XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime
XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism
From: gowch@SPAMTHEENOThotmail.com
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 01:04:50 GMT, "Daniel T."
wrote:
==>> ==>> ==>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.
==>> IG:
==>> ==>> 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.
D:
==>> ==>Nonsense, she has the right and ability to leave him and find someone
==>> ==>else. What happens before conception is not at issue here.
IG:
==>> Of course, it's an issue. What happened before
==>> conception is that the man decided to have
==>> unprotected sex. That raises the possibility that
==>> the woman may become pregnant.
==>The *man* had unprotected sex? What about the woman? Didn't she have
==>unprotected sex as well? Why are you blaming the man for something the
==>two did as a couple?
I'm not *blaming* anyone. It was you who advanced the
idea that a man who does not want to procreate should
be entitled to force the woman to abort if she gets
pregnant despite his unwillingness. My point is
that a man who does not want to procreate has the
absolute power to ensure that he does not do so.
It's absurd to say that a man who is unwilling to
create life but does nothing to prevent it should then
be able to correct his failure retroactively via an
outrageous intrusion into a woman's sovereignty
and privacy.
IG:
==>> I suspect
==>> there are few people who would agree with your
==>> suggestion that a man who fails to take precautions
==>> against conception should later be entitled to "force
==>> the mother to abort" because he doesn't want a
==>> child. That's a truly wacko view. If realized, that
==>> would give a man sovereignty over a woman's
==>> body by the simple expedient of getting her pregnant
==>> -- a situation not very different from slavery.
==>I believe that neither
==>parent should be allowed to abort a fetus without the consent of the
==>other parent; but if both parents want the abortion then no outside
==>agency should be allowed to stop them, or punish them for the decision.
A fetus doesn't have a *parent.* It has a host.
The woman is the host. Until a man can host a
fetus, he has nothing to say about its disposition.
IG:
==>> Anything growing inside a person's
==>> body -- whether it's a tumour or a fetus -- is the
==>> sole property of the person. Any other view is
==>> an abominable insult to the concept of personal
==>> freedom.
==>This is a simple difference of opinion. A fetus is not a tumor, 50% of
==>the fetus' DNA is identical to the fathers and thus he should have as
==>much right to it as the mother, IMO.
OK. Then how about the woman has the fetus
removed from her body and presents it to the
"father." That way he gets his DNA back, to
do with as he pleases. Would that satisfy
you?
IG:
==>> Which raises the interesting question . . . why is it
==>> that the conservatives among us never tire of
==>> praising the ideal of personal freedom -- except
==>> when it concerns women and tiny bundles of insensate
==>> cells that may be growing inside their bodies?
==>> Anyone else detect the stench of hypocrisy here?
==>The hypocrisy I detect is those who loudly proclaim equal rights for the
==>sexes but refuse to give a father equal rights to the decision of
==>bringing a fetus to term.
"Fathers" are biologically incapable of bringing
a fetus to term. Only a woman can do that. And
that's why it remains, and should remain, her sole
decision.
[snip]
IG:
==>> And again, no man has any right to determine what
==>> a woman may do with her body, or anything
==>> growing inside it.
==>If only you would say, "no *person* has any right to determine what
==>another person may do with his/her body" I might agree with you; but
==>then you would have to accept that forced child support as well as a
==>whole host of other laws, are immoral.
OK, no "person."
As far as forced child support goes, I'm tempted
to agree that a man who makes it clear to his sex
partner that he does not want a child shouldn't be
compelled to support it if she *deliberately* gets
pregnant and gives birth. But that still begs the
question why, if he was not inclined to father a
child, he did not do that simple thing that would
ensure that the problem never arises.
D:
==>> ==> What I really want is for every person who wants to raise
==>> ==>his/her progeny to have the opportunity to do so. I believe that both
==>> ==>parents should have a say in whether a child should be aborted. I
==>> ==>believe that as long as at least one parent wants to raise the child,
==>> ==>the abortion should be illegal, but if neither parent wants the kid,
==>> ==>abortion should be mandated.
IG:
==>> Oh goody. You like the idea of a police state
==>> more intrusive than anything George Orwell
==>> conjured up in his worst nightmares.
==>> Quick, suck in yer belly, Nelly! The Conception
==>> Cops are at the door!
==>That would never be an issue. Please read my quote above again.
Why wouldn't it be? As soon as you start talking
about "mandating" abortion, or anything else,
you allow for law-enforcement agents charged
with doing the mandating. How could it be
otherwise?
IG:
==>> Better an abortion clinic on every streetcorner
==>> than the birth of one more unwanted child.
==>You insist that I am anti-abortion, yet I agree with your tag-line. How
==>could that be?
I don't believe I've ever insisted that you are
anti-abortion. It appears you don't oppose abortion
per se, but you support granting men limited authority
over what women may do with their bodies which, from
personal-freedom and privacy standpoints, is no less
loathsome.
Regards.
--
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)
|
