XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime
XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism
From: gowch@SPAMTHEENOThotmail.com
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 23:41:52 GMT, "Daniel T."
wrote:
[snip]
==>If a mother is allowed to abort or not, without the father's input, then
==>the father should be allowed to force the mother to abort, even if she
==>doesn't want to.
If you believe that, then you must also believe that a
woman who does not desire to have any -- or additional
-- children, should be allowed to force her husband or
lover to have a vasectomy, even if he doesn't want to.
If she doesn't have sovereignty over her own body,
why should he?
==>Using your logic above, a man could never be forced to pay child
==>support. After all what he does with his body (or labor in this case) is
==>his business as well isn't it?
Don't be absurd. One's labour is not the same
as one's body.
If a man wants to avoid creating a child he may
be required to support, all he need do is
to sheathe one small appendage of his body in latex
when engaging in sex, and he'll never have
to worry about it.
What's wrong with you anti-choice types,
anyway? Do you really want every horny teenage
kid's mistake to result in the creation of one more
unwanted, unloved human being? Don't we have
enough of those already?
Human life is cheap. There are six billion homo
sapiens out there, and many of them will starve
to death or die of AIDS before the year is out.
Why don't you folks who are so loudly concerned about
the preservation of life devote your energies to
trying to see that life is tolerable for the living,
instead of attempting to force your personal morality
on those who don't happen to share it?
--
Better an abortion clinic on every streetcorner
than the birth of one more unwanted child.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
