From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:06:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Riiiiiiighttttt!

In article <78816@ut-emx.uucp> andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
>John, you believe the father is affected.  Fine -- that's your belief,
>and you're entitled to it.  However, I am just as entitled to disagree.

Of course.  I wouldn't dream of trying to stop you from disagreeing.

>I have thought about this, and thought about this,

So have I.  I used to be pro-abort, in fact, until it was brought forcibly
home to me that I was being treated like a slave, a non-person.

>and frankly I can't 
>see how the minor fact that your sperm fertilized the egg gives you the
>right to control what a woman does with what is essentially a parasite
>in her body.

Take it to the next logical step, then.  How does the 'minor fact that
[my] sperm fertilized the egg' give you the right to require me to
support the child for eighteen years after you UNILATERALLY decide to
give birth to a child I don't want?

>Yes, your genetic material is in there.  So if you donated
>to a sperm bank, and the woman who was impregnated with your sperm 
>decided to abort her fetus, you would claim the right to block that 
>decision?

Nope.  Because in that case, I would not donate unless I was willing to
forfeit all rights to the child in advance.  This is common practice
in most sperm banks, and in fact it goes the other way as well.  The
woman must agree not to hold the donor responsible for the child.
>
>If you can't see this argument, turn it around.  YOU are the one who wants
>to abort the fetus; your wife (or girlfriend, or whomever) wants to keep
>the baby.  Whose decision is paramount, and why?

This is the real sticky point.  There are four cases worth discussing:

		Keep			Abort
-----------------------------------------------------
Keep	|	Continue	|	Continue*
Abort	|	Continue*	|	Abort

My *BELIEF* is that Continuing in the * cases is the only politically
feasible and fair choice.  Why?  Because the alternative would be
to require an abortion, or to allow the father to sever all ties
and obligations to the child.  The first is impossible, because it
would require the woman to get an abortion she doesn't want, and
the second is politically impossible because it would require women
to accept sole responsibility for their children, and give up any
claims to child support.  Not likely, as no political group is going
to give up a perk, no matter how unfair.

>There are many laws on the books which permit things I'd rather not see
>permitted.  The fact is, a law permitting something to occur does not
>mandate that it occur.  No one is going to force your wife to abort a
>fetus, John, and no one is stopping you from espousing your views.  Why
>does allowing some people to do something with which you disagree violate
>your beliefs?

It doesn't, UNLESS it is MY child that is being aborted.  You see, I have
no real desire to restrict your choices, but the current system leave
me no choice.  I would much prefer that the constitutional amendment leave
the morality of an abortion to be a choice, but a choice that the COUPLe
makes.

>(We sing the national anthem before every major sporting event in the US.
>Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in saluting the flag.  Should we stop
>because the practice of singing the anthem goes against their beliefs?)

Nope.  But we don't force JW's to do so.  When my pregnant SO gets an
abortion, she IS forcing ME to do something I find unacceptable, to wit,
allowing my child to be murdered.

If you wish to murder your children, that should be your right, so long
as the father agrees.

You see, abortion isn't a woman's issue.  It is a couple's issue.  If
men weren't involved, there would be no abortion controversy, because
you WOULDN'T BE PREGNANT.

>Then it will never occur, because I will never "admit" that -- I find it
>an abhorrent position to take, and I cannot possibly see the premises which
>would allow any reasonable person to take such a view.

I've explained them.  And I find your position to be self serving, unfair
and very unreasonable.  You seem blind to the fact that a woman does not
get pregnant without a man.

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity