Re: Abortion

Ivan Gowch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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.  

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 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.

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.


>     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.

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.

>     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.


> ==> As such, the father should 
> ==>have some say in what happens to it.
> 
>     Fetuses don't have "fathers."  Living children do.

Whatever term you care to use... 

>     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.


> ==> 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!

That would never be an issue. Please read my quote above again.


> 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?