[Rhodes22-list] Politics of Abortion: Spitzer's Choice: An irreverent selection

[Brad Haslett]

Robert,

Who started this mess?  We're attempting to answer a question for which
there is no "one size fits all" solution and yet every four years some
insist this be the litmus test for their vote.  I sure as hell don't have
the answer but do feel compelled to point out some "grey areas" from another
side of the issue.

You wrote, "no man has a dog in this hunt". Until women learn to
spontaneously conceive, a man was out hunting somewhere. Perhaps a better
statement would be, "no man has any ammunition in this hunt", after
conception.  Having been down this road armed with only persuasion, I feel a
bit differently about the "it's the woman's choice".  So, when I read
statements such as yours,
"She has as much right to stop the process as she has to start it", I'm
reminded of some old uncomfortable memories that, by law, prove you are all
too correct.

Is there a correct answer?  No, there isn't and never will be.  There are
limits to government and this issue is  best left to individuals, or at
least to individual states. Patrick Moynihan presciently warned in 1965 that
some of the Great Society programs would have the opposite effect of what
was intended by weakening the family structure.  Combined with the women's
liberation movement (which I support), we've witnessed a weakening of
father's rights, and in some communities, have seen an overwhelming
breakdown of traditional families. Ah, the law of unintended consequences!

For me personally,  perfectly acceptable answers on abortion from someone
running for office would be, "I'm for/against it but will leave it to
individuals to choose", or, "I don't have an answer". Once the child is
here, however, the role of government changes.  Traditional marriage and
family structure evolved in the human race over tens of thousands of years
for a reason. We need to be very careful and tread lightly when discussing
changing that process.

You won't hear me say this too many times so mark today on your calender.
What is the answer to this issue? I don't know!

Brad




On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Robert Skinner <robert at squirrelhaven.com>
wrote:

> Herb - where you and I (and many others as well)
> part company is on the question of when a zygote
> becomes a human entity.  I say that it occurs
> when the woman parts company with a critter that
> she (and no one else) has chosen to nurture.
>
> As this is a matter of belief rather than a
> question of motility, cognition, or other
> technicality, it is not debatable.  As such I
> hold that no one but the woman in question has
> any right to define right and wrong with respect
> to this question.
>
> I once worked in a Catholic hospital, and
> watched as the staff deliberately chose to let
> an unconscious woman (an anonymous victim of an
> auto accident) die so that they could collect
> the contents of her body.  It was clear both
> before and after the fact that she would have
> survived if they had chosen to sacrifice the
> unborn child.  The woman never had a chance to
> express her desires in te matter.  The belief
> structure of the staff defined the outcome.
>
> I was revolted, and left shortly thereafter.
>
> I act on the principle that a woman's own
> beliefs trump any rights society may claim
> over the contents of her womb until she
> delivers a child to the world.
>
> I do not expect to change your opinion any more
> than you probably would expect to change mine.
>
> However, note that my position stops short of
> defining what a woman may do or not do.  Whether
> as an individual or as a member of society, I
> claim no property rights or regulatory power
> over how a woman chooses to handle a pregnancy.
>
> I do not own her ability to procreate.  She does.
> She has as much right to stop the process as she
> has to start it.
>
> Having said that, I will shut up on the topic
> and say no more.  No man has a dog in this hunt.
>
> /Robert
>
>
> Herb Parsons wrote:
> >
> > You're missing the point Stan (thought I think deliberately). No one
> > argues the woman's right to "use her insides". She's free to screw
> > whoever she wants (as long as he/she is willing and of an age of
> > consent). The woman is free to choose whether or not to also use
> > something on her insides that can prevent a pregnancy.
> >
> > However, when she has made those decisions, and the creation of another
> > human life is the result of her making those decisions; then yes, there
> > are many among us that say her "right" to choose to kill that life
> > should be restricted.
> >
> > I'm among them. However, if you, or anyone else, tries to say that I'm
> > "against a woman choosing to do what she wants with her insides" I'll
> > stridently say, and yes even RANT, that it's a gross misrepresentation
> > of my view.
> >
> > Again, one's rights to their body SHOULD end where another human's
> > rights begin.
> >
> > stan wrote:
> > > Sorry if I have offended anyone - it is just that I am such a
> convinced
> > > advocate of a woman's right to choose and I thought McCain was not.
> > >
> > > Most men would admit that if they were the ones who could be told by
> the
> > > government what they must do with that thing inside their body, they
> would
> > > take advantage of their constitutional right to bear arms and shoot in
> self
> > > defense.
> > >
> > > ss
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>