NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/talk/abortion/47864

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-13 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47864 alt.abortion.inequity:5074
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!kellmeye
From: [e-mail] (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 06:27:23 GMT
Lines: 68

[e-mail] (Bruce Cameron) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>|> [e-mail] (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>|>
>|> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>|>
>|> >|>
>|> >|> I am arguing that abortion should NEVER be paid for by the state or
>|> >|> anyone else.  It should be made illegal.  Similarly, men should NEVER
>|> >|> "be let off the hook".  Any man who has sex is as responsible for the
>|> >|> child conceived as the woman, and neither should be allowed to kill/abandon
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> >|> that child simply because s/he is inconvenient to their plans for the
>       ^^^^^^^^^^
>|> >|> future.  Children are not sacrifices to the gods of expediency, despite
>|> >|> the fact that at least 3.2 million people every year think they are.
>|> >|>
>|>
>|> >Since you are arguing that the parents of a fetus/child be required by
>|> >the state to care for that child regardless of the expedience. Then,
>|> >should the state provide for such services as adoption, social services,
>|> >etc (after all these services allow for parents to abdicate some or all
>|> >of their resposibility to the child)?
>|>
>|> The child should not be killed, in utero or ex utero.  Period.
>|> Adoption doesn't result in the child's death, therefore it's perfectly
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> acceptable.  If the mother carries the child to term, SHE certainly hasn't
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> abdicated responsibility.  Has the father?  Depends on where he's at.
>|> If he isn't helping to take care of his lover and their unborn child,
>|> then, yes, he's abdicated his responsibility.
>|>


>In the first paragraph, you state that death and abandonment are
>unacceptable and neither parent should be allowed to have those
>options. How do you reconcile this with the statement in your
>second paragraph, that adoption is acceptable? Haven't the
>parents abandoned the child; after all they have no idea or control of the
>type of care the child will receive.

When ANY two people get together to have a child, they have no idea or
control of the type of care the child will receive.  That's what life is
like.  Adoption assumes that the child is being _adopted_ not abandoned.
It assumes that the child is going into a reasonably safe environment, as
safe as anything this world permits.   Adoption  !=  abandonment.

>--
>--Bruce

>"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
> and standards of truth are adequate for practical
> purposes if they are substantially more reliable
> then the system undergoing evaluation"
>                C. E. Metz
>---------------------------------------------------
>[e-mail]    [phone]    fax: [phone]
>Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,    Rochester MN 55905
>---------------------------------------------------
>#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW

Steve Kellmeyer
--

Steve Kellmeyer
[e-mail]