XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.religion, alt.religion.christian, alt.support.abortion   
   XPost: talk.abortion, talk.atheism   
   From: webgiant@rocketmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:48:55 +0200,   
   Warnock  wrote:   
      
   > "Thomas P."   
   >    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> >> > ****** Let's be fair, if there   
   >> >> > are two people and you have a   
   >> >> > split vote - how do you resolve   
   >> >> > it? There's no intrinsic reason   
   >> >> > why the woman should have the   
   >> >> > casting vote,   
   >> >>   
   >> >> Of course there is.  She is the   
   >> >> one who is directly affected.   
   >> >   
   >> > ****** The husband is also very   
   >> > affected!   
   >>   
   >> Please try to be a little honest.   
   >> It is quite clear that the pregnant   
   >> woman is the one who is directly   
   >> affected.  She has quite a bit more   
   >> at stake than the man does.  It is   
   >> her body not his.  It is her   
   >> decision not his.   
   >   
   > ****** It is half his foetus, she is   
   > carrying.   
      
   You keep saying "the husband is affected   
   by the pregnancy".   
      
   How, exactly, is he affected by the   
   pregnancy?  What physical conditions   
   afflict him as the result of the   
   pregnancy?   
      
   The fact is that men are unaffected by   
   pregnancy while it is occurring.   
      
   > He is most likely giving her moral,   
   > financial and TLC support!   
      
   The key words being "likely".  "Most" may not   
   even enter into it.   
      
   Unlike child support, a man is under no legal   
   obligation to support a woman who is pregnant   
   with a fetus which has a portion of his DNA.   
   TLC support isn't mandated either.   
      
   "Moral" support?  What on earth are you talking   
   about here?  Did you just include the word   
   because mentioning three things sounds better   
   than two?   
      
   > He is at least as immotionally upset as   
   > she is, if an abortion happens.   
      
   If the majority anti-abortion movement can claim   
   that emotional ill-health is an inadequate reason   
   to *allow* a woman to obtain an abortion, then   
   the majority anti-abortion movement must think   
   that emotional ill-health is so easy to handle   
   that you can't claim a man's emotional ill-health   
   is enough to *deny* an abortion.   
      
   > Go full term - it's the right thing to do!   
      
   Somewhat disingenuous coming from a dishonest   
   anti-abortion person who claims that women   
   *should* be allowed to have an abortion to   
   "avoid the consequences of their actions"   
   (i.e., you would allow medically-necessary   
   abortions to women who knew full well that   
   dying in childbirth was a possible consequence   
   of having sex).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)