XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism   
      
   "Daniel T."  wrote in message   
   news:daniel_t-192B65.18540910122003@news04.east.earthlink.net...   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   > > > 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".   
   >   
   > This is such a blatant generalization that I shouldn't even have to   
   > respond to it's lack of truth... The typical human requires somewhere   
   > between 16 and 20 years of support before he/she becomes independently   
   > viable (some more, some less of course.) It is not the case that the   
   > woman invariably contributes more than 50% of the care during those   
   > years. In some number of cases, the woman contributes less than 5% of   
   > the care necessary. This would obviously be the case in situations where   
   > the man wants to raise the offspring to maturity, but the woman doesn't   
   > want to be involved in the offspring's care at all.   
      
   It is not a generalization at all. The situation you described concerns the   
   ownership of the fetus   
   at the time of possible abortion. The 16 to 20 years you mentioned are   
   irrevalent. It is simple   
   biology that the mother nutures the baby until birth or abortion. The period   
   of time that is of   
   concern is that period before any possible abortion. Therefore,   
   my position stands.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)