Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
    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.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    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.

< 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

    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.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
           
    

    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
    

    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

    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

    
    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.

    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
    

    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.

    
    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. 

    
    
    
    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.
    
    

< 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

    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

    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
    

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?

    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
    
    

    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

< 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

    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.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    
    
    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?
    

< 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

    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

    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
    

> < 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!!!!!
    

    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?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    		

    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

> < 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.

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.

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.

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

    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

    
    
    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.
    
    

    Some of the scenarios in this note are beginning to resemble "The
    Stepford Wives" and "A handmaiden's Tale".
    
    Very frightening.

    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
    

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.

    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

    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 ? 

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

    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.
                                                                    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    
    
    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.
    
    

    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
    

    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. 

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.

    
    
    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
    

    
    
    
    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.
    
    

    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.

    
    
    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.
    
    

    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
    

    IT *SHOULD* get you dead !

< 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

	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. 

    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
    

    
    
    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.  

    
    	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

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

    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
    

    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.
    
    

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

    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 

    
    
    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.
    
    

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.
    

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.
    

    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

C'mon guys, let's stop playing passive-agressive games with each other.

Martin.

    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!

    
    re -.1
    
    You really believe all that? You must be kidding. 
    
    Facts? Haven't seen any yet. 

    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.

    Way to go, Sandy!
    
    You've said it better than I ever could.
    
    Dawn
    

        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.

    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->
    

    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 ;-)

  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.

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

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.

    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

    
    
    
    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.
    
    

    
    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                                                  
    

    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
    

    
    
    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.
     

    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
    
    

    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->
    

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.

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?  :-)
    

     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

    <--(.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

    I hope somebody answers your tantalizing questions, Maggie.
    
    We sit and wait...

    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

     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

    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....

    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
    

    <--(.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

     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

    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

    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?
    

    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

< 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

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

    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
    

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".
    

    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->
    

    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

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.
    
    

    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.

    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->

    <--(.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

       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                                                       
     

  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

    <--(.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
            

    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.
    
    

< 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

  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

>< 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

        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.

  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

    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)
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    
    RE: 120 Well put. 

    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
    

        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. 

    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?

    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. 
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

        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.

>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?  :-)
    

    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
    

    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.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                                                   

    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. 

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.
    

    
    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.

    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."
                                
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    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?

    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

    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."

    

    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. 

    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?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    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

    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

    RE: This situation
    
    AAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!
    
    --DE
    

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

    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

                    This can happen ONLY in United States.

    	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?
    
    	
    	

    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??

    
    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. 
   

    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        

>    	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
    

    
    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)

       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 

    um, could we continue with the original topic please?
    
    							=maggie

	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?

    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

    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

    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.
    

    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.