks for the tip on the Steven Gould book. I'll give it a try.
JP
|
| 406.119 | agreement in large part | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | Delta Long = -d(sin A/cos Lat) | Fri Aug 14 1987 18:09 | 24 |
| >< Note 406.118 by MYCRFT::PARODI "John H. Parodi" >
> -< ? >-
>
>
> David, are we in agreement here? I'm saying that you find these biases
> and "subconscious" changes to the data only when the data is given a
> complete airing in the scientific community. The only alternative I can
> see is to post some areas of inquiry as "off limits" and I don't like
> that idea at all.
>
> JP
John, we're almost in agreement. I agree that the only way to find
the biases is a complete airing in the scientific community. Where
I think we differ is that I have no confidence that *any* social
science can be unbiased, particularly when it concerns an issue
that raises such strong emotions. I don't like the idea of "off
limits" areas at all, but I don't know what to do with work which
I don't think can lead to any believable results, and which will
inflame a large fraction of the population. I find it socially
divisive, but stopping such discussions is unaceptable censorship.
I don't have a solution.
--David
|
| 406.120 | On some questions raised | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Sat Aug 15 1987 00:40 | 136 |
| Several questions have been asked in this discussion that are
themselves off-topic but which reflect on the question of what
the motives are for trying to protect the rights of the fetus.
Why didn't the ERA pass? Doesn't that show adetermination to
mistreat women?
1) The ERA didn't pass, in all probability, because as a
rule constitutional ammendments reflect social change
rather than mandate it.
2) Many people weren't convinced that the ERA should
pass because it seemed to them that there might be
differences between men and women (like who gets
pregnant and silly things like who gets to use which
rest room) the law ought to take into account in order
to treat each group fairly. Even people who want people
to be equal before the law may not want them to be
treated identically if their needs are identical.
Are men "killers" by nature? Are most men killers? are most
killers men?
1) All men certainly aren't killers. Look at all the
counter examples, the Ghandis, the Martin Luthor Kings,
the Albert Schweitzers. Some men kill, and some men
deal through non-violence. Some men die for convictions.
Some men kill for convictions. Some men kill without
conviction.
2) No, men are not by nature killers, at least any more
than they are peace-makers. It's just that violence is a
lot better at getting press than peace and quiet. Big
time killers and big time peace makers (Hitlers and
Ghandis) both get lots of press, but mid-level peace-
makers don't get anywhere near the press that mid-level
killers do.
3) Sure most of the big name killers in the history
books are men. Most of the PEOPLE in the history books
are men. Just because 95 out of 100 violent people you
can name from history are men doesn't prove anything.
95% of the saints you can name are men, 95% of the
statesment, 95% of the scientists, 95% of the
peacemakers.
Doesn't the fact that anti-abortionists cease caring about
the baby once its born prove that the issue is suppressing
women?
Sorry, I missed the part where it was shown they don't
care. Seems to me this is just alleging something about
those you disagree with and then decrying it.
Ever notice how historically when no-one else would care
for orphans the churches, including fundementalist and
Catholic ran the orphanages? Ever notice the number of
soup kitchens that have been run by churches and
conservative religious groups? Did you know that lots of
churches today not only work for anti-abortion
legeslation but to feed the hungry and clothe the poor?
Remember the Baby DOething? Now as it turns out the
parents in virtually all of those cases weren't trying
to neglect their babies, but the same people who agitate
against abortion were there trying to protect these
"neglected babies". They may have been misinformed and
misguided, but they clearly cared for the children.
Sure the purely anti-abortion organizations aren't
active in other areas. Thats the nature of organizations
built around a cause. They specialize. But the same
people who belong to these groups do many other things
besides. Take the time to meet them and know them,
and you'll find that they do care.
Isn't it clear that male legislators would never legislate
away their power over women?
Right. That's why men gave women the vote. That's why it
was an all male Supreme Court that recognized the rights
of women to abortion. That's why a man--Bill Baird--
spear-headed the campaign to legalize contraceptives.
Twaddle! Sure there is sexism in the world today, and
there was lots more of it in the past century or two.
None-the-less, men as well as women, male legislators,
male jurists, and male activists have stood shoulder
to shoulder with women to correct it.
There are still lots of scum in the world, and given
that women have a vested interest in equality they are
often more active, but many men have worked hard for the
rights of women, just as whites worked to abolish
slavery and stood by the likes of Martin Luthor King to
gain the freedoms that should have come with
emancipation. It didn't take a Black president to send a
Black US Attorney General to open the schools to Blacks,
and it doesn't take a women legislator to work for
women's rights.
If 75% of the country thinks abortions should be available
in the first trimester why are people trying to stop it.
Would you believe because 25% of the country thinks it's
wrong and don't want to put up with the tyrrany of the
majority. Please notice that what the 75% want IS the
law of the land. It is being assailed, but there is no
guarantee that the 25% will win, or that if they do the
75% won't swing the pendulum back after that.
The country is deeply divided on the complex issue of
abortion. 75% may believe a woman should have the right
to abortion, but many of them believe it is wrong for
here to exercise that right. The picture is nowhere as
simple as 75%/25% for or against. As long as we are so
divided, there will be political conflict.
Sure you can stack the questions so that the answers you want
are assumed in them. So what? It does no good to paint men or
male legislator or white men or whoever as the enemy who are
implacable killers intent on dominating women. It does no good
to paint the anti-abortionists as uncaring. It gains nothing
to claim that the near failure of one effort to codify the
rights of women is an indication that men in general or the
government as a whole is out to get women.
By the way, to get back to the topic, I still maintain that the
woman has the right to ask for heroic measures to be taken to
save the baby, and the right to decide to abort a baby. I also
believe that it is often wrong to exercise both of these rights.
Moral judgement has to rule in these cases and not the law. But
I do believe that there is a right and a wrong, and have views
as to how those moral judgements ought to go.
JimB.
|
| 406.121 | | PASTIS::MONAHAN | I am not a free number, I am a telephone box | Sat Aug 15 1987 20:01 | 45 |
| As one of the ruthless killers in this file, I would like to
point out that women do not have that good a record for avoiding
war. Out of all the female rulers of England, from Queen Matilda
to Maggie, off hand I can only think of one who was not involved
in a war, and that was Queen Mary. She avoided war with the other
(Catholic) countries of Europe by executing Protestant bishops.
I know it is off the topic, but there seemed to be an implication
somewherethat it was only male politicians that organised wars.
More on the topic, I have been forced to re-think my ideas on
this subject several times, and there seem to be at least three
aspects, moral, legal and emotional.
Morally, I consider it wrong to kill another person unless my
life or that of a very close relative is directly threatened. This
brings up the question of what is a person. I do not regard the
moment of birth as particularly significant. Babies are born a month
early or a month late, and it really does not make too much difference
to them, even if it marks a major difference in their dependance
on their mother. I would regard them becoming a person at the time
they start to show human reasoning, say at about a year old.
Now before that age, they may not be people, but they are certainly
animals, and like many people I regard it as wrong to kill or mistreat
animals without a very significant benefit. I would kill an animal
for food if I were hungry, but I have moved scorpions and snakes
out of the house without damaging them, since the slight extra
inconvenience for me is worth less than their lives. Logically,
I regard a f�tus as being in this category.
Legally, most countries have laws about mistreatment of animals,
and surely they ought to be applicable to the human animal at any
stage of its development. They also have laws about killing people,
and a human animal that develops normally eventually becomes a person.
Since I believe in the minimum interference of the law in anything,
I would be quite happy to have this point defined later rather than
earlier.
That's my reasoning. Ask me if I could actually kill either
a 6 month old baby or a 6 month f�tus, and my emotional answer would
be NO!
In sisterhood
Dave
|
| 406.122 | | MYCRFT::PARODI | John H. Parodi | Mon Aug 17 1987 09:10 | 17 |
|
Re: .120
> Would you believe because 25% of the country thinks it's
> wrong and don't want to put up with the tyrrany of the
> majority. Please notice that what the 75% want IS the
> law of the land. It is being assailed, but there is no
> guarantee that the 25% will win, or that if they do the
> 75% won't swing the pendulum back after that.
How can anyone consider the law of the land (personal choice about
abortion) to be tyranny? No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion.
On the other hand, the 25% who want to remove this choice are clearly
pushing for a tyranny of the minority.
JP
|
| 406.123 | | BANDIT::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Mon Aug 17 1987 09:20 | 13 |
| re .122:
the point .120 was trying to make is that just because 75% of the
people think something is right, that does not _make_ it right.
(However, in this case, I think they are, but that is irrelevant)
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 406.124 | thanks | MOSAIC::MODICA | | Mon Aug 17 1987 12:02 | 2 |
|
RE: 120 Well put.
|
| 406.125 | Double whammy | VINO::EVANS | | Mon Aug 17 1987 13:04 | 15 |
| RE: .120
"..men gave women the vote."
Women had to *fight* for the vote.
And in a country started on the premise that "all men are created
equal"
Control of women's sexuality, and control of language....
Interesting.
Dawn
|
| 406.126 | | DSSDEV::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Mon Aug 17 1987 13:43 | 29 |
| I'm sorry if I was unclear. I don't feel that it is right that
men had to especially give women the vote and more than it is
right that we had to not only emancipate and franchise the
slaves, but then had to explicitly give them voting rights.
When I mentioned that men gave women the vote what I meant was
that a 100% male legislature with a 100% male constituency was
willing to diminsh their power, and to point out that some of
the activists who wanted to see this happen were male.
I was merely trying to counter-balance the "no male legislator
would..." rhetoric, and not to justify the inequities, nor
diminish the work of the sufferagettes.
An under-current of all of this is the question of whether all
such struggles are purely for power or if, in fact, some of them
are for principles. I think that women not only should have the
vote (and all their other rights) not only because they are
powerful enough to fight for them, but because it is RIGHT. I
further believe that some (though clearly not all) people, both
male and female share this motivation. Women and blacks got the
vote in part because they stood up for their rights and in part
because white males recognized the righteousness of the cause.
I think reducing it purely to a power struggle diminshes all of
us. It also is less likely to succeed as the powerful are almost
always more powerful than the powerless.
JimB.
|
| 406.128 | RE: .116 Very well said... | ANGORA::BUSHEE | George Bushee | Mon Aug 17 1987 16:11 | 1 |
|
|
| 406.129 | plastic where plastic is due | 3D::CHABOT | May these events not involve Thy servant | Mon Aug 17 1987 17:09 | 22 |
| Nope, Jim, you still've got that sexist flavor, right there in
the word "gave". It was in no sense a favor granted, it was a right
that was actively sought and demanded, mostly be women who'd realized
that it was essential to drop the honey from their words and become
STRIDENT. (Bad 'uns, them.)
But "rights", I assert, although I recognize that it might differ
from your viewpoint, are not atoms of the abstract Truth. Rights
are societally shaped, like most other opinions.
--
NOW, what was all this about meeting in a bar (because we'd all
stuck through with this topic)?!?! Did...did...did I miss it?
<sniff> If not, well,...if no one's going to propose a place,
I might: Commonwealth Brewing Company, 23 aug 8pm? I'll be the
man* smoking two cigarettes** . Any other ideas or other local
gatherings? Please amend if I've created a conflict.***
* Well, it's a generic term, right? :-)
** Free beer to the first person who shows up (wherever we eventually
decide on) and correctly identifies (to me) the reference.
*** Should a new topic: "Veterans of note 406" be started?
|
| 406.130 | Hey! Yeah! Where's the gathering??? | VINO::EVANS | | Mon Aug 17 1987 17:57 | 1 |
|
|
| 406.131 | | BANDIT::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Mon Aug 17 1987 19:11 | 13 |
| re .129:
> It [women's vote] was in no sense a favor granted, it was a right
> that was actively sought and demanded,...
Rights themselves cannot be given, true, but protection of those
rights (which is what the Constitution does) IS given.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 406.132 | | DSSDEV::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Tue Aug 18 1987 14:20 | 68 |
| If there is a sexist flavor in what I said, it was quite
accurate, not of my own views, but of the history that I was
portraying. Free white men, at one time, had all of the power in
this country, or so much of it as to be very close to "all".
That was, I hold, wrong, yet it is the fact of the matter.
That power has now been distributed more evenly, although there
are still inequities, and legacies from the earlier days. The
reasons for the redistribution are many. One factor is that the
disenfranchised exercised the rights that they did have to
aggitate for the rights that they were denied. They demanded
their rights. But, it should be noted that for the most part
they didn't take their rights. They didn't force those who had
the power to give it up.
Rather, in most cases (and of course there are exceptions), they
demanded to be heard, demanded their rights, and showed how the
way that they were treated was wrong and counter to the basic
principles of our society. And the justice of their claims was
recognized. It wasn't recognized universally, but it was
recognized by large segments of the powerful elite, the
descendants of the men who framed our constitution and founded
our country.
In that sense, the men in part gave the women and the blacks the
rights that they demanded, rather than making them wrest them
away. This is a great strength of our society. In societies
where the powerless have to forcefully take their rights they
often, even usually, turn on their oppressors. For in a society
where only power rules once the power has been taken, why
respect those from whom you took it.
But when people with power recognize the basic rights of those
who have had those rights denied, and then surrender their own
poer in recognition of the worth of those people, the precedent
of respectin those who differ from you is set.
I said that in one sense the men "gave" the vote to women, but
in another sense they did not. In a greater sense they merely
acknowledged the rights and values of women. They merely
admitted that they had been wrong. And of course in some cases
they refused, and have had to be forced via the power of the men
who did acknowledge the righteousness of the cause, and of the
women who demanded and then exercised their power. And some of
course would take away that power given the opportunity.
One of the reasons that the powerful in this country are often
willing to redistribute their power is the set of principles
upon whioch the country was founded. The founders were
philosophers and intellectuals. They honored principles highly
and have passed that love along. A second reason is the
diversity of our population, and the fact that many or even most
who came here had experienced bigotry and oppression themselves.
Many of us are descended from slaves and slave-holders and
freedom fighters all at once. We know that next time it could be
us, and that only unbiased principles can really protecxt us.
When I say that men "gave" women the vote, I am talking in the
language of power politics, for viewed purely as power politics,
men did give in to women when they didn't have to. They
certainly weren't forced to, except by argument and appeal to
principle. I say it by way of explaining why I reject power
politics as the only explanation of the events. For you are
right, it is certainly not a favor granted to women. It is what
they deserve. It is their right, and men merely ceased to deny
it to women.
JimB.
|
| 406.133 | | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Tue Aug 18 1987 16:19 | 71 |
| >That power has now been distributed more evenly, although there
>are still inequities, and legacies from the earlier days.
Would that that were so. Actually, the picture looks more like this:
the power is still in the hands of free white males, although there
are glimpses of possibilities for future days.
We haven't even come near a balance yet. You're assuming sexism lingers
as a vestigial organ - sort of a societal appendix. Not so.
>They demanded their rights. But, it should be noted that for the most
>part they didn't take their rights. They didn't force those who had
>the power to give it up.
Semantics. What's the difference? They were pushed until they gave
in. You're saying they handed the vote over smilingly and willingly
after seeing the error of their ways. Again, not so. They were forced.
Nor will they leave abortion as a private matter between a woman and her
doctor smilingly and willingly after seeing the error of their ways.
>Rather, in most cases (and of course there are exceptions), they
>demanded to be heard, demanded their rights, and showed how the
>way that they were treated was wrong and counter to the basic
>principles of our society. And the justice of their claims was
>recognized.
And the legislators saw that it was good and treated non-white males
fairly ever after. Not so. Women fought for the right to vote, period.
There was still no way they could fight for total freedom because they
still did not have reliable birth control. Sex meant subservience to
women in the pre-pill days. The fact that they got the vote EVEN THOUGH
they were still beholden to men economically shows the immense power
that they must have generated. Your making the legislators look bene-
volent in this issue and that IS taking credit away from the suffragettes,
your disclaimer aside.
>the men in part gave the women and the blacks the rights that they
>demanded, rather than making them wrest them away.
Again semantics. If I want something from you and you say no and I
muster my forces and get it, it's is NOT because you gave it to me.
I don't see how you're splitting these hairs. If "women and blacks"
had to "demand" something and they got it, it sounds like they were
initially denied it. Sounds like they got it through their tenacity
rather than their oppressors' collective benevolence.
>In a greater sense they merely acknowledged the rights and values of
>women.
They acknowledged the right of women to vote, period. There were and
still are many "rights and values" of women that are traditionally ignored.
>The founders were philosophers and intellectuals. They honored principles
>highly and have passed that love along.
I have a tough time with this one, sorry. I don't think you even have to
be as cynical as I am to have a tough time with this one. Politics is
a tough, high-stakes, competitive game. The ideals our founders had were
based on principles, certainly, and not on the idea of a nation swarming
with hungry, homeless people and caught in an international struggle for
survival and/or dominance, (depending on who's describing the "struggle").
And those philosophers and intellectuals, if I'm not mistaken, had a
pretty casual regard for the human life of the natives they found here when
they arrived, but that's another topic.
As far as a "gathering", I'm the guilty party who mentioned it as a joke.
We'd certainly get thrown out of any place we decided to congregate and tip
a few and discuss this issue! Can't you just hear us now? :-)
|
| 406.134 | | VINO::EVANS | | Tue Aug 18 1987 18:41 | 13 |
| RE: .133
"They were forced [to give women the vote]"
Probably somebody reminded 'em that they'f been handing out all
that bull about "generic man" and after all, all "men" were created
equal" Embarrassed 'em into it. :-) :-(
Gee, Sandy, maybe we could find a place that has a back room with
those metal "anti-theft" doors. And *lots* of soundproofing. :-)
Dawn
|
| 406.135 | "...swarming..." ? | BANDIT::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Tue Aug 18 1987 18:51 | 28 |
| re .133:
> The ideals our founders had were based on principles, certainly, and
> not on the idea of a nation swarming with hungry, homeless people
> and caught in an international struggle for survival and/or
> dominance, (depending on who's describing the "struggle").
I think that pretty much describes the situation back in 1787.
Their ideals were that it requires ideals to overcome those problems.
The founders were not living in some sort of "state of grace", they
had exactly the same sorts of problems and concerns as we do today.
The Constitution did not prohibit slavery, not because everyone
thought it was okay, but because the higher priority was to create
a unified nation that could at least survive. Slavery could be dealt
with later.
I mention slavery only because I often hear this mentioned as a
slur on the integrity and wisdom of the framers of the Constitution.
I think that given the situation of the time, it took great wisdom
to set the issue aside in favor of creating the nation in the first
place.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 406.136 | | RAINBO::MODICA | | Wed Aug 19 1987 14:18 | 16 |
| Re: 133
>Nor will they leave abortion as a private matter between a woman
and her doctor<
Did you forget something? The father should also have the right
to be part of the decision making process!
>And those philosophers and intellectuals, if I'm not mistaken,
had a pretty casual regard for the human life of the natives they
found here....>
Is that suppose to add to the discussion about maternal/fetal rights?
Regarding .133 and other entries of yours.........
Your ability to extract phrases and then interpret them out of context
continues to impress me.
|
| 406.137 | So where's the bar with the back room?! :-) | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Wed Aug 19 1987 16:48 | 66 |
| BANDIT::MARSHALL "hunting the snark" 28 lines 18-AUG-1987 17:51
>it took great wisdom to set the issue aside in favor of creating
>the nation in the first place.
The issue you are referring to is slavery. It took "courage" to
ignore human rights in favor of creating the nation in the first
place? I don't know, but I just can't believe that if our founding
fathers took into consideration the human rights of women and minorities
that they would be in danger of failing in their "nation building"
enterprise.
It sounds like you think women and minorities, or shall I just say
non-white males, were just another thing to be dealt with which would
have taken away the white men's attention from more important things -
like "building a nation". Women and minorities were never and still
are not "running the show" side by side with white males. We are still
considered by them just another part of the show they are running.
That's why they feel it's within their right to legislate morality for
women, (and also for gays as in the Georgia ruling some months back),
even though they say they don't legislate morality "in general". They
don't. They legislate only PARTS of morality - and they get to pick
which ones!
RAINBO::MODICA 16 lines 19-AUG-1987 13:18
>Did you forget something? The father should also have the right
>to be part of the decision making process!
I wouldn't stand for a law that forced a woman to include a man in a
decision that would affect him for as long as he wants it to and will
affect her for the rest of her life. Sorry.
Again, pregnancy is not always the blessed result of your favorite sexual
tryst. There are many times when a woman wants her man involved but there
are probably just as many times when she does not. Forcing a woman to get
a man to "go in on it" with her serves no purpose but to assure that she's
under some guy's control. You aren't assuming here in your statement that
women only have sex in love so that every pregnant woman has a loving, con-
cerned male at her side, are you?
> >And those philosophers and intellectuals, if I'm not mistaken,
> had a pretty casual regard for the human life of the natives they
> found here....>
> Is that suppose to add to the discussion about maternal/fetal rights?
Yes, regarding the hypocrisy of the issue. About the fact that our legis-
lators are NOT benevolent protectors of "human life" in general, just of
FETAL human life. When another noter mentioned the "philosophers and
intellectuals" that were the nation's "founding fathers" I noticed that
even then the general "sanctity of human life" was not forefront in the minds
of the men in government. Can I safely say that it was men? Oh, maybe
they made Betsy Ross an administrator of something or other or appeased
somebody's wife with a title but I think we can safely say the men in
government.
> Regarding .133 and other entries of yours.........
> Your ability to extract phrases and then interpret them out of context
> continues to impress me.
Thanx. Be happy to discuss any point in particular. It's tough to discuss
a generality.
|
| 406.138 | | VIKING::MODICA | | Wed Aug 19 1987 17:22 | 13 |
|
Re: 137
I too wouldn't want a law that forced a woman to include a man in
a decision that would affect him for as long as he wants it to and
will affect her for the rest of her life (to quote you).
I was only saying that the father (when circumstances allow) should
be accorded the opportunity to be a part of the decision making
process. Note that I did not say decision, but the process. I still
believe that the final decision is the womans. I've stated earlier
that I hope the government stays out of the womb. Hope I've made
myself clearer.
|
| 406.139 | | BANDIT::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Wed Aug 19 1987 19:08 | 46 |
| re .137:
> I don't know, but I just can't believe that if our founding fathers
> took into consideration the human rights of women and minorities
> that they would be in danger of failing in their "nation building"
> enterprise.
Yes, you don't know. The issue of slavery could very well have
prevented the creation of a United States. Had not the northern
representatives compromised on that issue we would be at best two
nations; one free, one slave, and at worst thirteen petty little
banana republics. Yes they most certainly would have failed in their
"'nation building' enterprise".
> It sounds like you think women and minorities, or shall I just say
> non-white males, were just another thing to be dealt with which
> would have taken away the white men's attention from more important
> things - like "building a nation".
Perhaps that is what it sounds like TO YOU, but that is not what
I am saying. There is a saying, "you don't worry about draining
the swamp when you are up to your ass in alligators." I am not saying
that "non-white males" were just a distraction from "more important
things". What I _am_ saying is that it was first necessary to establish
the nation before tackling the problem of who gets the franchise.
In computerese they had to first load the bootstrap before all the
other things could be accomplished at all.
To balance a large state or society, whether monarchial or
republican, on general laws, is a work of so great difficulty
that no human genius, however comprehensive, is able, by the
mere dint of reason and reflection, to effect it. The judgements
of many must unite in the work; EXPERIENCE must guide their
labor; TIME must bring it to perfection, and the FEELING of
inconveniences must correct the mistakes which they _inevitably_
fall into in their trials and experiments.
- Hume's _Essays_, Vol. I, page 128: "The Rise of
Arts and Sciences."
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 406.140 | no | 3D::CHABOT | May these events not involve Thy servant | Sun Aug 23 1987 01:54 | 6 |
| The father should be involved in the process? Hmm. And if he's
the father by virtue of rape or his intentional failure of a birth control
method? I don't think I'd even consult the dear in either of those
situations. However, if a woman puts a kid up for adoption rather
than chose abortion or raising the child, would you want such a father
to be able to adopt that child?
|
| 406.141 | Turnabout is fair play? | QUARK::LIONEL | We all live in a yellow subroutine | Sun Aug 23 1987 13:27 | 14 |
| Re: .140
> And if he's the father by ... his intentional failure of a birth
> control method? I don't think I'd even consult the dear...
Oh really? Then if a woman gets pregnant by HER intentional failure
of a birth control method, then you wouldn't consult the mother,
right? In that case, you'd want the child, if born, to automatically
go to the father, or let him unilaterlaly decide on abortion? If
not, how do you explain your inconsistency?
I do agree that in the case of rape, the father has no rights to
the child.
Steve
|
| 406.142 | "saving the baby?" | YAZOO::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Tue Nov 17 1987 12:08 | 14 |
| In today's Boston Globe, Ellen Goodman tells the story of a woman
known as A.C. She was pregnant when it was discovered that she
had a large tumor on her lung and had only days to live.
The District of Colombia appeals court ruled that the hospital
had to try and save the child, despite the objections of the
woman, her family and her physicians. The 26 week old fetus
died immediately. A.C. died two days later. The surgery was
considered to be a contributing factor.
The attorney for the fetus said that the "state has an obligation
to resue a potential life from a dying mother."
|
| 406.143 | | ARMORY::CHARBONND | and I'll keep on walking. | Wed Nov 18 1987 07:12 | 4 |
| Consider one fact - that the state assumed the right to appoint
an attorney for the fetus, against the wishes of the woman, her
family and physician. To work against them. It gives invasion-
of-privacy a whole new dimension.
|
| 406.144 | Is this America? | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Wed Nov 18 1987 11:14 | 13 |
| Consider another fact - that the court decided that since she was
going to die soon, that she therefore no longer had any rights and
could be cut up like any piece of meat.
This item really sickened me, it is something out of Nazi Germany,
not America. Is that really where we are headed?
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 406.145 | When/If to take a Fetus | CSC32::JOHNS | Yes, I *am* pregnant :-) | Wed Nov 18 1987 14:54 | 15 |
| How interesting. I think (don't have my calendar here) that I will
be 26 weeks pregnant on Friday. If I were to die, I don't know
whether or not I would want to try to save the fetus at this point,
since there is such a high chance of low quality of life for it
even if it beats the odds and lives.
There is definately no way that I would want the baby taken from
me while I was still alive, unless it hurt the fetus even more if
it were to stay (a fast-moving cancer that could get to the fetus,
for instance). However, I would have no objection to their putting
me on "life-support" systems for a few weeks after I died in order
to give the fetus a chance to develop some more and a better chance
to live and to live a quality life.
Carol
|
| 406.146 | Define "soon" | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | There are no misteakes | Wed Nov 18 1987 15:28 | 14 |
| Re .144
Yes, she was viewed as a person with less than full rights because
she was "going to die soon". How many people have we all *known*
who were told they only had a few weeks/months to live, and lived
several or even many more years in spite of what doctors had said?
The scary part here is what "soon" means. In geological timeframes,
we are all going to die soon. Where does that put any of us?
Silly idea here. Couldn't the woman have had an abortion instead
of going to court? If so, seems that we are being inconsistant.
Elizabeth
|
| 406.147 | that's all I can say | VINO::EVANS | | Thu Nov 19 1987 11:53 | 6 |
| RE: This situation
AAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!
--DE
|
| 406.148 | Court Ordered Cesarean | CSC32::JOHNS | Yes, I *am* pregnant :-) | Sat Nov 21 1987 18:43 | 73 |
| Below is an article in the Commentary section of Denver's Rocky Mountain News
newspaper, dated Saturday, Nov. 21, 1987. Article reprinted without
permission.
********************************
CRUCIAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN GO UNDER THE KNIFE
by Ellen Goodman
At the outset, the court coolly offers a rasher of sympathy. "Condolences,"
they begin, " are extended to those who lost the mother and child."
I don't know how I would take those words if I were the parents or husband
of the 27-year-old Washington woman who lost her rights before she lost her
life. How would I respond to the condolences of a court that justifies the
decision to treat a sick woman as if she were already dead?
The woman I know only as A.C. was a fighter. She had to be. A.C. had bone
cancer at 13, spent much of her life in and out of hospitals, in and out of
surgeries that left her with one leg.
At 27, married and believing she was free of cancer, she became pregnant.
Then, on June 11, the doctors told her that the back pain and shortness of
breath were due to a large tumor in her lung. She went from being an expectant
mother to a terminally ill patient with perhaps only days to live.
If A.C. had not been pregnant, she might have died as she chose.
But A.C. was carrying a 26-week-fetus. So, unknown to her, the
administration of the George Washington University Hospital called the hospital
attorney to ask if they were required to perform a cesarean section.
The lawyer in turn requested an emergency ruling from the District of
Columbia court. in less than six hours, through a series of bizarre and
rushed hearings, the D.C. appeals court gave its final ruling while she
was being prepped for surgery: The hospital had to try to "save the child."
Despite the objections of a woman, who was well enough to communicate
clearly "I don't want it done," despite the objections of her family, despite
the objections of her physicians, a cesarean section was performed.
The baby, by no means "viable," died immediately. A.C. died two days later.
On her death certificate, it lists the surgery as a contributing factor.
Now, months later, the court that issues its "condolences" also upholds
the view that A.C. properly forfeited her rights because she was about to
die. As the attorney for the fetus had said, "All we are arguing is the
state's obligation to rescue a potential life from a dying mother."
Is this to be a new standard then? Is this how we are to think about other
dying people? Would we allow the state to harvest organs or bone marrow or
blood from a dying member of society against his will to give it to a
"viable," existing adult? Do you lose rights as you lose your health? Or is
it only if you are a pregnant woman?
Increasingly, pregnancy is the exception to the rule. In several states that
have a "living will" statute, everyone has the right to refuse extraordinary
treatment except a pregnant woman.
There are some 24 women who have been ordered to have cesareans. In the
case most commonly cited by courts, a Georgia woman in her 39th week was
ordered to have surgery because, the doctors said, there was a 99% chance
the fetus could not survive delivery. The courts fail to add that before the
surgery could be performed, the baby arrived on its own, healthy.
Lynn Paltrow of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is petitioning
for rehearing, believes "we are treating fetuses with rights above and
beyond any existing person."
The court argues that A.C. lost only at most days of life. But those days
are not the state's to decide.
The court treated A.C. as if she were dead. They shortened and brutalized
her life in a wholly misguided fantasy of playing savior. All they offer is
a pious condolence. Justice would be a more appropriate memorial.
***************
Washington Post Writers Group
|
| 406.149 | woosh... | YAZOO::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Sat Nov 21 1987 19:25 | 7 |
| Thankyou for typing all of that out Carol...that was the article
that I quoted in my note...
and when I think that either my oldest son or I could have died
had I not had a C section the whole thing is just that more chilling.
Bonnie
|
| 406.150 | | SERPNT::SONTAKKE | Vikas Sontakke | Mon Nov 23 1987 09:43 | 1 |
| This can happen ONLY in United States.
|
| 406.151 | Nice... | DISSRV::MAHLER | | Mon Nov 23 1987 11:04 | 6 |
|
Oh, REALLY? ONLY in the U.S.? What makes you say that?
Can you prove that it can not happen ANYWHERE else in the universe?
|
| 406.152 | Get Serious | HAVOC::BLAKE | SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL RECRUITER | Mon Nov 23 1987 11:57 | 6 |
| Re.: .150
I don't like what was discribed in .148 either, but to condemn an
entire country doesn't strike me as an intelligent choice.
At least you have the freedom to leave, solutions anyone??
|
| 406.153 | | ASIC::EDECK | | Mon Nov 23 1987 12:55 | 13 |
|
ref .150
No, Vikas. Check out the situation in Romania, where the fetus is
considered a potential worker, and is, therefore, officiallly
property of the state. Failure of the mother to nourish herself
properly is a criminal act, punishable by inprisonment. That's another
place where the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the
mother. There was an article in the Boston Globe on it some time
ago. Anyone else see it?
Ed E.
|
| 406.154 | Nominate that Judge to Supreme Court, We Truely Deserve Him | SERPNT::SONTAKKE | Vikas Sontakke | Tue Nov 24 1987 09:04 | 20 |
| When this happens in a country which claims to be the world's most free
country, something has seriously gone wrong.
And when we have to justify the rational behind the outrageous court
decision by comparing ourselves to Rumania or such other totalitarian
government, we already are in the deep trouble.
Somehow or other I was hoping to see the biggest outcry over this
matter. To me this decision seems to be the most callous and inhumane
one imaginable. I thought this civilized world had progressed beyond
that. However, if the people of this country are not outraged by this
decision who am I to point out the lack of compassion to them? They
seemed to be content in believing that this can happen in another
country, so it must be all right.
One noter mentioned that if one does not like this country (s)he is
free to leave. I guess the mother was really stupid enough not to hop
on an Aerofloat jet to Moscow (<- bitter sarcasm intended).
- Vikas
|
| 406.155 | | DIEHRD::MAHLER | | Tue Nov 24 1987 10:25 | 30 |
|
� "...However, if the people of this country are not outraged by this
� decision who am I to point out the lack of compassion to them?"
Please show us the information you have that allows you to say
that the PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY [which means EVERY CITIZEN] are not
"outraged" over this incident. How can you make such a wild and
unfounded statement?
It disturbs me how you always reference the United States as "this"
country instead of "my" country, why is this? Why is it that you are
always referencing the United States as if you are not part of it
or, worse, as if you don't want to be part of it, but just "live
here". Although I would certainly not be so pompous as to speak for
everyone in this file, *I* certainly am growing irritated at people
coming to the United States and then throwing stones at it from
within. The body gets enough abuse from the environment and doesn't
need a virus from within.
� They seemed to be content in believing that this can happen in another
� country, so it must be all right."
Maybe "they" just don't believe everything they read.
� One noter mentioned that if one does not like this country (s)he is
� free to leave. I guess the mother was really stupid enough not to hop
� on an Aerofloat jet to Moscow (<- bitter sarcasm intended).
Perhaps you should have taken a course in preposition use
instead of clich� arguments.
|
| 406.156 | | VCQUAL::THOMPSON | Noter at large | Tue Nov 24 1987 11:24 | 18 |
| > Please show us the information you have that allows you to say
> that the PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY [which means EVERY CITIZEN] are not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's not what it means to *me* when someone whose native language
is not English says it. I expect such people will from time to time
use 'extra' 'the's as such or use 'the' when then mean 'some'. I
would not expect Vikas to mean all because I know him.
> It disturbs me how you always reference the United States as "this"
> country instead of "my" country, why is this? Why is it that you are
I on the other hand would find it somewhat inappropriate for an alien,
a citizen of an other country, to refer to the US as 'his country'.
If Vikas said 'my country' I'd assume he meant India. Perhaps you're
assuming that everyone who notes in the US is a US citizen?
Alfred
|
| 406.157 | NONONONONO | ASIC::EDECK | | Tue Nov 24 1987 12:25 | 11 |
|
Vikas,Vikas,Vikas--
HOW do you get a JUSTIFICATION out of the note about Rumania?
Don't read what isn't there!
Or do you SERIOUSLY think I agree with or condone this kind of
outragous high handed authoritarian unhumane crap?
Ed E. (shaking his head sadly)
|
| 406.158 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Tue Nov 24 1987 12:33 | 11 |
| re .155:
> Perhaps you should have taken a course in preposition use
> instead of clich� arguments.
I'm not sure which is more embarrassing: your criticism of the
English skills of one whose native language is not English, or
your using "preposition" and "clich�" as adjectives rather than as
nouns.
--Mr Topaz
|
| 406.159 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Tue Nov 24 1987 13:22 | 13 |
| Oh, one more thing:
re .155:
> Although I would certainly not be so pompous as to speak for
> everyone in this file...
Wrong word.
If you presumed to speak for everyone in this file, that would
make you presumptuous, not pompous.
--Mr Topaz
|
| 406.160 | Moderator Response | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Tue Nov 24 1987 13:31 | 3 |
| um, could we continue with the original topic please?
=maggie
|
| 406.161 | | DIEHRD::MAHLER | | Tue Nov 24 1987 14:06 | 13 |
| Sorry "=Maggie", didn't mean to let my dispise of hypocrites get
in the way of my views on the base topic.
About the base topic... would a resolution to this type of
situation be the passage of laws that give people [women here] total
rights over what happens to their own body? Does this just degrade
to the never ending abortion battle of "when is life life"?
Sure wouldn't want to be the deciding juror on this one, but it
is a confusing, yet intriguing topic.
Has anyone ever read Womanspirit rising?
|
| 406.162 | | AKOV11::BOYAJIAN | The Dread Pirate Roberts | Tue Nov 24 1987 14:48 | 9 |
| re:.154
Vikas, no one pointed to something of this nature happening in
another country to "justify" this kind of behavior, or to be able
to sit back and say it's "okay". Romania was mentioned *only*
because you said "only in America" can something like this happen.
The other person was merely pointing out that this isn't true.
--- jerry
|
| 406.163 | | ULTRA::GUGEL | Don't read this. | Tue Nov 24 1987 18:45 | 11 |
| re .161:
To what hypocrisy are you referring? I must have missed it. I
haven't heard any.
re .152:
Yes, I am free to leave the US. I'm also free to stay and criticize
and disagree with outrageous, misogynistic court decisions.
-Ellen
|
| 406.164 | | VIDEO::TEBAY | Natural phenomena invented to order | Wed Nov 25 1987 12:58 | 6 |
| I was too shocked to reply for awhile.
I also feltl frustrated. I am glad to see the ACLU getting involved.
There is a need for something to prevent this type of thing.
|
| 406.165 | Smoking by pregnant women | SERPNT::SONTAKKE | Vikas Sontakke | Fri Jun 17 1988 17:06 | 9 |
| This has happened again. Only recently I saw a news clip about
a pregnant woman being prosecuted for smoking. I wish I knew more
details about.
- Vikas
In the retrospective, I am really glad that I did not get into shouting
match with him. The last I heard, he was escorted out of the
facilities.
|