From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:36:39 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>>smccabe@franklin.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:

>>>In article <1992Apr07.072202.8316@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>>>cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>to answer:
>>>>
>>>>>What equivalent responsibility (if any) do you propose for the
>>>>>MALE who got the potentially aborting woman pregnant?
>A>>>

>              [sniping about names deleted]

>>>Well, Kevin, maybe if you had spent a leeetle time reading this newsgroup
>>>you would have seen some of the common issues that certain people
>>>consistently bring up.  One of Cathi's favorite is basically that pro-lifers
>>>often argue that a woman has a physical responsibility to the z/e/f
>>>(that's zygote/embryo/fetus) which she has helped to concieve.
>>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ add child/baby/infant also 

>>  If
>>>you support this argument, what equivalent physical responsibility does 
>>>the male who was involved in this conception carry?

>>Responsibility cannot be "equal" due to the nature of pregnancy.  

>So can we extrapolate that you're willing to force women to damage
>their health and possibly risk death because "that's just the way it
>is"?  That it's too bad but, well, women were just made that way and
>they just have to accept it?  Many conditions that were "just made
>that way" are quite amenable to modern medical treatment, do you
>wish to deny that treatment for pregnancy but for nothing else?

Where do you dream up this crap?  Those are your words, not mine.  I'll lay it
out so maybe you can comprehend.

--> I <-- am not forcing women to do anything.  The woman and her sex partner
are the ones responsible for "forcing" the pregnancy.  I merely wish to save
human beings from murder.  Your "choice" arguement can't begin to compare.

Actually you don't have to "accept" it these days.  Get tubal ligation or
have the ovaries removed (the wonders of science!).

>>Hence the
>>male responsiblity has to come in the form of financial and emotional
>>support.  

>So exactly what responsibilities are you in favor of for the male?
>Assume that no legal obligations currently exist for the man, what
>would you propose?

I have no good answer to this (but then it's skirting the issue, isn't it?).

>>BTW this is NOT the issue and that has been my main point all 
>>along.  

>Indeed, and I find that very telling.  It's not YOUR issue what the
>responsibilities of men are, and yet you feel it IS your issue what
>the responsibilities of women are.  What if laws were proposed that
>mandated castration for every male who failed to meet child support
>payments?  Would it be your issue then?

Spare me the "poor victim female" schtick.  The woman is inconvenienced, the
child is murdered.  Again, the plight of the two hardly compares.

>>The only way you can fight the issue is to NOT fight the issue.

>Indeed, a very accurate description of EXACTLY what you are doing here.

Wow what insight.  Again YOU have changed the issue from Child Murdering
(the ONLY issue) to poor woman victims of inconvenience. 

>>Kevin Brawley

>                              -rocker

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: talk.abortion