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.abortion
Subject: Re: Gosh I hope...reply by Paul Dubuc
Message-ID: <4864@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Feb-85 17:38:33 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4864
Posted: Sun Feb 24 17:38:33 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 04:20:32 EST
References: <809@druxo.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 35


>Paul Dubuc:
>> 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.
>
>Paul, I have to agree with you wholeheartedly.

Thank you, Nancy.  To my knowledge no one has ever done that. :-)

>Pro-choice and pro-life wear different cloaks--one arguing for
>"reproductive freedom" (without responsibility?), the other for "personal
>fulfillment" (which is somehow supposed to be found in motherhood in a way
>that is quite different from men's as found in fatherhood).

How is the personal fulfillment of motherhood different from that of
fatherhood?  

>In my opinion, pro-choice no more serves women's best interests than the
>traditional barefoot-and-pregnant philosophies of the past.  In both, women
>are primarily the tools and toys of men.

I agree, exept for the inference that barefoot-and-pregnant philosophies
are inherent in the pro-life philosophy.

>If the energies expended on both sides of this issue were directed toward
>treating women as fully human (humanists), created in God's image
>(Christians), etc., maybe some real progress could be made.

But what of the fetus?  Tacitly you assume it's not human and bid us
to do the same, right?
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd