XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism   
   From: rrufiange@cfl.rr.com   
      
   "Daniel T."  wrote in message   
   news:postmaster-9AB7B9.19480003122003@news.west.earthlink.net...   
   > I don't agree. As an analogy, let's say there is a river that begins at   
   > a spring that is in my property and then runs through yours. There are   
   > limits on what I can do to that river based on how it may harm you. If I   
   > decided to dump poison into it thus killing your land would you really   
   > accept me saying "I can do whatever I want to the water that runs   
   > through *my* property?" I don't think so. It's the same with the   
   > fetus/child. It belongs to both the man and woman, just because it   
   > begins in the woman's body doesn't give her the right to do whatever   
   > ever she wants regardless of the man's desire.   
      
   The day children become property, then that will happen, but until then,   
   you're stuck in the real world with the rest of us.  The fetus belongs to   
   the mother.  Legally recognized contracts (marriage, etc..) may alter that,   
   but as many people know from personal experience, most court decisions favor   
   the mother, barring special exceptions such as abuse or mental instability.   
      
   The fetus doesn't belong to the man.  The man has no right to interfere with   
   an abortion.   
   The only way such action can occur is if said man goes to court, and has a   
   pretty damn good excuse for doing so.  Otherwise, he loses.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)