matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (07/29/85)
> >3) The father's right to procreate (a Constitutional right -- I can > > cite cases) is subordinate to the woman's right to remove the > > fetus from her body. (MATT ROSENBLATT) > > The whole idea that a male's right to produce offspring is higher than > the female's NOT to it so fascist I cannot find a less flame-oriented > way to respond! (CHARLES FORSYTHE) O, let's turn it around. Suppose the woman wants the baby, and the man doesn't. Is the female's right to produce offspring higher than the male's right NOT to? (In other words, does he have the right to force her to abort?) I don't believe you would say so. So we are left with the idea that once the man has taken part in the act of conception, he has no more right to procreate or not that the woman need respect. And the only way _that_ idea is supportable is if we assume the woman has the right to remove that fetus, and to hell with the fetus's or the man's rights to anything! But once you stop assuming the right to remove the fetus, the same rule applies to both man and woman: You've started something, now let it finish itself -- no abortion. -- Matt Rosenblatt
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/30/85)
In article <254@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: >> The whole idea that a male's right to produce offspring is higher than >> the female's NOT to it so fascist I cannot find a less flame-oriented >> way to respond! (CHARLES FORSYTHE) > >O, let's turn it around. Suppose the woman wants the baby, and the man >doesn't. Is the female's right to produce offspring higher than the male's >right NOT to? It's her body, he should leave her alone. That's the whole point. >(In other words, does he have the right to force her to >abort?) He doesn't have the right to force her to do ANYTHING. Let's be serious, she's got rights too. (She's NOT a fetus, after all). >...and to hell with the fetus's or the man's rights to >anything! "Possession is nine tenths of the law." If he really wanted to have a baby, he ought to give his sperm to a woman who will treat it better. What if he wants THAT particular woman? He'd better ask her permission. (can you say RAPE, Matt, or doesn't that word exist for you and your women-are-cattle contigent). To make an analogy, my right to plant a tree ends where your lawn starts. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "You are a stupid fool." -Wang Zeep "I'm not a fool!" -The Hated One
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (07/31/85)
The "right to procreate" protected by the Constitution does not include
the right to rape. I never said it did. I never said it should.
In article 1499, Marie Desjardins Park writes in one paragraph about
government intervention taking away "the ability to do what one wants
with one's own life," and three paragraphs later about "the father's
responsibility to help financially (and preferably emotionally ...)."
I assume she is writing about the case where pregnancy takes place by
accident, which is a possibility whenever any birth control method
other than abstinence is employed, since the pill can fail and even
sterilizations and vasectomies can fail.
In such a case, society does indeed enforce the father's responsibility
to help financially, even to the extent of putting him in jail if he
doesn't pay up -- as well it should. And the judge will not listen
to his protestations that he didn't want the baby, that he tried to
avoid conception, that forcing him to support an unwanted child for
eighteen or so years will interfere with his ability to do what he
wants with his own life.
The difference between interfering with his life for 18 years, and
interfering with the pregnant woman's life for 9 months, is that it's
her body. If you add "...and therefore she has the right to do what
she wants with it," which is Marie Desjardin Park's and Charles
Forsythe's point, then you are trying to establish the right to abort
by assuming the right to abort.
"Possession is nine tenths of the law," writes Charles Forsythe.
I don't think that's a good argument for the right to abort. I can
respect the argument that the fetus is PART of the mother (though I
disagree), but not the argument that the fetus is a piece of property
OWNED by the mother. And even if it is, the maxim "possession is
nine tenths of the law" refers to the right to continue possessing,
not to the right to destroy. Try to burn down your own home -- it's
statutory arson, at least in my state. Try to burn down your own dog
-- it's cruelty to animals.
"This country is a DEMOCRACY, not a DICTATORSHIP," writes Charles
Forsythe. "My opinion, for what it's worth," writes Marie Desjardins
Park. Right, both of you! Each of your opinions, as well as Marcia
Bear's, as well as mine, is worth exactly one vote in a democracy. It is as
foolish to discount a man's opinion about abortion because he doesn't have to
worry about getting pregnant as it is to discount a woman's opinion
because men have most of the political power. Sorry if you didn't
get the point of my flame.
Feminism, contrary to the opinions of almost everyone on the net, is
not universally accepted. If it were, we'd already have the Equal Rights
Amendment and a whole lot of other changes in society. I believe that
there is a causal relationship here: Feminism is not universally accepted
BECAUSE it would bring about a whole lot of other changes in society that
most people in our society would not be willing to accept. Since it is
not universally accepted, non-feminists have as much right as feminists
to express their opinions. With many exceptions, the general rule seems
to be that feminists are pro-choice, and non-feminists are pro-life. If
I interpreted Todd Jones's choice of pronouns as indicating that he is a
feminist, it was to point out that his opinions on abortion might be
colored by his feminism. However, as has been pointed out to me in a
mail message, that was an ad hominem attack, calling Todd Jones a name,
and such attacks have no place in rational argument, so I'm sorry I made
it.
Moreover, things are not always what they seem. Todd Jones's use of "their"
may just have been a colloquialism -- he may not be a feminist at all.
Similarly, just because the only computer on our local net with a connection
to the usenet news happens to belong to the Ballistic Research Laboratory,
that doesn't mean I work for that Lab. I don't.
-- Matt Rosenblattrlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/31/85)
>>>3) The father's right to procreate (a Constitutional right -- I can >>> cite cases) is subordinate to the woman's right to remove the >>> fetus from her body. (MATT ROSENBLATT) >>The whole idea that a male's right to produce offspring is higher than >>the female's NOT to it so fascist I cannot find a less flame-oriented >>way to respond! (CHARLES FORSYTHE) > O, let's turn it around. Suppose the woman wants the baby, and the man > doesn't. Is the female's right to produce offspring higher than the male's > right NOT to? (In other words, does he have the right to force her to > abort?) I don't believe you would say so. So we are left with the idea > that once the man has taken part in the act of conception, he has no more > right to procreate or not that the woman need respect. And the only way > _that_ idea is supportable is if we assume the woman has the right to > remove that fetus, and to hell with the fetus's or the man's rights to > anything! I must have missed something. Is there anything wrong with this line of reasoning? > But once you stop assuming the right to remove the fetus, the same rule > applies to both man and woman: You've started something, now let it > finish itself -- no abortion. Sorry, the man has "started" something by putting his sperm into a woman's body. But the notion that he has the "right" to use that woman's body to bear his child against her will strikes me as stupid. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/31/85)
> > >3) The father's right to procreate (a Constitutional right -- I can > > > cite cases) is subordinate to the woman's right to remove the > > > fetus from her body. (MATT ROSENBLATT) > > > > The whole idea that a male's right to produce offspring is higher than > > the female's NOT to it so fascist I cannot find a less flame-oriented > > way to respond! (CHARLES FORSYTHE) > > But once you stop assuming the right to remove the fetus, the same rule > applies to both man and woman: You've started something, now let it > finish itself -- no abortion. > > -- Matt Rosenblatt That's not what you said though. You didn't say that both parents have equal rights, you said that the man has more rights over the woman's body than she does herself. The two are not the same. What I don't understand is why you bother bringing this up if you believe that above all a fetus has the right to life. If it does, than any prioritisation of parents rights is completely irrelevant. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (08/01/85)
Matt: I am curious to know how you define feminism, since you admit you are not a feminist. Do you mean that you do not believe that men and women should have equal opportunities? I find it hard to believe that any reasonably educated or intelligent person could believe this. (You are, aren't you?) (By the way, I doubt Todd considers being called a feminist an insult; I consider it quite a compliment!) You refer to "society enforcing the father's responsibility to help financially." Are you aware of the percentage of divorced mothers who have been awarded child support and do not receive any? It is quite high, and the percentage of those who do not pay child support that are actually put in jail is very low. There has been a discussion about this in net.women, along with possible legal solutions, but legislators seem to feel more strongly that women should be forced to bear these children than that men should be forced to help support them. In any case, none of this applies to unmarried mothers. > The difference between interfering with his life for 18 years, and > interfering with the pregnant woman's life for 9 months, is that it's > her body. If you add "...and therefore she has the right to do what > she wants with it," which is Marie Desjardin Park's and Charles > Forsythe's point, then you are trying to establish the right to abort > by assuming the right to abort. Sorry, I disagree. I start with "A person has a right to do what she or he wants with her or his body." That is assumption #1. Assumption #2 (which you apparently disagree with; ok, I will probably never convince you so I won't even try anymore) is that "A fetus is part of the mother's body until it is born." THEREFORE, the right to abort is established. I don't think this argument is circular at all. I am perfectly willing to grant you the privilege (as opposed to right) of attempting to remove that fetus from the mother's body with a minimum of damage and subsequently to attempt to maintain the life of that fetus. This seems like a pretty reasonable compromise. I would probably even say that perhaps this "living abortion" (i.e. removal of the living fetus -- what else would you call it; early delivery?) may be postponed until the Nth month (2nd trimester?), so that medical technology can deal with this early birth (although they probably can't do it very early at all at this point; so get cracking, you Republican anti-feminist doctors!) as long as the pregnancy to that point will not significantly interfere with the mother's ability to work and continue her life as she normally would. Gee, I think I said all that damn well. By the way, it's Marie desJardins Park, but you can call me Marie (even you, Matt, I'm feeling magnamimous tonight! :-) ). marie desJardins park
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/01/85)
In article <340@brl-tgr.ARPA> (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: >In such a case, society does indeed enforce the father's responsibility >to help financially, even to the extent of putting him in jail if he >doesn't pay up -- as well it should. And the judge will not listen >to his protestations that he didn't want the baby, that he tried to >avoid conception, that forcing him to support an unwanted child for >eighteen or so years will interfere with his ability to do what he >wants with his own life. Not every paternaty suit that should be filed is filed. Not every suit that is filed is won. A woman doctor earning $100000 (granted not that many women doctors earn $100000) a year is not likely to win a paternity suit. >If you add "...and therefore she has the right to do what >she wants with it," which is Marie Desjardin Park's and Charles >Forsythe's point, then you are trying to establish the right to abort >by assuming the right to abort. No, by assuming the right to have things removed from her body (anything: organs, teeth, men AND fetuses) that she wants. That's not such a rash assumption. >I respect the argument that the fetus is PART of the mother (though I >disagree), but not the argument that the fetus is a piece of property >OWNED by the mother. IF it's part of the mother, who owns it? Exxon? (they own everything else) >Try to burn down your own home -- it's statutory arson, at least in my state. Hmmm. Check with your local fire laws. I'll bet that you might be able to get a permit to burn your house down. Burning a house down can harm other people and insurance companies. Abortions don't hurt other people. >Try to burn down your own dog >-- it's cruelty to animals. Unless, of course, you intend to eat it. In that case, you are welcome to fry the sucker. (Or are dogs more important, legally, than cows?) >there is a causal relationship here: Feminism is not universally accepted >BECAUSE it would bring about a whole lot of other changes in society that >most people in our society would not be willing to accept. A lot of people refused to accept civil liberties for Blacks or gays. It's not wrong to grant them. ----- >Similarly, just because the only computer on our local net with a connection >to the usenet news happens to belong to the Ballistic Research Laboratory, >that doesn't mean I work for that Lab. I don't. I suggest, then, you edit your "Organization" line. It REALLY looks bad. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "You are a stupid fool." -Wang Zeep "I'm not a fool!" -The Hated One
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (08/01/85)
> So we are left with the idea that once the man has taken part in the > act of conception, he has no more right to procreate or not that the > woman need respect. ---------- Exactly right.