posted on July 21, 2001 12:53:28 AM
Re: "killing babies in the womb." Once again I go back to politicians, especially ones trying to keep their jobs by buying into hysterical phrases like "killing babies in the womb," not being smart enough to make this decision for a woman. I can look at the literature (and not just the bloody fetus religious stuff) and make my own decisions about when life begins. I don't need ministers or politicians. Just good factual medical literature - with pictures even, if you prefer.
The major difference between pro-choice and anti-choice is that one group wants the govt to keep out of a decision a woman makes with her doctor, and the other wants govt intrusion in this area. Talk about slippery slopes. When your pain ridden 90 year old body begs for the "plug" to be pulled and the doctor says, sorry it's illegal, I bet you won't be dancing around for govt intervention then.
By saying we need laws to "help" women make this decision, you say that women are too stupid to decide themselves. That's ok, women have been treated like they're stupid second class citizens for longer than any of us have been around. I'm just not buying it.
I respect everyone's right to their opinion, though it's my opinion that some women should be forced to abort, I'm not egotistic enough to want to see that become law - so no, I don't think I have it all figured out. But when your opinion steps on my rights by becoming law, your respect for my opinion is no longer present.
posted on July 21, 2001 03:14:20 AMReamondWhile you may think that it would never happen, just giving the government that power is enough to ensure that at some point it will be exercised.
According to your theory, by outlawing murder, the government now has the right to commit murder. That just doesn't follow at all.
Some women may die as a result of having illegal abortions.
According to this logic, if people die from heroin overdoses, then heroin should be legalized.
You could always try to save some of the babies that weren't aborted, and are languishing in foster care...
As long as women act irresponsibly, that argument is absurd.
Anyone with a conscience knows this isn't about rights or choice at all. It's about abortion on demand, and the resulting behavior that abortion on demand enables.
I can look at the literature (and not just the bloody fetus religious stuff) and make my own decisions about when life begins.
It's ironic that a pregnant woman was killed by a drunk driver, and the man was charged with two murders. Had the woman done the killing, it would not have been a crime. So this isn't a question of "when does life begin?" or unborn rights at all. It's about what's convenient to the woman.
posted on July 21, 2001 03:30:56 AM
It can only be your persistent pestilent desire to disrupt and derrail, twinsoft, which would bring you to make such a nonsensical statement as "It's ironic that a pregnant woman was killed by a drunkdriver, and the man was charged with two murders. Had the woman done the killing, it would not have been a crime. So this isn't a question of "when does life begin?" or unborn rights at all. It's about what's convenient to the woman".
posted on July 21, 2001 03:51:10 AM
As long as women act irresponsibly... And here I thought it took two to get pregnant. What a convenient comforting position this must be for some.
On this planet, even women who use birth control get pregnant. Just thought I'd throw that in for those from another galaxy.
Your post quoting me at 4:57 on the 20th made my point admirably. Not so easy to deal with unwanted babies, is it? They're not all readily adoptable...many end up in the foster care system (fairly awful, as you pointed out) sooner or later. The neighbors I mentioned in my post to Oddish were Christians who followed their beliefs. They took those kids in as foster children, accepting all the intrusiveness you spoke of, and then went through untold grief to adopt them.
Luckily for the kids, my neighbors didn't say "no thanks" to the difficulties of saving those children. They didn't spend their time moralizing. They didn't preach right and wrong to the multitudes. They took the hard road...they actually did something.
posted on July 21, 2001 05:53:48 AM
Life begins when a child has its 3rd birthday, and not a minute sooner. What you do with your 2 year olds is a womans choice.
posted on July 21, 2001 05:59:51 AMThe major difference between pro-choice and anti-choice is that one group wants the govt to keep out of a decision a woman makes with her doctor, and the other wants govt intrusion in this area.
*sigh*
The whole purpose of starting this thread was to point out that the abortion rights debate really has little, if anything, to do with "choice". Those who support abortion rights aren't "pro-choice", since those who oppose abortion rights aren't "anti-choice".
Sadie, your entire argument assumes that fetuses are by definition not human beings, and that they are merely a part of their mother's body, and you therefore frame the entire debate in terms of a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body. But what you assume is precisely what is up for debate, and therefore can't just be "assumed".
If it were true that a fetus is not actually "human" and is "just" a collection of cells inside a woman's body [much like a cancerous tumor, say], then the abortion rights debate would pretty much be settled and it really would come down to government interference. But, is it true? You obviously think it is, but many other people think it isn't. And that's the crux of the debate -- whether fetuses have any rights of their own or are simply parts of their mothers until they are born.
To flip the issue around, some pro-lifers want to just assume that fetuses are indeed human beings with separate rights. and therefore, in their mind, the ONLY issue is whether it should be legal for women to "kill human beings in their wombs". When a pro-lifer calls abortion "murder" or calls doctors "baby killers" it's because he or she is making an assumption that the unborn are human beings. But again, that "assumption" is exactly what's up for debate and can't just be assumed.
To go back to my earlier example about blacks and slavery, back then some people just assumed that blacks were not human, and therefore wanted to frame the slavery debate in terms of property rights. But that assumption was just plain wrong.
In legal terminology, this is called "assuming facts in evidence" and is a sustainable objection. If somebody is on trial for murder, for example, and the issue is whether or not the defendant killed the victim, the prosecutor can't ask "before you killed the victim, had you been drinking?"
Similarly, in the abortion debate the issue is whether or not the unborn are human beings with rights and, if so, should it be legal for women to kill them. That's the issue that is up for discussion and needs to be resolved. You therefore can't just ask "since we know that the unborn aren't really human, and therefore don't have any rights, should the government interfere with a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body?" All you've done is avoided STATING the first part of that question, jumping right to the part about government intervention. But the second part of the question assumes the first part is true, and that's an assumption that is up for debate.
---
On another note, twinsoft's insensitive comment about a woman's convenince notwithstanding, the fact is that the law does recognize the unborn as human beings with rights in certain instances. If somebody punches a pregant woman in the stomach and causes the fetus within her womb to die as a result, that person can be charged with murder. Not just assult on the woman, but actual murder of the unborn child. This presumes that the unborn child was a "person" who could be "murdered". So is the difference between "human" and "not human" whether the child is wanted or not? Are we prepared to say that unwanted children are, by definition, not human?
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Jul 21, 2001 06:02 AM ]
posted on July 21, 2001 06:35:12 AM
godzillatemple, while what I wrote about choice in this thread may seem like I assume a fetus isn't a life, I think you'd be surprised to know just how small a window, I personally think it's ok for an abortion to occur. I won't state it here because what I think isn't relevant to anyone's choices but mine.
If I understand you more clearly now, then the debate is "whether or not the unborn are human beings with rights and, if so, should it be legal for women to kill them."
I still think my points were valid. Because:
First you'd have to decide when life begins. When you talk about a law deciding this, you talk about politicians. I don't think an embryo is a human. Many disagree with this. At another end of the spectrum are people who don't believe a fetus that couldn't yet live outside it's mother's body is human. I disagree with that, though I believed it when I was younger.
I think that clearly, if the "unborn" are human beings, then it should be illegal to kill them.
The problem is (and maybe always will be) when life begins. I'm sure if every poster here sat and took the same embryology 101 class, we still wouldn't all agree.
Therefore, I maintain:
-If you think life begins at conception, for heaven's sake don't ever have an abortion.
-If you think life begins later than that, you should follow what you believe.
-The laws are already in place for the "born," so it behooves you to not murder your infant.
So when you define the embryo/fetus as the "unborn," for me it's too broad.
As to a person being charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman - again, to me it depends on how pregnant. Others will disagree.
The point of choice or abortion/anti-abortion to me is the choice to make my own decisions based on the literature/doctor I choose. The people listening to their ministers are already protected - no one's making them have abortions.
posted on July 21, 2001 07:00:04 AM
Toke, The truth is, I probably couldn't take them even if I wanted for various reasons that I don't need to explain to you in public. You don't seem to have any either so don't condem me.
I did not sleep. I am grouchy. I better not stick around today.
T
posted on July 21, 2001 07:27:20 AM
The debate is not about if abortions "can" be performed, nor is it about the "beginning" of life. Bottom line is the legality issue merely addresses if a woman that chooses to have an abortion should have access to proper medical care.
Legality/illegality does not usually determine if you drive the speed limit, smoke pot, etc. It has little correlation with performing a deed or with ethical decisions. One cannot legalize anothers way to heaven.
We all make our choices every minute of every day. They are based on our life experiences, our belief systems, etc. In the abortion issue...there are belief systems that accept abortion is some form or another. Women will choose to have abortions. Should they have access to appropriate medical care or should they be denied it because I personally think abortion is ethically wrong?
If the illegal abortion causes the death of the mother in addition to that of the unborn child...am I accountable for her death? Not legally, but what about morally or ethically.
I cannot make everyone live as I believe is ethically correct and I am damn glad I cannot. I don't want that type of responsibility.
Also, in the balance of "rights", one has to determine the rights of the individual in the context of the rights of fellow individuals and the rights of society as a whole. This is an extremely complex issue in the case of abortion. Unwanted children greatly tax our society and most others. The resources to care for these unwanted children are limited at a much lower level than what is currently needed. There is not enough money, enough involved people, enough love to take care of all of these people now. Adding more participants is not a solution. Individual involvement is. If you cannot be a foster parent there are many ways to assist, but the system would have to obtain an awful lot of money, people, etc. to properly care for the children it already has responsibility for.
The rights of the new human vs. the rights of the established human is more difficult to define. One has to suppose they know what the fetus wants and will want. One has to suppose that the fetus wants life, no matter what that life is. No matter how hard we try none of us know what another person wants. The right of the mother to choose can be determined legally. The right of the mother to appropriate medical care, for abortion or pregnancy can be assured. It is the right that can be legally defined and measured.
I stand ethically opposed to abortion in all but a very few circumstances. Legality has nothing to do with ethics, with beliefs, etc.
posted on July 21, 2001 07:41:33 AMThe point of choice or abortion/anti-abortion to me is the choice to make my own decisions based on the literature/doctor I choose.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, nobody can take away your ability to choose. It's against the law to smoke crack, but I can still choose to do so if I want to live with the consequences. I think you are confusing "choice" with "easy access".
Aside from the fact that it's really NOT about "choice" in the first place, I'm bothered that the "pro-choice" movement seems to be very selective about can be "chosen". If I think drugs should be legalized [and that all people should have the choice to make their own decision about cocaine use based on the literature/doctor they choose], can I also call myself "pro-choice", even if I don't support abortion rights?
What if I think that the current gun laws are too restrictive and that everybody should have safe and easy access to any gun they want, any time they want it. In other words, what if I feel that the decision on whether to own a gun or not, and what type of gun to own, should be a matter of personal choice without government intervention. Does that make me "pro-choice", even if I don't support abortion rights?
For that matter, what if you support a woman's right to make her own decisions about abortion, but don't support her right to make her own decision about taking drugs? Are you still "pro-choice"? Or only selectively pro-choice? If you do not support the legalization of marijuana, say, how would you like it if those who did support it called you "anti-choice"? What about gun control? If you think that some gun control laws are necessary, would you mind being called "anti-choice" by those who oppose those laws?
Those who support a woman's easy and unrestricted access to abortions get upset when those on the other side of the argument call themselves "pro-life". In the first place, it makes it sound like they are "pro-death", but the term is also a misnomer since somebody can be against abortion and for capital punishment at the same time.
Well, guess what? I agree. Those who oppose abortion rights have no business calling themselves "pro-life". It's an inaccurate, inflammatory term, and is just plain unfair. It falsely portrays what they believe in, and mischaracterizes what the opposing side believes in.
But the same holds true for those calling themselves "pro-choice", and that's my point in all of this. To say that you are "pro-choice" is to say that anybody who disagrees with you is somehow "anti-choice", and that's just not true. It also implies that you are "pro-choice" with regard to EVERYTHING a woman can choose to do, and that's also not true. "Pro-choice" is an inaccurate, inflammatory term, and is just plain unfair. It falsely portrays what you believe in, and mischaracterizes what the opposing side believes in.
Do you support a woman's right to have an abortion? Well, you're entitled to your opinion on the subject as much as anybody else. Do you think that a woman should have safe, easy access to abortion on demand? Again, you're entitled to your opinion. Do you believe that a fetus only becomes "human" after 5 months in the womb, and that before then it is just a "collection of developing cells"? Well, more power to you, sister! I may not agree with you, but I'll support your right to hold that opinion.
But please, please, PLEASE, stop telling me that you are "pro-choice," that the only issue is whether a woman should "have the choice to make her own decision", and that anybody who disagrees with you is therefore "anti-choice". Those who oppose abortion rights are no more "anti-choice" than you are "anti-life". And by "you", of course, I am not referring specifically to sadie999, but to the people who keep running those "pro-choice" ads on TV and radio over and over again, ad nauseum....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on July 21, 2001 08:06:31 AMuaru: So, if you are "pro-choice", does that make your wife "anti-choice"? And if your wife is "pro-life", does that make you "anti-life"?
I don't care which side of the debate people are on. Everybody has to make their own decisions based on their own personal beliefs. But I just wish people would have the honesty and courage to actually admit what they were actually supporting instead of hiding behind rhetoric and inflammatory terms designed solely to paint the opposing side as somehow "bad" or 'evil".
And if the "pro-life" faction were flooding the airwaves around where I live the way the "pro-choice" faction currently is, you can bet my post would have been entitled "It's all about life".
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on July 21, 2001 08:21:45 AMSo, if you are "pro-choice", does that make your wife "anti-choice"? And if your wife is "pro-life", does that make you "anti-life"?
How about I just say I'm "pro-choice" and she's "pro-life" and I just let others figure it out or translate it to their satisfaction.
posted on July 21, 2001 11:17:19 AM
Actually, "pro-choice" probably sums up my philosophy pretty well on almost everything.
I firmly believe that if a person isn't hurting anyone but themselves, then what they do shouldn't be outlawed.
My opinion only:
People who get high (no matter what the substance) aren't doing anything wrong or immoral. People who steal, beat up, kill etc. while high are.
People who own guns aren't doing anything wrong. People who harm other humans are.
People who have sex with anyone considered by this culture to be an adult aren't doing anything wrong. So, imo, prostitution shouldn't be illegal.
I also believe that adults should be allowed to end their own lives when they wish.
In fact, I think we have so many laws trying to legislate morality, that we've become a nation of sheep.
But I'll agree with you on the labels. They're a convenient way for people to know which side of the abortion debate people stand. Semantically, pro-choice isn't any more or less accurate than pro-life.
posted on July 21, 2001 12:10:02 PMsadie999: "I firmly believe that if a person isn't hurting anyone but themselves, then what they do shouldn't be outlawed."
Well, those who oppose abortion rights would argue that abortion by its very nature "hurts somebody else" [i.e., the unborn child]. The question is not whether a person should be free to do something to themselves if it doesn't hurt anybody else, but whether abortion does, in fact, hurt anybody else.
The examples I picked [drug use, prostitution, gun ownership] are all cases where, theoretically at least, the rights of others are not affected. But what if I chose the example of child abuse or neglect? Am I, as a father, entitled to say "this is my child, and therefore I should be able to make the decision whether or not to feed him?" Since it's my "choice" whether to feed my child or let him starve, anybody who disagrees with me would therefore be "anti-choice", right?
Well, of course not, since, as you pointed out, this is a "choice" which would harm somebody else. But that's only because you personally believe that a 1-year-old baby is a human being who can actually be "harmed". And if I said I didnt think infants were really human because they weren't fully developed and couldn't survive on their own, you'd probably think I was a monster.
It sounds to me as if you're not really "pro-choice". Instead, you're "pro-choice as long as the choice doesn't harm anybody else". Which is perfectly fine, and I bet most "pro-lifers" would agree with that belief. The problem is that they strongly believe that abortion does harm somebody else, whereas you don't. And that is the crux of the issue -- whether abortion harms anybody other than the mother -- not whether or not a woman should have the right to "choose".
The pro-life movement, however, seems to want to avoid talking about that issue, focusing solely on a woman's "right to choose" without acknowledging that the "choice" could be harming another human being. If asked whether a woman should have the "choice" to kill her 5-year-old child, the answer would of course be "no, because that would harm another human being". But when asked if a woman should have the "choice" to abort a pregnancy, the answer instead is "yes, because women should have the right to choose" and not "yes, because a fetus isn't another human being and therefore can't be 'harmed'".
If you're "pro-choice as long as nobody else is harmed", then you have to willing to discuss whether or not somebody else is being harmed by the choice being made. And if you don't think somebody else is being harmed, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, the same way that those who feel that somebody is being harmed are entitled to their opinion. But to say simply "I am pro-choice" or "I am pro-life" is to say that the other side is NOT entitled to their opinion, since your statement assumes that the other side's opinion is, by definition, wrong and not open for discussion.
Lord, I do blather on, don't I?
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on July 21, 2001 12:24:49 PM
I think the really salient point being avoided here, is that abortion is a legal choice in the U.S....available to those who wish to choose it.
It's highly unlikely that Roe v Wade will be overturned anytime soon...since two thirds of the populace wish it to remain in force.
"Thus, given the fact that only about a third of the American public wants
abortion laws to be made more strict, it is not surprising that the majority of
Americans are reluctant to see the Roe v. Wade decision overturned, as
abortion-rights advocates fear might happen under a Bush presidency.
According to an October 25-28, 2000 Gallup poll, two-thirds of Americans
-- 67% -- say they are against a constitutional amendment that would
overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and make abortion illegal in all states.
Only 30% favor such a proposal."
edited to say: I wish I could learn how to italicize a big block of text.
[ edited by toke on Jul 21, 2001 12:26 PM ]
posted on July 21, 2001 12:34:10 PMtoke: You can italicize a large block of text the way you do a sentence, as long as there are no hard returns in the text. If there are hard returns, you have to stop and start the italics over again after each hard return:
"Thus, given the fact that only about a third of the American public wants abortion laws to be made more strict, it is not surprising that the majority of Americans are reluctant to see the Roe v. Wade decision overturned, as abortion-rights advocates fear might happen under a Bush presidency. According to an October 25-28, 2000 Gallup poll, two-thirds of Americans -- 67% -- say they are against a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and make abortion illegal in all states. Only 30% favor such a proposal."
As for the supposition that "two thirds of the populace wish it to remain in force", keep in mind that public opinion does change over time. Who's to say whether that 2/3 will shrink to 1/3 in five years? Or maybe it will swell to 4/5? In fact, much of the lobbying by both sides of the argument is aimed directly at swaying public opinion. To say "the majority currently agree with me so therefore 'game over'" is a bit unfair, don't you think?
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on July 21, 2001 12:56:17 PM
Ack. Thanks, Barry...but I still don't get it. I obviously cut and pasted that and made no hard returns that I know of... I can't even tell in this message box where the returns will be. So...how did you do it?
No, I don't think it's unfair to quote a poll.
Since women are the majority in this country, and since Roe v Wade has stood for 28 years, throughout all verbal attacks, clinic bombings, targeting (and sometimes murder) of doctors, harassment of women attempting to exercise their legal right, constant demonstrations at clinics...and even threats of hell and eternal damnation...I think it's likely to continue to stand in force.
Doesn't mean I don't remain ever vigilant, however. It precludes me from voting for anyone who does not support a woman's right to choose.
posted on July 21, 2001 01:11:16 PMtoke: Your original quote is actually a whole bunch of one-liners with a hard retrun at the end of each line. They either need to all be joined together, or else you need a begin and end italics coade for each line.
I don't think it's unfair to quote a poll either, and it's certainly kosher to point out that current public opinion is in favor of keeping abortion legal. It's just that current public opinion doesn't really prove anything about what the future holds. Even 20 years of public opinion isn't proof of anything.
How long was public opinion in support of slavery, or segregation? The Dredd Scott opinion and the Brown v. Board of Education decision were both reflective of the public opinion of their time, but public opinion changed and those rulings were eventually overturned.
Will Roe v. Wade ever be overturned? I have no idea. Should it be overturned? Well, that's a matter of debate. But the fact that 2/3 of the American public supposedly currently supports it doesn't really mean anything to me.
I guess I've just seen too many people duck the issue by saying "abortion rights is the law, so just accept it. End of discussion." If that were true, we'd still have slavery and segregation. If a law is unjust, it is the duty of moral citizens to seek to have that law changed, working within the system of course. The question, then, is deciding whether a law is unjust or not, not whether it is the law.
Ciao, and good luck with the italics....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on July 21, 2001 01:41:22 PM
Thanks Barry...I did it!
Obviously we disagree. I think the number of people supporting Roe v Wade is quite relevant to its liklihood of standing. And, I believe it will remain standing for all the other reasons I mentioned.
I do realise anything can change...that's why you're noticing so many pro-choice people remaining active and vocal.
I certainly didn't advocate the end of discussion...merely that a salient point was being left out of the mix.
posted on July 22, 2001 12:29:35 AM
Barry, thanks for an interesting topic. You presented your ideas well, as summed up by,
The pro-life movement, however, seems to want to avoid talking about that issue, focusing solely on a woman's "right to choose" without acknowledging that the "choice" could be harming another human being.
Most of the comments (including mine) were predictable hacks, but then people's minds don't change very quickly. And Toke did anticipate my unspoken comment about women voting. Thanks, Toke!
Sadie, your comment,
As long as women act irresponsibly... And here I thought it took two to get pregnant. What a convenient comforting position this must be for some
has some validity. But the fact is, the woman, not the man, gets saddled with the child in an unwanted pregnancy. That is why women should be more careful. Call it chauvanistic or practical, I don't care.
Ironic that you say, "it takes two to get pregnant" yet maintain that the choice to abort the baby belongs solely to the woman. And I guess I wouldn't be too far off the mark to suggest that in the event of the baby's birth, you would feel the man is obliged to support the child, at least in a financial way.
So, to put it simply, you (or 'right-to-choosers') believe that a man shares equal responsibility when it comes to BLAME/PAYMENT, but you still reserve full abortion rights because it's "a woman's body." Clearly, this is the hypocritical view held by pro-abortionists. Seems to me, it does come down to a matter of women doing whatever is convenient for themselves.
On this planet, even women who use birth control get pregnant. Just thought I'd throw that in for those from another galaxy.
That argument is kind of like, the exception proves the rule. "My birth control didn't work, so I'll get an abortion." This is some kind of excuse? It's like porn dealers comparing pornography to fine art. The argument is so transparent and self-serving, that it's hardly worth an acknowlegement.
Trying to grab the moral high ground? Take it. I'm anti-abortion, but I'm not a fanatic. I have two young daughters and I would counsel them to consider abortion. But I wouldn't sugar-coat it or try to drape the U.S. flag over it like it's some kind of freedom issue. Abortion is legalized murder, nothing more.
posted on July 22, 2001 06:32:55 AM
Hmmm... let's see. This discussion has completely turned my thoughts around. Abortion is legalized murder. Life begins at conception. I'm happy to know that I'll be able to collect Social Security nine months earlier than I'd originally planned.
Twinsoft, either you deliberately misread my post, or you didn't understand it.
"It takes two to get pregnant" doesn't conflict with the rest of my argument. I said that my personal belief was that life started at X weeks. My personal belief. That's all. Therefore, prior to that, what a woman does in relationship to that pregnancy is her business - my opinion. The law in different states has its own definitions.
As to men taking responsibility, well, yes, in a perfect world, men do take responsibility for their children (and to me that would be after the Xth week). In the US, a lot of men don't. Considering that about 90% of the men I've met in my life were arrogant and immature, I'd actually be relieved that they weren't in my child's life. Even men who think this is an issue they should have a hand in deciding are arrogant to me.
I agree with the poster who said that women get saddled with the child, and so unfair or not, should be more careful. I agree out of common sense, not what is fair. This logic will of course help us raise another generation of boys/men who aren't careful to wrap Mr. Happy before doing the wild thing.
I honestly believe that people who think ALL abortions should be illegal either have no respect for women or they hate them.
posted on July 22, 2001 07:37:00 AMtwinsoft: Give it up. My point was to simply point out what the issue was really about, not to take sides one way or another. If there's one thing I have learned over the years, it's that men aren't entitled to have an opinion on the actual issue.
If we say we do not support a woman's right to have easy, safe and ready access to abortion, then obviously we are chauvinists and tyrants who feel that we have the right to control a woman's body.
If, on the other hand, we say we do support a woman's right to have easy, safe and ready access to abortion, then it's just because we want to be able to pressure our girlfriends or wives into having an abortion whenever we don't want to support a child. And if a woman then chooses not to have an abortion, we can then smugly say "well, it was YOUR decision to have the child, not mine."
Just remember -- men are, by definition, scum, and are therefore not entitled to an opinion about anything that affects women in any way, shape or form. If you disagree with a woman, you are scum. If you agree with a woman, you must have some ulterior motive and are therefore scum. And if you think I'm just making this up, you should have sat in on my Constitutional Law class when we discussed the issue of abortion. No matter WHAT any guy said on the subject, he got booed by the women in the class.
Personally, I support a woman's right to choose to believe whatever the hell she wants to believe, or not, as the case may be. And I'll continue to feel that way until the inevitable day comes when a woman tells me I am scum for doing so.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
