Barbara Lamar wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:57:56 -0400 "Michael S. Lorrey"
> <retroman@turbont.net> writes:
>
> ZP:
>
> t what you are advocating is clearly the
> > right
> > > > to
> > > > murder the most defenseless members of society.
>
> BL:
>
> > > You're doing the same when you kill a fetus. Why kid yourself and
> > > pretend that you're not?
>
> > Because there is a distinct legal distinction involved. As I've
> > posted here
> > before, citizenship is recognised as being conferred at birth.
>
> This is true, but it's not a satisfying distinction at a time when 3
> month fetuses can be removed from the mother's womb and grown on in an
> incubator. And there are other circumstances where it may be desirable
> to have a clearer definition of human life, or a clearer concept of how
> it's to be dealt with. How about when the time comes that a microscopic
> embryo can be grown to term in an artificial womb?
When that time comes, its also rather obvious that far more useful, reliable,
and care free means of prevening conception in the first place will likely also
be available. As I've said before, societies practice the morals they can
afford. When society can afford to recognise life beginning at conception, its
legal definitions will adjust accordingly, and it will no longer be a point of
left/right political contention. When preventing accidental conception is so
easy, cheap, and care free, then feminists will lose the moral authority to
demand that the woman have the individual authority to command control of her
body, because if it is easy to prevent, than anything less is irresponsible
action, with no socio-economic excuses remaining.
>
> > The unborn
> > are not citizens, and have no rights.
>
> Desptie the rhetoric of the "Pro-lifers", I think the real issue here
> isn't the rights of the unborn, but rather the rights of the mother.
Morally I support pro-lifers. Legally I support pro-choicers. The separation
between the two is consistent with the separation of church and state.
> And, as ZP pointed out, the rights of the father as well, since the
> father can be forced to support a child once it's born--and once embryos
> can be grown to term in artificial wombs, I'd argue that the father has
> as much right as the mother to decide the fate of the embryo. Until
> artificial wombs are perfected, I think the decision to HAVE a child must
> rest with the mother alone; to decide otherwise would be to decide in
> favor of slavery. That is to say, at this point in time, the decision
> whether or not to bear a child should be the mother's, but the father
> should have the right to veto a decision in favor of bearing the child.
> This raises further questions, such as whether the mother should have the
> right to override the father's veto if she agrees to waive rights to
> paternal support for the child.
As I've said, I don't mind the woman overriding the father's veto, so long as
she releases the father from any financial or other liability for the child. If
forcing a woman to give birth to a child is slavery (for 9 months), then forcing
a man to support an unwanted child for 18 years is likewise slavery, and for a
far longer period.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:05 MDT