Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou4b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!hou4b!mat
From: mat@hou4b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: A Time for Anger
Message-ID: <1106@hou4b.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 19-Aug-84 19:38:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou4b.1106
Posted: Sun Aug 19 19:38:27 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 20-Aug-84 02:06:42 EDT
References: <840@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 58


>   >> The fact is you only want freedom for the woman.  What about the unborn
>   >> child?  Someone must protect the rights of the unborn.  Self-serving
>   >> feminists want us to believe that a woman has a right to an abortion.
>   >> BUNK!  The abortionist wants to make the decision for the unborn.
>   >> ...
>   >> I say it's time to stop all the talk and do something.  Picket abortion
>   >> institutes.  Sit-in and demonstrate, peacefully...
>
>   Thus it was for us early Vietnam War protesters, back when American
>   involvement in SE Asia was popular.  So Tom, I understand your righteous
>   anger.  You must see Roe vs. Wade the way I saw the Gulf of Tonkin
>   Resolution.  There is one big difference, of course: I was about to be
>   drafted.  You, sir, will never be pregnant.
>
>        ken perlow
>
>Ken Perlow has hit the fundamental issue: whether someone who does not
>participate in a situation has the right to interfere.  Men do not get
>pregnant; thus they should not make rules about pregnancy.  Men cannot
>fault womens' decisions about an experience men can never have.  If
>some man does not like the possibility that a woman may choose to abort
>his unborn child, he shouldn't allow any possibility of conception.

Ken Perlow has admitted selfish motives for wanting the US to refute its
intentions as set forth in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

Our constitution calls for trials whose outcome is to be given by an impartial
jury.  Why?  Because they are inherently disinterested.  You wouln't want
members of the victim's family on the jury, would you?  Under this viewpoint,
NO woman who was or ever could be fertile could be allowed to decide on the
legality/morality of abortions.  There is as much a time for disinterested
decision-making as there is for letting the person on the spot make the
decision.

** Aside:
For those who don't believe that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was intended
as an act of generosity rather than a power grab, I have a suggestion.  Go
back and study the Second World War.  The cost in life.  The peculiar alliance
between the USSR and the North Atlantic Allies.  The abbrogation of agreements
and general high-handed treatment of friends and foe alike by the USSR.  The
cost to the living that WWII took.  (there were over 50 million DOCUMENTED
dead. There were almost certainly many undocumentable.)  You know, I was born
thirteen years after the surrender of Japan.  I'm 27 years old now, and that
means that since I was born, more than twice as much water as gone under the
bridge as did between WWII and my birth.  I am no longer in the least
surprised, shocked, or even revolted by the foul aftershocks of that war.
I read about it when I can, because so much that happened happened as a
repercussion.  And because everything that we are or know today hung in the
balance.

Further discussion on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution or the Second World War
belongs on net.politics.
-- 

	from Mole End			Mark Terribile
		(scrape .. dig )	hou5d!mat
    ,..      .,,       ,,,   ..,***_*.  (soon hou4b!mat)