Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Madelyn's question Message-ID: <373@ttidcc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 24-Apr-85 16:01:22 EST Article-I.D.: ttidcc.373 Posted: Wed Apr 24 16:01:22 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 09:41:16 EST Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA. Lines: 102 >>Re Paul Debuc's >A response to Madelyn T. Gould: >That's "Dubuc". Got it, sorry. (incidentally, that's B. Adrienne Regard, but I don't worry about it much.) (-: >>This >>isn't even an issue of _responsibility_ since the woman in question has >>taken every avenue POSSIBLE to avoid pregnancy (short of refusing her >>husband his conjugal rights. . . >Yes, I believe it is an issue of _responsibility_, for both husband >and wife. If the husband wants his "conjugal rights" he ought to share >in the conjugal responsibilities. Besides, do you think women only >have sex with their husbands in order not to deny them their conjugal >rights? I thought the women got something out of it too. >>Oh, I get it. Sex is ONLY for procreation, right? Act of God, even for >>the atheists, right? No one has free will to choose a course for their >>life, right? Especially if they disagree with you, right? >No, you don't get it. I agree that sex is not ONLY for procreation. >But are you going to maintain that it has NOTHING to do with procreation? >The argument being presented here seems to imply that. Having sex *is* >how pregnancy ocurrs most naturally. People who engage in that ought >to be aware of this as a possibility and take it into account. This argument got me thinking. My slant on the subject has been "NOW that we are _able_ to control the likelihood of pregnancy. . ." etc., when in fact, we aren't able to control any such thing with certainty. In the case Madelyn cited, we really are talking about abortion as a last-ditch form of birth control. I don't personally agree with abortion as a method of birth control, but I've also never had occasion to have to deal with it as such, since other methods have proved reliable. What does that mean? I'm afraid I still don't think that my experience should become the template for all behaviours. I still think the option should be available to women whose experience differs from mine, since they are the ones who have to choose. >Of course I believe in free will and freedom to choose; and that includes >sexual behaviour. You seem to treat sex as an activity that it beyond >the realm of individual choice. Ah, come on, no, I don't. You just had lots of fun making remarks about women having/not having free will on the subject in response to my original sarcasm. >I believe that people generally *choose* >of have sex. If they will not accept the possibility of pregnancy that >goes along with their choice, I think they are being irresponsible. We agree. But what action follows from that sense of responsibility? >>Is the rest of your argument really "everybody has to have kids" rather >>than "abortion itself is wrong"? Or "nobody get's any choice in this >>world"? Deep down in the heart of it, what are you proselytizing for? >Is your argument really "everybody has to have sex so it is unfair to >say that people must be responsible if their having sex results in >pregnancy"? No, I think you know better. So why don't you give me >a little credit and not imply that I hold such ridiculous beliefs? No, but my argument _might_ be that women and women alone have kids. The current state of our society shows a greater and greater number of women with children sinking below the poverty line, and this is WITH abortion available. The society no longer has the strong legal, moral, ethical bonds that tie fathers to the children for the 18 some odd years. The society still places the burden of "parenting" on the mother. My argument _might_ be that people should be allowed to choose how to act in the light of their accepted responsibility in a legal, safe manner that has nothing to do with anybody else's morality. But those are part of some much larger problems, and really doesn't weigh on the abortion issue except as a by- product. The questions we are skirting are (1) when do "human rights" begin, (2) if rights are in conflict, which rights take precident and who bears responsibility and (3) prior to that time, who has the right to choose? I'll tell you this, I was immeasurably shocked by your response to Madelyn, but I probably should apologize for attributing ridiculous beliefs to you. I'll try to avoid it in future. >>For you, Paul, I'd be interested to hear whether you think abortion may >>be justified in cases of rape/incest, and/or when the mother's life would >>be endangered. Is there _any_ time abortion is right? Mail or post, as >>you prefer. >But this isn't what we're discussing here is it? You're new to this >group or you would know where I stand here. I've discussed my position >openly in the past. But in the context of this discussion it is avoiding >the issue and my position is irrelevant to the argument here. With regard >to this discussion, does it make any difference what I believe about these >cases? No, those questions were my questions. My first posting was early February. I've been reading since approx. 3 weeks earlier. I don't know if that makes me new or not. I've seen previous postings that I can remember your name on, but I can't say that I saved them. If you have a brief copy you wouldn't object to mailing, I'd appreciate receiving it. If not, well. . . And yes, I do think that the question "Is there any time abortion is right?" is an important question to this argument. That may well be exactly what we are discussing here.