Re: virus: RE: Abortion (formerly AIDS Meme)

ken sartor (
Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:50:58 -0600

At 03:42 PM 10/24/96 +0000, Hakeeb A. Nandalal wrote:
>Kenneth Boyd wrote :-
>> My family history also biases me against abortion, since both my mother
>> and my father refused to allow the doctors to abort me in 1970. [Roe vs.
>> Wade [1974] had NO EFFECT on medically necessary abortions, such as the
>> one my parents refused! It legalized "abortion on whim".]
>Obviously I hit a nerve there and I apologize in advance for the following :-
>Ten Reasons Why I *am* Here :-
> 1. My mother didn't have an abortion
> 2. My mother didn't have a hysterectomy
> 3. My mother didn't use "the pill"
> 4. My mother didn't use a diaphragm
> 5. My mother didn't practice birth control
> 6. My father didn't have a vasectomy
> 7. My father didn't use a condom
> 8. My father didn't take a hot bath
> 9. My father didn't wear tight jeans
>10. My parents didn't think that there were enough Indians in the world
>Now, which of the above should I discourage? Actually I have this theory
that I was aborted and my innocent soul
>ended up in this bizzarro world instead.
>I'm glad you're with us Kenneth, but don't get carried away with inflicting
your memes on others, that's the
>pro-lifers job. Here's what the people with the wombs have to say about it :-
>General Information about NOW
>Reproductive Rights
>NOW affirms that these are issues of life and death for women, not mere
>matters of choice. NOW supports access to safe and legal abortion, to
>effective birth control, to reproductive health and education. We oppose
>attempts to restrict these rights through legislation, regulation (like the
>gag rule ) or Constitutional amendment.
>March to Stop Rights's Anti-Abortion Legislation, Lies
>by Lisa Bennett-Haigney
>A woman's fundamental right to abortion as established by Roe v. Wade has
>been under increased assault by a conservative and busy Congress, and by
>anti-abortion activists posting their scare tactics on subway signs. But
>reproductive rights activists around the country are ready to demonstrate
>our own clout, solidarity and conviction in San Francisco April 14 and at
>the polls this fall.
>"We know that the so-called religious right wants to continue to roll back
>our rights as women and as people of color. We need each one of you to get
>involved in this battle for our lives," NOW National Secretary Karen Johnson
>said at Capital City NOW's candlelight vigil at the U.S. Supreme Court
>honoring the 23rd anniversary of Roe.
>Here's what the brilliant legal minds have to say about it :-
>Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
>Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was
>warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and
>overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment
>Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
>Blackmun, J. -- Opinion of the Court
>We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature
>of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among
>physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the
>subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the
>raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes
>toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one
>establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color
>one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.
>In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones
>tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.
>Statements like "abortion on whim" sound ominous but regardless of the
memes in your head, my head, and the
>pro-lifers heads, let's not make up anyone else's mind for them.

I think the subject is complex enough that there is more room for
debate than what you present above...

My personal beliefs happen to think that "women and as people of color"
are not the only ones affected (one way or another) by this topic.

Also - the apparent lack of symmetry in the topic also bothers me.
If a man impregnates a women she can solely determine whether to
bear the child or not. If married, he may lose his child, if single
he may be forced to pay child support for 2 decades. All regardless
of what he chooses.

(Maybe men should be allowed a "paper abortion". If they choose to
get it, they lose all rights and responsibilities to the child. But
they have to get it before the child is born, subject to the
same rules that constrain women on getting real abortions. ???)

Again, the topic strikes me as very complex and emotionally charged.