On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:38:05 EDT QueeneMUSE@aol.com writes:
> Should?
Sorry, you're right Nadia. I made a mistake in using the word "should."
But when discussing the normative aspects of an issue it's difficult to
know what word to use. I suppose it would have been better to preface my
statements with something like: here's one possible way of doing things.
This would have accurately described the atttitude I took in sharing my
thoughts with the other list members.
>
> In the past when this topic has come up most people avoid it.
But that seems to be one of the problems--the topic's avoided in polite
conversation.
> And... when someone asked if you were being antagonizing, you said
> no. Yet
> this request to legislate pregnancy is along the same lines as
> asking for
> complete gun control.
But Nadia, it's not I who ask for legislation of anything. I'm a
(posthumous) student of Voltairine de Cleyre, who was known as a radical
feminist anarchist. Legislation of pregnancy is a fact of our current
reality, and no doubt it will also be a fact of the near future. I
merely say: given that pregnancy is and will be legislated, let us
consider the best ways to go about legislating it.
>It is sure to get a rise out of the list.
Well, I wanted to get a RESPONSE from the list; but I had hoped it would
be in the form of intelligent discusssion rather than hostility. I
regret the way I worded my posts, and I had a feeling they'd come across
the wrong way even shortly after making them. Too bad I didn't have this
insight BEFORE making them.
> Perhaps the
> thread will dwindle soon, since this list is predominantly male and
> guys
> dislike the topic to begin with....
But it was Zero Powers who pointed out that a father should have some
input regarding the fate of his unborn child. I paid attention to what
he said and changed my thinking accordingly. I could see that he was
right for several reasons, including the fact that a father is required
under present law to help support his children, and the fact that a
father may have other good reasons for being interested in his children
(he may, for example, want to procreate; he may not want to be
responsible for bringing a child into what he sees as an unpleasant
world; he may have reason to believe that the child will be genetically
inferior; etc.)
> I think you're barking up the wrong tree, purely because things
> cannot be
> "your way" unless even more laws are put in place, and we aren't
> notoriously
> the list that is in favor of government regulating women's OR men's
> human
> reproductive organs.
Putting aside the issue of government control of anything, humans are
social creatures and tend to live together in groups. Even if pure
anarchy prevailed in the world, the various groups of people living
together voluntarily would each want to come up with a basic code of
behavior for interacting among themselves. Even to say that each
individual woman decides what to do with the products of her body is to
make a decision. And the woman's complete control over her child must
end at some point--that point being when the child becomes accepted as a
full member of the group or community. And then you're back to the point
of having to decide when a child becomes a member--whether at birth or at
some later or earlier time.
>
> I see that you are looking at the future and trying to solve a
> problem.
> good luck.
Thank you for wishing me well; but I must disagree with you about the
time frame. Legal abortions appear to be in danger in the US at this
very moment.
Barbara
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:05 MDT