"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1af6de52fed4b7ed98975a@news.individual.net...

In article <8912d58d.0404260136.630c3824@posting.google.com>,
noneedtoknow@mail.com says...

I see it often in here by some very uneducated
pro-choicers/pro-aborts,

That's in response to very uneducated pro-lie, anti-aborts who insist
that anti-abortion is an abolition movement. In fact, celebrity Ben
Stein said exactly this in an interview and it was a very uninformed
remark. The fact is that abolitionists fought for freedom and anti-
aborts are fighting to force a woman to carry a fetus to term even if
the fetus is substantially deformed and the mother's health will be
seriously affected. Pregnancy can aggravate conditions like diabetes,
for example, and leave the mother's health permanently injured. Then if
a woman does give birth to a deformed child then its very likely that
nobody else will adopt it, so the mother may be stuck with expensive
medical bills for decades. The woman's body is not public property and
she should not be forced by the state to hold a trespasser inside of it
for 9 months. The mother should have the freedom to defend her body and
have the fetus ejected.

they call people who oppose abortion,
pro-slavery.

Slavery is unpaid, involuntary servitude. Are anti-aborts offering to
pay the woman compensation for the nine months that she is carrying the
baby?

that abortions would decrease dramatically if the government offered to
provide free day care.

But anti-aborts don't want that. They just want

to force people to bear all the burden without having to pay for the
cost of their policies.

results in forced pregnancy and, in many cases, forced maternal care for
decades.

This of course is not true.

That's argument by assertion. You need to offer evidence.

aborts have claimed to offer women financial inducements to have
children, but usually they have not followed through. The very fact
that they would offer such things suggests that they realize they are
imposing severe involuntary burdens upon women that require
compensation.

No one in their

It's "No one is his or her..."

right mind would favor
slavery.

Except you anti-aborts, by your actions.

I have also not seen one person yet demand a woman be "forced" to
carry a child.

You've seen it in republican platforms, particular from Henry Hyde and
John Ashcroft, who have proposed constitutional amendments prohibiting
women from any kind of abortion choice from the moment of conception.

Prohibiting that choice is forcing them to carry a child. You can't
support legislation or amendments illegalizing abortion and then claim
that you aren't forcing women who become pregnant to carry a child,
since they could have stopped carrying the child through abortion.
Before Roe v Wade, the primary thing stopping many women from getting an
abortion was the law and therefore they were definitely being compelled
to carry children once pregnant.

If so, I would request to see some evidence.

The evidence is easy to find. It is undeniable that abortion used to be
illegal in many places in the United States before 1972 and therefore
women were compelled to carry pregnancies to term. Maybe they should
have tried harder to not get pregnant and all that, but you can't be
forced to carry a pregnancy until you actually are pregnant. Therefore,
by this standard women were forced by the state to carry pregnancies to
term.

Now, lets

Yes *let's*

go on this pro-slavery angle a bit.
They say that people who oppose a womans choice to abort is
pro-slavery, and that they wish to force the woman to carry.
What if the man doesn't want to be held responsible or be a father?

Actually, you've just shown that both an unwilling father and an
unwilling mother could be compelled to have a child under anti-abortion
laws. I agree that the man should not be compelled to support the child
if he offers to pay for the cost of the abortion plus reasonable
compensation to the woman for the operation.

have to accept the offer, but I think that it should be just as easy for
the man to get out of the responsibility of child care as it is for the
woman. She doesn't have to accept his offer, of course, but the man
shouldn't be responsible for a decision that the woman makes beyond
that. In any event, that does not change the fact that anti-abortion
laws can end up compelling women to become mothers and men to become
fathers.

What if he isn't ready?
I have heard some in here agree that it is unfair a woman be given the
choice to get out of her responsiblity of being a mother and a father
not be given that responsibility.

That's an area where some reform is needed, but it won't be done by
anti-abortionists. They insist that the woman must carry the child and
therefore the father must likewise support it when the child is born.

He is obligated if she so chooses to carry and take him to court and
demand child support. For 18 years, he is obligated, and if he does
NOT meet this obligation he goes to jail.

Yes and I've proposed an easy solution for that. I've seen many other
people propose similar things. I think that unless the pregnancy was
planned and legally notarized as such then the man should only have to
pay for the abortion, plus reasonable compensation to the woman having
the operation. Actually, it might be more fair to require that the many
only provide half the cost of the abortion and half the cost of the
woman's recovery, since it is only partially the man's fault that the
woman is pregnant. Note that this assumes that paternity can be
determined. It can probably be determined after the abortion anyway,
and if it turns out the father is not the guy paying for the abortion,
he should have grounds to recover those expenses in court.

She on the other hand isn't, and all she has to do is decide to kill
the unborn child.

It's quite obvious that the woman is in this privileged position because
the embryo is residing inside her body. If it were in the man's body
then the man would be given the choice.

burden on the woman and our legal system has tried to compensate.
Unfortunately, I don't think our legal system has been fair enough to
the man.

She doesn't need any reason at all. Does the woman
go to jail for walking away after choosing to kill the unborn?

There's nothing of legal significance to walk away from.

Of
course not.

As it should be. But the key to equalizing the situation for the man is
keeping abortion legal.

So who is really pro-slavery; if there ever was such a term?

Of course there "ever was such a term" and in many cases the same dumb
crackers who supported slavery of negroes are now supporting maternal
slavery. Paternal slavery is another issue which I think we can and
should address. It will probably be addressed through the voluntary use
of abortion. However, it could also be addressed by men indirectly if
they invest in things like reversible vasectomies.

Pro-life? All we do is support the choice to continue life

First off, it's not a choice if there is no alternative and anti-aborts
don't want there to be an alternative. What you're describing is merely
one side of the pro-choice position. Pro-choice does not mandate
abortion. It could result in zero abortions if all women choose not to
have the procedures.

and not
kill the unborn

Pro-choice is consistent with that position as well. Women are always
free to choose to continue their pregnancy if they desire it. However,
pro-choice also allows a legal alternative of ending pregnancy.

Pro-choice/abort? They support the choice for a woman to kill the
unborn, but don't care about the father at all

Anti-abort compels both men and women to become parents. Pro-choice has
mainly been focused on female rights, since that's where the most
significant burden lies. After all men won't die if they have to pay
child support, but women could die or have their health destroyed by a
pregnancy. However, I believe that the pro-choice position can be and
should be expanded to include reproductive freedoms for men. It can be
done so in a way that is very consistent with the existing pro-choice
position and will give both men and women a say in whether they should
be compelled to become pregnant. It will rely heavily to contraceptive
techniques for both sexes and treat men and will give more meaningful
choices to men.
For example, I think a man has a right to know if a woman is having his
baby. That doesn't mean he has the right to interfere with the
pregnancy, but he should know, as soon as possible, what is happening.
That way he can make a timely decision based upon his own rights.

(note: not all feel
that way, as I mentioned above)

Note: Even though I am using this argument, it does not mean I
endorse a man walking away from his obligation.

Nor do I. But I think that all pregnancies should be planned and
wanted. Therefore, I think that a man and a woman should file a signed,
notarized document with their family planning service indicating their
intent to have a child. If they do not then it will be assumed that the
pregnancy is an unplanned one. In that case, the man should be able to
formally offer, as sole remedy, to pay the woman's reasonable expenses
so that she can get back to an "unpregnant", healthy state. She doesn't
have to accept, nor does the man have to offer. But the woman should
not have the power to force a man to become an unwilling father. That
decision should be decoupled from her rightful decision about whether to
continue a pregnancy or not.

I feel that a woman
and man should both be equally responsible. If they decide to have
sex, they should both be prepared to take care of the responsibility
of the child if she should become pregnant.

There are many ways to take care of that responsibility, including
abortion. Saying that a man and woman must care for a child for decades
because of one night of dalliance is like saying that you must care for
a dinner guest whom you invited to your house one night and refused to
leave.

If there really is anyone who is pro-slavery, I would have to argue it
is the ones who support a woman's right to choose to get out of a
obligation

What obligation are you talking about? If a woman ends a pregnancy then
the man has no further paternal obligation either.

and ignore the man.

The man is not ignored. It's just that for biological purposes, the man
ceases to be an active player after conception. It's kind of like if
person A shot person B and then demanded legal control over whether any
of the bullets could be removed from person B's body. Just as person A
has no legitimate right to control the bullets inside person B's body,
the man has no legitimate right to tell the woman what what she can or
cannot do with an embryo inside her body. The man is always free to
make offers and recommendations, but the woman is under no obligation to
accept them.

--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins

In article <gasp801bg2h4iv22uubgm7m2v7kvp0ud64@4ax.com>,
prochoice@here.now says...

What if the man doesn't want to be held responsible or be a father?
What if he isn't ready?

IT does not matter.

It doesn't matter, but it *should* matter.

Not that this helps osprey's
argument or the anti-abort position in the slightest. As I've already
pointed out, anti-abortion compels both involuntary motherhood and
involuntary fatherhood.

However, the fact is that sex, in and of itself, is not a contract to
become a parent for either the man or the woman. Perhaps for married
couples the law could legitimately presume that any pregnancy was
mutually desired. But for non-married couples I think that neither the
man nor the woman should be presumed to want to raise a child. Both
should have some kinds of options.

Now I will grant that I believe men must wake up and start taking
serious responsibility for insuring effective contraception on their
part. Unfortunately, condoms are not always reliable, but there are
more and more attempts being made to develop more reliable
pharmaceuticals for male contraception.

I have heard some in here agree that it is unfair a woman be given the
choice to get out of her responsiblity of being a mother and a father
not be given that responsibility.

Because it isn't.

A better answer would be that the man's rights only extend to his own
body, just as the woman's rights should only extend to hers. A man has
no more right to force a woman to have an abortion involuntarily than he
has to impregnate her involuntarily. However, I think that if the man
verifiably offers to pay the woman for all medical expenses associated
with an abortion and the woman refuses then she has made a financial
choice that she alone needs to bear. This is not an attempt to let the
man off the hook, but I think that raising a child should be a
voluntary, joint commitment. In the interests of fairness, if a woman
can end her maternal commitment simply by purchasing a legal abortion
then a man's legal obligations should be steeper than that either. In
other words the man should merely be able to remit funds to "fix" the
"trouble" that he got the woman into.

It works just like this for many other civil matters in a court of law.
The sole remedy is often for the guilty party to pay the expenses of the
injured party. However, if the injured party takes voluntary actions
which make make the cost to remedy the situation far more expensive the
the court will usually not require all those expenses be paid. In an
unplanned pregnancy, the man's primary obligation should be to make sure
that a woman can afford an abortion if she wants one. In that way, it
can't be said that the woman was financially unable to abort. The only
thing that can be said is that the woman chose, for personal reasons,
not to abort. The man shouldn't be responsible for additional expenses
beyond that unless he has legally agreed to help raise the child.

So who is really pro-slavery; if there ever was such a term?

It's a lot more valid that your 'pro-abort'.

Yes, pro-choice is a lot better than anti-choice. Better still is more
equal reproductive rights for both men and women.

If they decide to have
sex, they should both be prepared to take care of the responsibility
of the child if she should become pregnant.

If a child results they are. Why the song and dance?

Well, let me offer this scenario. Suppose I'm hiking in the wilderness
with my girlfriend and I climb onto a small rock. She asks me to help
her up, but as I'm trying, we both lose our grip and she falls, slightly
injuring herself. Both of us were partially to blame because both of us
could have tried harder to hold on. But I acknowledge my responsibility
and offer to pay for her reasonable medical bills. When she gets to the
doctor he tells her that he can fix her up for a couple hundred dollars.
But instead of getting that treatment she lets the condition get worse
and after 9 months of neglect it's so bad that she says she needs
acupuncture and chiropractic treatments for the next 18 years. She
sends me the bills. Do you think that most people would consider 18
years of treatment to be reasonable medical expenses when the whole
thing could have been handled for a couple hundred dollars? I'm not
saying she should be forced to choose any particular course of
treatment. But I also didn't agree to marry her or take care of her (or
her children) for the next 18 years.

In article <gasp801bg2h4iv22uubgm7m2v7kvp0ud64@4ax.com>,
prochoice@here.now says...

What if the man doesn't want to be held responsible or be a father?
What if he isn't ready?

IT does not matter.

It doesn't matter, but it *should* matter. Not that this helps osprey's
argument or the anti-abort position in the slightest. As I've already
pointed out, anti-abortion compels both involuntary motherhood and
involuntary fatherhood.

However, the fact is that sex, in and of itself, is not a contract to
become a parent for either the man or the woman. Perhaps for married
couples the law could legitimately presume that any pregnancy was
mutually desired. But for non-married couples I think that neither the
man nor the woman should be presumed to want to raise a child. Both
should have some kinds of options.

Now I will grant that I believe men must wake up and start taking
serious responsibility for insuring effective contraception on their
part. Unfortunately, condoms are not always reliable, but there are
more and more attempts being made to develop more reliable
pharmaceuticals for male contraception.

I have heard some in here agree that it is unfair a woman be given the
choice to get out of her responsiblity of being a mother and a father
not be given that responsibility.

Because it isn't.

A better answer would be that the man's rights only extend to his own
body, just as the woman's rights should only extend to hers. A man has
no more right to force a woman to have an abortion involuntarily than he
has to impregnate her involuntarily. However, I think that if the man
verifiably offers to pay the woman for all medical expenses associated
with an abortion and the woman refuses then she has made a financial
choice that she alone needs to bear.

man off the hook, but I think that raising a child should be a
voluntary, joint commitment.

can end her maternal commitment simply by purchasing a legal abortion
then a man's legal obligations should be steeper than that either. In
other words the man should merely be able to remit funds to "fix" the
"trouble" that he got the woman into.

It works just like this for many other civil matters in a court of law.
The sole remedy is often for the guilty party to pay the expenses of the
injured party. However, if the injured party takes voluntary actions
which make make the cost to remedy the situation far more expensive the
the court will usually not require all those expenses be paid. In an
unplanned pregnancy, the man's primary obligation should be to make sure
that a woman can afford an abortion if she wants one. In that way, it
can't be said that the woman was financially unable to abort. The only
thing that can be said is that the woman chose, for personal reasons,
not to abort. The man shouldn't be responsible for additional expenses
beyond that unless he has legally agreed to help raise the child.

So who is really pro-slavery; if there ever was such a term?

It's a lot more valid that your 'pro-abort'.

Yes, pro-choice is a lot better than anti-choice. Better still is more
equal reproductive rights for both men and women.

If they decide to have
sex, they should both be prepared to take care of the responsibility
of the child if she should become pregnant.

If a child results they are. Why the song and dance?

Well, let me offer this scenario. Suppose I'm hiking in the wilderness
with my girlfriend and I climb onto a small rock. She asks me to help
her up, but as I'm trying, we both lose our grip and she falls, slightly
injuring herself. Both of us were partially to blame because both of us
could have tried harder to hold on. But I acknowledge my responsibility
and offer to pay for her reasonable medical bills. When she gets to the
doctor he tells her that he can fix her up for a couple hundred dollars.
But instead of getting that treatment she lets the condition get worse
and after 9 months of neglect it's so bad that she says she needs
acupuncture and chiropractic treatments for the next 18 years. She
sends me the bills. Do you think that most people would consider 18
years of treatment to be reasonable medical expenses when the whole
thing could have been handled for a couple hundred dollars? I'm not
saying she should be forced to choose any particular course of
treatment. But I also didn't agree to marry her or take care of her (or
her children) for the next 18 years.