From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:00:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.171124.22809@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.194629.12162@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>> [why fathers should be involved in abortion decision deleted]
>
>I have considered this angle.  Granted, I think the woman involved *should*
>consider the father's opinion, but ultimately, the *woman* must make the
>decision.  It's *her* body, not his.  Men have a right to offer their 
>opinion, but no more.  It is up to the woman to *decide* what course of
>action to take.  If she wants to honor the father's wishes, that is her
>decision.  I disagree with your assertion that the father should either
>have control of the process or no responsibility.

I did not mean to imply that they should have absolute control, just some
influence (yup - that's vague).

>>Generally, your point sounds like women being able to "have their cake
>>and eat it too".  That is, they want the right to abort the child without
>>interference by the father while at the same time they want the option 
>>to make the father responsible for bringing up the child if it is born.
>>There is little justice in that philosophy.
>
>That is exactly my philosophy.  You talk of justice.  Where is the justice
>in the woman having to be the one to bear children?  If life were just,
>then any case where the man wanted the child carried to term, *he* would
>become the pregnant one.  Life ain't fair, my friend.  Usually, the woman
>gets to bear the brunt of this unfairness.  Here is a case where the tables
>are turned, and sure enough, there are a significant number of men who 
>snivel about "fairness".  Sounds to me like these men are the ones who 
>want their cake and get to eat it too.  The unfair thing here is that the
>woman should get to choose.  If she chooses to bear the child, the man is
>obliged to support it.  

You said it, "life ain't fair" so being a woman means that you are the one
to carry the child - too bad.  It is no less fair that the female bears 
the child than it is that I cannot jump as high as _any_ NBA player. 
That's nature and there's no getting around it (yet).

What if the man wants to terminate the child because he doesn't want to 
change his lifestyle?  Should he not have the option to have the pregnancy
aborted?  If he had this option, as does the woman, then I would find
more justice (for the parents) in this.

Since they are both responsible for the child's creation and, ultimately 
the childs care, they should both have an equal say in the fate of the
child while this decision is still possible.  That the woman has the 
biological "bad" luck that she carries the child is unfortunate, one
cannot deny one's own nature.

>>By the way, that Pro-choice people elevate the pseudo-right to "choose"
>>over the natural right to life seems awkward to me.  I understand the
>>utility of an abortion but doesn't it leave a bad taste in your mouth?
>
>Whether or not abortion leaves a bad taste in my mouth is irrelevant.
>It's not my decision to make.  A person has a natural right to life.  
>Prove to me that an "unborn baby" is a *person* (not just human - I'll
>grant you that it's human) and I'll change my mind.

I don't see the difference.  


Mike Best

"We believe that everything in the Universe has a right to exist"
  -Commander William Riker on Star Trek TNG (obviously Pro-Life :))
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6387 alt.activism.d:3475 alt.politics.elections:14949 alt.politics.bush:7512 alt.politics.clinton:8191 talk.politics.misc:49137 talk.abortion:40053