From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Tue Sep 19 2000 - 08:28:09 MDT
Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't think a female should be forced to get pregnant. Anything else that
> > happens is a result of either consensus decisions between her and the male
> > involved, or a negotiated settlement or ruling enforced by courts if complete
> > consensus is not reached prior to conception. Note that while two people may be
> > consensual about having sex, they very likely have not reached a consensus about
> > what to do for the next 18 years if she gets pregnant.
>
> Do you believe birth control is wholly effective? No? Do you believe
> that human beings have a strong enough urge for sex that they very
> nearly must have sexual activity to stay sane for part of their lives?
> Maybe yes? Then it is obvious that women cannot fully claim to have
> chosen to get pregnant every time they do.
No more and no less so than the male who is 'irresponsible'.
> Males, in case you haven't noticed, are much more irresponsible, er
> driven to have sex as often as possible and with less consideration of
> consequences (as a gender based generality) than females. A male
> doesn't have to stick around to bear any consequences and it is
> ludricrous to claim that he generally has as much say in whether the
> woman decides to abort as she does. Especially if there is no binding
> contract between them.
If there is no binding contract, then it should be a two way street. The concept
of equal protection applies. If the woman has the right to choose to bind the
male into an 18 year indenturment for the support of the child, then the male
should have the same legal right to indenture the female.
> > Sure, but a pregancy does not involve just one body. You are dealing, in fact,
> > with three bodies (at a minimum), and any woman so callous as to totally
> > disregard the rights and concerns of the other two very likely would be a very
> > poor candidate for motherhood anyways, not to mention for being human, but of
> > course, there is a matter of context/circumstances, etc.
>
> All three bodies do not have equal stakes and one of those bodies is not
> even a person but a fetus. So what is it with this wierd position?
> Callous my ass. Carry around a fetal parasite within you that you never
> wanted at the insistent of people who claim the right to pressure you to
> do so and then tell me all these other people and psuedo-people have the
> same right and stake.
Well, with the woman, its merely a matter of 9 months of discomfort and some
medical risk. With the fetus, its a matter of life and death, literally, and
with the male its a matter of 18 years of unconsented indenturement. Any claim
that the stakes for the mother are greater than the stakes for the fetus is, at
its core, its own proof of selfishness and callousness. Any claim that 18 years
of financial indenturement is a miniscule violation of one's rights is also its
own proof of selfishness and callousness.
>
> > > 4. As a female, would you terminate an untimely pregnancy?
> >
> > Since I'm not, I don't have to worry about that, as a female. As a male, I've
> > already once been through an experience where a girlfriend got pregnant, did not
> > tell me, went off and got an abortion, and I did not hear about it for a couple
> > years from a third party. We broke up before I found out, for likely the same
> > reasons she got the abortion: She was an extremely selfish, self-centerd,
> > materialistic woman. When I later found out what she did, I cannot say I was at
> > all surprised, though I was rather bothered by what she did.
>
> I think the self-centeredness selfishness goes two ways.
I don't think so, and since you don't know anything about that particular
relationship of mine, your comments are unfounded and merely ad homenim.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:03 MST