
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:08:32 GMT, "Daniel T."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
==>Nonsense, she has the right and ability to leave him and find someone
==>else. What happens before conception is not at issue here.
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. 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.
IG:
==>> If she doesn't have sovereignty over her own body,
==>> why should he?
==>A fetus is joint property, not hers alone.
Nonsense. 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.
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?
==> As such, the father should
==>have some say in what happens to it.
Fetuses don't have "fathers." Living children do.
Fetuses become children, and persons, at the moment
they take their first free breath, and not a moment
sooner.
And again, no man has any right to determine what
a woman may do with her body, or anything
growing inside it.
IG:
==>> What's wrong with you anti-choice types,
==>> anyway? Do you really want every horny teenage
==>> kid's mistake to result in the creation of one more
==>> unwanted, unloved human being? Don't we have
==>> enough of those already?
==>I'm not an "anti-choice type" I am probably a stronger abortion advocate
==>than you are.
That, I sincerely doubt.
==>I even believe that abortion should be mandated in some
==>situations.
Another wholly abominable idea, for the reasons
stated above.
==> 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.
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!
Do the world a favour and stay the hell out of
politics.
--
Better an abortion clinic on every streetcorner
than the birth of one more unwanted child.
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |