Reactions to Jim

Dennis P. Tyler dptyler at hamlet.uncg.edu
Fri Aug 11 22:35:32 MDT 1995



On Fri, 11 Aug 1995, Jim Jaszewski wrote:

>
> On Thu, 10 Aug 1995, jwalker wrote:
>
> > Actually I don't think you're being shat upon because you're male.
>
> 	Then you're not looking too hard...

I'm not going to shit upon you because you're male; so am I...
>
>
[a lot cut, assuming you're following this thread]

	Again, I'm not
questioning a woman's TOTAL right to control her
> body.  This keeps being ignored here. It's NOT irrelevant to the
> situation, and I INSIST you keep it in mind when you rake me over the
> coals on the `subsidiary' issues...
>
> I'm sure there have been _many_ women who've made the decision to pursue a
> career over carrying a baby -- is this not an act that is at least open to
> scrutiny?

Perhaps.  Why your scrutiny, per se?

 It may be an uncomfortable subject for those attacking me to
> consider, but I'm not a communist because I want to `go along with the
> flow' -- anyone's flow... Indeed, I DO think that many women don't really
> face up to the reality of just what it is they're doing.  Denial is
> rampant in this society if you haven't noticed...

As Lisa has pointed out, at what point exactly do you think women are in
denial?  When they are late?  When they are late again?  When their body
adjusts to pregnancy?  When the test is positive?  When they open the
Yellow Pages to find an abortion clinic?  When they arrange
transportation?  When they get time off of work to go?  When they brave
the Operation Rescue gauntlet yelling "why are you killing your baby?"?
When they give their name to the receptionist?....you get the point I hope?

>
> > > 	And of course, it's still ENTIRELY the woman's choice (but wouldn't
> > > you think that a woman should at least _consider_ the interests of
> > > the people around her -- _especially_ the father's?)

scenario:
Potential mother-to-be-A wants an abortion.  Potential father-to-be-A
wants a kid.  She thoughtfully considers his ideas, has an abortion, no kid.
What's the point?
same scenario; she doesn't even care what the father thinks.  No kid.

>
> 	Well, it seems that no matter HOW carefully I presented it, the
> concept that ANYONE other than the mother should be involved in ANY way
> -- and I, of course, RULED OUT `legal' rights -- is clearly beyond the
> Pale here...

no, it's just that, see scenario above, what difference does the
father-to-be views have to do with it?

>
> 	I did not say or imply that a woman *MUST* `consider' the man'
> views, and reading this into what I said is a clear indication that no
> matter HOW `even-handed' you feel you're being with this poor confused
> male, your views are hazy as regards the facts of my statments or their
> intent...

I am not at all arguing that the father's viewpoint is irrelevant, just
that if you truely believe in the mother-to-be's right to choose, his
views cannot be forced.  Expressed, sure.  Ignored, sure...they cannot
take precedent.  This amounts to force, no matter how removed from
Operation Rescue and other right-wingers.  The father is, however,
entitled to his feelings, and if he is upset by his impotence, I think
this is a valid perspective.  But if the father and mother disagree and
only one can win (ie kid or no kid), I think the mother's view here
completely outweighs his.

>
> 	 The argument that even CONSIDERING the father's POV will somehow
> set a precedent doesn't prove the necessity of that (plenty of laws where
> interested parties don't have a legal leg [understatement!]), and begs the
> FURTHER question:  shouldn't the woman consider the child's rights?

What rights?  What child?  Where do we draw this line?  Every woman who
does not have unprotected, heterosexual sex within every menstrual cycle
is a potential killer.  She didn't even give that egg a chance!  You did
not say this, I know, but this is the direction I see your thinking going.

 (the
> argument that a fetus is not a child has always been and WILL always
> remain a weak one -- it's THE *MAIN* battering ram of the Christian Right,
> and a _fact_ and _reality_ which Pro-Choicers have trouble confronting...)

no, not really.  You can define human and child however you wish, but
this is not my definition.  A fetus is nothing more than a glorified
blood-clot.

 >
> > All that said, I think one important part of your original post is quite
> > justified, and you shouldn't be taken to task for it. That is the
> > observation that you can be pro-choice and yet think that abortion is a
> > morally serious act, unlike cutting your fingernails. You're right that
> > lots of pro-choice people, women and men alike, think this, including
> > you, I take it.
> >
> > (For the record, I'm not one of them.)
>
> 	Now YOU have some serious explaining to do...

to who? for what? you? what gives you the moral high ground to demand
such a thing?

>             ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
>      ++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++
> ++++ more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++
>

dennis



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list