Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cylixd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!akgua!akgub!cylixd!charli
From: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Why is it?
Message-ID: <349@cylixd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 11:38:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: cylixd.349
Posted: Tue Oct  8 11:38:47 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 10-Oct-85 06:22:00 EDT
References: <239@tekig5.UUCP> <862@mit-vax.UUCP> <321@cylixd.UUCP> <912@mit-vax.UUCP>
Reply-To: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Distribution: net
Organization: RCA Cylix Communications , Memphis, TN
Lines: 52
Summary: 

In article <912@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes:
>>>>where are the female counterparts
>>>>of the Pauls, Garys, and Mikes?? [David Hayes]
>>>
>>>They're at home, barefoot and (or course) pregnant. I don't think they'd
>>>be allowed to use a computer if they knew how.  [Charles Forsythe]
>>
>>Charles, where's the smiley face?  
>>
>>If you were serious (and I hope you weren't), that remark is bigoted and
>>offensive.  You owe a lot of women an apology.  [Charli Phillips]
>
>Sorry Charli (I've always wanted to use that line on someone else!), no
>smiley face.
>
>Do you think I am saying that there are no intelligent, indepedant
>pro-life women in the world? I hope you don't think that because I am
>not that naive or bigoted.
>

That sure is what it sounds like you're saying.

>Maybe you haven't read anything by the really hard-core pro-life guys on
>the net.

I've read it.  

>[text omitted]
>At any rate, the female counterparts to these attitudes must ALSO believe
>that a woman ought to be at home with the kids -- so that is where you
>will find them.  

First, not every "hard-core pro-lifer" believes that a woman ought to be
at home with the kids.  Those are two separate issues.  There may be
some positive correlation between them, but I'm sure you're aware that
a positive correlation is not the same as identity.  My husband, for
example, is nearly as hard-core as pro-lifers come.  He approves only
those abortions performed to save the mother's life.  Period.  (By
comparison, my view is quite moderate.  But he *doesn't* believe that a
woman *ought* to be at home with the kids.  He does think staying home
with the kids is an option that ought to be available to any parent who
wants it - and I think you'd be surprised how many do.

Next, even if all women who held the attitudes on abortion you describe
also believed they *ought* to stay home with their children, they may
not be there.  First, they may not *have* children.  Or they may have
children but be forced by their economic situations to work outside the
home.  (Not everyone has the luxury of doing what they *want* to do.)

I still think you owe pro-life women an apology.

		charli