"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > Do you believe birth control is wholly effective? No? Do you believe
> > that human beings have a strong enough urge for sex that they very
> > nearly must have sexual activity to stay sane for part of their lives?
> > Maybe yes? Then it is obvious that women cannot fully claim to have
> > chosen to get pregnant every time they do.
>
> No more and no less so than the male who is 'irresponsible'.
Bull. Males don't have to carry babies. They don't have to be more
careful in their partners lest one leave them pregnant or a parent with
no support. At least not in the "wild". It is a bit different now
days, for better or worse.
>
> > Males, in case you haven't noticed, are much more irresponsible, er
> > driven to have sex as often as possible and with less consideration of
> > consequences (as a gender based generality) than females. A male
> > doesn't have to stick around to bear any consequences and it is
> > ludricrous to claim that he generally has as much say in whether the
> > woman decides to abort as she does. Especially if there is no binding
> > contract between them.
>
> If there is no binding contract, then it should be a two way street. The concept
> of equal protection applies. If the woman has the right to choose to bind the
> male into an 18 year indenturment for the support of the child, then the male
> should have the same legal right to indenture the female.
>
Much of the time a male cannot be bound to support successfully even if
there was a binding contract. No one has any honest right to indenture
anyone. Except if both people agreed beforehand to produce a baby (not
a fetus) and to raise it to maturity.
> >
> > All three bodies do not have equal stakes and one of those bodies is not
> > even a person but a fetus. So what is it with this wierd position?
> > Callous my ass. Carry around a fetal parasite within you that you never
> > wanted at the insistent of people who claim the right to pressure you to
> > do so and then tell me all these other people and psuedo-people have the
> > same right and stake.
>
> Well, with the woman, its merely a matter of 9 months of discomfort and some
> medical risk. With the fetus, its a matter of life and death, literally, and
> with the male its a matter of 18 years of unconsented indenturement. Any claim
> that the stakes for the mother are greater than the stakes for the fetus is, at
> its core, its own proof of selfishness and callousness. Any claim that 18 years
> of financial indenturement is a miniscule violation of one's rights is also its
> own proof of selfishness and callousness.
>
"Merely"? What bloody right do you have to tell any human being that
you can force ver to endure one day of this much less 9 months?
Pregnancy takes a fairly considerable toll on the body. And it fills
the woman with all kinds of deep emotional attachments through hormonal
changes. Evolution programs human beings for these things. The fetus
is not a human being (at least not unambiguously) so speaking of its
life and death as if on the same footing with the mother is quite
disingenous. The male involved has zero rights to force the woman to
bear his child if that is not what she wants. I don't believe in the
financial or physical indenturement of anyone. And additional wrongs
(some of the current laws) do not make it right in any way shape or form
to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.
> >
> > I think the self-centeredness selfishness goes two ways.
>
> I don't think so, and since you don't know anything about that particular
> relationship of mine, your comments are unfounded and merely ad homenim.
If all you see is self-centeredness in what was not your decision to
make and for all you know may have been pretty difficult to live with
then that on the face of it looks a bit closed-minded to me. I could
be wrong.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:31 MDT