From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:25:02 GMT
     <1992Sep1.180606.12389@advtech.uswest.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:

>>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.

Funny -- I've *never* been pro-abort.  I can acknowledge that there are
circumstances under which abortion is the most logical alternative and
that the woman should be allowed to choose to follow the most logical
alternative if she wishes.  I don't want to force it on anyone.

>>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?

Dealt with elsewhere.

>>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.  

My belief is that the woman should be allowed to choose whether or not to
host another lifeform.  My belief is also that, barring certain extreme
cases, the father's input should be solicited and considered, but the
woman has the final decision.

>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

True enough.

>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.  

Politically, maybe so.  Practically, it's not only possible, it happens
quite often.

>>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.

In the vast majority of cases, it is.  We can't be held responsible for
every little niggling exception.  The fact that you seem to have been
burned doesn't give you the right to restrict the personal choice of 
every woman in the US.

>>(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.

So leave her.  If the relationship gets to this stage, you don't belong
together.  This *still* doesn't give you the right to force your will
upon her.

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

Don't EVER tell my mother that. ;-)

>You see, abortion isn't a woman's issue.  It is a couple's issue.  

What happens when the couple disagrees?  You're still trying to force 
equality on a situation that has an inherent bias -- the woman bears
the child.  I agree that it *should* be a decision the couple makes,
whenever possible, I just think the woman's decision should carry more
weight.  Someone has to have final say, and I think it should be the
person more directly involved.

>If
>men weren't involved, there would be no abortion controversy, because
>you WOULDN'T BE PREGNANT.

I doubt I will be in any case, but thanks for the thought. :-)

>>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.  

How is my position self-serving?  What do *I* gain by allowing women the
right to choose their own fate?  It may be unfair, but that's not something
I can -- or care to -- do anything about.  And it isn't at all unreasonable
from my side of the fence.  Obviously, you disagree -- so be it.

>You seem blind to the fact that a woman does not
>get pregnant without a man.

You seem equally blind to the fact that a man doesn't get pregnant at all.
No way, no how, never.

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."
                                                  Au revoir, *ma* cherie.
                                                  (Sorry, kiddo.)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion