From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: The EvilPatriarchalConspiracy of Freedom of Choice for Men - NOT!
X-To: J H WOODYATT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:02:00 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes...
JHW> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
JHW> # A man cannot force either of these two actions under current law.  I
JHW> # would argue that forcing (1) is unethical and wrong, while forcing the
JHW> # equivalent of (2) as a man is both ethical and non-harmful to a
JHW> # woman's bodily integrity, and in fact is an exact parallel to what a
JHW> # woman can do today.

JHW> Forcing women to become parents (in the genetic sense -- I don't want
JHW> to confuse you) against their will is not ethical, it *is* harmful (to
JHW> women's bodily integrity, and in general), and is in no way parallel
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
JHW> to any power granted to women today to force men to become parents
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
JHW> (again, in the genetic sense) against their will.


Why isn't it?  It is *not* ethical, and it *is* harmful (to a man's freedom
in general), and *is* parallel to forcing a woman to bear and raise a child
because it is an issue of *control*.


JHW> # Now just what is it about being female that grants them some god(s)-given
JHW> # right to cancel their parenthood status and responsibilities not once, bu
JHW> # TWICE after conception, while a man has ZERO capabilities to do the same?

JHW> I don't know.  Maybe it has something to do with who does the
JHW> gestating?

True, but the fact that she does the gestation, should ONLY give the woman the
right to control HER OWN PREGNANCY, *not* an individual who is *not* contained
by her bodily area.  Since you insist on using the bodily integrity position,
then I'd agree with you in that it *should* be used as a valid argument to let
a woman control what happens *in her own body*, but that this control should
STOP as far as her bodily area is concerned, and *not* give her the right to
control the choices of a possibly unwilling man.


JHW> # Trotting out the "my body my choice" argument only takes care of the
JHW> # abortion angle at best.  How do you justify the ability to place that
JHW> # infant for adoption, and why does not a man have the choice that a woman
JHW> # does to walk away at birth?

JHW> Getting a sloppy with the truth there aren't you Mr. Denninger?  You
JHW> make it sound like women have an unrestricted right to abandon their
JHW> born children, and that isn't true.

Not at all.  The fact that you use the bodily integrity position, only means
that you can get away with *only* defending a *woman's* right to reproductive
freedom by defending her "bodily integrity".  Men have no such issue, but we
*DO* have the issue of FREEDOM OF CHOICE in regards to reproductive choices,
and we sincerely intend to reclaim that right!

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * !FLASH! Energizer Bunny arrested! Charged with BATTERY!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity