hb@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis) (01/20/90)
In article <10978@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >In article <11179@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) writes: >>Patricia was heading off a popular anti-abortion argument of "What about >>mens' choice? I knocked her up, I want her to stay that way!" > >Indeed. Abortion is a gynecological procedure. This nonsense of >pretending that "individuals" are involved in abortion makes about >as much sense as saying that "individuals" are involved in vasecto- >mies or that "individuals" are involved in hysterectomies. Actually, I think it makes good sense. The right to abortion is about the right to control one's body. I support it because I see it as a natural extension of _my_ right to control _my_ body that others should be afforded the same right. If it so happens that the others' bodies can do a few things that mine can't, well, that's the way it goes. Of course, there a lots of good reasons to support choice. But if you get hung up on the reproductive aspect of it, and thus on the differences in men's and women's roles in reproduction, that seems to me to be playing into the hands of the Conception-to-Cradle Socialists, who then want to start talking about the fetuses' roles and the fetuses' choices. Fetuses don't need choices; humans do. hb -- Hank Bovis (hb@Virginia.EDU, hb@Virginia.BITNET)