From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 10 Sep 92 04:42:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not bloody likely.

In article <1992Sep7.200048.10650@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.145448.26265@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.202750.18927@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>Okay, I for one am tired of this silly line of reasoning.  How about this 
>proposal:  Men who feel they have a "right" to veto a woman's choice to
>an abortion ONLY have sex with women who also feel this way.  Maybe make,
>no strike "make" since that implies compulsion, have both parties sign a
>legally
>binding contract (if such thing is possible?)

It isn't.

>stating that said provider
>of any sperm that develops into a fetus (side step the "father" issue)
>gets equal say in any decision to have an abortion; one would also need
>a provision for deciding how to resolve a split decision.

Fine.  And would you support the enforcement of said contracts, even if
the woman changed her mind after signing it?

>their expectations.  That the priority system should be structured this
>way (contract for those who expect sperm "rights"...) one can argue that since
>the sperm provider only engages in a one "shot" act (so to speak) while
>the egg provider also continues to provide other things, that the
>majority provider (the woman) have overriding rights of determination.

Sigh. . . Yet another person who thinks that 9 months of pregnancy is
a much greater burden than the following 18 (minimum) years.

>in these references to your past, you seems to have such a lack of knowledge/
>communication about your sex partner and their belief system.  That you
>feel badly about HER choice to have an abortion, without YOU making your
>feeling clear before sex, reflects badly on YOUR CHOICES NOT HERS.

Which just goes to show, you didn't read what I wrote.

With that in mind, the rest of your judegement on what I wrote that you
didn't read deleted, and not responded to.

>If you
>and she didn't come to agreement on how such circumstances should be
>handled (especially in that they conformed to the generally accepted
>norm) implies that YOU were the irresponsible one.  If she didn't agree
>to you views then YOU should not have engaged in sex with her; if only
>to allow you to adhere to your belief system in all eventuallities (?).

Oh, what the hell.  I respond a little, in the forlorn hope that it
might get read.

What if, we communicate, she agrees with me on how the situation should
be handled, then changes her mind later?  How am I to blame for her
reneging on her agreements?

Does her changing her mind make HER the irresponsible one?

Should she not have had sex with me if she was going to change her mind,
or should she be required to follow through on her agreement even if
she has a change of heart?

>Hmmm, time for another *analogy*?  Two people agree to consentual kissing,
>person A has a cold/strep.  Person B becomes infected and decides to
>combat the infection with medicine.  Does person A have the "right" to
>prevent this?

And yet another person who thinks that a cold/strep germ can be equated
with a baby.

>Is this a choice that must be made by the couple?  Can
>person A claim are right to the continued welfare of the infection;
>what if A's beliefs exclude the use of an intervention such as antibiotics?
>(Just a thought senario)

And not a very good one.  Try an analogy that acknowledges at least the
potential of humanity and you might get a better one.

>-robert
> Robert W. Hatcher

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion