Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.women,net.abortion Subject: Re: Gosh, I hope this doesn't bury me Message-ID: <4830@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 19-Feb-85 13:56:48 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.4830 Posted: Tue Feb 19 13:56:48 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 08:09:22 EST References: <221@ttidcc.UUCP>, <230@philabs.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 29 Xref: watmath net.women:4507 net.abortion:1281 >> listening to men condemn them. A man never faces this particular choice, >> and never can. He is, sheer physical fact, one step removed. While I can >> respect the viewpoints of many men, and at least respect the others' RIGHTS >> to their viewpoints, I just wish men would hold to themselves, quietly for >> a moment, the realization that the issue is uncharted land to them, and a >> place that they cannot be. >> >Right on! But try telling that to R. Reagan and J. Falwell, who assume >that a woman's greatest and highest calling is to be a receptacle for a man's >sperm. Is there any woman in the world that wouldn't be honored with >the prospect of bearing one of their children, regardless of the circum- >stances? > B. Day > philabs!exquisit!brian I'd like to know how the pro-choice stance in any way mitigates the attitude of men that women are a receptacle for their sperm? If anything it seems to make her a more convenient, less consequential, an reusable receptacle. Since you're imputing certain motives to Falwell and Reagan for their stance, I wonder what could be said along the same lines about men who wave the banner of "reproductive freedom" for women. Let's see, these men want women to have freedom to have sex without any unwanted consequences. Who would they want them to have this freedom with? Why *them* of course! What an honor! Asbestos sheild ready, -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd