home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky soc.men:23057 alt.abortion.inequity:6629 alt.feminism:7477
- Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!butch!netcomsv!netcom.com!payner
- From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
- Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
- Message-ID: <1993Jan21.190742.5146@netcom.com>
- Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
- References: <1jcha3INN66o@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Jan18.182945.22103@rotag.mi.org> <1jg5ueINNko7@gap.caltech.edu>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:07:42 GMT
- Lines: 32
-
- In article <1jg5ueINNko7@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
- >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
- >
- >>Well, a woman has a CHOICE over her financial obligation, which she can
- >>exercise for several months after conception. A man has no corresponding
- >>choice. Don't you see the inequity?
- >
- >But is it any *more* inequitable than giving the man the power to force
- >the woman to abort? Is it any *more* inequitable that tearing a child
- >away from a parent who wants it? Is it any *more* inequitable than
- >allowing a child to go without because the NCP doesn't feel like writing
- >a check?
-
- What is this "more" inequatable argument. Please explain in enough
- detail so that I can figure out what you mean. Just offhand, it sounds
- like a personal value judgement to me, not an absolutely quantifiable
- state.
-
- And you still refer to pregnancy as if it were a personal decision, like
- what to have for lunch. It is not, by a long shot.
-
- >
- > -- Michal
- >----------------------------------------------------------------------
- >Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
-
-
- Rich
-
- payner@netcom.com
-
-
-