| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Tripping in Tempur Fields" |
| Date: |
26 Apr 2004 12:15:57 AM |
| Object: |
Anti-Concessions of the Pro-Choice Movement |
You might have noticed the omission of one word of "March for Women's
Lives" would place all participants on the opposite sides of the barracks.
It is a cynical observation indeed that people's immediate response to
"women's lives" would be completely different from their reaction to
"lives". Sunday's assembly in Washington- its very name a transparent
attempt at co-opting terms- is really a pro-choice rally, and, like all
rallies, is voiced in adversarial rather than persuasive tones. Perhaps
the eroding support for abortion-on-demand is due in part to the fact that
pro-choicers's operational principle has been that good-faith efforts at
persuasion are beneath them, and that demonizing pro-lifers is an
acceptable substitute for taking to heart pro-life concerns. Even I got
tired of reading about scissors being plunged into crania, but every
boilerplate letter was a furtive puncture in the fantasy of what abortion-
all abortion- *isn't*, and perhaps it showed badly that pro-choicers were
unable to address it- even to deny it- without abandoning the soft,
euphemistic language of choice. The entire urgency of the pro-choice
movement is based on an "other"- a malignant political force bent on
taking abortion away- and the presence of this other forces them into
hardline positions, the divide thus becoming self-generating. If
pro-choicers are losing a war on hearts and minds, perhaps their cause
could be more urgent for being more patient.
There is no wrong reason to have an abortion, we are told, "every reason
is a valid reason." Ironically, were it not for the existence of an
established pro-life movement- searching out every crack and fissure in
the dam of our right to choose to send it crumbling,- perhaps these very
people might be more critical of what individual reasons for abortion may
be. As it stands, however, how can they pass judgment on a silly or
frivolous reason for murder when they are unable to say what is a
qualifiably different, *good enough* reason for murder? A woman could
conceivably make a grim sport of all the silly and frivolous reasons for
having abortions,-- she is protected to the same degree by the same right,
and abortion apologists are sworn to the same silence. This active denial
of any moral consequence abortion *might* have only serves to aggravate
the pro-life discontent causing it. Worse still- the pro-lifers not
yielding- it sometimes responds to the pro-life concern with mockery; in
an instant pro-choice indignation turns to pro-choice insouciance,
cavalier about the staggering abortion rate-- even making every abortion
an incremental victory for "none of your business"... so there!
As the pro-choice movement makes this anti-concession, they try to chide
many pro-lifers into an anti-concession of their own. Abortion, all
pro-lifers say, is the taking of a human life and should be treated as
such, some pro-lifers making exceptions for rape-- in reality a
statistically negligible reason for abortion, but it is principle with
which we are dealing. The question then becomes; why is the fetus in this
situation not afforded the protections of a human being, even though it
still *is* a human being? A fair question usually cheapened by the leap of
logic- dressing tenuous ulterior motives in overly certain language- that
this inconsistency proves, demonstrates and shows-once-and-for-all that
pro-lifers aren't *really* concerned about the humanity of the fetus or
the mortal nature of abortion, but are "really just about" controlling
women's bodies or punishing sexuality or setting back the cause of women,
and happen to be rather guileless in these pursuits as well. Perhaps this
overeagerness to ascribe an ulterior motive to pro-lifers- there's a
handful of motives to choose from, each with an interest as intelligible
as the next,- is rooted in an awareness that they are being put in the
position unprecedented in conscientious society of asking a person to
automatically, uncritically defer to the faceless "any" woman, her "any"
reason in an issue of life and death-- an issue involving a human toll
shaming any epidemic. This is not an argument most pro-choicers are ready
to make, but then this is not an argument any person *should* be ready to
make. If, however, it is not the case that pro-lifers really believe the
issue is one of human life, but for some other reason, then the
pro-choicer is relieved of the burden of having to do so. Thus is made
necessary is the token accusation of pro-life ulterior motive surfacing in
every pro-choice argument-- a refusal even to take opposing arguments at
face value makes concession impossible.
Abandoning the rape exception in practice is, obviously, not an
anti-concession they want made; what is being offered to pro-lifers in bad
faith is an either/or-- either an unadvancable cause or an inconsistent
principle. If this choice between does in fact cause pro-lifers to
desist,- it won't- it does absolutely nothing to answer the question of
whether abortion- in spite of all punishments- might in fact still be
murder.
If we're not supposed to worry about whether or not what happens in this
country four thousand times a day is in fact four thousand murders, what
exactly is it we *are* supposed to be worried about? Oh-oh! There are
people trying to control women's bodies in an extremely indirect way for
reasons too nefarious to make apparent sense! The pro-choice movement
assumes the role of the man-on-the-street, rallying the vigilant against
this encroaching threat of control-for-the-sake-of-control,- drawing
attention from the remarkable shrewdness with which the they have assumed
a monopoly over, say, the academy and news media- and the only pro-life
movement they seem to want to address is that of congresses and courts and
top-down edicts foisted on a grudging people. This is the enemy
pro-choicers *want* to have. They want to grouse about pro-lifers' grand
designs of control and coercion; not meaning they are any bigger fans of
non-legislative, grass-roots efforts at persuading and helping people not
abort pregnancies, not because it is illegal but because it is wrong.
There's not enough prison space to toss every abortive mother in jail even
if we wanted to; the quantitative nature of the abortion crisis can't help
but have a qualitative effect on how it is approached. And the only way to
approach it is with something more powerful than brute government force;
persuasion-- something that the pro-choice movement- with arguments built
around telling people why they really believe that, or only say they
believe this, instead of why they should believe otherwise, fanning flames
and purposefully getting rises out of pro-lifers- might have forgotten how
to do. The language of the abortion rights movement has been so far framed
in terms of the "them" and the "us" that, forty years on, even
entertaining the idea that pro-lifers might mostly be good people with
justifiable concerns would not be a mere change of script but an
existential crisis. A good-faith effort at persuasion addressing these
justifiable concerns loses the pro-choicer an unambiguous enemy and a
socially sanctioned scapegoat, and would dwell too long- to dwell at all
could be seen as hesitancy- on the self-explanatory nature of the right to
abortion.
Now, thirty-one years after Roe vs. Wade, a handful of legal wins and
court cases- valuable if for no reason other than to bring the issue of
abortion to the foreground, to make the reality of abortion difficult to
ignore,- and a sway in public opinion over the past few years has been met
with calls to arms further couched in war language (Gloria Feldt newest
book is predictably titled "The War on Choice.") The language suggests
those inarticulable ulterior motives of sexism and repression- refusing
even to identify themselves- cannot be appealed to, only battled against.
The response to unborn health care and unborn victims of violence
legislation has given us comparison to see how myopic those pro-choice
goggles really are, and "Choice for Men" splits pro-choicers straight down
the middle. There is no moral aspect to any of these that wasn't already
implicit in the original right-to-life dilemma, but the pro-choicers have
been instructed to trivialize this rather than dignify it, and are at the
same exact loss as to how to effectively deal with a "rolling back" of
abortion rights or a cooling of public support. The moral is this: what is
necessary to effect a status quo isn't always enough to maintain it;
pro-lifers would be similarly well advised not to pin their hopes to a
fait accomplis.
"Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no
death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and
evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with
being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a
cheapened view of human life." This was written almost ten years ago by
feminist Naomi Wolf, who concludes that feminists must be realistic about
abortion even as they accept it as a sometimes necessary evil. I think it
was not "refreshing honesty" that caused her to say this, but a prescience
of the current situation-- an awareness that the mortal lie weighing the
pro-choice movement down would only worsen over time unless confronted. To
this day, most pro-choicers still turn a blind eye to the disturbing
alignment of political clout with forces that genuinely celebrate in the
destruction of life. That abortion was an "evil" was her challenge to the
cavalier language of the pro-choice movement, but even that abortion was a
"sometimes necessary evil" challenges the idea abortion can meaningfully
be put in terms only of individual choice.
The physical location of an abortion is out of plain sight, which allows
the language to be euphemistic and soft-focus; as such the abortion
discussion tends to fixate onto the stances themselves, abortion's
invisibility invites us to abstract, to make the issue wider rather than
deeper, and what precisely is at issue is almost invariably lost. Never
mind what either the concerns of pro-lifers are "not just about" as a
measure of their narrowness or what your concerns are "not just about" as
a measure of their breadth, how can you honestly argue for abortion rights
if you refuse to consider what the abortion issue really *is* "just
about?" That, in spite of however many ways you can rationalize it,
however many ways you can dismiss the pro-lifers' concern in the matter,
this unborn life is not the embodiment of a moral system or the will of a
state, but a human being-- no moral ideology or overbearing state could
create such a thing. America's abortion rate- what even Wolf called a
"social evil", and what continues to be despite hopeful trends- can't help
but buckle when severed from the collective fantasy that abortion kills
anything other than a human being.
=''' TWIDN € http://home.earthlink.net/~tagutcow
c oo email €
| \
- Investigative ~ Navigable ~ Vestigial ~ Fiduciary
.
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Concessions of the Pro-Choice Movement -Her life is not negotiable, so *****. |
26 Apr 2004 01:34:09 AM |
|
|
"Tripping in Tempur Fields" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tagutcow-2604040110060001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com...
You might have noticed the omission of one word of "March for Women's
Lives" would place all participants on the opposite sides of the barracks.
It is a cynical observation indeed that people's immediate response to
"women's lives" would be completely different from their reaction to
"lives". Sunday's assembly in Washington- its very name a transparent
attempt at co-opting terms- is really a pro-choice rally, and, like all
rallies, is voiced in adversarial rather than persuasive tones. Perhaps
the eroding support for abortion-on-demand is due in part to the fact that
pro-choicers's operational principle has been that good-faith efforts at
persuasion are beneath them, and that demonizing pro-lifers is an
acceptable substitute for taking to heart pro-life concerns. Even I got
tired of reading about scissors being plunged into crania, but every
boilerplate letter was a furtive puncture in the fantasy of what abortion-
all abortion- *isn't*, and perhaps it showed badly that pro-choicers were
unable to address it- even to deny it- without abandoning the soft,
euphemistic language of choice. The entire urgency of the pro-choice
movement is based on an "other"- a malignant political force bent on
taking abortion away- and the presence of this other forces them into
hardline positions, the divide thus becoming self-generating. If
pro-choicers are losing a war on hearts and minds, perhaps their cause
could be more urgent for being more patient.
This is where you people just won't buy a clue.
It's HER body, not yours. You have NO valid reason to subject her to your
wishes, whether it is forced birth or forced abortion. They don't give a
tinkers-damn about winning your "hearts and minds," and your opinion means
less than squat when it is HER life and livelyhood at stake.
There is NO negotiation. Why can't you people get that through your thick
heads?
This doesn't even address the blatant fraud perpetuated by the so-called
"prolifers" on everything from 'abortion-breast cancer' links to the lie of
'partial birth abortion'(tm) to the 'abortion survivors' up to and including
the lame, B-movie graphics they continue to claim are aborted fetuses,
plastered on every sniveling website and protest poster and the crap they
pander as science.
It's none of your ***** business. You are irrelevant to the equation of
her life. Can it be made any clearer?
If you're against abortion, then don't have one. Other than that, go play
somewhere else and mind your own damn business.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork Pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
(tm) 2004 G.O.P. All names used without permission from the copyright
holder. ***** 'em.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Savage Truth: Rush Is Right" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Concessions of the Pro-Choice Movement -Her life is not negotiable, so *****. |
26 Apr 2004 11:51:08 PM |
|
|
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yehaw2.com> wrote in message news:<B32jc.24602$hR1.6497@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
"Tripping in Tempur Fields" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tagutcow-2604040110060001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com...
You might have noticed the omission of one word of "March for Women's
Lives" would place all participants on the opposite sides of the barracks.
It is a cynical observation indeed that people's immediate response to
"women's lives" would be completely different from their reaction to
"lives". Sunday's assembly in Washington- its very name a transparent
attempt at co-opting terms- is really a pro-choice rally, and, like all
rallies, is voiced in adversarial rather than persuasive tones. Perhaps
the eroding support for abortion-on-demand is due in part to the fact that
pro-choicers's operational principle has been that good-faith efforts at
persuasion are beneath them, and that demonizing pro-lifers is an
acceptable substitute for taking to heart pro-life concerns. Even I got
tired of reading about scissors being plunged into crania, but every
boilerplate letter was a furtive puncture in the fantasy of what abortion-
all abortion- *isn't*, and perhaps it showed badly that pro-choicers were
unable to address it- even to deny it- without abandoning the soft,
euphemistic language of choice. The entire urgency of the pro-choice
movement is based on an "other"- a malignant political force bent on
taking abortion away- and the presence of this other forces them into
hardline positions, the divide thus becoming self-generating. If
pro-choicers are losing a war on hearts and minds, perhaps their cause
could be more urgent for being more patient.
This is where you people just won't buy a clue.
It's HER body, not yours.
I wonder where the other half of the genetic material came from, in
order to fertilize the ovum.........
Whoops! I guess, as far as the baby goes, it's not QUITE all "her"
body. There goes your argument, dumbass.
Not that I'd expect flaming dogma-slinging liberals to be experts at
logic, or critical thinking.
[...]
It's none of your ***** business. You are irrelevant to the equation of
her life. Can it be made any clearer?
Whoops! Already proven that the male's sperm fertilizes the egg, and
as such, the man should have at least some "say" (as to what kind of
say, that's a much more difficult question).
Maybe you should put down the bong and the Dworkin and pick up
something more relevant, such as, say, the Holy Bible.
Or even a 10th grade Biology textbook.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MyTwoAngels" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Concessions of the Pro-Choice Movement -Her life is not negotiable, so *****. |
27 Apr 2004 05:35:28 AM |
|
|
"The Savage Truth: Rush Is Right" <butkeith@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:eb027f9.0404262051.7beed0e8@posting.google.com
[...]
I wonder where the other half of the genetic material came from
Not you, that's for sure, you brainless monkey.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Savage Truth: Rush Is Right" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Concessions of the Pro-Choice Movement -Her life is not negotiable, so *****. |
27 Apr 2004 10:17:09 AM |
|
|
"MyTwoAngels" <krisblakemy2babies@xmsg.com> wrote in message news:<d69f2da83e25cd7886499946feacf368@4ax.c0m>...
"The Savage Truth: Rush Is Right" <butkeith@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:eb027f9.0404262051.7beed0e8@posting.google.com
[...]
I wonder where the other half of the genetic material came from
Not you, that's for sure, you brainless monkey.
That's not a very nice thing to say.
While pondering giving me up for adoption, at least my birth mom
didn't call on Dr. Grim Reaper to suck my own developing brain out
with the Shop Vac of Doom...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Concessions of the Pro-Choice Movement -Her life is not negotiable, so *****. |
27 Apr 2004 07:20:24 PM |
|
|
On 27 Apr 2004 08:17:09 -0700, (The Savage Truth:
Rush Is Right) wrote:
"MyTwoAngels" <krisblakemy2babies@xmsg.com> wrote in message news:<d69f2da83e25cd7886499946feacf368@4ax.c0m>...
"The Savage Truth: Rush Is Right" < > wrote in
message news:eb027f9.0404262051.7beed0e8@posting.google.com
[...]
I wonder where the other half of the genetic material came from
Not you, that's for sure, you brainless monkey.
That's not a very nice thing to say.
While pondering giving me up for adoption, at least my birth mom
didn't call on Dr. Grim Reaper to suck my own developing brain out
with the Shop Vac of Doom...
Oh, it was removed after birth, then?
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MyTwoAngels" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Concessions of the Pro-Choice Movement -Her life is not negotiable, so *****. |
27 Apr 2004 10:21:15 AM |
|
|
On 27 Apr 2004 08:17:09 -0700, (The Savage Truth:
Rush Is Right) wrote:
"MyTwoAngels" <krisblakemy2babies@xmsg.com> wrote in message news:<d69f2da83e25cd7886499946feacf368@4ax.c0m>...
"The Savage Truth: Rush Is Right" < > wrote in
message news:eb027f9.0404262051.7beed0e8@posting.google.com
[...]
I wonder where the other half of the genetic material came from
Not you, that's for sure, you brainless monkey.
That's not a very nice thing to say.
Keyser Soze never does when she poses as other people, or when she
hides under her own alias.
But I do have to admit "Rush is right" is a little moronis.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Concessions of the Pro-Choice Movement -Her life is not negotiable, so *****. |
29 Apr 2004 03:34:52 PM |
|
|
"The Savage Truth: Rush Is Right" <butkeith@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eb027f9.0404262051.7beed0e8@posting.google.com...
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yehaw2.com> wrote in message
news:<B32jc.24602$hR1.6497@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
"Tripping in Tempur Fields" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tagutcow-2604040110060001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com...
You might have noticed the omission of one word of "March for Women's
Lives" would place all participants on the opposite sides of the
barracks.
It is a cynical observation indeed that people's immediate response to
"women's lives" would be completely different from their reaction to
"lives". Sunday's assembly in Washington- its very name a transparent
attempt at co-opting terms- is really a pro-choice rally, and, like
all
rallies, is voiced in adversarial rather than persuasive tones.
Perhaps
the eroding support for abortion-on-demand is due in part to the fact
that
pro-choicers's operational principle has been that good-faith efforts
at
persuasion are beneath them, and that demonizing pro-lifers is an
acceptable substitute for taking to heart pro-life concerns. Even I
got
tired of reading about scissors being plunged into crania, but every
boilerplate letter was a furtive puncture in the fantasy of what
abortion-
all abortion- *isn't*, and perhaps it showed badly that pro-choicers
were
unable to address it- even to deny it- without abandoning the soft,
euphemistic language of choice. The entire urgency of the pro-choice
movement is based on an "other"- a malignant political force bent on
taking abortion away- and the presence of this other forces them into
hardline positions, the divide thus becoming self-generating. If
pro-choicers are losing a war on hearts and minds, perhaps their cause
could be more urgent for being more patient.
This is where you people just won't buy a clue.
It's HER body, not yours.
I wonder where the other half of the genetic material came from, in
order to fertilize the ovum.........
So, you're so conceited as to believe that a half-ounce of sperm is equal in
value to the woman's life? How does YOUR fucking someone allow you to
determine, by law, what a completely different women, a woman you've never
met, does with HER body?
Whoops! I guess, as far as the baby goes, it's not QUITE all "her"
body. There goes your argument, dumbass.
Not even close.
Not that I'd expect flaming dogma-slinging liberals to be experts at
logic, or critical thinking.
I'm pro-life, you ignorant *****. Whoops! There goes your ***** right out
the window.
I also believe women should be free to make their own decisions.
And to watch the rest of your nonsense mercilessly crash to the ground in a
ball of flame, apply some of your critical skills and tell us when you
suddenly get to mind the business of total strangers?
With the way you are trying to mind others' business, you sound like the
fucking "liberals" you so vehemently despise. Isn't that what you idiots
hate about "liberals?" That THEY have the audacity to tell other people
what's best for everyone else? I wouldn't want to point out your
extraordinary hypocrisy here....oh wait a minute, yes I would like to point
it out.
(Since I'm not a "liberal," you've shown that you're not only an ignorant
*****, but you just throw around the typical ***** prevalent within the
limited intelligence of the typical neo-con.....which makes you an ignorant
*****.)
[...]
It's none of your ***** business. You are irrelevant to the equation
of
her life. Can it be made any clearer?
Whoops! Already proven that the male's sperm fertilizes the egg, and
as such, the man should have at least some "say" (as to what kind of
say, that's a much more difficult question).
Then discuss it with the woman you've been screwing. If you don't like what
she tells you, then take responsibility for your actions and realize that
you should have gotten to know her better before you let your small head do
your thinking for you.
Where does your phenomenal level of ignorance come into play for those men
that agree with her having an abortion, or those that don't care.
Whoops your-*****-self.
Maybe you should put down the bong and the Dworkin and pick up
something more relevant, such as, say, the Holy Bible.
Speaking of dogma.....
So you believe your book of myths supports you? WRONG, Dumbass. Maybe you
should quit intoxicating yourself on blind stupidity and self-absorbed
arrogance.
Here's a few free clues for you, moron:
First, I HAVE read the Bible. Twice.
Second, not only does it say NOTHING about abortion specifically, but your
Sky Pixie's habit of slaughtering pregnant women and destroying the "fruit
of the womb" doesn't support your ignorant position.
Third, are you God's(tm) enforcer? Who the hell are you to determine a damn
thing? Just who the ***** are you to tell total strangers not to use their
"free will" and make their own decisions?
Or even a 10th grade Biology textbook.
Your point?
I know how conception works. How does that apply to the 160,000,000 million
women in this country that you've never met? The same 160 million that
doen't give a ***** about you or your opinion when it comes to their own
lives, nor care to have imbeciles like you try to control their pregnancy.
No. Self-impressed, self-righteous, pontificating morons like you have the
fucked up notion that you know what's good for everyone. Why don't you let
them make their OWN life altering choices? Are you afraid they won't choose
what YOU demand of them?
Too bad. It's not yours to judge. You fucking liberal.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork Pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
(tm) 2004 G.O.P. All names used without permission from the copyright
holder. ***** 'em.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Concessions of the Pro-Choice Movement -Her life is not negotiable, so *****. |
27 Apr 2004 12:08:19 PM |
|
|
(The Savage Truth: Rush Is Right) wrote in message news:<eb027f9.0404262051.7beed0e8@posting.google.com>...
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yehaw2.com> wrote in message news:<B32jc.24602$hR1.6497@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
"Tripping in Tempur Fields" <tagutcow@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tagutcow-2604040110060001@user-0c992qm.cable.mindspring.com...
You might have noticed the omission of one word of "March for Women's
Lives" would place all participants on the opposite sides of the barracks.
It is a cynical observation indeed that people's immediate response to
"women's lives" would be completely different from their reaction to
"lives". Sunday's assembly in Washington- its very name a transparent
attempt at co-opting terms- is really a pro-choice rally, and, like all
rallies, is voiced in adversarial rather than persuasive tones. Perhaps
the eroding support for abortion-on-demand is due in part to the fact that
pro-choicers's operational principle has been that good-faith efforts at
persuasion are beneath them, and that demonizing pro-lifers is an
acceptable substitute for taking to heart pro-life concerns. Even I got
tired of reading about scissors being plunged into crania, but every
boilerplate letter was a furtive puncture in the fantasy of what abortion-
all abortion- *isn't*, and perhaps it showed badly that pro-choicers were
unable to address it- even to deny it- without abandoning the soft,
euphemistic language of choice. The entire urgency of the pro-choice
movement is based on an "other"- a malignant political force bent on
taking abortion away- and the presence of this other forces them into
hardline positions, the divide thus becoming self-generating. If
pro-choicers are losing a war on hearts and minds, perhaps their cause
could be more urgent for being more patient.
This is where you people just won't buy a clue.
It's HER body, not yours.
I wonder where the other half of the genetic material came from, in
order to fertilize the ovum.........
Whoops! I guess, as far as the baby goes, it's not QUITE all "her"
body. There goes your argument, dumbass.
Not that I'd expect flaming dogma-slinging liberals to be experts at
logic, or critical thinking.
[...]
It's none of your ***** business. You are irrelevant to the equation of
her life. Can it be made any clearer?
Whoops! Already proven that the male's sperm fertilizes the egg, and
as such, the man should have at least some "say" (as to what kind of
say, that's a much more difficult question).
Maybe you should put down the bong and the Dworkin and pick up
something more relevant, such as, say, the Holy Bible.
Or even a 10th grade Biology textbook.
OK. The man contributed the contents of 1/2 the nucleus of one cell.
The women contributes all the rest of the material and resources that
make up an embryo or fetus.
So, in the case where there is a disagreement between the two about
whether or not the woman should continue the pregnancy, who's opinion
gets the greater weight, and why?
My opinion is that it should be the woman, since it is her body that
is being used, it is her life and health that are at risk, and she
contributes the greatest amount total resources to the pregnancy. And
she is also the one that controls her body. The use of force against
the woman for either decision is illegal, whether it is assault,
intimidation, or unlawful detainment.
When a man can become pregnant, then he can have a say about his own
pregnancy.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
