From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:32:04 GMT
     <1992Sep1.181754.12564@advtech.uswest.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

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

>Reverse:  If the egg mutates and is no longer carrying the mother's DNA,
>does that remove her right to an abortion, since the z/e/f is no longer
>a part of her body?

But it is -- it's implanted into her uterus.  That's like arguing that
cancer isn't a part of someone's body.

The fetus isn't implanted into you at all.  THAT's the difference.

>>>I disagree.  Obviously.  Getting it INTO her body was a joint decision.
>>
>>Only if both partners consented to unprotected sex, and even then the
>>woman should be able to do with her own body what she pleases.
>
>More statements of belief, not fact.  Obviously, I believe differently.

So be it, then -- it comes down to belief.

>>If the
>>couple took reasonable contraceptive procedures, the question is even
>>more clear-cut; through no fault of their own (assuming the contraception
>>was used properly) the woman has been impregnated.  This is not 
>>negligence, and treating it as such is pointless.
>
>Then why IS it treated as negligence?  Remember, what kind, and whethe or
>not contraception was used by the man, he is still liable for child
>support payments if the woman has the baby.

Because our legal system is based on an outmoded principle that the
man is always and solely responsible in such cases.  Good enough?

>Bringing contraception into the issue strikes me as something that we
>SHOULD add to new law.  In other words, if the man uses or was informed
>that contraception was in use, then he should not be held responsible
>for any children that occur.

Suits me fine.  I'd hope that as a practical matter, most men would still
CHOOSE to support their children, but it would be their choice.

>This would resolve the abortion issue, as it would imply that after
>sex, fatherhood is a null and void concept and that the woman is the
>only one responsible, and the only one who has rights over, the child
>both during pregnancy and afterwars.

It would imply that we shouldn't penalize people who take adequate
precautions.

>Of course, this might further damage the concept of family, but that is
>a price we would have to live with.

Family as YOU see it -- I'd rather concentrate on strengthening a family
concept that stems from this century.

>>Leave blame aside and concentrate on dealing with the problem.
>
>This has nothing to do with blame.  It has to do with equal rights.

I fail to believe this, but whatever.

>>I agree, it *should* be, but if the man and woman disagree, whose views
>>take precedence?
>
>Addressed in another article.

It amounted to "whoever's view is that the fetus shouldn't be
aborted".  I suppose that's at least honest, but it's not a view I 
care to support.

-- 
"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