From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pregnancy and Parenthood 2
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:14:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.213619.19838@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>In article <1992Jul19.051658.29971@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul16.142529.1318@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>
>>>     Right. Concern about how "Having a Baby" (not being a parent)
>>>obviously has NO connection with physically being pregnant. And yes, if
>>>you are a woman, pregnancy can chanhe your life.  
>
>>Becoming a parent also PROFOUNDLY changes a woman's life.
> I am not denying that. I am, however, not the one claiming "likely sole
>motivation."

You have not disproven this yet. Raising mere possibilities is not disproof.

>>>"Can't afford a baby
>>>now"--obviously has NO connection with the physical and economic
>>>realities of being pregnant.  
>
>>The cost of raising a child for 18+ years dwarfs the typical costs 
>>associated with pregnancy and birth.
>>
>     I understand that. However, there are women who can afford neither,
>not just the former.

Sure there are. But how "likely" is it that a given woman can afford the
former, while not being able to afford the latter?

>>>"Not ready for responsibility" couldn't
>>>POSSIBLY include the responsibility involved with pre-natal care,
>>>nutrition, health etc. 
>
>>Nutrition, pediatric care, clothing, schooling, psychological nurturing and 
>>support etc. are responsibilities which require a broader and longer 
>>commitment.
>
>     I am not denying that. However, there are women who cannot cope
>with either.

Sure. But how "likely" is it that a given woman can cope with the commitment I 
cited, but not the one you did?

>>>"Too young to have a child" couldn't in your
>>>wildest dreams mean not physically mature. 
>
>>It would probably be listed under "health problem" if the woman's physical
>>immaturity actually caused medical complications...
>
>     Oh that's right--it's not up to the woman to decide if she's mature
>enough to go through the birth process.  

Does this hypothetical woman have a M.D. degree and a license to practice
medicine? Remember, you said PHYSICALLY mature... 

>>>>"Has all the children she
>>>>wanted" couldn't POSSIBLY mean "been pregnant and given birth all the
>>>>times she wanted."  
>>
>>>Which, of course, is the same thing as "became a parent n times", and 
>>>therefore doesn't disprove our point in the slightest.
>>
>     Which of course is nothing of the sort.

How the hell else does a woman become a parent other than by being pregnant
and giving birth? 

>>>>Of course not. Women are SELFISH SELFISH creatures
>>>>who can pop babies like pez if they only feel like it, and are way too
>>>>stupid to realize that adoption can solve 97% of their problems.
>>
>>>	Who are you arguing against here, M[rs]. Price? Certainly neither Mr. Cage
>>>nor I, as pro-choicers, are likely to hold the view you're attacking here.
>>
>     The problem is, Kevin, that espousing the view that women have
>abortions not to become "unpregnant" but to avoid parenthood means it is
>only a timely step to espusing adoption as the logical answer. 

I don't buy "slippery slope" arguments, sorry. Not from you any more than I
would from pro-life jerk du jour...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.sex,talk.bizarre