XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism   
      
   "Daniel T."  wrote in message   
   news:postmaster-201A65.20271304122003@news04.west.earthlink.net...   
   > "Chris"  wrote:   
   >   
   > > "Daniel T."  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > > Yes, a truly wacko view, but it isn't mine. 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.   
   > >   
   > > Perhaps when both parents are entered into some sort of joing agreement,   
   but   
   > > were I a woman, you can be damn sure I wouldn't let some guy I had sex   
   with   
   > > tell me what I could or couldn't do with my yet-to-be-born child.   
   > >   
   > > You'd probably feel the same way, under the proper circumstances.   
   >   
   > I know plenty of women who are incensed while consoling their brother   
   > because he is devastated by some woman's decision to destroy his   
   > offspring. But, yes I'm sure many people are very selfish and don't want   
   > to share.   
   >   
   >   
   > > > 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.   
   > >   
   > > Well, your opinion differs from the current legal opinion of the matter.   
   > > Plus, until the brain forms, it can be argued (successfully, too!) that   
   a   
   > > fetus and a tumor are not all that different.  Both are living tissue.   
   > > Until the organs and systems form, who can honestly and educatedly claim   
   > > that there is a real difference between one mass of tissue and another?   
   >   
   > I say a fetus is not a tumor as in the fetus contains DNA from both the   
   > man and woman, unlike a tumor. The fetus should be considered joint   
   > property.   
   >   
   >   
   > > > 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.   
   > >   
   > > Actually, I'll say it.  No PERSON has a right to determine what any   
   other   
   > > person may do with their body, for any reason.  You don't have any right   
   to   
   > > stop a woman from having an abortion, even if it is your sperm inside.   
   > > Likewise, that woman has no right to stop you from having a sex change   
   > > operation, or having a vasectomy, or any other surgery on your own body.   
   > > That's already the way the law is.  What's wrong?   
   >   
   > So you can do anything you want with your body? What if I choose to use   
   > my body to rob a bank? Why can a woman force a man to use his body to   
   > help support a child she decided to have? Joint property forces   
   > restrictions on all owners of the property.   
   >   
   >   
   > > > > 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?   
   > >   
   > > What exactly is your stance?  Are you anti-abortion, pro-abortion,   
   > > pro-choice, or just anti-woman-aborting-a-fetus-made-with-my-sperm?   
   >   
   > The anti-abortionists don't like me because I consider a fetus property   
   > and if the owners of said property want to dispose of it, then that is   
   > fine by me. The pro-abortionists don't like me because I believe that a   
   > fetus is property jointly held by both individuals who contributed DNA,   
   > and if either of them are willing to raise the forthcoming child to   
   > adulthood, then any attempt by the other to destroy that opportunity is   
   > wrong and should be punished. Like any other jointly held property, any   
   > disagreements between the owners need to be settled by some sort of   
   > arbitration.   
   >   
   > I freely admit that my position is very much in the minority. It seems   
   > that few have even conceived (pun) of it as a position to hold.   
      
   In the law, the profits of ownership are divided in proportion to the   
   contributions of the owners.   
   Even though the genetic contributions are 50/50, the other efforts are   
   certainly not. By this   
   the woman should be very much in control of the "property".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)