Posted on 04/14/2002 8:09:13 AM PDT by The Giant Apricots
Sorry, but once you start to drop the idea that sex is a thing of meaning and love, with consequences, you lose any right to oppose abortion. All the anti-life brigade then have to say is "Men have the right to this pleasure and they don't need to worry about a baby - we only want equal rights".
That said, of course casual encounters should be discouraged. The abortion industry would not want them to be discouraged; they'd lose business.
And then there is athe father of the baby.
He needs to have the legal right to prevent the abortion of any child he fathers, from the moment of conception forward. Instituting that would dramatically decrease the number of abortions in America.
Feminists seek "procreative autonomy", but procreation is fundamentally non-autonomous: it is a contract between a man and a woman.
A contract which says she won't kill the baby, and he won't desert the baby.
That contract is the basis for all civilized societies.
The turn of phrase "an incubator of the state," is very revealing.
Wouldn't the real "incubators of the state" be federally-funded laboratories that artificially create humans whom they can kill at will? It's interesting that this laboratory-base creation of human life would probably be fully acceptable to the pro-feticiders, who don't see the fetus as a human being. It is actually the Pro-lifers who fight against these incubators.
It all comes down to this. Pro-Choicers support the Right to Kill helpless humans, whether the helpless humans are in the lab or in the womb.
Jesse Jackson wouldn't quite agree :)
Some of us (more than this author might imagine) are 100% chaste in "deed". And my thoughts are my own business, and irrelevant to the subject of abortion.
It would have been truer and purer feminism if, when the feminists came into power, they actually supported pregnant women instead of encouraging them to make themselves (temporarily) barren, like men.
Pro-choicers like to say, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." They never consider that men (the guys in power according to the feminists, remember) might have decided to support each other in their pregnancies. Men have made sure to arrange support for themselves in other situations. The men could have "chosen" to make pregnancy, not abortion, the "sacrament."
The more radical left-wing feminists think things through only about half-way. They stop thinking when they get to an unfounded "conclusion/assumption" that they like. In this case, they wanted to be able to kill fetuses. Feminists use their might and creativity to fight for so many causes. It's sad that they dropped the ball on supporting pregnant women.
As a guy from the tail end of the baby boom who experienced the wild and fun 80s of young adulthood I am always amazed at how they attempt to spin the message that men are trying to force women to bear children.
The fact is that abortions advance the convenience, comfort and pleasure of men most of all. The abortion industry serves one and only one constituency. Young bucks who need to get back to the business of bedding down as many does as possible with no strings attached.
The possibility of illegal abortions strikes fear into the hearts of not women, but men in their twenties who count success by the notches on their bedpost. I know. I've spoken to those guys, it's no secret.
It would probably never happen, but I would love to see the results of a survey of women who had abortions that asked who was the stronger advocate of their abortion; the man or the woman.
That's what it's about, I think, and that's why the author misses the point. Granted, on the one hand this debate is about the issue of "control," but he misses the obverse - namely that it is also about the issue of emancipation. And it isn't merely about being emancipated from culture; it's about the emancipation of women from the constraints of nature or biology.
Which brings up an interesting question concerning the Left's rhetoric concerning nature. To them, nature is inherently a good thing, worth preserving, protecting. Science and technology, in this view, are inherently bad in that they make war against nature.
But science and technology aren't evil when they are used to control human biology. On the contrary, the Left is in favor of enlisting science in the struggle against population control, pregnancy. As Allan Bloom pointed out in the Closing of the American Mind, the Left is involved in a huge contradiction regarding nature and science. The principle of consistency has been repealed.
A woman is in the hospital for complications with her pregnancy. The doctor tells her that if she gives birth to this baby, she will die. So the woman has two choices. She can kill her baby and live or she can give birth and die.
What does she do?
A woman is in the hospital for complications with her pregnancy. The doctor tells her that if she gives birth to this baby, she will die. So the woman has two choices. She can kill her baby and live or she can give birth and die.
What does she do?
The scenario you mention is just one of the imaginative scenarios brought out in the late 60's to justify abortion.
It was used as a foot in the door, (by persons pretending they ONLY wanted to save women's lives), for abortion-on-demand (ie, killing a human for convenience).
How about this scenario--a baby is being born, breech. Her father is in the service overseas for the past 3 months. She is just beginning to emerge from the womb. The "still-legally-pregnant" woman doesn't realize, until that moment, that the female fetus is "racially mixed." The woman was sure she had taken adequate precautions, during a one night stand, nine months before. Her husband will know the child is not his.
Should the doctor follow the woman's directive and perform a partial birth abortion so the husband will not realize his wife had an affair?
So, I'll give you the rest of the true scenario, the women is far along in her pregnancy and she is seeing the best doctor in the country and he has never done a C-Section.
So, do you let an untrained doctor preform a C-Section, or do you chose to live or die, kill or be killed.
Just to let you know, this women is my best friends wife, and she was in Africa at the time. What does she do.
the woman chooses the life of her child, who, growing up hearing how brave her mother was and how she died, goes to medical school and becomes a reknowned pediatric surgeon who now can save the lives of countless mothers and children, all because one brave mother chose life over death... put that in your pipe and smoke it.
So, do you let an untrained doctor preform a C-Section, or do you chose to live or die, kill or be killed.
It seems a bit odd to live in a society where a skilled physician knows how to perform an abortion, but not a c-section, doesn't it? How does that happen?
Sorry it's not hypothetical, it's true.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.