From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Tue Sep 19 2000 - 14:18:35 MDT
Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> >
> > Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> > > 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'.
>
> Bull. Males don't have to carry babies. They don't have to be more
> careful in their partners lest one leave them pregnant or a parent with
> no support. At least not in the "wild". It is a bit different now
> days, for better or worse.
The technology is there. Failure to use it is irresponsibility.
>
> > > 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.
> >
>
> Much of the time a male cannot be bound to support successfully even if
> there was a binding contract.
Actually, they put deadbeat dads in jail here in NH. 9 of the top ten this year
have been caught and have either paid up, or are rotting in jail while their
assets are being found. Of course, the list of deadbeat moms is actually longer
than the list of deadbeat dads, but nobody seems to want to mention that fact,
or do anything about it.
> No one has any honest right to indenture
> anyone. Except if both people agreed beforehand to produce a baby (not
> a fetus) and to raise it to maturity.
So then you agree that outside of a contractual agreement to reproduce (i.e.:
marriage), a biological father should not be forced to support the child if he
opposed the pregnancy being brought to fruition?
>
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
>
> "Merely"? What bloody right do you have to tell any human being that
> you can force ver to endure one day of this much less 9 months?
The same right that forces men to pay child support for 18 years for children
they did not want.
> Pregnancy takes a fairly considerable toll on the body. And it fills
> the woman with all kinds of deep emotional attachments through hormonal
> changes. Evolution programs human beings for these things. The fetus
> is not a human being (at least not unambiguously) so speaking of its
> life and death as if on the same footing with the mother is quite
> disingenous. The male involved has zero rights to force the woman to
> bear his child if that is not what she wants. I don't believe in the
> financial or physical indenturement of anyone. And additional wrongs
> (some of the current laws) do not make it right in any way shape or form
> to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.
Yet you agreed above that a woman could be forced to abort a child or waive the
liability of the faither.
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> If all you see is self-centeredness in what was not your decision to
> make and for all you know may have been pretty difficult to live with
> then that on the face of it looks a bit closed-minded to me. I could
> be wrong.
At the time I was pretty strongly against abortion. To me, it felt like I was
forced to be an accomplice to murder.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:04 MST