XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism   
   From: gowch@SPAMTHEENOThotmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 01:27:12 GMT, "Daniel T."   
    wrote:   
      
   [snip]   
      
   ==>I refer you to my river analogy. I would say charge her for the wanton   
   ==>destruction of the shared property.   
      
   		Your river analogy is false.  A river is a flowing   
   		body of water.  A fetus is not.   
      
   		Also, it's ridiculous to consider a fetus "shared   
   		property."  A fetus is not a house or a car.  A fetus   
   		is a parasitic growth that, during the course of its   
   		gestation, sucks energy and nutrients from the   
   		woman's -- not the man's -- body, and causes   
   		the gross misshaping of the woman's -- not the   
   		man's -- corpus.  Until such time as the man invests   
   		equal energy, nutrient supplies and discomfort as   
   		the woman, pretending that there is anything "equal"   
   		about the "ownership" of this growth is a logical   
   		absurdity and, IMO, quite disingenuous.   
      
   IG:   
   ==>>     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.   
      
   ==>What simple thing might that be?   
      
   		The insulation of his ejaculation.   
      
   IG:   
   ==>>     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?   
      
   ==>Your implication was that parent's who *want* their children would have   
   ==>to fear law enforcement for some reason.   
      
   		I implied no such thing.  Why would parents who   
   		want a child fear law enforcement?   
      
   ==> When I say that abortion should   
   ==>be mandated, that would be a simple matter of ensuring that free/cheep   
   ==>abortions were available to any couple that wants one.   
      
   		MANDATE:  : an authoritative command; especially : a   
   		formal order from a superior court or official to an   
   		inferior one.   
      
   		Mandate means to force or compel.  Unless you are now   
   		disavowing your use of the word, you meant that a   
   		government body should be able to issue an   
   		"authoritative command" to a woman to undergo an   
   		abortion.  If that's not what you meant, say so.   
      
   ==>You see, we really aren't that far apart in our positions I think. The   
   ==>only difference between us is that I believe that the man has as much   
   ==>right to a fetus as the woman.   
      
   		Well, we are a couple of million parsecs apart   
   		on that one.   
      
   [snip]   
      
   IG:   
   ==>>     I don't believe I've ever insisted that you are   
   ==>>     anti-abortion.   
      
   ==>Could simply be a misunderstanding, when you said:   
   ==>   
   ==>   
   ==>> 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?   
   ==>   
   ==>in response to one of my posts, I assumed "you folks" included me...   
      
   		Sorry.  Imprecise wording on my part.  I understand   
   		that you are not opposed to abortion per se, even   
   		though I believe you are dead wrong on the issue   
   		of fetus "ownership."   
      
   [snip]   
      
   ==>Not granting men limited authority over what women may do with their   
   ==>bodies, but some authority over how women may treat some piece of joint   
   ==>property. People are often granted rights to limit others actions when   
   ==>dealing with joint property. It isn't loathsome, it's expected.   
      
   		Humans -- born or unborn -- are never property.   
   		I would have thought that the Emancipation   
   		Proclamation had settled that for all time.   
      
   ==>To deny my position is to openly state that men have nothing whatsoever   
   ==>to do with the fetus, and if that's the case, then they should have no   
   ==>obligation to the child after birth either...   
      
   		Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on that.   
      
   		The risk to the male in the process of conception-   
   		gestation-birth is infinitely less than the risk to   
   		the female, as is the potential burden on him once the   
   		child is born.  As well, the means of contraception   
   		available to the male is considerably easier to use   
   		and far more risk-free than most contraceptive   
   		mechanisms available to women.   
      
   		I think these factors more than compensate for his   
   		being deemed partially responsible for -- at the very   
   		least -- the economic support of the person he helped   
   		create.   
      
   		Once again, I have to point out that a man who wants   
   		to avoid possible responsibility in this regard need   
   		only invest in a small, dirt-cheap piece of latex   
   		prior to going for the booty.  If he's unwilling to do   
   		that he takes his chances, and I don't see that as   
   		being in the least unfair.   
      
   		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)