NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/talk/abortion/35452

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-08 | 4.7 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35452 alt.abortion.inequity:3585
Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU!HATCHER
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:00:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
Lines: 69

In article <[e-mail]>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
>>
>>The difference might be that while we can all believe what everyone "should" and
>>"shouldn't" do, we are not all out trying to make laws to force people to
>>do the things we think they should be doing.
>
>The pro abortion camp IS trying to make laws to force people to do the things
>they think we should be doing.
>
>And no, this law will not force women to get abortions, but it WILL further
>reduce the probability that fathers will EVER have any rights in regards to
>their unborn children.
>
>>There is a group of pro-life folks who *are* trying to make laws to force
>>people to do what *they* think is right for them.
>
>I've already stated, repeatedly (four times now, to be precise) that
>I support the idea of legal abortion, but I do NOT support abortion as
>a unilateral choice.  It is a choice that should only be made by the
>couple.

Okay, I for one am tired of this silly line of reasoning.  How about this
proposal:  Men who feel they have a "right" to veto a woman's choice to
an abortion ONLY have sex with women who also feel this way.  Maybe make,
no strike "make" since that implies compulsion, have both parties sign a legally
binding contract (if such thing is possible?) stating that said provider
of any sperm that develops into a fetus (side step the "father" issue)
gets equal say in any decision to have an abortion; one would also need
a provision for deciding how to resolve a split decision.  Then leave the
rest of the world (that chooses not to enter into such contract) with the
current status quo of "the woman choses" (for all the good reasons that
have previously been discussed).  After that then the whiners about unequal
rights to an abortion (ie sperm provider has only secondary input into
the decision) have no one to point fingers at when their "rights" (to use
the term sarcastically) are violated if no such contract exists.  No one
is forcing them to supply sperm and if they are so concerned about the
eventual disposition of their DNA they should make prior disclosure of
their expectations.  That the priority system should be structured this
way (contract for those who expect sperm "rights"...) one can argue that since
the sperm provider only engages in a one "shot" act (so to speak) while
the egg provider also continues to provide other things, that the
majority provider (the woman) have overriding rights of determination.

If you have other expectations than the current norm, then maybe you should
make them clear to your partner BEFORE sex.  It strikes me as odd that,
in these references to your past, you seems to have such a lack of knowledge/
communication about your sex partner and their belief system.  That you
feel badly about HER choice to have an abortion, without YOU making your
feeling clear before sex, reflects badly on YOUR CHOICES NOT HERS.  If you
and she didn't come to agreement on how such circumstances should be
handled (especially in that they conformed to the generally accepted
norm) implies that YOU were the irresponsible one.  If she didn't agree
to you views then YOU should not have engaged in sex with her; if only
to allow you to adhere to your belief system in all eventuallities (?).

Hmmm, time for another *analogy*?  Two people agree to consentual kissing,
person A has a cold/strep.  Person B becomes infected and decides to
combat the infection with medicine.  Does person A have the "right" to
prevent this?  Is this a choice that must be made by the couple?  Can
person A claim are right to the continued welfare of the infection;
what if A's beliefs exclude the use of an intervention such as antibiotics?
(Just a thought senario)

-robert

 Robert W. Hatcher        | 256D Physics-Astronomy    | hatcher@msupa   (Bitnet)
 Software Tzar, Hunchback | Michigan State University | msuhep::hatcher (HEPnet)
 [phone],-5180     | East Lansing, MI 48824    | [e-mail]