Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I think that if there's a baby growing inside of me and I don't
    want it to grow inside of me then I'm going to get rid of it one
    way or another.  If you want the baby despite my wishes, you are
    free to support development of an artificial womb...
    
    Lee

    Why question the rights of the father when the rights of the baby
    are not considered ? If you can justify the fathers rights, then abortion
    in itself would not be legal.
    
    Jim

    Given the fact that in order for a father of an unborn child to
    get custody of that child he has to force the mother to go full
    term, I would say that the father is basically out of luck.  While
    this may seem unfair to the father, it would be even more unfair
    to place the mother's body in chattel for nine months. 
    
    Let's suppose for a moment that the father could be granted custody of
    the unborn child.  I can easily imagine him getting a smart lawyer who
    will petition the courts for legal rights in determining how the mother
    takes care of herself, what sort of diet she should have, try to force
    her to take vitamins etc.  In short, to try to force her to live a
    lifestyle that may be in opposition to her habits.  It just wouldn't be
    practical.  Particularly since she doesn't want the baby in the first
    place. 

    So, if you accept that abortion is all right in general; that women have
    the right to control their own body, then a woman cannot be forced
    to deliver a baby just because the father wants it.
                                          
    If you don't accept women have have the right to control their own
    body, then who does?  The father?  The courts?  The state?  Personally,
    I think that an individual has the right to make decisions about their
    own body and then accept whatever consequences may come of their
    decision.  
    
    The are some issues that aren't amenable to full equality between
    the sexes.  This seems to be one of them.

    Mike

    RE: .1  It's not your body or your life that you are ending.  It
    is a seperate entity altogether.  You made the decision to have
    intercourse, so you made the decision that a child is a possible
    outcome of this action.  Is it the fault of the man that nature
    has made the female the bearer of children?  I think not.  As far
    as the artificial womb goes.  Is that a joke or a reality?  If it
    is something their working on they won't have a customer here. 
    
                                                        Mike
    

>It
>is a seperate entity altogether.  


Not for the first couple of months, it isn't.

    re .4 by GRANMA::MWANNEMACHER;
    
    > is a seperate entity altogether.  You made the decision to have
    > intercourse, so you made the decision that a child is a possible
    > outcome of this action.
    
    Of course, you made this decision in the light of the current legal
    situation which includes the potential for abortion as well; that
    IS part of your 'informed decision'...
    
    >                       Is it the fault of the man that nature
    > has made the female the bearer of children?
    
    Red herring.  Its nobody's "fault".  Its just the fact of the matter.
    Given the fact, unfair as it may be, you simply can't rectify this
    unfairness by enslaving the folks as have wombs; thats worse.
    
    DougO

    RE: -1  It may be worse in your eyes but not in mine.  In my eyes
    it's the innocent unborn child and the father who are the victims
    in these cases.  You are right it is noone's "fault", the reason
    I used that phraseology is because it's the man who is being victimized
    under these circumstances.  Being that nature decided to give the
    woman the womb; does this allow her to be the only one to decides
    what's to happen to their child?  I don't buy that.   

    
    re .0
    
    I have to agree with Lee....
    
    The woman is the one who must bear the pain and take the
    risk. It would be the height of unfairness for her to be
    *forced* to do it because the father wants the child.
    
    This is unfair to the father, but not a risk to the father's
    life. There *is* a chance of risk to a woman carrying a child 
    to term and giving birth. 

    I think the decision whether or not to abort first trimester is
    solely the woman's.  If the father can agree with the mother, or
    convince her to see things her way, that's nice, especially when
    it's been discussed in advance.  If he didn't want "his baby" to
    be aborted, he should have thought about that before he helped conceive
    it.
    
    Remember, even if she agrees to carry it to term, she has no guarantee
    that he will be there.  She may still have to raise a child that she
    never wanted in the first place herself.  If she is forced to do this,
    she is being forced to be incapacitated and take risks to her life and
    health. This is where no one else has any business meddling. 
    
    If you feel otherwise, support medical research allowing fetal implants
    into men.  At that point you are free to carry it yourself.  And
    FWIW, this is close to being reality.  I wonder what the reaction
    will be when women can tell men who have opinions on whether or
    not a baby should be carried to "put up or shut up".  I suspect
    there will be a lot of "Shut up"...
    
    Elizabeth                                                   

         I think the hard truths of nature have taken the decision out
    of men's hands, but there are some matters of parallel logic to
    consider.  In a situation a bit different from .0, say a man wants
    the woman to have an abortion, but the woman does not want to do
    it.  The man is usually subject to full financial responsibility
    pivotal on the woman's decision.  If the legal system is going to
    be set such as to give the "bear-or-abort" choice to the woman,
    it would seem logical to give the "pay-or-don't" choice to the man.
    
         For those who see unnecessary harshness in this, I would support
    any child I helped create, but I wouldn't help create one out of
    wedlock.
    
                                   Greg

    re .7 by GRANMA::MWANNEMACHER-
    
    >                 You are right it is noone's "fault", the reason
    > I used that phraseology is because it's the man who is being victimized
    > under these circumstances.  Being that nature decided to give
    > the woman the womb; does this allow her to be the only one to
    > decides [sic] what's to happen to their child?  I don't buy that.
    
    "Victimized"...hoo, boy.  Nature grants power in this circumstance
    to the woman.  "Victimized" meaning you don't get to impose your
    way of thinking upon the woman you impregnated; you don't have the
    power to force her to carry a pregnancy, gain weight, lose career
    options, risk serious health complications...you have one hell of
    a lot of chutzpah to call yourself victimized when you'd force someone
    else through something thats quite a bit more intrusive.  Women
    are finally legally empowered to resist the state of chattel you'd
    force upon them; you may not "buy it", but I do.
    
    DougO

    re: .11 (DougO)
    
    	Bravo!
    
    	A man calling himself a "victim" because his woman won't do 
    	what he wants her to do is priceless.
    
    						Carla
    

    Fathers rights? Surely you jest.
    My ex(then wife) had an abortion and the only reason I found out
    she had even been pregnant was that I happened to want to play too soon
    afterwards and she had to explain why she was not feeling up to
    it. I really wanted children too I felt like I died that day.
    
    -j

    
    
    re. 7
    
    	How can you say that only the father and child are the victims.
    Have you ever been forced to make a decision whether or not to abort.
    Everyone is a victim, not just the parents and child but also the
    family of those folks.  I had to make the decision to abort and
    believe me I can tell you just how victimized I was.  The impact
    my decision had on my family as well as his family was tremendous.
    Our parents wanted their grandchild to be born, but they weren't
    the ones to make the decision.  And when you get down to it and
    you are in the clinic, it is still ultimately the woman's decision
    because the procedure is being performed on her and only her.

    Seems like people are taking sides, either the womans side or the
    mans. How about looking at the both of them being equally wrong.
    Irresposible sex, leads to irresponsible decisions. The only
    victim is the child that will never have the chance to experience
    life. No matter how hard life can sometimes be, it is still better 
    that never experiencing it. All I know is that I'am greatful that
    my mother and father were willing to endure the hardships of giving
    me a chance to experience this life. I guess it was all in the name
    of love. They must of been fools. 
    
    Jim

    RE: .11  Just because the woman has the womb doesn't (or should
    I say Shouldn't) give her the right to take away the life of your
    child!  After reading what .13 says, it makes me believe what my
    convictions are even more.  Maybe you should try to look at the
    other side of the story before you take the stand that you have.  
    How would you feel if you were in such circumstances.  It takes on 
    a new meaning now.  Thankfully, I have never had to experience what
    Mr. Gortmaker has gone through, and yes, I have seen what a pregnant
    woman goes through.  It isn't pleasant, but most of the women I
    know say it's well worth it.  
    
    As far as the artificial womb goes, I think that the whole idea
    is ill.  Why do we humans think that we can improve on what God
    has already perfected.  It is my strongest belief that we are going
    to be held accountable for all we have done.  This is a main reason
    why I take the stand I do.  I mhave too.
    
                                                     Mike  

    re: .16 
    
    I got pregnant when I was 19 due to failure of a birth control
    device.  I knew I could get pregnant -- that's why we took
    measures to prevent it. 

    My fiance didn't want me to "kill his baby".  I'm not sure what I
    would have decided if it had been only my decision, but with
    his feeling that way I never really considered abortion.
    
    That was the last time I saw him or talked to him.
    
    The last time I heard from him was a letter from his lawyer
    denying paternity.
    
    I raised Kat alone, with help from my parents while I finished
    college, went to graduate school, got this job, and married Neil. 

    I imagine he feels a lot better knowing I didn't kill his baby,
    but I still feel like chattel when I think about it.
    
    --bonnie

    Sounds to me like we are at the stage where some of the noters in
    this topic need to agree to disagree.  
    
    Mike

    RE: -1  I agree. 
     
    
    Bonnie, 
    I have alot of respect for what you have to say, seeing as you have
    experience in what is being discussed.  May ask you a question?  Was 
    it worth it?  Would you change it if you could?  I don't want to
    pry into your personal life, so if you don't want to respond I'll
    understand.  It may help me understand something by hearing from
    a person who has been through it.
           
                                                      Thanks,
    
                                                      Mike
           

    It is my opinion that if the couple is married that the man should
    have input to yes or no as my earlier note indicated I was not given
    any choice. As it was we had talked about children and had agreed
    that we wanted them. YES that right we were trying. The reason I
    was given was that her PARENTS thought we were not ready to have
    kids not to mention that they were not ready to be grandparents.
    This is what really busted my chops is that her mommie and daddie
    were included in the decision(it was also their suggestion not to
    tell me) and that how I felt about it never was taken into consideration.
    Sitting here I still have a hard time believing that it happened
    and this is 4 years later. I would have gladly raised the child
    myself given a chance. I did consider how her getting pregnant
    would effect her too bad consideration is not a mandatory 2way street.
    What is this ME syndrome anyway? I always thought couples should
    be a WE situation. Granted if the womans health is at risk then
    the decision to abort should always be yes but this is seldom the
    case compared with the number of times this happens daily.
    BTW-I have no pro or con position on abortion I feel that is up
    to the people(plural) involved. I dislike those that would put their
    moral opinions on others.
                                                                             
    -j(who still wonders what his child might have been like)

    
    
    	re. -1 
    
    You have to remember that most abortion cases occur when the
    couple is unmarried.  What your wife did to you was terribly wrong.
    And to try to keep it from you was even worse.  You afterall did
    help create the child, she should have a least told you she was
    pregnant.  That I believe is one of your rights as a father.
    Unfortunately, she didn't and you have to live with her decision.
    
    In the case of an unmarried couple, circumstances are very different.
    Most times the father after being told he was a father runs out
    on the situation altogether.  If he does protest and doesn't want
    the abortion then he should stick around and help raise the child.
    Again unfortunately this does not happen very much.  In an unmarried
    situation it is very easy to walk away from responsibilities of
    a child.  
    
    I don't believe anyone really ever gets over an abortion.  I know
    that I often find myself wondering what if.  I know in my heart
    that I made the right decision to abort. I was on the pill and became
    pregnant while taking tetracyline which my doctor negelected to
    tell me had an adverse affect on the pill.  So I thought I was
    protecting myself against and unwanted pregnancy and ended up
    getting pregnant.  I aborted because the health of the fetus
    was in question due to the pill and the tetra.  My boyfriend still
    has problems with our decision.  And he also wonders what if sometimes.
    He also wonders if we made the right decision or how things might
    have ended up.
    
    So I guess what I am trying to say is that yes fathers are entitled
    to have a say in the decision if they are willing to stick around
    and take full responsibility for their mistake also ( they were
    1/2 responsible for the pregnancy).  But if they have no intention
    of doing so then they should not have any say in the matter.
    One thing you have to remember is that each situation is entirely
    different.  You can make any blanket statements about this issue.

    
    
    re. -1   whoops !!  I meant to say that you CAN'T make any 
     blanket statements about this issue , not that you can.
    Sorry

    re .16 by granma::mwannemacher-
    
    >>         -< It comes from a power greater than I. >-
    
    Ah, I was wondering when this shade of the discussion would arise.
    
    >> As far as the artificial womb goes, I think that the whole idea
    >> is ill.  Why do we humans think that we can improve on what God
    >> has already perfected.      
    
    Welllll....what I'm hearingfrom your statements are that 1) once
    you've done your 5-minute bit, and impregnated someone, they are
    beholden to your will for the next 9 months; and 2) you consider
    that system architected by your "God" and not worth fixing; sorry,
    "already perfected" were the words you used...???  
    
    This makes *me* ill.  Someone else suggested we agree to disagree,
    and I have to accede, we're quickly going nowhere with this.
    
    [ Please do not misinterpret the preceding as an attack on your
    personal religious beliefs.  I personally hold that you are free
    to believe whatever you choose.]
    
    DougO
    

    You are definately hearing wrong!  Most of the words you say that
    you "are hearing from my statements" are words that you put into
    my mouth.  It is not appreciated and will not be tolerated.  
    
    RE: Once you've your five minute bit (it takes me longer, I like to 
    pay attention to detail):') and impregnating someone, they are beholden
    to my will for the next nine months.  Remember I wasn't the only
    one at this meeting. (If I was the woman wouldn't be pregnant) What
    I am saying is that these are thing which have to be taken into
    account before people indulge in intercourse.  If we spent half
    the time teaching our children what the result and what the main
    purpose of sexual intercourse is (for the survival of the human race)
    then we might not have all of the unwanted pregnancies which there
    are today.  Contrary to what you are trying to portray as my message,
    I DO NOT think a woman is beholden to my will, however, I do have
    a right to my child that was concieved BY BOTH OF US!!!!!!!
     
    
    RE: You consider that system architected by your God and not worth
    fixing; sorry, already perfected were the words you use...?
    I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but if it's
    that I don't think that humans can improve on what God has created,
    then your damn right I don't.  God gave us intelligence and the
    ability to know how to use it.  I think that in some areas we are
    using it for the wrong reasons.  As long as we are using our
    intelligence to sustain life then I think that is good.  I don't
    believe, however, that everyone getting what they want, when they
    want, is the same thing as sustaining life.  I also believe that
    we are going to be held accountable for what we do here on earth.
    
    Lastly, I don't think of God as my God, but everyones God who wishes
    to allow him into their lives. (Yes, God gives us this choice also)
    
    I hope you are not feeling ill just because someone disagrees
    with you, maybe it's just something you ate. :')
    
    (I also hope that you take the comments with the :') in the spirit
    in which they were met, I'm just trying to throw some levity into
    the situation, nothing personal)
                                                     Mike
                      

    OK, then...we'll just have to disagree.  Consider my replies in
    .6, .11, and .23 as all I will contribute to this topic.
    
    DougO

    re: .24 (Mike)
    
    >>	(If I was the woman wouldn't be pregnant) 
    
    	This is an idealistic statement at best.
    
    >>	What I am saying is that these are thing which have to be taken 
    >>	into account before people indulge in intercourse.  
    
    	Many times they are.  Women's birth control methods aren't at
    	100% even when used properly, and men's birth control fall far
    	below any optimum percentage.  Your phrasing "indulge in inter-
    	course" makes it sound as though it's a stark humanistic duty
    	rather than an act of enjoyment and/or love, further fueled by 
    	what you say below:
    
    >>	If we spent half the time teaching our children what the result 
    >>	and what the main purpose of sexual intercourse is (for the 
    >>	survival of the human race) then we might not have all of the 
    >>	unwanted pregnancies which there are today.  
    
    	Since when has the main purpose of sex been to bear children?
    	Kids know how babies are made, and they know at amazingly early 
    	ages!  Talked to any 5 year-olds lately?  They know more at 5 
    	than I knew at 10.  (Which was in the early 70's--not like I'm
    	a product of the Prude Age.)  Today's youth are far from unen-
    	lightened!
    
    	This reminds me of when I was 10 or 11 in desperate desire of
    	a baby brother or sister, and was trying to convince my mother
    	that every time she had a period and didn't conceive a child
    	she was effectively denying a human life.

    	I was wrong, and in my opinion so are you.  
    
    	It is MY body and MY mind controlling said body.  Not yours.
        
    						Carla
    

    Please don't compare what I'm saying to when you were 10 or 11 as
    this is ludicrous.  What I'm saying is that it takes two to tango
    so the two people involved should have the say in what happens to
    the child who is the product of that union.  Furthermore you say
    it is your body, I say it is not.  It is a seperate human being
    who should have rights also.  
    
    RE:Since when has the main purpose of sex been to bear children?
    The answer to that question is, since the beginning of time.  If
    there were no need for intercourse for repproduction we would be
    what they call asexual reproducers.  I think that you asking this
    question is proof of what I said about educating people about
    intercourse.  The act feeling good is an added extra.  
    
                                                        Mike
    

    Even between married couples the degree to which intercourse is
    for reproductive purposes versis the degree to which it is a major
    part of the love bond between the couple is quite small. To use
    your analogy, if making love not making babies weren't the most
    important part of intercourse then it would be limited biologically
    only to the times when the woman could conceive - as it is with
    most of the lower animals.
    
    Bonnie

    If the main purpose of the intercourse is to make babies, then why does
    one bother "to pay attention to the details", as you aptly put it?
    Personally, I do not know anyone whose behaviour is consistent with
    their belief that primary purpose of intercourse is to procreate. It
    would be most interesting to see if they actually practise what they
    believe in. 
    
    Frankly, if a couple can not come to a *mutual decision* regarding the
    pregnancy, the couple had no business being together in the first
    place.  

- Vikas

    
    
    Mike,
    
    	Let's try to clarify what you are saying.  One, you are saying
    that a woman's body is not her own and Two, you are saying that
    the only reason people have sex is to produce a child.
    
    Does this mean that each and every time you have sex  the outcome
    should be a child?  (assuming that there is no protection and the
    woman's body is ready to concieve)
    
    I think no matter what you say that you seem to be pretty set in
    your mind and all you are trying to do is convince everyone that
    you are right.  Personally, I do not agree with what you are saying,
    BUT I am not trying to make everyone believe that what I think is
    right.  Each person is entitled to her or his own opinion, and we
    should all respect that not try to abuse it.

re:    < Note 261.24 by GRANMA::MWANNEMACHER >

    
    
>    ...What I am saying is that these are thing which have to be taken into
>    account before people indulge in intercourse. 

 
    Bingo!  Give that man a cigar.  You just said the magic words, "these
    things have to be taken into account".  Unfortunately, most indulgers in
    sex, particularly unmarried indulgers, do not take the time to discuss
    what they both want to happen in the event a pregnancy occurs.  If the
    man has some special concern that if the woman gets pregnant, he wants
    to be active in raising the child, then he ought to say so before he
    engages in sex.  If he doesn't care all he has to do is say nothing. If
    the woman has a problem with that, then she is free to either decide
    not to have sex, or do her utmost to ensure she won't get pregnant. 
    
    Mike 

    I may well have missed the boat as far as this discussion is concerned
    but I will add my own comments in reply to the original question.
    
    It is quite definite that the woman in any unmarried/unwanted pregnancy
    situation should have the last word in whether to abort.  After
    all, this pregnancy could spell a complete change in her way of
    life. Not just the appearance of a child upon the scene, but the 
    trauma and physical ordeal of chlidbirth, and further more, changes
    in her mental and physical state that may last the rest of her life.
    
    It is a sorry fact, but the man can not be allowed to force the
    woman to carry the baby. 
    
    However.....
    
    An equally complex situation is where the man wishes the baby to
    be aborted and the woman wishes to keep the child.  I could well
    be wrong, but is it not possible for the woman to claim child
    support from the father even if she is the only party wishing
    to keep the child.  Surely this is equally unjust (maybe not in
    such a physical sense) as the vice versa situation.  It seems to
    me that whatever the situation, the man is denied any rights by
    the pure fact that the child is physically attached to it's mother
    and he has no control over the decisions involving the mothers'
    body.  I'd better add at this point that in case one I believe this
    is fair but if I haven't got my facts wrong and case two could arise
    then I believe that the father should not be compelled to pay for
    the upbringing of a child that he did not want but was denied any
    say in whether to abort or not.
    
    Steve P

    RE: .30 Yes, let's really clarify what I am saying.  I said that
    it is not the woman's body.  This refers to the unborn child which
    is aborted.  This is what doesn't belong to the woman.  If a woman
    (or a man) wants to do something to their own body, that is their
    business.  On your second point; you are saying that the only reason
    people have sex is to produce a child.  This is not what I said,
    I said, "The main reason".  There is a big difference between an
    absolute and a non absolute.  Sexual intercourse has other benefits;
    I have no problem with that, this does not refute the fact that
    the main reason is to keep the human race going.
    
                                                Mike
    
    P.S. Bonnie,
        I know I 'm hard headed.  My grandmother said I got it from
    my grandfather. :')   MW

    Re: .33
    
    Mike, I am sure you are well aware that the opinion you have of
    "to whom does the unborn child belong" is a subject of tremendous
    controversy in our society, and that there are many who hold a view
    different than yours with all the vigor you hold your opinion.
    I hope you can accept this.  There are no easy answers found here.
    
    My personal view is that, though I would be deeply distressed and
    hurt if a woman who was pregnant by me made a decision to
    abort, not abort, or put up for adoption, without discussing it
    with me, in no way would I attempt to exert any legal restrictions
    on what she does.
    
    As for a father wanting the mother to abort, and if she doesn't,
    being liable for child support - well - that's the risk you take.
    If you're not comfortable with the risk, get a vasectomy.
    
    					Steve

    Mike,
    
    This is an agree to disagree I am afraid. As a biologist I know
    that in the majority of lower animals sex is indeed only for
    reproduction. (I am intentionally leaving out animals that pair
    bond for life). In the human sex for reproduction over a twenty
    year marriage with two children would amount to something on the
    order of 2%. This is hardly the 'main reason'. The other 98%
    contributes to the bonding that occurs between the two people.
    
    Bonnie

Humans have sex because nature gave them the desire, in order
to reproduce. Looking at the self centered society we have today
what would the birth rate be if humans had no desire for sex ?
At the same time sex is a means of expressing love, (but not exclusively).
You can have bonding without sex. Sex is physically pleasing as well.
As an expression of love, it is most fulfilling when the couple
are open to having a child, and hence the child is a living
expression of that love. Society uses sex mostly as a self
pleasing experience though, and as a result the couples take
each other for granted until the physical pleasure is lost, and then
the relationship dissolves when one of the person's finds a more pleasing
experience somewhere else. The un-loving sexual act also has to
be altered from the way nature intended it, either physically
or bio-chemically. If the act isn't altered the living result is
altered through abortion. So as a result we have sex without love and
being open to reproduction, resulting in unnatural methods which have
only had negative consequences in our world. One example is, Israel,
which has the highest abortion rate per capita in the world among Jewish 
women, is experiencing a negative population growth rate. If it persist 
experts say Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish state. 


    Jim

    Some side views:
    
    Ever been to an abortion clinc? Ever see the 100 - 150 cars that
    pass through the parking lot on a Saturday?? Ever wonder what that
    truck is doing out back at 6:00 pm with the twenty-twenty five garbage
    bags?? 
    
    What really repulses me is the "women" who make multiple trips to
    the clinc. Seems to me she is more out of control than in control
    of her body. I can accept a "mistake" and I don't question incest
    and rape abortion, abortions because the mother is at severe risk,
    or a damaged fetus. I question the intelligent womwn who are in
    "control" of their bodies, who have the intelligence to know the
    risks of intercourse and don't take precautions for themselves and/or
    demand it of their partner. It amazes me that when I was a young
    man who easily a young woman could say no and today that "no" isn't
    evn a consideration. Today it's who's responsible for birth control
    and if that doesn't work...abort the conception.
    
    I understand that many womwn don't want these children, but there
    are alternatives such as adoption. I know this is another subject
    altogether, but there are people who are dying of a broken heart
    because they can't have children and who could provide so much love
    and life for the rejected ones. ....this should be another note
    so I'll leave it here.
    
    Finally. The taking of a life is murder. Not in the religious context,
    but the factual one. I've heard all of the arguments about what
    is a fetus, is it child or a non entity and all of the other points
    of view. ""In my mind, once the egg is fertilized and division has
    taken place, life has begun. That life is a seperate entity from
    the mother and is using her as a life support system until birth
    occurs. at birth that child no longer needs the mother!"" Humans are
    the only animal that drink the milk of another animal by choice
    so the child no longer is dependent on the mother. To end the life
    of another being is wrong.    
    
    re: back a few -- Some one said if you don't want the responsibility
    of a child (morally or financially) get a vasectomy. My answer could
    be as ridiculous,"if you want control of your body, take control, get your
    tubes tied". That's not the issue. The issue is the moral
    responsibility of two "adults" who partake in the sexual coupling
    that leads to procreation. If they are not prepared to accept the
    outcome, then they shouldn't begin.
    
    Ken

re:37    
>    Finally. The taking of a life is murder. Not in the religious context,

    No its not murder, because murder is defined as the unlawfull taking
    of one human life by another. Killing a fetus is not unlawfull, so its
    not murder its just killing. Pro-abortionist will quickly point this
    difference out to you.

    Jim

    Re: .37
    
>    Ever been to an abortion clinc? Ever see the 100 - 150 cars that
>    pass through the parking lot on a Saturday?? Ever wonder what that
>    truck is doing out back at 6:00 pm with the twenty-twenty five garbage
>    bags?? 

    Probably hauling away the broken glass and other things damaged
    by the bomb planted by anti-abortionists...  Why, what do YOU think
    is in those bags?  What do you want us to think is there?
    
>    re: back a few -- Some one said if you don't want the responsibility
>    of a child (morally or financially) get a vasectomy. My answer could
>    be as ridiculous,"if you want control of your body, take control, get your
>    tubes tied". That's not the issue. The issue is the moral
>    responsibility of two "adults" who partake in the sexual coupling
>    that leads to procreation. If they are not prepared to accept the
>    outcome, then they shouldn't begin.

    Yeah, I said that.  I gather that your view is that the only reason to
    "partake in the sexual coupling" is to create babies.  That may be fine
    for you, and if you want to "just say no", great.  But for most of us,
    there's more to sex than making babies.  My comment was directed at the
    men who disclaim responsibility for pregnancies they have caused, even
    if it was an "accident".  If you have sex, the risk is there for a
    pregnancy.  It is the man's responsibility as much as the woman's to
    lower the risk if that's what they want. If the man is not comfortable
    with the risk when all of the "precautions" are taken by his partner,
    and he wants to procede, then he should take it upon himself to lower
    the risk further - using condoms, or a vasectomy. Unfortunately, there
    are no other alternatives available to men at this time. 

    					Steve

    RE: .38
    
    I think we should not be using the word "Pro-abortionist".  I prefer
    the term "Pro-choice", the ultimate choice is of the mother-to-be.
    
    - Vikas

    Re: .40
    
         That seems strange.  The issue is abortion.  Someone must be
    for it (or it's legality) and someone must be against it.  Therefore,
    the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion seem basic.  Pro-life and
    Pro-choice seem to be misleading euphemisms.
    
                                  Greg

    Re: .41
    
    I disagree.  One can be pro-choice for others, yet against abortion
    for themselves.  It is those who insist on telling women what they
    MUST do with their bodies that irritate me.  The distinction is
    clear.
    
    				Steve

    Re: .42
    
    I still don't see it.  This person would still be pro-abortion (the
    legality thereof), even if it is not her/his personal choice.  I
    think the reason that the euphemisms are being used is that people
    are forgetting that they are debating the LEGALITY of the act, and
    not the act of any specific person.
    
                                 Greg

    I think arguing over the terms pro-choice or pro-abortion is a side
    issue, easier to argue because it is not as important.  But no matter
    what you call it, no matter how legal abortion is or isn't, there
    will always be women who want the choice to abort.
    
    If you make it illegal, we will simply find another way to get the
    same results: some of us don't eat well, some of us will use your
    handy-dandy coat hanger, some of us prefer pills, some of us have
    the money for a plane ticket to a more civilized part of the world,
    some of us will do simply _anything_ to get rid of it.
    
    What will you do?  Chain us down?  Force feed us?
    
    flame on:
    
    If you want a choice in pregnancy and birth control, you must share 
    in the risks and hardships.  "No vasectomy for me" hooey!  plenty
    of women go through MAJOR surgery to have their tubes tied, their
    uteruses removed.  "A condom is *such* a bother" TOUGH!  Do they
    give you urinary tract infections?  Diaphragms do.  Do they make
    you bleed at verry odd intervals?  IUDs do.  Do you risk being
    PERMANENTLY sterile if you use a condom every time?  IUD users do.
    And what happens if you "forget" to use it?  YOU don't get pregnant.
    
    Do "most men" think about these things?  I suppose they do, in an
    abstract way.  But when push comes to shove (ie. the first time
    they bed any one woman), they certainly don't talk about it; I
    have YET to have even ONE man ask me about birth control until AFTER
    we had intercourse!  So far, 100% of the men who have been to bed
    with me have risked pregnancy at least once.  The difference is
    that they risked MY body, not theirs.  I have yet to have sex without
    making sure I had less than a 10% chance of pregnancy.
    
    flame down to simmering
    
    When you all can put it in an artificial womb, _THEN_ I will consider
    the (probable) major surgery of having the fetus removed ALIVE.
    Till then, I think you've got SOME NERVE trying to legislate MY
    body.  You want the fetus's body, go get it.
    
    Lee

       I find it somehow curious that a woman would be willing to share
    love with such thoughtless men.  
    
       
    RE: The topic.  Fathers rights in abortion = zilch.
    
       A woman's body is hers and that includes any possible pregnancy.
    
       Also, a man is not a "father" until a baby is born.  A man's
    responsibility in an abortion decision by a woman he has been intimate
    with should extend to paying half of the expenses incurred in the
    operation - whether he approves of it or not.
    
       Regarding abortion on the National scale, my main problem with
    Roe v Wade is that the matter is a private one - ie ALL decisions
    should be made by a family.  
    
       When it got out of the hands of the family, and beyond the states,
    that's when the extreemists from both sides got into the debate.
    
       It really should not be a debate at all.
    
    
                                                          Russ

    re: .44 (Lee)
    
    	The flame may have been on, but it sparked some fantastic
    	points!
    
    						Carla
    

         For those of us who believe in the woman having 100% of the
    decision on the abortion issue, do you also believe in the man having
    to be financially responsible if the woman decides to have the child?
    
         For the sake of preventing a side issue, let's say that both
    did their best in the prevention aspect, but got surprised.
    
         I think the answers will clear up some miscommunication of
    ideas.
    
                                     Greg	

    re .48   Are we talking about a marriage here - or ANY relationship?
    
             The latter doesn't have the whole of history on it's side
             you know.   
    
                                                     Russ

    Re: .49
    
         If there is a difference, then specify for both situations.
    
                                 Greg

    Re.48:
          
>         For those of us who believe in the woman having 100% of the
>    decision on the abortion issue, do you also believe in the man having
>    to be financially responsible if the woman decides to have the child?
          
    I think the answer should be Yes here. When you cannot deny her
    the right to make the decision for abortion, you also cannot force
    her to this choice by leaving her the financial risk. It's difficult
    to make a blanket statement here because it makes a lot of difference
    whether the woman is financially able to take care of the child
    or not. I think it's debatable when she actually can take care of
    the child, but if she can't the Yes has to remain.
          
    An unborn child grows in the mother's body, she can feel that. As
    a man, I feel an outsider here. In the first months she'll actually
    has to tell me she's pregnant or I may not know it.
          
    I still wonder about the man's emotional attachment to the unborn
    child, especially in the first months. I can understand his feelings
    if he opposes abortion in all cases, most certainly from a Christian
    point of view. However he may feel, I think you can't compare the
    emotional attachment of the man to that of the woman, who can _feel_
    the changes in her body from the very first weeks.                       

    So that makes it a) Yes the woman has the final word whether she
    wants to have an abortion and b) If she decides to have the child
    the man will have to help her financially if that is needed, yes.
    
    It's a difficult subject indeed!
    
    Ad
                                                                     

    Re: .51
    
         A difficult discussion, indeed.
    
         While the abort-or-not decision seems to have been awarded
    by physical reality to the woman, the financial liability is a matter
    that the courts can alter one way or another.  Placing the male's
    financial liability entirely in the hands of the female appears
    to be a double-slam here.  The situation being that the male cannot
    influence whether a child he wants is carried to term by the woman ,
    the man cannot influence whether or not a child he does not want is 
    aborted by the woman, and the man's financial well-being is at the 
    mercy of the woman's decision of whether or not to have the child 
    all seem to leave the man out of any participation except the 50% 
    participation in the conception and any percent the court decides 
    for the cash payout.  Not quite kosher.
    
                                    Greg

    It doesn't seem the most righteous thing no, but do bear in mind
    we are talking about a situation where two people decided they wanted
    to have sex, but not wanted a child (hence they took precautions!).
    
    This is not without risk. Where the woman has a risk as far as her
    body is involved whether or not she carries the child, the man is
    at risk here too e.g. his wallet.  
                                      
    Both have the option to avoid the risk at all. I don't consider
    the problem when they are married - by marriage the father has already
    agreed to take financial liability, and as Vikas has put some replies
    ago, you may expect a married couple to be able to reach consent
    at least over such a basic decision as having a child or not.
    
    The more I think about it, the more hypothetical the situation feels.
    
    Ad

         So, to make the risk TRULY balanced, should the male be able
    to "abort" the financial liability, as the female is able to abort
    the physical liability?
    
                                       Greg

>          So, to make the risk TRULY balanced, should the male be able
>    to "abort" the financial liability, as the female is able to abort
>    the physical liability?

    She can't abort the physical liability.... She can abort the child...
    and run the risk of dying from the complications if anything goes
    wrong.....
    
    Ad 

         Ahh!  I see your point.  I suppose I am not quite fully aware
    of the risk involved in an abortion.  I thought that, with their
    legal status, the procedure had become fairly safe.
 
         Not knowing this, the physical liability that I referred to was
    that of carrying the child to term.

                                      Greg

    
    As for any medical interference in the human body, there is always a
    risk. While this risk is not as high as it is in a major surgery, it
    can't be ignored-at-all. At the very least, abortion is an unpleasant
    physical experience, which adds up to the emotional stress involved.
                                                                   
    I don't have any figures to go with this but I'm sure somebody can
    provide them if necessary ... a substantial amount of women who had an
    abortion suffer considerable emotional stress dealing with it.
    
    I refuse to believe any woman will make the decision lightheartedly.
    
    Ad 

        Quick question:   What's the ave cost of an abortion?
                          ( incl all care costs)
    
                          And what's the ave cost of a pregnancy
                          brought to term?
                          ( incl all costs)
    
        Generally speaking marriage is a much better set up for a woman
    to receive fiscal support from a man than a relationship.
    
        I would even say that all this talk of who pays and how much
    ( damn obsessions with statistical equalities/parities we carry...)
    would simply fade into the background.
    
        On a cynical note, I think a lot of these scenarios that occur
    these days have resulted in many a needless headache and many dollars
    in lawyers pockets.
    
                                                          Russ

re:58
>        Quick question:   What's the ave cost of an abortion?
>                          ( incl all care costs)
>    
    			I'm not sure but I thought its from anywhere's
    			from $200.00 and up
    			But you end up with nothing.
    
>                          And what's the ave cost of a pregnancy
>                          brought to term?
>                          ( incl all costs)
    
    			About $3000.00
    			But you end up with a gift that money can't
    			buy.

    Jim

    
    
    re. 57
    
    		ALL women who have abortions suffer due to emotional
    distress.  It is one of the most horrible decisions a woman must
    make.  There are no counselling sessions to help deal with the pain.
    All you recieve is a 10 min speech telling you exactly what is going
    to be done.  Noone bothers with the after effects.  It's as though
    once you go through the procedure it's over and done.  That is the
    easy part.  The pain comes afterwards when you see a pregnant woman
    walking by you and you agonize whether or not you made the right
    decision.  Plus you never stop hearing the bullshit from those folks
    who believe that you killed your child.
    
    	Yes everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  But why hurt
    someone again just to prove your point which by the way is only
    an opinion.  I believe (and this is just my opinion) that noone
    can honestly comment on abortion unless you have gone through it.
    Also so many of you seem to believe that each case is the same,
    that is terribly unfair.  Every case is different.
    
    	The thing that really galls me (and again this is just my opinion
    so don't open fire) is that if the ultimate decision lies with the
    woman because it is her body,  then why are you men so defensive?
    When it gets down to push and shove, most of you agree that the
    woman is the one to make the decision whether or not you want that
    to happen or not.  I understand that you as fathers should be allowed
    a say in the matter, but it is not your body or health to risk.
    I'm quite sure that if the shoe were on the other foot most of the
    woman probably would be taking the same stands you are.
    However, the situation is not reversed and you will never have to
    make a decision to abort or not to abort.  Why continue to hurt
    those who have had to make that desision?

    
    
    re.37
    
    >Ever been to an abortion clinic?  Ever see the 100-150 cars that
    pass through the parking lot on a Saturday?  Ever wonder what that
    truck is doing out back at 6:00 pm with twenty-twenty five garbage
    bags?
    
    Yes dear sir please tell us HAVE YOU ever been to an abortion clinic?
    DO YOU know what is in those garbage bags?
    
    1) 99% of all clinics where abortions are performed are ob/gyn
    facilities.  Did you know this?  And it is only about 5% of the
    business conducted at such clinics that are actually abortions.
    Did you know that?  The other 95% of the business consists of
    family planning services and regular gyn business.
    
    2)A regular gyn exam can generate it's fair share of waste.
    The waste that is generated from an abortion is about the size of
    a quarter and couldn't even fill a dixie cup.  Now that may sound
    really gross and equally harsh ,but that is the truth.  Also,
    most of that waste does not get thrown out with the garbage.
    It is sent off to medical schools and various labs.
    A test has to be performed on the whole matter to determine if
    the procedure was successful.  So it is the medical schools and
    labs which eventually throw away the waste NOT the clinics.
    
    So please don't assume that you know what is in those bags.
    Unless you have a chance to open them up and see for yourself.

    I don't think anyone who is against abortions goal is to hurt anyone,
    rather to give the unborn child a chance to live.  If some people
    get hurt in the process, I (as someone against abortion) am truly
    sorry.  
    
    RE: Back a few-Someone said that the male should be forced to incur
    the cost if he doesn't want an abortion performed on his child.
    This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of.  To most
    people who are against abortion it is because of religious beliefs
    that help influence their decision to take the anti-abortion stand.
    You are telling them that they have to take part in something that
    they are going to have to answer for when their time comes to face
    the Lord.  I would go to jail first.
    
    RE: Back a few-About the bombing of abortion clinics.  This is a
    very small percentage of people who believe in this kind of action.
    To bring up this kind of thing without stating that it is probably
    less than 1/100 of a percent of the people who condone this type
    of thing is disturbing to me.  It tells me that you want to twist
    the truth to make your point.  Sorry, I can't let this happen.
    
    RE: Women being in physical and mental danger.  I agree, women are in danger
    with both giving birth, and the abortion procedure.  The percentage
    of women who are damaged physically and mentally (mainly mentally)
    by the abortion procedure are much higher than than by child birth.
    I don't know the exact figures, but they can be obtained by contacting
    WEBA (Women Exploited By Abortion).  This organization is made up
    of women who have had abortions and have had trouble dealing with
    the emotional trauma of the ordeal.  
    
    RE: Roe vs Wade- this decision was made under false pretenses, so
    the decision should be rendered invalid.  The woman in question
    said that she concieved as a result of rape.  Just recently she
    said that the rape never occured.
    
    As a closure and a sidenote.  I have come to my conclusion on the
    abortion issue by talking with people, and different forms of media.
    I think everyone should see the movies, "The Silent Scream" and
    "The Eclipse of Reason".  They are called anti-abortion propaganda.
    The truth of the matter is that they show the procedure being done
    so you can decide for yourself about what you are seeing.
    
                                                       Mike

    Let's get this down to the basics:
    
    The mother is a person with ordinary rights.
    
    The fetus may have rights too.
    
    In order for the fetus to live, it must parasitize the mother's
    body for 9 months.
    
    You have the right to walk around and pick things up.  I have the
    right to own property.  If you somehow just happen to walk into
    my house and just happen to pick up my TV set, I have the right
    to infringe on your right to walk around and pick things up by shooting
    you and/or putting you in jail.  I also have the right to welcome
    you, give you a cup of coffee and a meal, and give you the TV set.
    Which of these rights to exercise is my choice - you don't have
    any say in which way I might react.
    
    Also, I would point out that most anti-abortion propaganda insists
    on concentrating on 2nd trimester abortions, which are unusual and
    much more dangerous than a first trimester abortion, and must be
    done in a hospital.  Then all of the activity is pointed at the
    clinic that does only first trimester abortions, and mostly GYN
    business.  I've never seen an anti-abortion group picketing a hospital.
    _Silent Scream_, for example, depicts a *late* 2nd trimester abortion,
    which is very seldom done.
    
    Elizabeth

    re:39 and 61         
    
    What follows is not graphic but may offend some. I don't know how to
    <FF> so I've scrolled down. Please go to next unseen.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    
    .
    
    .
    
    
    .
    
    
    .
    
    
    .
    
    
    Yes, I have been to the "clinic". While a member of a city's fire
    dept. we were called to the clinic by the health dept. to "clean
    up a mess". Up to then, I had been pro-choice.
    The medical profession must follow certain laws in disposal
    of 'medical waste'. The problem was that the transporter had two
    of the trash bags tear open (30 gal. each) while putting them into
    the truck. The clinic was using a 3 mil bag similar to a type for
    trash. They now use a much stronger bag, 7 mil I believe. We got to
    clean it up in front of 25-30 Right to lifers and of course the
    local media came rushing over when we had it just about cleaned
    up. I know whats in the bags and after I went home, I cried for
    all those "things" that never got to play ball or dress a doll or
    give life to another.                                   
    
    My real complaint is with the women who repeat this process two,
    three, four times. Where is the responsibility here? I know, what
    kind of mother would she be? Would she be fit?? etc.  Before anyone
    asks if I know anyone who has had one or more, the answer is YES.
    One female co-worker has had 3 because she's "not ready to have
    kids yet" and "if I carried a kid, I'd have stretch marks and look
    like a tiger in my bathing suit". 
    
    I ask this question: Does it get easier the more often it's done?
    With all of the trauma and suffering that supposedly goes with having
    an abortion  (I say supposed because I can't experience it first
    hand)why not give birth and let the child be adopted. It may not
    be the best idea but my brother and his wife have waited 6 years
    to be rewarded with a baby through adoption. They just got him about
    2 months ago. The mother can get the baby back in the first thirty
    days if she so decides, but the adoptors know that. In some states
    the wait is as long as 10 years to get a baby. 
    
    I'll delete this note if the moderators so decide, or they can do
    it if they feel it is offensive.
    
    Ken

    Second trimester abortions arn't as rare as someone mentioned. My
    aunt is surgical technician in a hospital and is asked frequently
    to assist in second term trimester abortions. She was pro-abortion
    until she assisted in an abortion. According to her, after seeing
    the little arms and feet being pulled from the body of the fetus,
    she is no longer able to assist in an abortion. Its good that 
    the hospital alows those who oppose abortion, to not participate
    in an abortion. 
    
    Jim

    Meanwhile the original question whether the male in case of a abortion
    taking place had any rights he could enforce, has led to the discussion
    of second term trimester abortion and the suggestion an abortion is
    repeated by the same woman several times in a row.
    
    I do start to feel a bit offended.
    
    Ad

    
    - Early and open, honest information about sex, and methods to prevent
      accidental unwanted children.                  
                                                     
    - Availability of contraceptives of good quality.   
                                                              
    - Simplification of juridical hassles involved with adoption.        
                                                     
    - Simplification of juridical hassles involved to prove who is the
      father.                                        
                                                             
    It is hard to say a thing about the U.S.A. but I can say only the
    second point is only starting to be met in Holland.
                                                     
    There is not as much emotional impact of measures in these issues as
    there is in abortion. Each point can add a significant contribution to
    the reduction of the number of cases where one would feel the need to
    make a choice. I'm disappointed with the progress made in the above.
                                                                        
    Ad

    RE: -1 Ive got a perfect solution for you.  Don't read anymore of
    this note.  
    
    RE: .64  You are comparing a TV set with this subject matter?  Somehow
    I don't see the relation.  
    
            About the movie, "The Silent Scream" depicting a *LATE*
    second trimester abortion.  This is absolutely positively WRONG.
    THE UNBORN CHILD IN SILENT SCREAM WAS AT TWELVE WEEKS GESTATION.  How
    do I know?  I was not sure of your statement so I went to the public 
    library and viewed the begining of the tape to where the history
    of the abortion performed was given.  Just seeing that much of the
    film made me very sad.
    
                                                 Mike

    If you want to read a discussion on the controversial topic of abortion
    (both how painful it is, and how necessary it seems sometimes depending
    on the situation), tune in to the old womannotes file
    (WOMANNOTES-V1.note) and read 390.*.
    
    It talks about the emotional hurt, the physical experience, the
    pain involved in making the decisions, and so forth.
    
    I'm not sure if it's proper to point off to another note here, if
    it's not just whiz this reply right off into the bit bucket.
    
    -Jody
    

    Re: .44

    >Do "most men" think about these things?  I suppose they do, in an
    >abstract way.  But when push comes to shove (ie. the first time
    >they bed any one woman), they certainly don't talk about it...
    
    When push comes to shove, generalizations about an entire gender
    are generally untrue and usually insulting.
    
    -- Mike

    
    
    re.  the woman who has had three abortions because she isn't ready
    yet.
    
    Any woman who uses abortion as a form of birth control should have
    her tubes tied.  Unfortunately,  many people think that this is
    the norm, when indeed it is the exception.  Most women who have
    abortions only have one. 

re:-1
    isn't an abortion a form of birth control ? Why have one if your
    not trying to stop birth ?
    
    Jim

    
    
    Birth control pills do not prevent conception.  They prevent
    the fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus.  
    
    For this reason, strict anti-abortionists are opposed to the
    use of the pill.
    
    

    Birth control is simply to prevent birth.  Preventing conception
    is one way that this is done.  
                                                    Mike
    

    Actually, preventing implantation is only a secondary effect of
    *some* pills.  Most work (at least primarily) by preventing ovulation,
    thus conception.
    
    IUDs clearly work by preventing implantation.
    
    Barrier and surgical methods prevent conception by never letting
    the sperm near the egg.
    
    BTW, Mike, I see my body as more important to me than my TV set.
    Perhaps I cannot stress how important it is to me.  How important
    is your body to you?  If both of my kidneys have failed, and one
    of yours will due to keep me alive, I assert that I have the right
    to force you to undergo surgery to keep me alive.  
    
    Elizabeth

    re .75 in re my earlier note
    
    Ahem, I lost my temper Friday, and failed to clarify the point I
    was trying to make.  For that, I apologize.
    
    The _point_ I was aiming at was that if there is a woman who is
    pregnant and "uses abortion as birth control" (ie: took zero
    precautions beforehand, yet had no desire to become pregnant), 
    THERE IS ALSO A MAN WHO IS EQUALLY AT FAULT FOR NOT HAVING TAKEN
    PRECAUTIONS.
    
    I hear so many people flaming the pregnant woman who did not use
    birth control, and I hear so few people flaming the MAN who did
    not use birth control.
    
    In my experience (admittedly not terribly vast) as well as what
    other women have said, the most likely time to not use birth control
    is the first time with any one person, and I know (personally, as
    well as know of secondhand) many, many more men than women who have 
    had intercourse without ascertaining beforehand that birth control 
    was being used.
    
    I fully believe that _these_ men *care* about it, and I fully believe
    that they care _more_ about whether or not they get laid at all.
    
    If you find this terribly unpleasant, do a survey of your own: ask
    the people _you_ know.  When I did that, the results were pretty
    depressing...
    
    Lee

    After reading all of this something struck me...there is a
    frequent male response that goes something to the effect of
    "if women won't let a man have a choice in re abortion then
    why should the man have to support an illigitmate child."
    
    This arguement has bothered me a lot.  What it does is lump all
    women together and say because woman x does this then woman y
    should not expect something else. The two situations are in my
    mind very separate. If a woman is anti abortion and has chosen
    to bear a child conceived in less than the best situation, then
    why should the fact that other women chose abortion mean that she
    *has* to either abort or support her child by her self?
    
    Bonnie

         I think the point is that since female y has all of the rights
    in the decision of abort-or-not, then why does male x bear so much
    financial responsibility?  The option of putting the child up for
    adoption might be one decision to put into the hands of the male.
    At least then he would not have a financial drain dependent upon
    HER decision.  They both made the first decision, so why should
    the male be left out until time comes to write the check?
    
                                    Greg

       "The option of putting the child up for adoption might be
    one decision to put into the hands of the male. At least then
    he would not have a financial drain dependent upon HER decision."
    
        Fiscal responsibility regarding the creation of life ( and sharing
    costs regarding whatever HER decision is about the fetus ) goes
    hand in hand with sexual responsibility!
    
        Male x bears enormous responsibility in the matters being discussed
    simply because he is quite responsible for the pregnancy in the
    first place.  
    
        Since I tend to think that married couples can take care of
    these matters without undue difficulty, I see the arguements here
    along the lines of the respective rights and responsibilities that
    a man and a woman have in an unwedded relationship.
    
        This is heaven for lawmakers, special interest groups, and lawyers.
    
        One reason for the millions of laws out there is to try to satisfy
    those that are never satisfied, and to keep employed those that
    probably couldn't find respectable work elsewhere.
    
        The day may indeed come where people have the RIGHTS to someone
    elses baby or, heaven forbid another's liver.
    
        As our culture moves along with these continuous preoccupations
    with rights instead of knowing what IS right, I have to wonder what
    it all means.
    
        They'll probably cut my heart out and give it to some deserving
    soul at about the same time I finally figure it out.
    
        If I'm smart I'll have transplanted my brain into another body
    by then.
    
                                                     Russ

    I think Russ, along with some others, have made very good points
    here.  People do seem to be preoccupied with the physical act rather
    than the emotional act of sex.  The physical act is nice, but the
    emotional act is better.  I think we all can agree that the possibility
    of pregnancy should be discussed before sex.  I think we all can
    also agree that this is highly unlikely.  
    
    It seems to me that the man should have a say so on what happens
    to the unborn child which he helped concieve.  I also think that
    he should have a financial obligation to the support of that child.
    It seems quite unreasonable to me to say that the male has no say
    in what happens to the child he helped concieve, but a financial
    obligation to whatever the female decides.  That's a, "Have your cake
    and eat it too", set up for the female.  Definately unfair for the
    male.
    
    RE: Having a legal right to one of my kidney's if yours fail.  I
    would have no problem in helping out a fellow human being in this
    manner, however, you don't have a right to anything.  It would be
    out of the goodness of someone's heart to make that decision.  After
    all, what would happen to the person who was made to give up their
    kidney and their other one failed?
    
                                        Mike

    If a woman decides not to carry a man's child, there is not a thing in
    the world that he can do.  That's the fact and nothing else is going to
    change it. 
    
    And if you as a man, find yourself in such a situation, all I can
    say is "Tough Luck".

    As pointed out in earlier reply, there is no legal right for me
    to _borrow_ your kidney.  You might be generous and give it to me
    but I can't demand it.
    
    Similarly a man, even if he is a husband, can not _demand_ that his wife
    carry his baby or abort it.  He has not _bought_ her body or womb.
    
    The more I think about it, it seems almost certain that we are
    discussing a hypothetical case here.  A husband and wife who can't
    jointly decide about pregnancy should be better off terminating their
    relationship.  
    
- Vikas 

    Re-1
    
    Thanks Vikas, I couldn't agree with you more. Especially on the
    last paragraph!
      
    Ad

    re: .84
    
         ... and then there is the case that was being discussed, in
    which the parents are not married.
    
                                      Greg

    -2  I disagree totally.  I fail to see the two situations being
    similar (kidney & child).  The risk has been taken and everyone
    knew what the risk was (Most of the time).  It doesn't matter what
    type of birth control is used it is not 100% effective.  
    I guess my main point is if you agree to partake in sexual intercourse 
    (both male and female) you should have thought about whether you are 
    ready to be a father or mother because it is a possibility.  
    
                                                 Mike
    

    re. 87
    
    Mike,
    
    I don't think that is a question here.  I feel that most
    people in this discussion agree with you when you say that
    if you agree to partake in sexual intercourse you should
    have thought about whether you are ready to be a father
    or mother because it is a possibility.  Most people know that
    the possibility of becoming a parent is taken when intercourse
    takes place.  However, most folks don't decide beforehand what
    they want to do if they find out that the woman is pregnant.
    And when they do find out (in the case of unmarried parents)
    the decisions to be made are not made together because there
    is no contract binding these parents together.  Each are separate
    people not a unit such as a married couple.  Each usually has
    very different opinions of what he or she wants.  There is no
    committment to work together.
    
    Also as a side note, regarding your comment, I have a question.
    If a woman becomes pregnant and she has an abortion does that
    mean that she is not ready to become a mother?  I don't believe
    this is true, there are many woman who have abortions who already
    have children thus already making them mothers.  Also some women
    have to abort due to health reasons,  Are these woman not ready
    to become mothers?  Are the fathers who run out when they find
    out that thier partner is pregnant not ready to be fathers?
    
    Mi

>    I guess my main point is if you agree to partake in sexual intercourse 
>    (both male and female) you should have thought about whether you are 
>    ready to be a father or mother because it is a possibility.  

    That's up to each person to decide for themselves. You just can't
    force it upon someone else. It's good to think about it though,
    so you know _your_ viewpoint. What the other does, is not your turf,
    if that bothers you, take it into account when thinking about the
    above. May not be all you wished it was, yet it is reality.
                                                               
    Ad 

    I guess the best thing is, to have your convictions setteled before
    you get envolved with a person, so that passion doesn't blind you to 
    what you realy want in life. As far as its the other person business?
    I would agree, however most people on welfare are children of un-wed
    mothers. As a result it ends up becomming our business, whether
    we want it to be or not.

    Jim

    
    
    Jim
    
    	Could you clarify for us why it ends up becoming your business?
    If it is just the financial aspect,  then children of un-wed mothers
    are not the only ones you are supporting.  I knew of several folks
    who were on welfare recieving food stamps.  One was a college student
    whose parents were paying for her to go to school.  Another was
    a wife of an alleged mafia man in my neighborhood.  I worked as
    a cashier in a food school to save money for school.  So I saw
    the folks who clearly abused the system.  Does their lives also
    become your business.  What about the other government subsidized
    programs which everyones tax dollars are paying for?  Just because
    your money and my money is being used to support these efforts does
    that automatically make them our business.  If that was the case,
    then I want to know everything about our politicians lives, our
    congress people, our president , or even each government employee
    for that fact.  Sorry, but I don't agree with your statement.
    
    Mi

    Re .83
    
    >RE: Having a legal right to one of my kidney's if yours fail.  I would
    >have no problem in helping out a fellow human being in this manner,
    >however, you don't have a right to anything.  It would be out of the
    >goodness of someone's heart to make that decision.  After all, what
    >would happen to the person who was made to give up their kidney and
    >their other one failed? 
    
    That's approximately how I feel about either the kidney or the fetus.
    If I happen to get pregnant and don't particularly want to be, I
    think I would carry it to term - believe it or not, I think abortion
    is wrong.  Still, that decision would be made out of the goodness
    of my heart.  My rights to my body still supersede the rights of
    the fetus to it.  I will still actively support other people's rights
    to protect their bodies as well.  What happens if a woman is forced
    to carry the child and she dies in childbirth or complications from
    the pregnancy?  Giving part of your body away MUST remain YOUR choice.
    
    Elizabeth

What I hear in here, is a lot of "My way is the only right way to believe, and 
the rest of you are wrong.  I'm going to continue to escalate and browbeat you 
until you see no other way but mine."  I think some of you are going to have to 
agree to disagree.  If your first reaction to that sentence was to say, "NO 
WAY, because S/HE WAS WRONG!"...Back Off.  We Get Your Point.  Each of us 
operates according to our own ethical system and values; according to our own 
spiritual beliefs.  Abortion is going to be accepted in some systems; not 
accepted in others.  Neither side is going to change the other.  Individual 
experience and encounters will be the deciding factor, not attempting to shove 
the other guy in to your mold.

I think it is a sad situation when a wife has an abortion without telling the 
husband/father/caring, interested male party.  I also think that there are 
situations where, when a woman has already made the decision to abort, she 
would have good reason to not tell the male.  I could go in to detail and 
explain that, but you are intelligent beings, and I think you would be able to 
come up with good reasons for her silence.  I'm not saying that it's OK to not 
tell a caring father who would accept responsibility for impregnating a woman.  
I'm talking about the other kind of guy.  I'm not limiting that "other kind" 
personality to a male; there are females of "both kinds", too.

If my sweetheart and I were to conceive, #1 it would be a surprise because I'm 
on the pill and I take it on time every day, and #2, we would sure as all 
get-out, sit down and discuss what we want to do.  Because we love each other, 
I feel fairly certain that we would want to see our manifestation, taken to its 
beautiful fruition, barring defects/damage (but there we go, getting ethical 
again; that's not the point; there's a larger point here...listen...)

I would not have sex with someone I didn't love.

Because I would be in a loving relationship, I would let the man know if I got 
pregnant, and I would expect to make the decision TOGETHER, to go over all 
options beforehand (including the discussion of finances).

And ultimately, I would realize that the final decision, AND its consequences, 
would be mine.

But I would not make the decision alone.

This is me.  I do not speak for everyone.  I do not speak for people who have 
sex with someone to satisfy less-than-loving desires.  There are a lot of 
people, for whom, I do not speak.

With love,
Meredith

    Re: .93
    
         Leave it to you to say the right thing...
    
                                    Greg

    RE:91
    70% of the people on welfare are children of un-wed mothers. I didn't
    invent the statistic, its just there. I didn't say I wanted it to
    be my business, it was forced on me and the rest of society. The
    same holds true for AIDS, drug abuse, and you name it. No person
    is an island. What you do with your life is your business, but no
    matter how important or unimportant you may feel about youself,
    you play a part of what happens in society. If what you do is
    negative, it causes negative results in society, if what you do
    is poistive, it causes positive results. Couples who engage in
    promiscuous sex, force the results of vinerial desease, and unwanted
    children in society. The results are not only financial, they are
    also emotional and physical as well. I'm not advocating laws that
    would put the government into the bedrooms of people, but trying
    to enlighten people to the idea that, their irresponsible behavior
    is causing hardship to society as a whole.
    
    Jim 

    re: .95
    
    Might I ask where you got that 70% number?  And how it was
    calculated?  "Welfare" is a very broad category; there are
    a dozen federal programs as well as an almost uncounted variety
    of state programs.  
    
    Some welfare surveys include people who hold FHA mortgages as
    welfare recipients.  Others include everyone who receives a
    federally subsidized student loan.  Most include children on
    the school lunch program.  
        
    About 70% of children receiving Aid to Dependent Children money
    live in female-headed households. The majority of those are not
    unwed mothers, however, but women who have been deserted by their
    husbands.  
    
    The majority of households receiving Food Stamps (an entirely
    different program) are married couples in which at least one
    member of the family is employed.  On the average, each recipient
    uses food stamps for less than a year (8 months, I think?) and did
    not return to the welfare lists.  This information from a
    government survey conducted two or three years ago to determine
    if, despite the fraud, food stamps were doing they job they were
    intended to do. 
    
    --bonnie 

    
    re. 96   Thanks Bonnie for the stats.
    
    re. 95   I understand your point about an individuals effect on
             society.  But your statement about promiscuous sex resulting
             in unwanted children is rather vague.  I consider married
             men and women who have affairs to be engaging in promiscuous
             sex.  If a child results from this mistake,  it does not
             necessarily mean that the child is unwanted.
    
             regarding the original topic,  there are many women who
             have abortions not because they don't want the child,
             but due to a number of reasons.  I wanted my child, but
             the health of the fetus was in question.  I would not
             willingly bring a child into this world with a handicap.
             That is just how I feel.  I think there are far too
             many "handicaps" that people have to overcome that are
             not nessesarily physical ones.  I felt that inflicting
             that pain on a child in an already painful society would
             be wrong.  I was not engaging in promiscuous sex.  I was
             on the pill, but tetracycline reduced the effectiveness
             of the pill.  (my doctor neglected to tell me this)
    
             How do you define promiscuous sex?
    
              Mi

RE:96
The statistic comes from Chet Atkins, director of the department
"Aid to Families of Dependent Children" (welfare) in Mass. in which 90%
are children born to unwed mothers.    
    
>    re. 95   I understand your point about an individuals effect on
>             society.  But your statement about promiscuous sex resulting
>             in unwanted children is rather vague.  I consider married
>             men and women who have affairs to be engaging in promiscuous
>             sex.  If a child results from this mistake,  it does not
>             necessarily mean that the child is unwanted.

I perhaps did not use promiscuous sex correctly, in regards to unwanted
children. I should have used sex without commitment. Either case can lead
to a negative impact on society.

>             regarding the original topic,  there are many women who
>             have abortions not because they don't want the child,
>             but due to a number of reasons.  I wanted my child, but
>             the health of the fetus was in question.  I would not
>             willingly bring a child into this world with a handicap.
>             That is just how I feel.  I think there are far too
>             many "handicaps" that people have to overcome that are
>             not necessarily physical ones.  I felt that inflicting
>             that pain on a child in an already painful society would
>             be wrong.  I was not engaging in promiscuous sex.  I was
>             on the pill, but tetracycline reduced the effectiveness
>             of the pill.  (my doctor neglected to tell me this)
    
I'm not going to judge you here, and please don't take offense in what 
I'm saying. I was never in your shoes, so I don't know. However.
Most handicapped people, including my son are grateful for the chance at
life. PBS had people on who were asked, if they were sorry that their
parents did not abort them rather than have them live life as a handicapped
person. The majority said no. They said life, even with its pain, is still
worth living. To them life was beautiful. One of the people was an attorney,
who was born with no arms and no legs. One of the others was a retarded woman,
who although 36 yrs old just completed high school.
As the parent of a handicapped child, I can say that for all the painful 
moments, the good moments outweigh the bad ten times as much. My son has
truly enriched my life as well as the rest of my families.

Peace 
Jim

    re: .98
    
    Hm.  That is about twice the national rate.
    
    The implications of this are interesting.  Does this mean that
    Mass. female heads of households who have been married are enough
    better off than the national average that they don't have to
    accept AFDC payments for their children?  Or that conditions in
    Massachusetts are so much worse for never-married mothers that
    more of them have to go on welfare? 
    
    But let me ask a reverse of the question of whether the father
    should pay to support a child he doesn't want:  if the woman wants
    an abortion, but the man doesn't, do you think it's fair of the
    woman to say, "All right, I'll carry the child, but you'll have to
    raise it.  You take it and I never want to see either of you
    again, and if you back out on the agreement, I'm giving it up for
    adoption"???
    
    --bonnie 

    Re: .99
    
         100% absolutely, positively YES!!!  I would definitely feel
    grateful to such a woman.  
    
                                Greg

    I do not, in any way, envy the woman who is unintentionally pregnant.
    I think they are in one of the toughest positions that anyone (man
    or woman) could be in.  I also do not think that our "society" looks
    very positively on pregnant woman or the family, so it is no wonder
    why many woman choose to have abortions.  I don't think woman who
    have abortions are murderers or even killers.  I think abortion
    is a difficult choice but a wrong choice nonetheless.
    
    My belief is that the rights of the fetus (from conception) are
    greater than the right of the woman to control her body.  I support
    the right to control one's body but not when it takes someones right
    to life.  Some people may disagree and say that the right to control
    your own body is greater (especially in the case of pregnency) and
    therefore support the right of a woman to have an abortion.  Does
    that mean that woman can have an abortion at 6 months?  7, 8, 9?
    Where do you draw the line?  The truth is that you can't draw a
    line beyond conception because that is the only distinct line between
    life and non-life.  To say that "abortion is ok up to 3 months is
    ok and after 3 months is not ok" is treading on some really thin
    ice.  Is that 3 months give or take a few hours, or a few days,
    or a few months?  Are we that smart and arrogant that we can decide
    that life becomes valid at some rather arbitrary and unexplainable
    point in time (eg. 3 months)?  Conception is the only reasonable
    starting point for valid life as far as I can see as a rational,
    logical, intellectual, HUMBLE human being.  Saying it starts at
    3 months is saying that I am omniscient (is that the right word?).
    
    I think it's wrong to crucify women who have had abortions.  The
    ones who should be crucified are the people who offer no support
    (financial, emotional, physical) to the woman who (I) believe is
    carrying a human being with rights.
    
    Finally, although my religion tells me that abortion is wrong, it
    is not motivating factor for my beliefs.  People who say we should
    not legislate morality are treading on thin ice.  Have we legislated
    morality in terms of general human rights (eg. theft, murder, etc)??
    I see abortion as a human rights issue.  I don't have this innate
    male desire to tell woman what they can't and what they can do,
    but I do feel a need to stand up for the rights of other human
    beings (fetus plural).
    
    Have a good weekend,
    
    tim
    

    Well, from a Biological point of view there is a reasonable cut
    of time for an abortion..the time when the fetus could survive
    outside of the womb. This is, I believe the rational behind the
    differing restrictions on first, second and third semester abortions.
    
    Todate, the earliest a fetus can be kept alive is around 21 weeks.
    Earlier than that the lungs cannot absorb oxgen, they are not
    mature enough and there is no current way to keep the fetus alive.
    (Interestingly enough one of the side effects of the anitabortion
    lobby is the cut back on prenatal research ...which would ultimately
    produce ways to keep younger and younger babies alive.)
    
    By the way I am the mother of four children who were conceived
    out of marriage and whose mother gave them up for adoption. I am
    also the mother of a child who I carried in my womb. I am eternally
    grateful to the women who gave my children life but I would never
    ask a woman to bear a child to give it away..adoption is not always
    an emotionally viable option.  My 13 year old son, by the way, is
    the result, as near as we can guess, of a failed abortion attempt.
    He is physically deformed, i.e. he is microcephalic (his skull and
    brain are very small) which has made him mildly retarded, his eyes
    are also malformed which has made him legally blind, plus he has
    other abnormalities of the feet, anus, teeth, etc. His mother could
    have had an abortion under Mass law but she found out (by my guess)
    too late that the father (this was his second child by her and she
    was only 19 when my son was born) wasn't going to get a divorce
    and marry her.
    
    In this week's Newsweek there was an article on a 27 year study
    on the effects of the refusal of an abortion on the way the child
    was treated. The study took place in Checkoslovakia. It followed
    the lives of the children of 220 women who were refused abortions
    in 1960-61 and 220 children born in the same time period who were
    from 'wanted' pregancies.

    The report showed that a disproportionally high number of the
    children who were born as the result of twice denied abortions
    were anti social, in trouble with the law, and showed all the other
    signs of children whose mother did not adequately care for or love
    their child.
    
    For those of you who feel that you must deny abortion on religous
    grounds.
    
    How many pregnant mothers have you helped?
    
    How many children have you adopted?
    
    What kinds of funds have you contributed to supporting adoption
    counceling etc.?
    
    How many unwanted foster kids have you taken in?
    
    Have you been encouraging teenagers to 'just say no'? Have you
    been teaching birth control as well as responsibility?
    
    Bonnie
    
    p.s. the only 'have to marriage' in my family in two generations,
    was the cousin whose father raised him as a strict Christian 
    fundamentalist..he said afterwards..the man is now 50...that he
    had so little idea about what sex was for that he and his wife
    had no idea that they could get pregnant that way. So I don't really
    think that keeping kids ignorant will keep them chaste.

    RE:97 etal
    Might I say something?  In reguards to the "unhealthy fetus", Did
    you know FOR A FACT that the fetus was unhealthy?
    
    My reason for asking is thiss;  Mel and I have a wonderful child.
    Upon a MUTUAL decision to wait for a while to have our second and
    last child, Mel became pregnant.  Her doctor (female) told US that
    due to the fact that the "child" was concieved while on the pill,
    there WAS a "possible" risk of having an abnormal child.
    
    With that she requested me to leave the room.  Mel said IN NO UNCERTAIN
    TERMS that I will stay. "This pertains to the both of us".  She
    then began talking to Mel as if I wasnt there...discussion?  to
    abort or not.
    
    Mel and I are we both appauled by the "professional" attitude of
    this person.  Question #1  Did I have a "right" to be there??? 
    YOU DAMN RIGHT I DID!!
    
    Now, we are both "against" abortion to an extent.  To what extent
    you ask?  situations such as rape comes to the top of OUR list.
    
    Without getting into a whole bunch of hog crud, the bulk of the
    story is that we decided that no matter what the child was, how
    he/she "looked", acted wor whatever.  IT IS STILL A LIFE.
                                          
    Needless to say, Ashleigh arrived 100% healthy with NO abnormalities
    at all!  YES, We were lucky.
    
    I am not, in any shape or form, slandering you for your 
    feelings/ideas/attitudes.  I am just making a statement based on
    PERSONAL opinions and experiences.  

re:99    
>    Hm.  That is about twice the national rate.
>    
>    The implications of this are interesting.  Does this mean that
>    Mass. female heads of households who have been married are enough
>    better off than the national average that they don't have to
>    accept AFDC payments for their children?  Or that conditions in
>    Massachusetts are so much worse for never-married mothers that
>    more of them have to go on welfare? 

    Bonnie, let me clarify one thing. Chester Atkins was on a radio
    talk show promoting Gov. Dukakis's ET (education & Training)
    program for welfare recipients. This is an election year and
    with Gov. Dukakis in the running, I don't know if the stats are
    slanted. But they did seem consistent, with the women I know, that
    were on welfare for an average of 6 weeks.
       
>    But let me ask a reverse of the question of whether the father
>    should pay to support a child he doesn't want:  if the woman wants
>    an abortion, but the man doesn't, do you think it's fair of the
>    woman to say, "All right, I'll carry the child, but you'll have to
>    raise it.  You take it and I never want to see either of you
>    again, and if you back out on the agreement, I'm giving it up for
>    adoption"???
    
    To answer this I would have to say that I'm just to old fashion
    to understand how a father would not willingly support his child,
    but then I can't understand a man not wanting to marry the woman
    he sleeps with either. I beleive the man should support the child and the
    mother while she can't work, both financially and emotionaly, but 
    again I'm old fashion. The innocent victim in the whole afair is
    the baby. They cannot destroy it to rectify the mistake made. The both 
    of them will have to endure the pain, and try to minimize the pain for 
    the child.
    
    Peace
    Jim
     
    

    
    re.103
    
    Believe me, I spoke to numerous doctors regarding the health of
    the fetus.  The pill was not the only drug involved.  It was
    the tetracycline that was supposed to do the most developmental
    damage.  However,  the health of the fetus was only one reason
    why we aborted.  There were many other factors that came into 
    play to consider when making our decision.  I will not get into
    them here because it is personal business.  
    
    I think that alot of people just assume that the only reason woman
    abort is because they don't want the child.  That is one reason
    for many woman, but there are a whole spectrum of reasons which
    affect the decisions.  Again each case is different.  The thing
    that really hurt me was that I really wanted to keep our child.
    But in my heart and in my mind, I know that we both made the right
    decision for us.
    
    There are many tests available to determine the health of a fetus
    at a relatively young age 10-12 weeks.  However,  most of these
    tests are highly contriversial and expensive.  They have not been
    approved for public use by the government.  But in the future,
    these tests will be very valuable to pregnant woman.  They will
    be able to determine if the fetus is not healthy.  Thus allowing
    for "corrections" to be made.  By corrections I mean if a fetus
    is found to have a disease which is curable, the cure can be in
    some cases "given" to the fetus.  These tests may be able to save
    children from possibly death and/or abnormalities.  Unfortunately,
    it will be a while before we begin to see a regular use of these
    tests.  Please don't ask me to list what these tests are because
    I was told of them by medical professionals two years ago, and
    I honestly don't remember any names.

    
    re.104
    >They cannot destroy it to rectify the mistake made.
    
    Abortion is not rectifying a pregnancy.  Rectify is defined as
    to make right, to correct.  
    
    There is no such thing as rectifying or correcting a pregnancy.
    I honestly don't think pregnancy can be wrong.  It can be unwanted
    and/or unplanned or even unexpected.  But to say that it is wrong?
    
    Abortion is an option of how to proceed with a pregnancy.
    It is an option to stop a pregnancy, but it is thank god still an
    option.  

    re:106
    When two people who do not love each other have sex and a pregnancy results
    in it,  the pregnancy is a result of the mistake of having sex
    without love and commitment. Some people in this case try to use abortion to
    rectify the mistake having of sex without love and commitment. Of course,
    rectify as defined, is to make right or correct. Abortion dose not
    make anything right or correct.
    
    Jim

     If the father wants the child then the abortion ought to be forbidden. 

    Re: .108
    
         It sounds good for us men, but as the point was brought up
    before, how do we force the woman to carry the potential child to
    term?
    
                                        Greg

    re: .109
    
    remove their brains for the duration?
    
    (how does one make a sadly wistful smiley face?)
    
    -Jody
    

    re.102
    
    	Bonnie,  as I understand it, the pro-choice advocates say that
    the right of a woman to have an abortion is based on her right to
    control her own body.  If this is true, then it would seem logical
    that they would support a woman's right to an abortion at any time
    while the fetus is inside her body.  To begin qualifying when it
    is "kosher" to have an abortion based on trimester, weeks pregnent,
    ability of fetus to live outside of womb, etc. is ludicrous.  If
    we say that an abortion can only be performed before 21 weeks, does
    that mean that the abortion can't be performed at 21 weeks and 4
    days?  At X weeks, does the right of the fetus to live become greater 
    that the right of the woman to control her body?
    
    	Please, if you insist on "the right to control her body" argument,
    then be consistent (I will respect people for consistent beliefs
    even if they are totally counter to my beliefs).
    
    	I don't care what research has come out of the medical research
    labs.  When people start saying that valid life begins at some non-discrete
    point in time then I think we are sorely searching for some
    illogical justification of abortion.
    
    tim

    re .103
    
    I don't think that pro-choice advocates are a monolith who
    all agree to the same things. It is entirely possible to
    make a distinction between when the fetus could live and
    is a child and when it could not.
    
    and what about the rest of the points that I made?
    
    Bonnie

    As far as the possibility of third trimester abortions go, I still
    say that the woman has the right to control her body.  However,
    at this phase of development, you can induce labor, and she can
    give birth to a viable baby.  You can view induced labor or cecerean
    births as a form of abortion too.  Most people don't view these
    as wrong, yet they are unnatural termination of a pregnancy.
    
    If you really want to bring biblical morality into this, it is clear
    from the Old Testimant laws that a fetus is not the same thing as a
    born human.  Look at the laws about what someone has to pay if someone
    causes a woman to have a miscarriage.  It is a lot less than if they
    cause someone to die (men in a fight, owner of a goring ox, other
    laws). So your religious grounds arguments just don't hold water. 
    
    As far as does the right to control your body deprive someone else
    of right to life - it sure does.  Rape is a control of body issue.
    Most people (including the laws in many states) give the individual
    the right to fight off a rape with lethal force.  So, yes, the woman's
    right to her body does indeed supersede the rights to life of those
    (rapist or fetus) who try to invade it against her will.
    
    Elizabeth

    Re: .113
    
         Could you give directions to the Biblical references you made?
    
                                  Greg

    I would like to add one point here. Doctors  can only 
    determine the age of a fetus before it is born with in a 
    two week span. When my wife went into labor prematurely
    they could only determine the age of the fetus to be between
    28 weeks and 32 weeks, based on the size of the baby, and
    the date my wife told them she felt she conceived. That was
    a four week span. What happens when the abortion clinic tells the
    mother she is 18 weeks pregnant, but she is realy 22 weeks ?
    They also told us that he would not survive.
    He's is seven years old today. Based on the argument that abortion
    should be allowed up until the fetus could survive on its own, a
    baby that was the same age as my son, could have been aborted, at
    one time.
    Is life valued by technologies ablilty to save the baby ? 
    Right now they say 21 weeks is the earliest that a baby can
    survive. What about the future when a 15 week baby can survive ?
    Does a baby have more rights to life in the future than now ?
    I would like to know how many weeks is a tri-mester, being that
    a full term pregnancy is 40 weeks. Is it 13.333 weeks ? That would
    mean the second tri-mester is 26.666 weeks. I've seen 21 week babies
    that have survived. They'er usually about 1.5lbs have finger nails
    hair, and look transparent, but look everything like a human being. 
    I can't imagine how someone could abort a 21week baby.

    Jim

	I'm sorry, but I don't have time to read all 115 replies...

	Here's a quick point for you. The NJ Supreme Court ruled recently
	that a doctor could not be sued for wrongful death in the case of a
	stillborn baby, since the baby was considered until birth a part of the 
	mother, not a separate entity. Now, what does this decision, if upheld,
	do to the two sides of the abortion issue? It seems to shoot down the
	pro-lifes fairly convincingly, tho' I don't suppose that'll stop them
	for trying to outlaw abortion 8`(.

	A side note: what happens if the decision is reversed? My guess is we'll
	see a precipitous drop in the number of OB/GYNs.

--axe--

    Re: .116
    
    Unfortunately for your theory, there have been cases in other states
    that came to the exact opposite conclusion.  One I recall is an
    auto accident where the mother lived but the unborn baby died -
    the driver at fault was charged with manslaughter and the state
    court upheld the legality of that.
    
    There is already a big drop in the number of OBs, as the liability
    insurance costs for them have escalated beyond all reason.
    
    				Steve

    RE:  .113
    
    In regards to third trimester inducing labor or cessarian section
    being a form of abortion.  The big difference is that in abortions
    the purpose is to end a life and the others are to save a life.
    What about the late second or third trimester abortion which is
    unsucessful.  By unsucessful I mean the fetus is born living and
    breathing.  There have been some of these cases reported (speculation
    is that many more are not reported)  In almost all of these cases
    the doctor either smothers the baby or does nothing at all to help
    the baby until it breathes its last.  Is this murder or part of
    the abortion process.  
    
    <As far as does the right to control your body deprive someone else    >
    <of right to life-sure it does.  Rape is a control of body issue.      >
    <Most people (including the laws in many states) give the individual   >
    <the right to fight off a rape with lethal force.  So, yes, the woman's>
    <right to her body does indeed supersede the rights to life of those   >
    <(rapist or fetus) who try yo invade it against her will.              >
    
    Are you really comparing a rapist to an unborn child who was concieved
    by two consenting adults?  This is the most ridiculous analogy I've
    ever heard.  The first part of your paragraph suggests that you
    are more important than others.  You don't have an obligation to
    help someone else in a life or death situation.  I disagree.  The
    last part of your paragraph suggests that the fetus invades your
    body against your will.  If you willingly had intercourse, you have
    made the commitment right then and there of the possibility of
    conception.  Don't do the act if you cannot make the commitment.
    
                                        Mike

    Re Biblical reference.  I'll look it up when I can.  Be patient.
    As I remember, it is either in Exodus or Numbers.
    
    Re .113:  
    
    As far as I'm concerned the purpose for an abortion is to end the
    pregnancy.  Usually (especially in the case of early abortions) this
    means that the fetus dies.  In a later abortion, the fetus can be (and
    should be) saved, and given a home if his parents don't want him. Thus,
    induced labor is still an abortion, the fetus is saved.  Third
    trimester abortions are extremely rare, and are still illegal in
    most places.  As far as unscruptulous doctors, I've heard reports
    of some doctors not helping a normally born, deformed child to live.
    This is wrong too. 
    
    Yes, I am equating an unwanted pregnancy, where reasonable precautions
    have been taken to prevent conception, as an unwanted intruder into
    the mother's body who has no rights.  I realize that we will continue
    to disagree as long as you view the sole purpose for sex as procreative
    and I view it as pair-bonding with procreation as an occasional
    happening.  Also, what about the case where intercourse was *not*
    willing?  If you are opposed to abortion on the basis of the rights
    of the fetus, you must certainly admit that the rape was not the
    fault of the fetus.  It really does sound to me like you are viewing
    pregnancy as punishment for women having sex.
    
    Elizabeth

re; .118

>the most ridiculous analogy I've
>ever heard.  

>suggests that you
>are more important than others.  


I notice you tend to use judgemental words, which tends to put you in a 
position where it comes off like you think your opinion is the only one worth 
listening to.  A lot of what I would call "words to try and get an emotional 
charge out of the opponent" are used.  I suggest that judgemental and/or 
"charged" language like this is probably not helping you to win this argument.
Do you think that you can state your case clearly and calmly, without the 
judgement calls?  I can definitely see from where you are coming, and how you 
think; I'd just prefer it if it didn't feel like you were trying to shame 
others.

Thank you for any consideration in this matter

    in re .120 
    
    well spoken, thanks
    
    B

    RE: last 2 and .117- In retrospect I see you are right.  My apologies
    for the way it was expressed and the way it sounded.  I can see
    your point and it is well taken.  It is hard for me not to get
    emotional on this issue.  Yes, it come from the way I look at things.
    I think Elizabeth is correct in that bonding between two people
    is a very important part of making love, but the child is even a
    more bonding product of that love making than the act itself could
    ever be.
    
    In closing, I apologize again for anything I said which was offensive,
    in the future I will try to be more diplomatic in my presentation.
    
                                                 Sincerely,
                                                 Mike

    
    Mike,
    
    Reading over the last few notes I can't see the reason you were
    chastised.  If you feel strongly about a life and death issue
    you should be forceful.  People have no right to use your style
    as fuel for their argument.  You felt compulse to back down from
    your way but make it clear that the points you make are valid.
    Until someone can prove that abortion is not murder then people
    must speak up.  
    
    Ken P...

    RE: -1  Thanks for the support Ken.  I want to make it clear that
    my position is the same and I believe this with all my heart.  I
    just don't want to offend anyone.
    
    I think it may help if I explain why I believe what I do.  The reasons
    are twofold: 1) It's against my religious beliefs @ 2) It's against
    my humanistic beliefs.
    
    I know that people are going to be held accountable for what they
    do, and I don't want anyone to have that on there resume when they
    go before the Lord.  I know that if they see what they have done
    as wrong, and are sorrowful then God will forgive them.  
    
    Killing is wrong, and with all of the research I have done on the
    subject, I have come to the conclusion that it is killing a human
    being.  People ask me if my wife were raped, then what?  It's a
    tough one, and I have given it alot of thought.  I would keep the
    child as my own.  The child is not the guilty party, the rapist
    is.  If I found the rapist, I would like to think that I'd let the
    Lord deal with him, but I'm afraid I am not that strong.
    
                                            Mike

    
    Re .124
    
    Your last line suggests that you would contemplete revenge upon
    the rapist . What form this revenge takes , only you know .
    
    If it was along the lines of 'ripping his head off' , would that
    not go against your beliefs/convictions ?
    
    And *you* might want the child , but what about your wife ?
    
    
    John J

    Mike,
    
    The reasons why you oppose abortion in all cases has been clear
    to me from the beginning. I can especially understand why it is
    against your religious beliefs, being brought up as a catholic I'm
    familiar with a few Christian values. Without going into that much
    now, I can say I still see the reason for many of these values.
    
    On a humanistic point of view I can agree with you that no matter
    how you view it, abortion basically deals with the terminating of
    a human life, something that can be viewed as 'wrong'.
    
    The problem is, society isn't as simple any more as it used to be.
    In earlier times, when amongst others strict role patterns ruled,
    the needs of people in that society were different. Nowadays, these
    things have changed, and science has provided us with choices, amongst
    which even the choice to terminate the existance of the entire planet.
                                                                         
    We are asked to deal with this, and each of us does that in the
    best way possible, following the rules and ethics we've aquired
    during our lifes. 
    
    If I *have* to make a statement here, I'd rather not say I'm
    pro-abortion. In my heart, I wouldn't want it to happen. On the
    other hand it happens, and it is done by people who feel the same
    as me and wouldn't want it to happen either. Just conveniently
    forgetting about the abortion for medical reasons and talking about
    abortion after a rape, or just an accident that may happen to a
    woman, forcing her into a lifetime commitment without giving her
    a choice only means to me saving a life while imprisoning another
    in a life-time sentence. 
    
    Neither choice is a choice I want to make for somebody else. If
    I were a woman, faced with the choice, it would be a very difficult
    decision and I couldn't say beforehand what the final choice would
    be. The only thing I could say about it is that I would make it
    taking as many things as possible into consideration, and it would
    be 'the right choice' up to the best I can do at that moment.
    
    I have to trust people making that choice. Ofcourse, as always,
    a very small minority will take advantage of the situation, but
    I don't think I can judge that situations. 
    
    The thing that appals me most in these kind of discussions is the
    fact anti-abortionists state again and again the horribility of
    abortion, taking it to whatever extreme is necessary to reach a
    point where emotion says "We don't want that". It happened in this
    file again. The effect is that people who do not value life anything
    less than you do, are being painted as conciousness-less babykillers
    while all they want is to give somebody a chance to live a life
    in a way that gives some happiness, without a lifetime commitment
    to something they can't handle. Remember there are people who, equally
    sure as you know you will face your Lord, know there is only one
    life on this earth and that's *it*.
                                       
    As to counter your very own example you mention the possibility
    of your wife being raped. I can feel no else but respect for the
    way you will handle the situation. Still, I want to remind you in
    this very situation she still has your support. There are people
    who do _not_ get this support. 
                
    Not all abortions done would have been done if there were alternatives.
    Alternatives are blocked by many other forces in society. Abortions
    are done because people were not good informed about sex. Abortions
    are done because because a contraceptive fails. Abortions are done
    because 'daddy' gets cold feet and runs off, comfortably protected
    by the inability to prove he is the father. And a number of abortions
    would not take place if the mother could put the child up for adoption
    without taking on a legal hassle of the most serious kind, apart
    from all the peers racing towards her to be the first one to tell
    her how egocentric she is.
    These are problems that can be addressed *now*.
    
    No matter how much I can see and respect your points, for me remains
    that a choice must be necessary. I have seen "The Silent Scream".
    
    Ad 

    RE:.125
    
    I am afraid that I would do something to the rapist which would
    prove me to be weak as I said in my note.  I don't know if I would
    .357 his head off, but I would make sure that noone else would be
    a victim of his sexual deviance. Castration maybe?  Who knows.
    As far as my wife goes, we have discussed this subject also.  She
    said that she would have the baby and put it up for adoption.  A
    few minutes later she said that, after carrying the baby for 9 months,
    she doesn't think that she would be able to put him/her up for
    adoption.  Incidentally, I, sa well as anyone else can only speculate
    what they would do in a situation such as this unless they have
    lived through it.  I feel quite sure about what I would do, but I have 
    not experienced the situation and feel it is only fair to acknowledge this.
                                                     
    RE: .126  You have alot of valid points in your note.  I see alot
    of thoughts which I had in dealing with the decision making process.
    Not to nitpick, but you said that for the child to have the right
    to life it would imprison someone to a lifetime sentence.  This
    is resolved with one word, adoption.  You may now say that after
    nine months they might not be able to give it up for adoption. 
    If this is the case is the situation not converted from a prison
    sentence to something positive.  I just don't see how the innocent
    child should be made to sacrifice their entire lifetime for something
    which they had no control over.  If the woman definately does not
    want to be a parent, then they are forced to put up with nine months
    of inconvenience (I think prison sentence is too strong a word whereas
    inconvenience is too soft, somewhere in the middle).  They took
    that chance when they decided to have intercourse.  Since no method
    of birth control is 100% effective, they did take the chance.  I
    realize that in the case of rape, this argument is not valid.  However,
    of the 1 million abortions a year performed in the United States,
    less than 1/10 of 1% or.001 of the abortions performed are as a
    result of the woman being raped.  This is very much the exception,
    not the rule.
    
                                            Mike

re:< Note 261.127 by GRANMA::MWANNEMACHER >
    
>					If the woman definately does not
>    want to be a parent, then they are forced to put up with nine months
>    of inconvenience (I think prison sentence is too strong a word whereas
>    inconvenience is too soft, somewhere in the middle).  

How 'bout you spend 9 months under house arrest for every woman you force
to "put up with nine months of inconvenience". I mean geez, it's not a
prison sentence, just a little inconvenient. You've had sex before so that's
the price you pay right? I think you have no right to "force" any woman
(especially one that you've never met and know nothing about) to put up
with anything that "they" don't want to.

Jenna

    RE 127,
    
    Mike, I noted adoption as an alternative for abortion, but as far
    as Holland is considered there are quite some legal issues peeking
    around the corner there. Also, again the necessary peer judgement
    will come up again with the argument the mother is selfish, while
    all she did was _not_ opting for abortion. I have to add to that
    that I can see some potential troubles again, an easy adoption law
    would give way to other forms of abuse but that's another discussion.
                                                                         
    Secondly, I did understand the morning-after pill is often used      
    after a rape (at least in Holland the thing is known as 'morning     
    after pill' - no Dutch word - but it's the pills that boosts up      
    all hormones to force a menstruation) and if I'm correctly at least  
    in strict anti-abortionist eyes this must equal abortion. This is    
    not registered as abortion though. But I must say, I haven't got     
    all the figures at hand :-}.                                         
                                                                         
    Ad

    Let me add to that last note that _I_ for one don't know the answer
    to all questions. Adoption as a good option may be considerable
    though for some. For others, it may not be. There are emotional
    things playing too, f.e. you live the rest of your life knowing
    you have a child somewhere. 
    
    But I do see it as something that can help... 
    
    Ad

    RE: .127
    
    Why must you pick and chose what you quote from my note?  I said
    that it's somewhere between a prison sentence and an inconvenience.
    
    As far as spending 9 months under house arrest for every woman I
    force to put up with nine months of inconvenience.  See above. 
    
    "You've had sex so that's the price you pay, right?"  I guess in
    oversimplistic terms, right.  It's a helluva lot better than
    sacrificing all of someone elses life.  Why do you have the right
    to deprive them of that?  Why do you think you have the right to 
    decide whether a person should be able to their life? You take the
    chance and participate in the act, yet they pay for it with their
    lives.  That's a situation I would like to be in all of the time
    although  It doesn't work that way.  There are easy ways out, however, 
    they usually turn out to be the hard way out. 
                                                 
    RE: Ad 
    Thanks Ad.  It is interesting to find out the problems which are
    encounered in other parts of the world with regards to this issue.
     
                                                  Mike

    # .128 is the one I was responding to. sorry.
    
                                                 Mike

After reading .0, and all subsequent replies, I tend to agree with Mike W.:
the man *has* to have a say.  He had one initially..

For the women out there who insist that they have a right to decide what
they do with their body, where were you when the decision was made for the
man to enter your body?  Rape aside, you consented, correct?  But now you're
pregnant - regardless of how much discussion took place beforehand - and
now you feel you have the _final say_?  Rubbish.

Also, many women in this topic have asked, Where was the man when birth
control should have been considered?  I ask, Where was the woman, who has
*such* control over her body?  Being the one who has the potential to become
pregnant, perhaps *you* should be _more than_ 50% liable for YOUR OWN
protection if you don't want the baby.  See, when I go out in the rain and
I want to stay dry, I expect NO ONE ELSE to furnish me with a rain coat
(P.F.I.).

As far as having your body "invaded" by something you don't want... I think
I saw that in a Sci.Fi. flick once.  Being pregnant can hardly be considered
being "invaded".  (Woman to female friend: My body has been invaded.  Somehow, 
I suddenly and foolishly became pregnant.  Friend: Now, how could _that_ have
happened?)

Kip  ("Keep everything as simple as possible, but not too simple") A. Einstein

    
    
      The scariest part of extending the famous womans argument that
      'no one is going to tell her she can't end a life in her body'
      is taking evidence on the talk show circuit.  These are woman
      who have shot their babies heads off because of 'post natal
      hormone conditions'.  These woman do not get charged and get
      away with murder.  So if the woman is allowed to abort at will,
      then she has the right to murder her baby,can she kill her child
      legally as well?
    

    Re: .135
    
    This is a new one on me.  I cannot see how these women could
    avoid getting charged with murder, though they might plead insanity.
    I've never read of any case such as you describe, however, and it
    sure sounds like something that would make the major news outlets.
    
    				Steve

    RE: -1
    
    I have heard of such things happening.  They are as a result of
    post-partum depression, I think.  I don't know a whole lot about
    this subject however.
    
                                                    Mike

       	Although I've never experienced post-partum depression, I have
    	done some reading on the subject.
    
    	In the most serious cases, women seek therapy and are in some
    	danger of committing suicide, but never has there been a common
    	tendency to kill one's baby in the unbelievably violent method
    	mentioned a few notes back.
    
    	That sort of story comes from a grisly sensationalism (the kind
    	that sells certain kinds of daytime talkshows and newspapers.)
    
	Post-partum depression is an illness (like many others) and
    	it is real.  It can result in tragedy, but I would hope that
    	no one in this conference feels the need to gloat about such
    	things (and intends to use them somehow to make cases for 
    	other political issues involving women.)

    	I have seen a couple of shows dealing with this phenomena
    of mothers killing their children. There were 4-6 of these women
    on the "Donahue" program and the subject was again viewed on a 
    night time show (West 57th, 20/20 or something). The fear of this
    is that a mother may just use this as a defense. The mothers who
    killed their children were a series of pressure situations at home
    day after day and lost control. There is a scientific methodology
    that has studied the phases and steps to this horror. The mothers
    suffer pretty badly after the death and realization, but the fact
    still remain that they can have more kids and the cycle can repeat
    itself.
    	
    	As to the original note:
    	I don't think that either side of this issue can convince the
    other that they are right. Those that are pro-life will find no
    real merit in anything that ends the life that can be given to any
    fetus. The pro-abortion side does not want any doubt to creep into
    what they believe is a right to control one's body. If those beliefs
    are compromised in anyway (either side) then what was so rational
    before is now irrational. I think the subject should be allowed
    to rest unless new information or a totally different concept can
    be introduced.
    
    Ken 

    RE:-1  I'm sorry, but what is in my heart and my soul won't let
    me let it rest and let millions of innocent lives be taken, especailly
    when they can't defend themselves.
    
           Peace,
           Mike

    Re: .140
    
         Don't worry about it.  I have yet to see an opinion which did
    not have the right to be seen.
    
                                   Greg

    
    
    It is an issue that can't be set to rest.  As long as people think
    that innocent babies are being murdered how can our conscience let
    it go on quietly.  Your saying in essence ignore the holocaust it 
    is not that bad........wrong.......i'll risk the negative opinions
    i may muster by re-emphasizing that tri-mester is a term the medical
    profession made up to disguise murder first degree.
    
    Ken P...          

    
    sounds like some *are* letting it rest...

    Why fight a never ending battle???

    RE: -1
            As long as people don't feel the way you do, there is plenty
    of room for debate.  You say that the father should have half the
    financial oblgation for an abortion, but but no say in the decision.
    This seems more than unfair to me.  You may be making someone go
    against everything they believe in.  It sounds to me as though you
    are contradicting yourself on principles.  1) The mother has all
    of the say so whether the child is aborted regardless of what the
    father thinks. 2) The father is made to finance something that is
    against his belief.  No fair.  There is one simple answer to the
    whole problem.  No sexual intercourse until you are married.  I
    know everyone is going to flame me for this, however, after seeing
    how people have been hurt for life by being used sexually or being 
    exposed to incurable diseases or by a perspective lifetime partner
    being jealous about their boy/girlfriends past (or any combination
    of the past), there is no doubt in my mind that abstinence until 
    marriage is the best way.  It seems these days, that the sexual 
    relationship is developed first, and then (sometimes) the emotional  
    relationship is worked on, sometimes sucessfully and sometimes not.
    I know that physical attraction is very hard to resist, but the
    self control we practice will make us into better people.
    
    Mike

what ticks me about this debate is it's not a "father's rights" debate, it's
an abortion debate...

You don't necessarily want the child either, but you're willing to go to court
as one more way to prevent abortions...

Maybe this belongs in SOAPBOX instead (it probably already is there)...

--axe--

    re.147
    I understand what you're saying but dont think much would change.
    Also being married wont stop or prevent an abortion should the mother
    decide to do so I had no choice in it and neither would you should
    the woman decide she dident want the child. You and I donot matter
    when it comes to what she does with her body. After my wife aborted
    our child it was nearly impossible for me to feel close to her and
    I never trusted her again. I still hurts though.
    
    -j

    RE:.148
             If I was in the situation as described, I would want the
    child to raise on my own.  You do not have to tell me or anyone else 
    what they do or do not want.
    
    RE:.149
            We've got to keep on fighting for what is right.
    
    
    Mike

    ... since the 46 chromosomes are NOT all from the female.... perhaps
    a man should have a say in the matter after all.
    
        Perhaps, like a foreign embassy in another country, the man
    has a right to a say.
    
        ie a Woman 'owns' her body, but when a fetus is growing, she
    doesn't (completely) own that.
    
                                                     Russ

    Re: .151 (Russ)
    
>    ... since the 46 chromosomes are NOT all from the female.... perhaps a
>    man should have a say in the matter after all. 

    But Russ - didn't the man GIVE those chromosomes to the woman
    voluntarily?  A gift is a gift, and they're hers to do with as she
    pleases.  Right?
    
    Otherwise, I interpret what you are saying as that when a man
    impregnates a woman, he automatically places her in involuntary
    servitude.
    
    				Steve

    re:-1  I've heard sperm referred to alot of things in my time but
    never a gift.  I do not think that you can refer to the child which
    results fromt the union of the egg and sperm as something which
    is a posession.  It is a living being which you are obliged to support
    until they are able to support themselves.  This is a decision which
    should  be made before one engages in intercourse.  If you do not
    wish to risk becoming a parent, the only sure way is abstinence.
    If you make the decision to engage in sexual intercourse, you have
    made the decision that you will take the risk of becoming pregnant.
    Therefore, if both the man and woman are willing partners, then
    they should both have a say as to what happens to the child.  This
    brings us to the argumeent about restricting the woman for the next
    nine months.  I still say that nine months of restriction on a
    consenting person is not worth 900 months (75 years x 12 months) taken 
    away from a person who has done nothing to bring sabout their own
    existence.
    
    Mike 

    Re: .153
    
    Hmm - I guess I was a bit too subtle.  I admit I had toyed with
    the idea of writing in the style of "Miss Manners", gently rebuking
    her correspondent for having the temerity to insist that, having
    freely given the chromosomes WITHOUT the prior agreement that a
    resulting pregnancy would be a joint responsibility, the man would
    automatically have a claim on the woman's body and what she does
    with it.
    
    Of course, we are now in the area of arguing about whether the
    fertilized embryo is a "person" or not, and this is not something
    one can discuss logically.  Personally, I do NOT agree with the
    view that "personhood" begins at conception, and this, obviously
    biases my opinion on the topic of the more specific debate, just
    as your opinion to the contrary biases your own.
    
    My position is that the man OUGHT to be interested, and that the
    woman OUGHT to consider the man's interest, but the latter is not
    OBLIGED to to so.  However, in no way do I consider this a
    black-and-white issue (nothing ever is).  You can argue eternally
    over extenuating circumstances, such as the couple being married,
    etc.
    
    Russ's note implied to me an automatic obligation of the woman to
    preserve the man's interest simply because he had (unintentionally)
    impregnated her, and it with this I disagreed.
    
    				Steve

Ken P;

>    Reading over the last few notes I can't see the reason you were
>    chastised.  

Re-read .120.  Mike was not chastised.  He was constructively critisized.

>People have no right to use your style
>as fuel for their argument.  

People have a "right" to use anything they want to use in an argument, even if 
it is invalid.  However, in .120, Mike's words were not used as "fuel" for any 
argument. 

>You felt compulse to back down from
>your way but make it clear that the points you make are valid.

Mike didn't back down.  His response was specifically related to style, not 
content.

>Until someone can prove that abortion is not murder then people
>must speak up.  

Until someone can prove that abortion is murder then people must speak up.    

    
    
    I find it quite interesting that, in this discussion,
    the strongest advocates for compelling a woman to con-
    tinue an unwanted pregnancy are male.  I feel it's safe
    to assume that none of these men have ever actually ex-
    perienced pregnacy and childbirth.
    
    
                         Deborah
    
    

    Re: .156
    
    It's probably because it's the men who don't have the choice.
    
    			Steve

    
    	Re: .156
    
    	Yes, that is indeed, a safe assumption.  Although men do not
    	actually experience pregnancy and childbirth themselves, they
    	do, however, share in the responsibilities of creating a new
    	life, and the responsiblities of parenting. 
    
    	I find it interesting that, in this discussion, and elsewhere,
    	there seem to be a lot of women and men who feel that a human
    	life is less precious than convenience and comfort.  But then, of
    	course, we are all now used to going round and round with the
    	question of what constitutes human life, and then which human
    	lives we can morally and legally dispose of...so we all agree
    	to disagree and our lives go merrily on, while the number of
    	abortions in this nation increases steadily since Roe v. Wade
    	and thousands of parents are unable to adopt babies, and thousands
    	of more babies cry out for adoption by loving parents.
    
    	And advocates of the pro-choice agenda (and I am not singling
    	out any one person in this conference) continue to make facile
    	comments regarding whether or not it is appropriate for their
    	male opponets to express their misgivings about abortion, as
    	they have not personnally experienced the discomforts of pregnancy
    	and the pangs of birth.  I do not have to experience the bonds
    	of slavery or witness a state execution to say that I think
    	it is wrong.
    
    				Dave

    Deborah,
      Aren't you the same person that stated in another conference that
    children have rights???
    
    Or was that statement JUST for that spacific MAN that FELT that
    spanking his children was proper???

    
    
    Indeed, it was I.   How does that statement relate to the
    observation that I stated in this file?  I'm afraid I've
    missed the connection, or your implication.
    
                            Deb
    
    

    RE: .154 Well the discussion has gotten down to the real question
    as to whwther the fetus (or unborn child) is a person or not.  This
    is very simply answered in a very logical fashion.
    
    Things are broken down into two different categories, 1)living and
    2)non-living.
    
    The fetus has got to be in one of these two categories.  Since it
    is composed of cells which are living, I think it a safe bet to
    call it a living organism.
    
    Barring any physical or chemical intervention, the fetus will be
    born a functional human being.  Since this is the normal course
    of things, isn't the burden on the pro-abortionist to prove otherwise?
    
    People are going to say that the fetus is deendant on the mother,
    which is 100% true.  If you take a newborn child and do not feed
    and love the child, it will die.
    
    
    RE: .156  Good argument.  And since I am stronger than you and can
    take your money, I have a right to take it.  Same type of lame
    argument.  I find it quite interesting that many of the women who
    are for abortion have never been through the birthing process either.
    They have been fooled into thinking that this is a womens rights
    issue instead of a right to life issue.
    
    
    Mike
    
    RE: .158 Right on, well put.
    
    RE: .160 Then why do you not advocate the rights of unborn children?

    
    
    Well, thanks (I guess) for the compliment.  Except in .156
    I wasn't arguing.  I was simply making an observation. I'm
    sorry you chose to read it as an attack.
    
    I have not problem with being pro-choice in addition to believing
    that children have basic human rights.  I'm sorry if you have a
    problem with my beliefs and with my value system.  I don't have
    a problem with yours, as long as you don't try to force it on me.
    
    Deborah
    
    

>    Things are broken down into two different categories, 1)living and
>    2)non-living.

That depends on your culture.  The Chinese believe that there is life in a 
rock.  One can break a rock apart and there is still life there.
    
>    The fetus has got to be in one of these two categories.  Since it
>    is composed of cells which are living, I think it a safe bet to
>    call it a living organism.

The cells may be living, but there is no proof that they comprise a living 
organism.  Your bet isn't yet safe.  Is it an organism at this point, or are 
there simply living cells?  When do the cells actually make up an organism, and 
when does that organism live?  That's a really core issue in this debate.

>    Barring any physical or chemical intervention, the fetus will be
>    born a functional human being.  Since this is the normal course
>    of things, isn't the burden on the pro-abortionist to prove otherwise?

seems to me the whole argument is burdened; both sides.  Since the law 
currently favors one side, it is the other side that _legally_ is carrying the 
burden of proof.

Clarification; If Deb accepts the argument that cells, which cannot be proven 
to comprise a living organism, are not a living organism, then her support of 
the rights of children has nothing to do with supporting the rights of 
something that she does not believe is an existing organism.

    	After seeing the arguments on both sides of the issue of abortion
    and the fathers' rights (my own included), I am still troubled by
    the cavalier attitude that some people have toward abortion.
    	I understand that women want control of their bodies, but it
    seems to me that if this control is so important, why wasn't the
    pregnancy prevented? If the women wants total control, then is it
    not safe to say that she should be taking the birth control portion
    of control by using a method of control. That can be anything from
    using the pill to insisting on the man wearing a condom. On the
    other hand, if a man is positive he does not want children, is it
    not his responsibility to have a vasectomy and take that portion
    of the control in his life?
    	If you want this "control" then you must accept the responsibility
    for that "control" and use that "control" to "control" your actions.
    Simple isn't it?           
    	If you don't want children, it is your responsibility as
    intelligent, adult human beings to use some method during the sexual
    act to keep fertilization of the egg from occurring. Both men and
    women have control of the situation at this point. If they choose
    to ignore the options for preventing conception, why should the
    created being suffer the ultimate penalty of death?
    	Once conception has taken place, is it not easier to ease one's
    guilt of abortion to say "that wasn't really a baby, it's a thing
    at this stage of development."?  That's what I see this argument
    as. If one can deny that a fetus is human, that it is not a true
    human, it makes the death of that "thing" easier to accept. Once
    one accepts that the life in a woman's body is a human being then
    it's no longer pro-choice, it's murder. 
    	
    	That's the nub of it all. Thing, Fetus, Baby, Child. If you
    keep it, you're having a baby. You feel the baby move. The baby
    is poking you in the side. It's a baby. If you decide to abort it,
    it's a thing, a fetus, nothing.
       	                           
    	Ken
    
    	

    
    
    Speaking for myself (I guess that's the only person I COULD
    speak for, with any certainty), I certainly do not have a
    "cavalier" attitude about abortion.  A woman dealing with an
    unwanted pregnancy is in a catch22 situation.  Either way,
    she's going to suffer.
    
    HOWEVER-there are only two failsafe methods of birth control.
    One is abstinance.  I don't consider that an option in my life.
    The other is sterilization.  (even THAT is not 100%!)  That's
    a rather drastic measure for a young woman to face.   Many woman
    ARE responsible about birthcontrol.  What happens when the chosen
    method fails?  Is that irresponsibility?
    
    I have been pregnant, and no, my son was NOT a baby (in my mind)
    for the first few months.  He was simply a group of cells gathering
    together, growing, dividing, expanding.  
    
                           Deb
    
    

    re .152, .154   I guess what counts here first are the agreements
                  that a living couple have reached regarding the
                  decisions to be made in the event of a pregnancy-
                  a pregnancy planned or not planned.
    
                  Such decisions include the questions of the fiscal
                  responsibilities of each adult.
    
                  It is well for an unmarried man to work out the
                  extent of fiscal commitment that may involve him
                  regarding a pregnancy, support of a child born, or
                  a miscarriage, or a decision to abort.
    
                  If a couple approaches the event of a pregnancy with
                  the view that a man "has given those chromosomes"
                  to the woman "voluntarily" (ie 'freely'), then it
                  follows that that particular woman has "received"
                  those chromosomes "voluntarily" (freely).
    
                  In absence of any other agreement by said couple,
                  it follows that the woman here would assume complete
                  responsibility regarding all decisions.
    
                  Such case would include full fiscal responsibility
                  in the 4 options mentioned above.
    
                  I'll be damned if I give a "gift" to someone and if
                  they "break it" I have to pay for it.
    
                  My reasoning regarding the sharing of opinions on
                  the short or long term fate of a fetus involves
                  the belief that 2 minds made the child, and with 
                  this incarnate result, 2 minds SHOULD be involved
                  in the IMPORTANT decisions regarding this forming
                  human life.
    
                  My concern here involves the life itself - the
                  life being the focus that the couple should separate
                  their rights to their "bodies" and their rights to
                  their "rights" from.
    
                  I've really had it with all the rights talk and
                  distractions that surround this issue.
    
                  If a man and a woman conceive a child, then that life,
                  the nourishing and protection of that life, and any
                  decisions regarding that life should involve both
                  the man and the woman.
    
                  If the woman wants all of the decisions, then the
                  costs and care are all hers.
    
    
                                                       Russ

    Re .156 (Deb)
    I suppose that it's understandable that the men would be the strongest
    advocates for forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't
    want.  Look at the title of this topic.
    
    Elizabeth

    Re .164  (Ken)
    
    I totally agree with you that people *should* use some reasonably
    effective method of birth control if they don't want to become parents.
    However, what is your position on a situation where birth control
    has been used conscientiously (say the pill, foam & condoms, or
    other combinations of methods that are at least 99% effective) and
    a pregnancy happens anyway (there is that 1%)?  My position is that
    the conception was an accident (truly).  In an ideal situation,
    both parents discuss what to do, the father's feelings are considered.
    If this is not possible, or no agreement can be reached, the decision
    is ultimately the mother's on what to do with her body.  The actions
    of the man's wife who aborted after they had tried to conceive and
    didn't tell him until afterwards is clearly wrong. 
    
    Elizabeth

    Re .170
    
    Not necessarily.  A woman could be very anti-abortion for herself
    and other woman, to the point of fighting to make it illegal.  Once
    illegal (and dangerous to obtain), she is effectively forcing her
    choice on every couple.
    
    Elizabeth

    Re: .171
    
         In that case, it would be a majority of the society who would
    be doing the forcing.  It is quite implausible that a single person
    could wield such power.  
    
         I think Mike was speaking on the level of the two individuals
    directly involved.
    
                                       Greg

    
    
    
    However, the notes which prompted me to make that observation
    were not a discussion of a father's rights, but rather, a dis-
    cussion on abortion in general, and how wrong it is.
    
    Deborah
    
    

    Of course!  Why would we want to discuss something as awful and
    arbitrary (sp) as...gawk...mens rights.
    
    Comments like that piss me off!

    
    	It's really funny to note that not a single woman that has
    	said it's the woman's choice (which I agree with BTW) has
    	also said the same thing about the mans choice to support 
    	the child or not.
    
    	I hear "a woman has the say even when the couple is married"
    
    	I never hear "well, he doesn't want a child and I do, therefore
    	I shouldn't expect him to pay for it for 18-21 years"
    	In all the cases I've heard people talk about where it's the
    	man who doesn't want a child, but the woman does, the woman
    	never say they support the mans right not to pay. This is always
    	put as "well, he made the child, he should support it". Fine,
    	let continue this line and say further, she helped make the
    	child, therefore she should be made to not abort it.

    RE: .173
              When I started the base note, I had a pretty good idea
    that the discussion would turn to abortion in general.  In all of
    the notes which I have participated in, the discussions (topics)
    go from one thing to another and usually find the key to the
    controversy.  The key to the contraversy in this issue ,the fathers
    rights issue, is the same key which is involved in the whole abortion
    issue.  
    
    Is the unborn child a part of the womans anatomy or a seperate living
    being who the father helped create?
    
    This is the big question.  I have yet to see the people in favor
    of abortion come up with scientific and spiritual evidence which
    suggests that the unborn child is not a seperate living entity.
    The pro-life people have both.  I have been in this controversy 
    for many years.  I've heard many organizations (mainly womens 
    organizations) try and argue their points, and they always lose. 
    They always use the arguments which hold no water.  They say they
    should have control over their body but cannot prove that the unborn
    child is part of their body.  It is in their body, but not part
    of it.  If it was part of their body it would not be born after
    gestation and fetal development is complete.  I read a story this
    weekend about a baby which was born at 22 weeks and is a happy 7
    year old now.  I also read about the 16 week pregnant woman who was in
    a car accident and was brain dead.  They kept her alive on a respirator
    and fed her intraveniously.  The child was born happy and healthy.
    The thing that really upsets me about this whole thing is that the
    innocent, unborn child is the one who has to pay the supreme cost,
    his/her life.  If you want to destroy your life, go ahead, but don't
    take the liberty of destroying someone elses.  If you want to know
    the whole story than contact WEBA (woman exploited by abortion)
    and ask them about the process.  See the movies, "The Silent Scream"
    and "Eclipse of Reason" and you will see what really happens when
    an abortion is performed.  It's not a pretty sight.  Most people
    are moved to tears.  Some womens organization say these movies are
    sensationalistic.  If a a movie of the procedure is sensationalistic,
    it is because the procedure is shown for what it really is.  
    
    Sorry I rambled on so much, but I feel (as I'm sure you can see)
    as though that we (the human race) are involved in the most heinous
    crime ever committed.  
    
    Peace,
    Mike

    
    
    I see.  So in your opinion, women are just incubators with legs.
    
    Deborah
    
    

    Re: .176
    
    "scientific and spiritual evidence"?  Argument by mysticism, eh?
    Haven't seen that one in a while.  Also, any "scientific" evidence
    is simply observations colored by the observer's particular
    views on the subject.  This is not a matter that can be analyzed
    in a chemistry laboratory.
    
    					Steve

    .177  I have too much respect for people to make a comment such
    as that.  I have stated fact as far as the brain dead woman goes,
    if that is your conclusion (it isn't mine) then so be it.
    
    .178  I'm sorry Steve but it is something which can and has been
    proven in the laboratory.  The fetus from day one is a livin organism.
    
                                                    Mike

    Re: .180
    
>    .178  I'm sorry Steve but it is something which can and has been
>    proven in the laboratory.  The fetus from day one is a living organism.

     So is a turnip.  But that's not the point.  Does your scientific
    and spiritual evidence prove that the fertilized embryo is a human
    being?  A person?  You can't prove these things, you can only
    form opinions based on your own set of beliefs and philosophies.
    And different people have different sets.
    
    I am not trying to argue you out of your position - I'm just trying
    to show you that you can't plausibly "prove" your view (and neither
    can I prove mine).
    
    In our society, nothing is provably moral or immoral - we base our
    laws and customs on the sentiments of a clear majority of the people.
    And what is perfectly reasonable to our culture may be perfectly
    abhorrent to another.  It's all a matter of opinion.  
    
    The subject under discussion is a particularly nasty one, because
    it involves an unanswerable question - when does a human being start
    being human?  In my view, the choice of "at fertilization" is no more
    obvious than "when the mother is born" (since she is born with her
    full complement of eggs).  But I haven't heard anyone argue seriously
    that menstruation is killing unborn babies.  (Then again, perhaps
    the Catholic Church is basically arguing this in their stand against
    birth control.)
    
    If a majority of Americans believed as you do, Mike, then there
    would be little argument about the subject.  But that is not the
    case - there are significant numbers on both sides.  And thus
    eternal wrangling.  You say you have "proof", I say you don't.
    That's what it comes down to.
    
    					Steve

    Re: .181
    
>    I am not trying to argue you out of your position - I'm just trying
>    to show you that you can't plausibly "prove" your view (and neither
>    can I prove mine).

    steve...just because you deny the plausibility of such proofs, does
    not meant they don't exist....
    
>    In our society, nothing is provably moral or immoral - we base our
>    laws and customs on the sentiments of a clear majority of the people.
>    And what is perfectly reasonable to our culture may be perfectly
>    abhorrent to another.  It's all a matter of opinion.  

    perhaps this is a clue to what the problem might be. I do not subscribe
    to the concept that the "majority of the people" dictate all of
    what is right or wrong.  i have stated (in other notes) that we,
    as a society, have decided to replace what were once a few absolutes
    with a new set of rules that are founded on what is expedient.

>    If a majority of Americans believed as you do, Mike, then there
>    would be little argument about the subject.  But that is not the
>    case - there are significant numbers on both sides.  And thus
>    eternal wrangling.  You say you have "proof", I say you don't.
>    That's what it comes down to.
 
    steve, i think you are wrong to equate morality with democracy.
    the arguement that the majority of folks feel one way or another
    about a particular issue does *not* make that issue any less or
    any more moral or even right/wrong.  it only changes the *legality*
    of it.   

    tony

        Coming full circle, to the main topic . . . .
  
        Anti-abortion legislation eliminates any rights the father has
        when a couple is faced with a potential abortion.  Where there
        is no choice, there is no right.

        The debate on when a fetus becomes a human being will never
	be over.  No one has defined exactly what makes a being human,
	and I don't believe a universally accepted definition is possible.

	If abortion is prohibited, the probability of killing a human being
	is eliminated (save for illegal abortions).  The price of this
	is forcing women to endure pregnancy, and the associated dangers and
	inconveniences, and forcing the child to possibly be unwanted,
	unloved, and uncared for.

	If abortion is allowed, neglected children will be less commonplace,
	and society will be more productive and content.  The price of this
	is the possibility that human beings are killed.

	Laws which prohibit an action are oppressive.  They force people
	to behave in a particular way, without consulting there consciences
    	Legalizing abortion returns the decision to the individual.

	Personally, I am for legalized abortion, but would have a lot of
	difficulty if Brenda said she wanted one.

	-Jim

    A point which I would like to make is that since most people agree that
    we don't know when a fetus becomes a human, aren't we treading on
    thin ice?  Ten years ago a 22 week old fetus had 0 chance of survival
    and now they are surviving.  Who's to say that 10 years from now
    we won't be able to have a 10 week old fetus survive. (Incidentally,
    an abortion can be had upon demand at 22 weeks) 
    
     I have all of the spiritual proof that life begins at conception.
     It all has to do with my belief in God.  This may not be good enough
    for some people, but for me it's all I need or could ask for.
                                                    
     Peace be with you,
    Mike
    

    In re the survival of the fetus. Science and Medicine appear to
    have reached a lower limit for survival of a fetus outside of the
    womb. This is the point where the lungs are developed enough to
    absorb oxgen and the blood vessels are large enough to tolerate
    needles supplying nutrients, electrolytes, etc etc. 
    
    For the survival age to be pushed down any further a true artificial
    womb will have to be developed that will play the same role as
     the placenta providing oxgen and nutrients and removing Carbon
    dioxide and other wastes. 
    
    For this to occur it will be necessary to try anything developed
    on an animal on a less than 22 week fetus. Is it ethical to experiment
    this way?
    
    Bonnie

    Re: .182
    
    I don't equate morality with democracy.  I do say that morality
    is subjective and not absolute.  Morals change with time and
    across cultures.  150 years ago, many Americans thought it moral to
    own slaves.  Today, very few believe this.  It was a matter
    of moral (and military) persuasion to change the attitude, and it
    only worked because slavery was no longer as effective as it had
    been in the past.
    
    You can try to convince me that abortion is wrong and should not
    be available to anyone, but unless you're willing to hold a gun
    to my head (and those of the pregnant women who desire an abortion),
    you've got to accept that I might disagree, in the absence of any
    arguments that *I* find persuasive.  And I am unresponsive to all
    arguments based on religious doctrine.
    
>    steve...just because you deny the plausibility of such proofs, does
>    not meant they don't exist....

    If they do exist, I'm sure we'd all like to see them.  Please clue
    me in.  Mike argues from faith.  That's fine for him, and I respect
    him for it, but it doesn't do a thing for me.

    
    					Steve

In my belief system, which largely is metaphysics;

	The soul enters the body at the moment of birth.  That's why
	astrological charts reflect that moment.  Prior to that moment, 
	at such time as all organs are formed, any physical movement 
	is an action or a reaction that is body-programmed, not willful.
	The sperm-egg union is thought to be an extension of the mother,
	part of her body, until such time as that extension changes form
	(physical body capable of living on its own) and is AT THAT TIME
	capable of being born.  Prior to that time, it is not a birth
	process.

	Re; father's rights and finances;

	If the father doesn't want the baby and the mother does, then
	the father, In My Opinion, should be responsible for at least
	one-half of the birthing costs, and then he's free to walk.
	He was partly responsible for the inception and therefore should
	be partly responsible for fruition of that inception.

	If the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't, and they
	decide to go ahead with the birth, In My Opinion, the mother should
	be responsible for at least one-half of the birthing costs, and
	then she's free to walk.  She was partly responsible for the
	inception and therefore should be partly financially responsible
	for the fruition of that inception.  She's got to do all the physical 
	labor (and get stretch marks to boot) and there is no way a man can 
	share in that, so therein lies the inequality.

	If I decided to have an abortion and the father did not want for me
	to abort, I would hope that he would help pay for the abortion, as
	he would have helped pay for birth, but I would not expect it, because
	he would probably justify not helping with payment with his anger.

	If both of us wanted an abortion, I would hope he'd pay half, but
	ultimately, I'm the one who has to pay because I'm the one who has
	to go, so if he decides to drop out of the picture, too bad for me.

    My understanding of the original point of this note was father's
    rights regarding a pregnancy.  We have drifted off of this to a
    wasted argument about abortion.  It has always been my belief that
    if the man is to be held financially responsible for the child,
    then he has as much say in what happens to it as the mother.  Likewise,
    if the father is willing to take full responsibility for the child,
    then he should be allowed to have it.  I don't believe that just
    because the mother says no, that the father's opinion is able to
    be totally ignored.
    
    After all, what are we, meat?  We have feelings also.  This type
    of attitude simply reinforces the difficulties that father's have
    in these socialistic courts of Mass in the child custody area. 
    We used to be perceived as being poor nurturers for the children.
     It was long believed that the mother was the ONLY person who could
    properly raise the children.  This is no longer true.  However,
    both the courts and the attitudes regarding the treatment of the
    pregnancy have not changed to reflect the new situation.
    
    Until the men are given a full voice in what happens to the unborn
    children, they have not been given all of their rights.  When will
    the women's organizations shut their big fat mouths and start pushing
    for true equality for both men AND women?
    
    I honestly doubt that the day will come when the man is given full
    say in many issues.  Unfortunately this will be one of those that
    we will always be cheated out of.
    
    Ed..

    Re: .186
    
>    I don't equate morality with democracy.  I do say that morality
>    is subjective and not absolute.  Morals change with time and
>    across cultures.  150 years ago, many Americans thought it moral to
>    own slaves.  Today, very few believe this.  It was a matter
>    of moral (and military) persuasion to change the attitude, and it
>    only worked because slavery was no longer as effective as it had
>    been in the past.

actually I think you *ARE* equating the two...when you suppose that 
the morality of a society changes with the whim of the majority of 
that society.  I disagree that morality is subjective...and that there
*are* some absolutes in life... in fact, I think that our *human* society
(as opposed to just the U.S.A.) suffers untold agony because we don't 
live by those absolutes.  Your analagy of slave ownership is, I think,
a bad one....for the following reasons:  Most folks did not OWN slaves 
(they were largely the property of land-owners, and well-to-do families);
and I don't *think* MOST folks even *approved* of the practice...  but, 
like today, it was expedient (for some) to own a slave or two, and those
who didn't, voiced precious little objection because they weren't directly
affected (unless of course, they *were* the slave 8*))
    
>    You can try to convince me that abortion is wrong and should not
>    be available to anyone, but unless you're willing to hold a gun
>    to my head (and those of the pregnant women who desire an abortion),
>    you've got to accept that I might disagree, in the absence of any
>    arguments that *I* find persuasive.  And I am unresponsive to all
>    arguments based on religious doctrine.
 
*I* am not trying to convince you of *anything*... I long ago gave up 
trying to do that... what I *am* trying to do is express the opinion that
I truly believe that there is an underlying, often overlooked, issue to
this "abortion" question...and it is my assertion that we fail, as 
a society, and as individuals, to acknowledge that there *are* some things 
in life that *ARE ABSOLUTE*.... please note that I am very carefully 
avoiding trying to tell you (or anyone) what those absolutes are...I am not 
trying to convince anyone WHAT they should believe.     

>>    steve...just because you deny the plausibility of such proofs, does
>>    not meant they don't exist....

>    If they do exist, I'm sure we'd all like to see them.  Please clue
>    me in.  Mike argues from faith.  That's fine for him, and I respect
>    him for it, but it doesn't do a thing for me.

i fix computers for a living, steve.  i am not a medical person, nor am
i particularly religious.  i will never attempt to sway anyone to believe
or disbelieve in god....or in what he teaches.  

but, a long, long time ago, i *did* see a production on television, that 
convinced me that human life begins at conception.  the evidence was, as
i recall, very profound, and maybe evn emperically derived.  i just don't 
know.  but, *I* was convinced...and NOT just because I *wanted* to be 
convinced.  I majored in physics in college, and in economics.. and I 
think I am fairly objective.  

If I could (and I obviously cannot), I would present the information 
i saw in the same fashion that I saw it..

All I can say is that it satisfied me...and I certainly believe beyond
"reasonable doubt".... 

but, in the absense of proof that life *DOES* begin at conception, and 
the equally large void of proof that it *DOESN'T* begin there, we seem
to be eager to "take a chance" and abort our pregnancies for the
sake of expediency.

tony
    

    I just read .187 and I was in agreement with many of the things
    said.  However, the next to last point is right where this argument
    stands.  You state that if you wanted an abortion, and the father
    did not want you to go through with it, that you would hope the
    father payed half, but would not expect it.  There was never any
    feeling that the father would have a say about not having the abortion.
     Once you said if you wanted it (I am not saying you would do an
    abortion), the decision would be made.
    
    This is not right.  The father is not just a sperm bank.  He has
    feelings also.  What are you going to do to compensate him for the
    feelings of loss he will go through when you kill his unborn child
    (regardless of when it is considered a child)?  And yes, he will
    have feelings of loss if he truly wanted to keep the child.  It
    is this point that I am deeply hurt about.  I wish that society
    would recognize that men are not cold, inanimate objects to be used
    for child-making when convenient, and to be discarded when a mistake
    is made.
    
    Ed..
    

>    My understanding of the original point of this note was father's
>    rights regarding a pregnancy.  We have drifted off of this to a
>    wasted argument about abortion.  

>    When will
>    the women's organizations shut their big fat mouths and start pushing
>    for true equality for both men AND women?

Ahem...

>    The father is not just a sperm bank.  

I would not presume.  If I wasn't having sex to conceive, I would hardly view 
him as a sperm bank.

>    What are you going to do to compensate him for the
>    feelings of loss he will go through 

I am not responsible to compensate his feelings to him, nor is he responsible 
to compensate mine to me.

>    And yes, he will
>    have feelings of loss if he truly wanted to keep the child.  

I would not suspect otherwise in any feeling male.

>    I wish that society
>    would recognize that men are not cold, inanimate objects to be used
>    for child-making when convenient, and to be discarded when a mistake
>    is made.

This sounds like the very words of a lot of women in the Women's Movements that 
you said you wished would shut up a few notes back.    

    	One other aspect in the question of 'Fathers' Rights in Abortion'
    	is the fact that there are also many expectant fathers who *INSIST*
    	that the women whom they have impregnated have abortions against
    	their wishes.
    
    	I've known women (including a very, very strong feminist) who
    	found themselves in the situation where the man insisted that
    	the pregnancy be aborted even though the woman was set to have
    	the child (and was willing to raise and support the child with
    	no help from the father whatsoever.)
    
    	The feminist that I know based her argument (to continue the
    	pregnancy and give birth) on the idea that SHE was in control
    	of her body and did NOT have to have an abortion if she didn't
    	want one.  (She also told the man that if he didn't want to
    	help her support the child, that was his decision.  She did
    	NOT take him to court to press for support.  He hasn't paid
    	a penny of support in the child's entire life, and she doesn't
    	care about it.)
    
    	For those of you who feel that the man should have a say in
    	the decision of what happens during a pregnancy (where the
    	parents are not married, let's say) -- do you think that men
    	should have the right to FORCE a woman to have an abortion if
    	she doesn't want to (even though the abortion would be legal)?
    	Or do you think that the woman should be allowed control over
    	her own body enough to say that she should not be forced to
    	submit to a procedure (i.e., abortion) that she doesn't want?
    
    	Would it make a difference in your decision if the woman had
    	already agreed to support the expected child herself?
    
    	(Remember, I'm not asking what you would do personally.  I'm
    	asking whether or not you think that men should be allowed
    	to FORCE women to have abortions even when the women are
    	willing to support their children, or if you think that women
    	should have control over their bodies enough to REFUSE to
    	have abortions that they don't want.)

I hate to be a wet blanket when it comes to this...

but no man can force a woman to have an abortion.  It is not physically 
possible.  If a man were to drag a woman to an abortion clinic and demand that 
she be anesthetized (sp?) and her baby be aborted, he'd get thrown out.

One possibility does exist, I suppose, and that is if a man drugs a woman who 
is pregnant with his child, takes her to the clinic, gets her to sign the 
papers by lying that they're for something else, and be sure they knock her out 
before the operation.  I don't think this is likely, though.

A man coming in to a clinic and begging a woman to renig on having an abortion 
is likely to be thrown out.  The doctor's concern is with the patient 
undergoing surgery (the physical kind).

    	RE:  .194
    
    	At this point, it is not (legally) possible for a father to
    	'force' a woman to have OR not have an abortion against her
    	wishes.
    
    	I was just wondering if the people who think a man should be
    	allowed to 'force' a woman to complete a pregnancy against her
    	will ALSO believe that a man should be allowed to 'force' a
    	woman to abort against her will (all economic considerations
    	aside.)
    
    	It's just another side to the original question.

    thats right, twist it around so that it is now a whole new question.
    the topic is FATHERS RIGHTS...not WOMANS RIGHTS! 
    The is MENNOTE...topics of interest to MEN. (Sound familiar?)
    
    Your question:  If she is not (then or in the future) going to look
    for financial support from the man or with the courts help. fine
    do what the hell she wants...but dont come on like an explosive
    with the courts backing you up request..no, DEMANDING support.
    
    I find the force thing a little hard to swallow.  
    Ms Conlon, How, prey tell, does a man FORCE a woman to have an
    abortion???  The drugging scenerio doesnt hold water...
    
    If this sounds a little bitter...it was ment to!
    I am tired of having things shoved down my throat in MY safehaven,
    MY space, MENNOTES.  Ohhhhh that felt good.  I was wondering when
    I was going to get to say that.  Thank you for that.

         Please...OH PLEASE...don't send this topic down the sewer with
    the fighting and stuff.  It ruins things for the other noters.
    
                                    Greg

    	RE:  .196 and .197
    
    	Look, I'm not fighting with anyone in this note.  I'm not going
    	to allow you to prevent me (as a Digital employee) from asking
    	a simple question (in this conference) that has everything to
    	do with this topic.  If you have some sort of problem with my
    	having the right to raise this question, please contact the
    	moderators and ask for their intervention.  
    
    	The question is:  If you feel that a man should have the right
    	(as a MAN'S RIGHT) to get, say, a court order to force a pregnant
    	woman to continue with a pregnancy against her wishes, do you
    	also feel that the man should have the right (as a MAN'S RIGHT) to 
    	get, say, a court order to force a pregnant woman to have an abortion
    	against her wishes.
    
    	This is a question about Fathers' Rights in abortions.

    Re: .198
    
         Well, let's see... you assumed that I was talking specifically
    to you in .197, even though it was placed after someone else's note.
    Then, you assumed that I was trying to stop you from making your
    argument, even though .197 said no such thing.
    
         Please read the notes more carefully, and carry on with the
    discussion in the current mellow fashion.
    
                                Greg

    	RE:  .199
    
    	Greg, it would help a lot if you would reference your notes
    	to the intended author(s).  Thank you.
    	

         Since it was addressed to anyone having the urge to get out
    of control, placing reference numbers would be difficult.
    
                                   Greg

    It *is* possible to use psychological manipulation to force a woman to
    have an abortion.  If the woman is (financially, physically,
    psychologically) dependent on the man, all he needs to do is tell her
    "Get an abortion or I'll (leave, beat, divorce) you."  This works - the
    same way that some men get away with beating their wives. Granted, she
    could get away, the law is on her side, but many women in this
    situation feel that they could not care for themselves financially or
    psychologically - especially with a baby on the way.  These women
    aren't physically dragged into the clinic or drugged and lied to.  They
    go in somewhat willingly - the lesser of 2 evils. 
    
    It's too bad that something equal can't be worked out.  But in this
    case there *are* biological differences between men and women. 
    No matter what kind of rules we set up, it's still only the women
    that get pregnant and have to pay the PHYSICAL burden of such.
    
    Elizabeth

         Your second paragraph is painfully true.  That is why I think
    that there should be some adjustment to the aspects of parenthood
    that ARE in the hands of humanity.  The legal framework concerning
    financial responsibility AND legal custody should be changed.
    
                                Greg

    Lets take a look here...                                       Score
                                                                   M|W
                                                                   
    -The woman can decide to abort the man has nothing to say 
    about it.                                                      0|1
    -The woman can decide to keep it the man has no say.           0|2
    -The woman can recieve support anyway via legal means.         0|3
    
    Hummm... something looks unbalanced(not equal) here....
    
    -j(just stirrin' up some excitement)
    
    
    

    Digression???  Nahhh the truth.

    I think it has to come down to whether one or the other wants to
    keep the baby.  In the situation where the mother wants to keep
    the baby and the father does not, then the father should help with
    the delivery costs, but should not be responsible any further. 
  
    But, if the father wants the baby and the mother does not, then
    the father should have the right to have that pregnancy go to term
    and he would then take custody of the baby.  The mother would also
    have no responsibility for the child.
    
    One major catch to this is, however, that whichever parent is allowed
    out of his/her financial responsibility is also not allowed visitation
    rights to the child.  This would have to be strictly enforced to
    prevent the non-custodial parent from deciding later to get involved
    in the child's life.
    
    I see no reason why the father's opinion should not be taken when
    he is recognized as the father of the unborn baby.
    
    What I don't like is that the mother can decide to keep the baby
    and the father is treated like a criminal because he wants nothing
    to do with the child, either emotionally or financially.
    
    Ed..
    

The way I look at it there are 4 scenarios to this issue:

1) both parents want child
2) neither parent wants child
3) mother wants child, father doesn't
4) father wants child, mother doesn't

The first 2 are easy, whatever the couple decides is their business.  The 
third I agree with Ed on. The father agrees to *no* visitation rights and 
he doesn't have to pay anything. If he changes his mind and decides to be 
part of the child's life, then he pays child support.

The fourth is the toughy. If the woman decides to have the child for the
father's sake but wants no part of it she agrees to *no* visitation rights
and she doesn't pay anything. No problem until the mother decides she wants
no part of pregnancy. This is when somebody has to lose. No matter what happens
it's not going to be fair to someone. It will never be fair until they find
out a way for men to carry an unborn child. That's reality, I wish it could
be the other way around but it can't and it's not fair. Men don't want the
short end of the stick and don't think it should be a big deal to *force* women
to spend 9 months carrying around something that they may learn to hate. Someone
somewhere even suggested women needed to be punished for getting pregnant in
the first place. Women don't want the short end of the stick either, and don't
think men should have a say on what they do with their bodies even if it hurts
them terribly. So now what? It's a no win situation.

Everyone lives by their own set of beliefs and morals. Nobody has a right to 
force their beliefs on someone else. It would be nice if it could be fair to 
all, and couples could work something out and stick to it. But human nature 
is not an exact science. Life is not fair. Abortion has been around forever, 
it will continue to be around forever whether it's legal or not and there's 
nothing anyone can do to change that.

    re-.1
    I do think that it is a big deal to force the woman to carry the
    child to term I (though I cannot fully fathom the experience) donot
    underestimate what she goes thru and the discomfort involved.
    
    
    I do however support the idea that the child should go to term if
    the father wants and mother dosent anyway. The mother was involved
    in making the baby too and as such should be responcible for her
    actions. I.E. If I'm involved and she wants the baby,I dont, I still
    have a reponcibility to support it, she *should* likewise have a
    responcibility to deliver. The current way this is handled is unfair
    to men in that we have no choice and either end up supporting a
    child we are denied access to or losing a child we *want* and are
    willing to support.
    If men could bear children I would gladly do it on my own [although
    I would insist on a C-section  ;^)].
                                        
    
    -j
    

    Re: .208
    
    A serious question - how do you (and anyone else who wants to
    chime in), who want to require the woman to carry the child to
    term, deal with the fact (and if someone wants to dispute this,
    go ahead) that childbirth is more dangerous to a woman than
    abortion?  If you insist the woman bears the child, and she dies
    in childbirth, what do you say to yourself?
    
    					Steve

"Oops."

:-} I'm sorry Steve, I could have resisted, but I'm weak today.

    re.209
    Well first I have no statistics showing which is more dangerous
    to the woman but childbirth has been going on for a long time and
    seems pretty well tested 8^)
    Humor aside, I believe if there is any medical reason that giving birth
    would risk the mothers life while pregnant or at birth that abortion
    should be considered and I would support the decision to terminate.
    
    -j
    
    

    re.208 What would I say?
    What would you say? 
    What does anyone say at the death of another human especialy one
    you have been close enough to concieve a child with? But I dont
    see the *fact* that child birth is more dangerous. Can you provide
    more details why this is so? Do the same risks apply to all women
    or only those with known medical problems? I do know of women that
    have conditions that preclude a safe pregnancy for the mother but
    dident realize that the situation was that common.
    
    
    -j
    
    

    
    
    The risk of complications is considerably higher for 
    pregnancy/childbirth as compared with abortion.  The
    exact percentages escape me, as it's been almost 9
    years since I had my child. (seems to me the percentage
    of complications with pregnancy/childbirth was 10% but
    I could be wrong).
    
    Deb
    
    

    The risk of complications dosent neccessarly imply that the mothers
    life is at mortal risk. I must say as a side note that my own mother
    nearly died(fine now) due to complications from my younger brothers
    birth(1960). I agree that childbirth is a more complicated event
    but there have been deaths from both considerably more from birth
    but after 35,000 years of humans giving birth -vs- 30? years of
    abortions that dosent seem unexpected.
    I assume that we all aree that the woman accepts some risk(more
    so today) when she engages in the act(as does the man).
    
    -j
    

    is the *risk* involved in childbirth (for most *normal* pregnancies)
    any arguement for the *guaranteed* death of an unborn child?
    
    

>    is the *risk* involved in childbirth (for most *normal* pregnancies)
>    any arguement for the *guaranteed* death of an unborn child?
    
    Well, it is for some people. Many people don't consider
  an abortion to be the "death of an unborn child". Many
  people consider (early) abortions to be the removal of
  a collection of cells from the woman's body. True, this
  collection of cells, if not aborted, will grow to be a
  baby. But in the early stages of pregnancy, it is not
  developed enough to be considered a baby, and, in fact
  not even as developed as the mice we kill in mousetraps.

  So I think that some people are comparing the risk of
  death for the mother (who is certainly a human being)
  to the guaranteed death of a glob of protoplasm.

    re: -1
    
    a *glob of protoplasm*?   at 22 weeks?  just when does that *glob
    of protoplasm* become a human?  is there some magical period in
    gestation before which it is not killing a human being and after
    which it is?
    
    come on....get real.  

    last monday, my father had his gall bladder removed surgically.
    now *that's* a glob of protoplasm..why?...because it isn't *EVER*
    going to be anything but a sick set of cells...it was infected,
    diseased, and causing physical harm and risk to his immediate health.
    
    if *your* glob of protoplasm is sick/cancerous/life threatening,
    then by all means...remove it....
    
    but puleeez, don't rationalize abortion just because it makes you
    feel better about it or because it is conveniently expedient.
    
    let me ask what medical doctor would surgically remove *any* organ
    (say your gall bladder or appendix) *JUST BECAUSE YOU ASK HIM TO*?
    
    so why does he so willingly remove your *glob of protoplasm*???    

    tony

    
    
    Tony, a fetus is not an organ.  It is initally a cell, which
    continually divides and specializes, ultimately becoming a
    human being.
    
    Doctors remove or surgically alter organs frequently, at the
    sole request of the patient.  Hysterectomies, tubal ligations,
    vascectomies, stomach stapling, all forms of cosmetic surgery
    and tonscilectomies all come to mind as examples.
    
    Deborah
    
    

re:< Note 261.217 by DPDMAI::BEAN "Attila the Hun was a Liberal" >

>    a *glob of protoplasm*?   at 22 weeks?  just when does that *glob

	Why does everyone always bring up this 22 week stuff? Unless
the mother's life is endangered, or something is dreadfully wrong with
the baby, I don't know of anyplace that will perform an abortion at 22 
weeks. Most women know they're pregnant long before that and most have 
abortions by the 12th week. Of the 4 women I know personally that have had 
abortions, none was more than 9 weeks pregnant. Now that's a glob of 
protoplasm. An abortion at 22 weeks would make me very uncomfortable 
(my nephew was born at ~26).

Jenna

    RE: -1  Because that's the cutoff of abortion upon demand.  A woman
    can get an abortion upon demand until 22 weeks.  There have been
    children born at 22 weeks who are leading normal lives today.  
    
    Another fact: 2 out of 5 women who have abortions have had more
    than one.
    
    One more: There were 1.6 million abortions performed last year.
    :..' (
    
    

    	I don't know what an abortion costs, but.....
    
    If there were 1,600,000 known performed last year at an average
    cost of $500.00 that is $800,000,000 in income for a group of medical
    people. I'd have to say that's a strong lobby for abortion. I would
    truly hate to think that this issue is being swayed because of money.
                                                   
    I think that both sides of this issue believe that they are 'right'
    in what they believe. I also believe that many women who believe
    in pro-choice would also not have an abortion but believe that they
    should have that option.
    
    If the 1.6 million abortions is correct, then the 40% of repeaters
    equals 640,000. That's appalling!! As I've stated before, I'm anti
    abortion, but i also know that a mistake is a mistake and two wrongs
    don't make a right. I wouldn't want to see a truly unwanted child
    suffer in life, so certain circumstance may set precedence for
    abortion. BUT....repeated visits as means of birth control is straight
    bullsh*t and that is not pro-choice, that's irresponsibility. That
    is what will eventually push this issue back to the 'coat hanger' days.
                 
    I think that if one wants rights, one must be responsible enough
    not to abuse them. I can't see repeaters saying that they can have
    two, three, four abortions because there are women who don't have
    them.
    
    Everytime I begin to see some validity in the pro-choice argument,
    like reverting to the "old days", unwanted kids, etc. I find another
    argument for not wanting it.
    
    Question: Is there a way to limit it? Is there a common meeting
    ground somewhere that both sides of the issue could feel comfortable.
    Somewhere we both lose a bit and gain alot? A place that the needs
    and wants of both sides could be met?
    
    Example=== Legalize abortion up to say 12 weeks. No repeats, etc.
    
    Or has it become an "ALL OR NOTHING"?
    
    Ken

    	RE:  .221
    
    	Legal abortions are available at the cost of around $100 - $200
    	at Family Planning agencies (who operate on an outpatient basis.)
    	They also offer birth control and counseling at highly reduced
    	rates.
    
    	Since fullterm pregnancies generate FAR, FAR more income than
    	abortions (thousands of times more income, depending on the
    	doctor and hospital used,) then do you think that one could
    	make an argument that the anti-choice lobby is operating mainly
    	for the money that would be made for the medical community if
    	all/most pregnancies were forced to go to term?
    
    	Clearly, medical groups would make billions more in fullterm
    	pregnancies than they currently make for the number of abortions
    	that are performed yearly.
    
    	I'm not saying that this *is* the reason behind the lobby against
    	choice.  All I'm saying is that if you want to talk about abortion
    	being a BIG MONEY business, it is *nothing* compared to the
    	money involved in fullterm pregnancies.

    RE: -1   Your argument about the revenue as to the birth of a child
    has a flaw.  It takes approximately 20 minutes to perform an abortion.
    That works out to $600.00 an hour.  The cost of an OB/GYN for having
    an uncomplicated birth is $1200.00.  This includes all of the tests,
    office visits, the delivery, and a follow up visit.  It is an estimated
    11 hours of doctors care for the whole time spent with the doctor.
    This woerks out to $109.09 per hour for the OB/GYN.  The average
    total cost for a pregnancy without complications is approximately
    $3500.00.  If all this money went to the OB/GYN (which it doesn't)
    that would be $318.00 per hour.  As you can see, the profit for
    an abortion is far greater than the profit of delivering a baby.
    
    Mike

    
    
    Ken, could you explain why x number of abortions are 'ok'
    but x + y are not.  I think it IS all or nothing.  Either
    it's alright, or it's not alright.  What would make an 
    abortion 'alright' once, but not after that?
    
    Deb
    
    

     RE:  .223
    
     Mike, let's look at simple numbers here.  What the man said
     earlier was that if you figured that the average abortion cost
     $500, then the cost of 1.6 million abortions was $800,000,000.
    
     If the cost of the average pregnancy (with no complications)
     is $3500, then the cost of the 1.6 million pregnancies above
     (if all the women had been denied abortions and had been forced
     to carry the pregnancies to term) would have been $5,600,000,000.
    
     The extra $4,800,000,000 is money that did not go to the medical
     community AT ALL as the result of the pregnancies that were
     terminated instead.
    
     If you look at the overall money that was denied to the medical
     community as the result of abortion, it would seem that pregnancy
     is more profitable (overall) than abortion.

    re: .223
    
        You also didn't take into account the additional money that
    well be generated by having all those additional 1.6 million
    children generating for the medical community by visiting the doctor,
    the hospital, ...
    
    ASP

    I agree with what you are saying in part.  I am looking at it from
    the abortionists standpoint of how to make the most money.  The
    fact remains that the hourly payoff of an abortion is much more
    profitable than that of delivering a child.  It says something pretty
    sad about the medical community.
                                    
    Mike

    The medical community in general looks at an abortion as a medical
    procedure like any other. Any easily performed out patient surgery
    is going to be performed more often than one that takes a great
    deal of time and effort. Are doctors that, say, remove plantar
    warts in a poditry clinc out for money because they remove more
    plantar warts than they do bunion operations?
    
    Bonnie

    	I guess I stirred the pot a bit, but my intent was not to be
    sarcastic for either side. I was trying to say that there are times
    when I see the argument for pro-choice, but as a parent I also see
    the loss of the potential infants and the pleasure they bring to
    *me*. So in my heart I side with the anti abortionist view. 
    	I know that I will never experience the choices that have to
    be made by women in this issue, so I go with what I have.
    
    	As to the $$$ portion of my statement. My feeling is that the
    abortion procedure unless complicated, is relatively lucrative for
    the MD performing the procedures. I also understand that Obstetrics
    is a lucrative field but the malpractice in the Ob/Gyn field is
    almost prohibitive. The average Ob/Gyn pays near $100,000 a year
    to practice. I would dare say, from what I've been told, that an MD who
    performs only abortions pays much less by far for insurance because
    his risks are less. Since there are no hard regulations as to who
    may perform surgery (abortions are considered minor surgery) any
    General Practioner may start up a clinc and go to work as long as
    he meets minimum standards. Ob/Gyn spend 1-2 years extra in school
    for the technical aspect, 1 extra year of residency in the specialty
    before getting the shingle. That is another reason for the increased
    payment for term pregnancy. The women is getting a specialist in
    a chosen field.
    
    	The last part of my reply was more a question to noters about
    a common ground. We as DEC employees often find ourselves at opposite
    ends of technical decisions with our counterparts. We resolve these
    issues by a process of give and take and often times we meet somewhere
    in the middle. This may be an issue that will never have any common
    ground, but if a solution that is acceptable to both sides is not
    sought, it cannot be found. I don't have the answers, but I'm at
    least willing to open my mind, which many of you are not.
    
    Ken
        
    

    
    Ken, leaving the choice up to the individual IS being
    open minded. 
    
    Deb
    
    

re: .230

Were you referring to the individual father or the individual fetus?

Kip

    
    
    In my opinion, the ultimate choice belongs to the individual
    woman.  Which is not to say that the choice could not be made
    jointly by a man and a woman.
    
    Deb
    
    

Thank you for clearing that up.

Kip

    I have a question:  does an individual's self-worth come only from
    society?  Can individuals have value unto and of themselves exclusive
    of those around them?  I tend to think so.
    
    I ask this question because a large part of the pro-abortion argument
    I've been hearing is based on "better to abort than bring into this
    world an unwanted, unloved child".  It seems to me that those using
    this argument are implying that the child shouldn't be born because
    others will not love it; that it cannot be worthy of life if it
    is unwanted.  This seems to be treading on very dangerous ground.
    Do we then "abort" the homeless, who are generally unloved and
    unwanted?
    
    I understand that this is not the sole argument for supporting
    abortion, but I think that other, more meaningful reasons should
    be used.
    
    								TonyP
    

RE:-1 Good point Tony.  If I get PO'ed at you and am going to strike
    you, since I don't want to mistreat you I will shoot you instead.
    It's the much more humane thing to do.
    
    Mike

    What is your reaction to RU486 that prevents the fertilized egg
    from implanting in the uterus wall. If you are a person who
    is against abortion are you also against this drug? Is the fertilized
    egg also a person?
    
    Bonnie

    
    One step further.  What is the readers reaction to a preventitive 
    DNC performed as soon as possible after an unwanted sex act (rape, 
    incest, innocent girl on date with not so innocent boy).
    
    Are these methods truly preventitive?
    
    cbc
    
    

    If you mean a preventive D and C (dilation and currettage) it would
    not prevent pregnancy since it is nearly a week after conception
    before the blastula (hollow ball of cells) implants in the uterine
    wall.
    
    Bonnie
    
    the french pill is a prosgesterone supressant. The horomone
    progesterone is necesesary for implantation.

    Re: .237
    
    It would seem you've been listening to Dan Quayle a bit too much! :-)
    
    				Steve

    Over the past few weeks there have been two court cases in Canada
    involving abortion and the right of the father to intercede with the
    expectant mother's choice for abortion.  In both cases the court
    granted an injunction preventing the woman from undergoing the
    operation. 

    In one of the cases the court's decision was reversed after hearing
    testimony that the woman had been engaging in sex with at least two men
    at the time of conception; thus raising a question of the identity of
    the father; thus nullifying the claimants rights as a father. 

    Several years ago my then-fiance had an abortion without informing me
    that she was pregnant.  Her reason was that she didn't want anyone to
    think we were getting married because of the pregnancy and because she
    didn't want to look pregnant in the wedding pictures.  News of the
    abortion came through indirect channels and the confirmation of the
    fact set fire to my very soul.  I am still, six years later, wrestling
    with the demons from that time in my life; wondering about the child,
    unable to care for anyone, being as selfish as possible.  I can't watch
    children at play.  It's all I can do to keep from crying. 

    From first hand experience I know that the woman isn't the only one who
    is affected by her choice to have an abortion.  A very big part of me
    died with that child.  Another big part of me is burdened with guilt
    and seeking pennance.

    Before I get torched by proponents of "choice" let me state that as
    personally repugnant as the concept of abortion is to me, and in as
    much as I have grieved because someone made that choice six years ago,
    the belief that any human being or group can claim to have a monopoly
    on morality, and further still attempt to legislate that morality, is
    far more repugnant and, in my mind, far more dangerous. 

    But I still think that a fathers desire should be considered in these
    cases rather than considering him a passive bystander with no
    consequence at stake with the outcome. 

    Kris 

    A little tongue and cheek but still true...
    
    Bio fathers ARE considered....when the woman decides to KEEP the
    child (and he doesnt want responsiblity)..all of a sudden, HE COUNTS!
    
    By law, and by society, HE COUNTS.....
    
    And he shall count... from his pocket, or right from his pay check...
    We have laws ya know... to make men take responsibility for their
    actions...  Notice I said MEN?  thats because, more and more each
    day, these laws are being used AND ENFORCED.
    
    Dont get me wrong, I am NOT condoning a skiper, I jes think that
    if there are laws making men accountable for their actions, it should
    be ALL 'ROUND, not just when its fits the womans needs....
    
    Sound a tad bitter? You're damn tootin!

    Re: .241
    
    >if there are laws making men accountable for their actions, it should
    >be ALL 'ROUND, not just when its fits the womans needs....
    
    When it fits men's needs, then obviously it's in their own best
    interests to be accountable for their actions.  So I find it a little
    strange that we'd need a law forcing men to do something they find in
    their own best interests anyway.

    Yes Chelsea, there ARE men that DO take full resposibility for their
    actions... The go unrecognised.  The only ones that are noticed
    are the jerks that give all men a bad rapp... Ya know?
    
    Tis like ya have one rad femme, she steps on enought toes causing
    the men (and sometimes women) that she has stepped on to feel that
    ALL femms are radical/to be taken as a joke.  This happens, No?
    
    

    	RE: .243
    
    	Men who take full responsibility for the children they bring into
    	the world *are* recognized and appreciated.  It isn't only the
    	Fathers who skip out that are "noticed" (unless one happens to be
    	talking *specifically* about Fathers who skip out, that is.)
    
    	Often the assumption is made (about all Fathers being stereotyped)
    	because *the person doing the assuming* tends to judge "ALL"
    	people in groups by the actions of a one or two members.  
    
    	If, for example, one were to start making assumptions about "ALL
    	femms" (to quote you precisely) based on one sample alone, then it 
    	would be easy to assume that others meant "ALL Fathers" when they 
    	said "certain" Fathers (or "some Fathers.")
    
    	Unfortunately, there are always going to be those who will see
    	"ALL Fathers" (or "ALL men") when they encounter the words "SOME 
    	Fathers" or "SOME men" (and it's rarely worth the endless tries it 
    	takes to explain the difference.)
    
    	It's usually easier to write the *individual* off as a joke (which,
    	again,is completely different than writing off a whole race or sex.)
    

RE .240

Hi Kris,

I am really interested in what you wrote in your reply, but I'm not 
understanding something.  If this question is too personal or if it is 
something that cannot be answered, then feel free not to answer.

Why do/did you feel torn up about the abortion?  Could you elaborate
on the feelings?  Saddness on what might have been?  Guilt over the
death of a part of you that had begun to live?  Frustrated at a
decision about which you weren't consulted, by someone with whom you
were supposed to be deeply "sharing" with? 

I'm not getting it.

Again, if I am prying too much, don't answer.  It's just that I felt 
your pain, but I am having an incredibly hard time empathizing with it 
(because I don't really understand it's source).  Whatever other info. 
you could provide would be helpful.  (Meanwhile, I'll go back and read 
the reply again....)

Take care.


							--Gerry

    Gerry,
    
    Good or bad, right or wrong; my personal sense of morality dictates
    to me (and to me alone) that that child, in whatever stage of
    development it was in, was a child.  A part of me.  A hope and a
    dream.
    
    I love children.  I used to play with other peoples children while
    looking forward to the day when I'd have one of my own.
    
    This is the way it was for me: Imagine someone telling you that you had
    a child which you never knew existed.  But that child was killed before
    you had a chance to let the child know that he or she would have been
    received, welcomed and loved in your arms.  You never had the chance to
    comfort her/him when he/she cried.  You never had the chance to hope
    and work for a good life for that child. 
    
    What do you feel?
    
    How do you look upon the world when the instrument of that child's
    death was the person to whom you were about to commit eternal devotion?
    How do you cope with the guilt that you could have changed everything
    had you known?
    
    Where do I go to mourn?
    
    I could write much more, but I'm having trouble seeing the screen.
    
    Kris

RE  .246

Hi Kris,

Thank you very much for taking the risk to further explain.  I _do_ 
understand a lot better now.  I feel bad that you are feeling pain, 
but from personal experience, I know that feeling and expressing 
(talking through) pain is much, much better for me than denying the 
feeling and going "numb."  It's painful, but I wish you a brief 
mourning period with brighter days ahead.


						--Gerry

    Men have always been able to *choose* whether or not to deal with
    an unwanted pregnancy.  Women have never had that luxury.  History
    has certainly proven that men have been deserting pregnant women
    for centuries.  Right or wrong, they always have that option.
    
    The inequity has already been established.
    
    I believe there is no question who has more *right* making decisions
    involving a pregnant woman.  Unfortunately, this is often unfair to
    the father... but realistically, he simply does not have as much at
    stake.
    
    jacki 
         

    I would like to respond to .249:
     If both parties involved (man and women) do not want the child then I 
    have no problem with a women having an abortion.  However, if the man 
    wanted the child and care for it in the traditional sense then what is
    a women's problem with that?

    Enforced or not, today the father is legally bound to provide support to
    the child if the mother chooses to carry through with the pregnancy.
    
    Right or wrong, today the father has no say in whether or not a pregnancy
    should be terminated.
    
    There are four possible scenarios:
    
    	1) Both mother and father want to keep the child. 
    	2) Both mother and father want to terminate the child. 
    	3) Mother wants to keep, father wants to terminate. 
    	4) Father wants to keep, mother wants to terminate.
    
    The outcome of scenario three is that the father is accountable
    even though he wants to terminate the pregnancy.  He has no option.
    He has no choice.
    
    The outcome of scenario four is that the father has to live with
    whatever stress the abortion may have on his morality or his soul.
    He has no option.  He has no choice.
    
    As you say, Jacki, the inequity has already been established.
    
    Perhaps as a balancing factor for scenario three, should it come
    to pass that abortions be granted on demand; If the woman declines
    her option to abort, men should be granted the option to support.
    
    But that still leaves scenario four...
    
    Kris

Re: .249

Jacki,

I think the legal system in this country would disagree with you.  While some
men may wish to choose whether or not to deal with a woman's pregnancy, and
many in fact do make that choice, legally they don't have the option to do so.

An unwanted pregnancy can ruin a man's life as easily as it can ruin a woman's.
And our society and legal system does not allow any choice for the man when
he wants the child and the woman doesn't.  If the woman bears the child,
he is held financially and legally responsible, irregardless of his wishes
in the matter.

Please note that I am not saying any of this is wrong - or right - I'm
just telling it like it is.  Unless they want to simply abandon the mother,
illegal but many do so, they are completely at the mercy of the mother's
wishes, and the men who desire to be responsible fathers are often not
allowed to be so.

This is an issue I have thought a lot about in the past.  There is no
simplistic answer.  Stories like Kris' demonstrate that.

I believe that it's long past time that our society recognizes that
children are not exclusively a woman's domain, and that men ought not to
be shunted aside when difficult decisions are to be made.  As uneasy as I
am about it, though, I do believe that the mother's wishes should have a 
priority in regards to whether or not she is to bear the child.  After
the child is born, there should be no discrimination.

				Steve

    
    Re: last few
    It seems to me that more than a few men seem to look upon a pregnancy
    as a mild inconvenience--something like carrying around a shopping bag
    or dragging about a ball and chain--rather than what it is: a
    significant ordeal, perhaps even a life-threatening experience. A
    pregnancy requires an almost complete re-ordering of one's life, of
    one's schedule, menu, medical attention,finances, etc.etc. The act of
    "becoming" pregnant, and most assuredly the act of getting somebody else
    pregnant is by no stretch of the imagination on an equal plane as *being*
    pregnant.
    
   I agree though: men SHOULD have an equal say as to how the pregnancy will
    proceed-----------but only when *they* are the pregnant ones!
    

    Re: .253
    
    I don't know whom your addressing your generalizations to, but they
    certainly don't apply to me.  I wouldn't even dream of arguing that the
    woman carries the entire physical burden of pregnancy, and that is
    a large part of why I believe that the woman's wishes should have
    priority, but do not minimize the man's emotional burden.  As a father
    of a child who was very planned and very wanted, I would not want
    anyone to deny me my involvement and contribution, which is a heck of
    a lot more than a sperm cell.  My life, schedule and finances were
    completely re-ordered as well, and continue to be so.
    
    "Equal plane"?  Nobody ever said it should be.  But don't relegate the
    role of a father to that of a distant observer.
    
    				Steve

    
    R: -1
    
    Did I say YOU regarded pregnancy as a mild inconvenience?
    I did not.
    
    What I said was, by comparison, the male stake and the female stake in
    a pregnancy are, in no way,*equal*: there is no way by which the male's
    discomfort comes even close to matching that of the female. The kind of
    re-ordering men must make is *very* different from that of women, and
    while it may be intense and difficult, and emotional, even traumatic,
    it certainly isn't even in the ballpark with what women deal with.
    
    If, by asking you to consider such a perspective, you think me shallow
    and callous, and insensitive to the male dilemma so be it: but having
    gone through that dilemma myself five times, I think I have some
    meaningful insights.
    jpr 
    

    
    RE:-1
    
    Please reread my notes: 
    
        >> men should have equal say...when they are the pregnant ones
        >> male pregnancy brings parity
    
    1. and 2. Are both tongue-in-cheek, (although male pregnancy IS a
    theoretical possibility and will probably occur in 10-20 years or so
    inasmuch as it has already occurred in laboratory animals.
    
    >> men look upon pregnancy as inconvience
    
    This is a misquote: what I actually said was that "more than a few men.
    . ." etc.
    
    I seriously question whether there is such a thing as "THE MALE
    POSITION", because you and I are both males, and obviously have
    very different positions with respect to this matter.
    ---John
    

    re. 258
    
    You're right; There is no "male" position on the issue of abortion.
    There is also no "female" position.  You'll find members of both
    sexes on either side of this fence.
    
    re. others
    
    No one here has doubted that the woman bears the child.  No one
    has stated that bearing a child is a walk in the park.  And no one
    is attempting to belittle the role of the mother in the entire birth
    process.  The issue is the role of the father in light of the impact
    that a terminated pregnancy may have on his life.
    
    The mentality I see developing around this issue is an "US vs THEM"
    seige mentality.  
    
    "They have no right, no say, because it does not concern them." That is
    the same stupid, pig-assed, mentality which some men have developed
    regarding women's rights.  I would hope that women are more enlightened
    than to look at the issue with such tunnel vision.
    
    We're all in this together.  We all have stake in the outcome.
    
    Kris

>    I would like to respond to .249:
>     If both parties involved (man and women) do not want the child then I 
>    have no problem with a women having an abortion.  However, if the man 
>    wanted the child and care for it in the traditional sense then what is
>    a women's problem with that?

If he wants the baby and she doesn't, then he should carry it.  That's 
fair, right?


							--Gerry

    Re: .258
    
    With regards to men having babies...
    
    
    I highly doubt that we will be seeing men carrying babies, as the
    norm, in the next 10-20 years.
    
    What ever happened to "letting nature take it's course".  MEN AREN'T
    SUPPOSED TO HAVE BABIES - even if it is possible.
            
    TB

I feel that the issue of whether or not men will be biologically able to
"carry babies" is completely irrelevant to the concerns and issues that
men have in regards to abortion.

And since I received some mail which indicated I had not made clear my own
position on the matter, I'll say it again.  I don't believe that ANYONE
should be able to either require a woman to carry a pregnancy to term or to
abort a pregnancy.  This includes the father, parents, relatives or the
government.  

But I do feel that the father's feelings and involvement should be considered,
if nothing else than to provide the emotional support that is so freely
given to women and withheld from men.

				Steve

P.S.  I read a short item in yesterday's Nashua Telegraph that mentioned that
F.A.I.R. had adopted a resolution supporting the "rights" of the father to
prevent an abortion.  I am dead set against this notion.

   > I highly doubt that we will be seeing men carrying babies, as the
   > norm, in the next 10-20 years.
    
    I suspect it will never become "the norm" (although its very dangerous
    to say "never"--who knows what may happen) but with male pregnancy a
    possibility, somebody will want to try it (the procedure, I am told,
    involves an invitro fertilization, and an abdominal pregnancy).
    
    Whether men are "not supposed" to become pregnant is really moot:
    there are many folks who feel we are not "supposed" to fly, or are
    we "supposed" to live longer than three score years and ten, or not
    "supposed" to either know or help determine the sex of an unborn
    child, or engage in any kind of genetic engineering,etc.
    
    It will be an interesting issue to follow, and the discussions of the
    ethicicists will be fascinating.
    	-John 

		Father's, mother's, child's, society's rigths.

	This is an issue with many sides, and its very complicated. So in order
to make things a bit more clear lets look at an extreme case, not as a moral,
or as a law case but at its PHYSICAL realities.

Situation:	A man and a woman living in a deserted island, cut off from
		the rest of the human race (no phone, no boat, nothing). Life
		is hard they have to work all the time to feed themselves.

Lonely situation right, so what do they do, they make love naturally.. And SHE
GETS PREGNANT. (So far I think everybody agrees the responsibility is 50/50.)

But the consequences are not 50/50. Because biologically speaking they are not
equal.  The child gestates in the woman, making her more vulnerable and less
able to feed herself.  The man well, he has to care and feed the woman or she
might well die leaving him all alone.

At this point the WOMAN has a choise, she can abort or not. And there is
nothing the man can do to prevent this, after all he has to sleep some time.
The woman can abort by eating a certain root (women in certain primitive 
tribes do just this).

At this point the MAN has a choise, he can work extra hard to feed the woman
and himself or he can leave her to her own resources. And there is nothing the
woman can do to prevent this. 

** BABY IS BORN **

At this point the WOMAN has a choise, abandon the baby (a kind of abortion,
that also has been practiced truout history) or not. After all its her life 
right, (its her life includes its her body), and she may not want to get stuck
feeding and caring for it for all those years.

At this point the MAN has a choise, earlier abortions, would have meant the
dead of the child. But at this point he can chose to support the baby or 
abandon it as well.

(In physical reality only when the child becomes an idependently functional
 human being. Will the possiblility of abortion by withdrawing life support
 cease to be an option.)

** end of case **

From the above case I conclude that that the child only gets what its parents
willingly give it, nothing more.  From conception until its functional
independence the human zigote, fetus, baby, child can be *aborted* by simply 
withdrawing its life support. Luckilly the support that parents are willing
to give to their children is a hell of a lot, otherwise our race would be
gone.

I also conclude that the father or failing that society should assume support
for the child as soon as it can live idependently of the mother's life support,
if the mother choses not to do it.

As for father's and mother's rights I think they depend on wether the parents
are married or not. If they AREN'T MARRIED then the woman should have the
choise of aborting or not. But killing the child should occur only if it can't
yet live indendently of her (currently 21 weeks into the pregnancy, As stated
somewhere else in this note).

The father on the other hand has the option of not supporting either her or
the child whatever her choise.

If they ARE MARRIED, its a different story. When you marry part of what a woman
agrees to is to have and care for their children.  Part of what a man agrees to
is to care for his wife and their children. (Its different for each because they
are biologically different, and marriage is a biological union. Their life
responsibilities are 50/50, but the consequences of these responsibilities are
not the same for both)

So the woman should not be able to lawfully abort unless her husband also
agrees to it (something missing in our laws). And the man should not be able
to lawfully withdraw his support from his wife and chidren (something out laws
have already taken care of).

Maybe when artificial wombs are developed. Can both the responsibilities and
the consequences of marriage be exactly the same for both mates, if they so
choose. But until then well what we got is not so bad it has been working ok
for a long time. All the above things only occur when there are disagrements,
that the couple can not resolve for themselves (a small fraction).

	Gil

    This is a most distressing topic to discuss from a man's point of view. 
    I believe that this cannot be dealt with using federal law... it needs
    a societal law.
    
    I feel this is one of the grossest injustices to men, yet is supported
    by the half-witted, loud-mouthed feminist movement which is currently
    "sweeping the nation".
    
    This topic is just too *sad* for me to discuss further right now.
    
    Father's rights in an abortion??  Don't make me laugh.
    
    Zilch.
    
    Greg
    

> This is a most distressing topic to discuss from a man's point of view. 

I am a man, I am not distressed talking about this topic. Careful with your
phrasing.

> I believe that this cannot be dealt with using federal law... it needs
> a societal law.

Absolutely. But I bet my "societal law" would be different from yours.
    
> I feel this is one of the grossest injustices to men, yet is supported
> by the half-witted, loud-mouthed feminist movement which is currently
> "sweeping the nation".

Watch it. I'm a feminist. You are treading very very closely to being personally
offensive. Let's talk about the "injustice."
    
> This topic is just too *sad* for me to discuss further right now.

I'm honestly sorry to hear that. It sounds like you've had a hard personal
experience and are still dealing with it. You have my sincere sympathy.
    
> Father's rights in an abortion??  Don't make me laugh.
    
> Zilch.

I disagree. If I have sex with a woman, either we've already talked about what
we will do if she gets pregnant, or I've willingly delegated control to her. I
will support her in any decision she then makes. I also take care of my own
birth control. If you have sex with a woman with whom you HAVEN'T discussed
dealing with an accidental pregnancy, and you DON'T take care of your own
birth control, I don't see why you should expect any "rights" in a subsequent
abortion.

If I felt strongly about abortion, I would not have sex with a woman who would
abort if she got pregnant. There is still the possiblity of her changing her
mind "after the fact" and that would be very very hard. It's hard for me to
put myself in that place, since it's so far from what I personally believe. I
suspect I would not have sex with a woman unless we both agreed that a
pregnancy, even if accidental, would be a joyous surprise.

	-- Charles

    

    Pesonally....I am dead against abortion.....there area wide range of
    different contracpeptives and other aids....if anyone is as stupid and
    irresponsible to get themselves pregnant...knowing full well they won't
    want to keep have there after to take the responsibility to atleast
    give that child life...even if it means giving it up for adoption at
    birth to someone unfortunate family that havn't the chance to have a
    child.  People should not be aloud to take another persons life.
    
    Though I do hold this to the exception on cases of severe abnormality
    or possible rape !! 
    
    
    Tracie.

    Tracie,
    
    I do not disagree with your right to choose that you would not have an
    abortion...  but I can't understand how ANYONE feels they have a right
    to decide what another person does with THIER body (and until the fetus
    emerges from the womb, its difficult to argue that the unborn is not a
    part of the woman's body - i.e., can't survive outside of it...)
    
    (I really didn't want to get dragged into this rathole, but I guess
    woman's right to choose is one of my hot buttons...)
    
    Dave

    exactly...it is no ones right to choose whether the child so live or
    die....so what right does a mother really have to have the choice to
    comit murder....it is still alive whether or not it could survive
    outside of the womb...
    
    
    would you say someone on a life support machine had no rights...and
    that the mother/father would have the right to terminate that persons
    life...it's no difference really...just a matter of how long that
    being has been alive..is surely irrelevant !

    "rights", "the law", "it's my body" 
    
    These words always seem to be popping up.
    
    Here's a new one for pro-abortionists to tackle..
    
    "morals"
    
    Greg       ;-)

    With regard to morals:  Yours or mine?
    
    					andrew

Excuse me, but this topic is on "Fathers' rights in abortion".  I don't want
another general, never-ending debate on abortion in this conference.  Thanks.

			Steve

    Okay, back to the topic.
    
    Charles, so you say that you would not have sex with a woman without
    knowing that she will not abort the baby (if you end up having one). 
    Well Charles, unfortunately, we don't live in a society which is as
    trustworthy as that.  I think it's safe to assume that there is NO
    guarantee that any person will live up to their decision.  Aside from
    having both parties sign a document, from which legal action may later
    ensue, there is virtually no way of telling whether or not *she* (since
    it is ultimately *their* decision - so they say) will "change her mind"
    especially under the pressure of an unwanted pregnancy.  
    Besides this fact, I think it is an injustice to men everywhere since
    WE HAVE NO RIGHT.(speaking of course in the legal sense).  All of a
    sudden, the baby which is made by two people becomes the "right" of
    one and no action taken by the men can do anything.  
    
    I also believe there is a certain degree of brainwashing used by some
    certain "movement" which will remain anonymous - but that's another
    story.
    
    I agree, we (men) do have the choice of who we can have sex with.  But,
    as stated in this *topic*, we have no right and I feel any argument
    otherwise, is on very shakey ground.
    
    And yes, if you haven't already guessed, I *am* anti-abortion,
    pro-life or whatever you like to call it.  I dislike labels.
    
    Greg
    

There was a court case in the news just the other day where, it would seem,
a man got a woman (who happened to be his secretary) pregnant, paid her
some $20K so that she would abort the pregnancy, and then she decided to
not have the abortion.  The court has ruled so far that the contract
was invalid and that he cannot force her to have the abortion.  There has
not yet been a ruling as to whether he can get his money back.  I haven't
read as to whether or not he would be liable for child support payments 
regardless.

I am personally unsure of where I stand on this.  I support the woman's right
to choose whether or not she has the abortion, but on the other hand, she
agreed and received compensation to perform a legal action, and then changed
her mind.  I think if I were the judge in this case, I'd say that she has
the right to change her mind, but if she does so, she must return the
payment.

My philosophy differs somewhat from Charles'.  I would not have sex with
a woman if I was not prepared to deal with the resulting pregnancy and whatever
the woman wished to do about it.  I would do my best to ensure that an
unintended pregnancy did not result, but if it did, I'd consider my options
limited.  That's the risk I take.  It may not be "fair", but that's the
hand that biology has dealt.

					Steve

>It may not be "fair", but that's the hand that biology has dealt.

 That seems to be somewhat of a simplification. We as a people have arrived
at  a set of rules which leave the man at a decided disadvantage when dealing
with unintended pregnancies. This is certainly not entirely a matter of biology.
If we left it strictly up to biology, men could simply walk away from any 
pregnancy, since after conception there is no further input required (as a 
matter of biology).

 The Doctah

> That seems to be somewhat of a simplification. We as a people have arrived
>at  a set of rules which leave the man at a decided disadvantage when dealing
>with unintended pregnancies. 
    
    I know what you're intent was, but do you know how incredibly comical
    this sounds???   I mean, I know some women that'd have both arms behind
    your back begging for uncle about 2 seconds after you uttered that
    phrase ;-)...
    
    Seriously, regardless of your feelings toward abortion, it is, and
    always will be true, that women are the disadvantaged ones when it
    comes to dealing with unintended pregnancies, doncha think??
    
    Dave

> Charles, so you say that you would not have sex with a woman without
> knowing that she will not abort the baby (if you end up having one). 

Not exactly. I used the subjunctive because we were discussing a hypothetical
case. If I were against abortion, then I would act as above, in addition, I
would take responsibility for birth control myself if I wanted to avoid
pregnancy.

> Well Charles, unfortunately, we don't live in a society which is as
> trustworthy as that.  

I'm not sleeping with society. (Shut up you there in the corner!) I have sex
with individuals, and I think it important enough that I know my partners
pretty damn well before having sex with them.

> I think it's safe to assume that there is NO guarantee that any person will
> live up to their decision.  

Absolutely. So don't have sex if there's the slightest doubt - or stop
complaining. Masturbation is safe effective sexual relief and there's not going
to be any problem with aborting an unwanted pregnancy.

> Aside from having both parties sign a document, from which legal action may
> later ensue, there is virtually no way of telling whether or not *she* (since
> it is ultimately *their* decision - so they say) will "change her mind"
> especially under the pressure of an unwanted pregnancy.

That's right. Think about it. A woman, even if she is vocally pro-life, may
change her mind when actually faced with the reality of an unwanted pregnancy.
You, on the other hand, will never have to face that choice. It's easy for you
to ask her to carry the pregnancy to term. Talk is cheap after all.

> Besides this fact, I think it is an injustice to men everywhere since
> WE HAVE NO RIGHT.(speaking of course in the legal sense).  All of a
> sudden, the baby which is made by two people becomes the "right" of
> one and no action taken by the men can do anything.  

That's right. You must exercise your care BEFOREHAND, because afterwards you
have no more control. Them's the breaks. You don't have to carry the child. If
it were possible to transfer the fetus to the father, I would completely support
the right of either patner to carry the pregnancy to term. However, as long as
the woman is the one bearing the risks of the pregnancy, it is HER choice to
continue it or not. If you don't want to be a party to it, make sure up front
that you don't contribute that little sperm. THAT is your right, and no one
can deny it to you.

> I agree, we (men) do have the choice of who we can have sex with.  But,
> as stated in this *topic*, we have no right and I feel any argument
> otherwise, is on very shakey ground.

You have no right after the fact, yes that's true. It's not a happy situation
but that's what we have to live with.
    
> And yes, if you haven't already guessed, I *am* anti-abortion,
> pro-life or whatever you like to call it.  I dislike labels.

Perhaps for yourself, but you're quick to label feminists as loud mouthed
half-wits? Grrr.

> Steve:

> My philosophy differs somewhat from Charles'.  I would not have sex with
> a woman if I was not prepared to deal with the resulting pregnancy and
> whatever the woman wished to do about it.  I would do my best to ensure that
> an unintended pregnancy did not result, but if it did, I'd consider my options
> limited.  That's the risk I take.  It may not be "fair", but that's the
> hand that biology has dealt.

That's precisely my philosophy too. I was speaking hypothetically before, 
attempting to imagine my feelings and actions as if I were in the author's
shoes.

	-- Charles

>I mean, I know some women that'd have both arms behind
>    your back begging for uncle about 2 seconds after you uttered that
>    phrase ;-)...

 So do I. :-)

>    Seriously, regardless of your feelings toward abortion, it is, and
>    always will be true, that women are the disadvantaged ones when it
>    comes to dealing with unintended pregnancies, doncha think??

 Yes and no. Yes, because it's basically their problem but no because at least
they can do something about it post facto. Men can only try to keep the problem
from happening. After that, they are at the mercy of the legal system, and have
no options short of becoming a fugitive. That's what I mean by being at a 
disadvantage. I am talking about from a legal perspective, which is the essense
of what everything comes down to these days...

 The Doctah

    Okay Charles, let's stop going around in circles here.
    
    What you are in support of here is the right to concieve.  What we here
    in the topic are discussing here is a father's right in an abortion. 
    There is a marked difference here.  I have a right to have sex/conceive
    a child, but so do women.  Women have a "right" to an abortion, we
    (yes, say "we" you're a MAN aren't you??) have NO RIGHT whatsoever to
    stop them (legal right that is).  That is that.  My choice in sex
    partners (and yours for that matter) are not a "right to abortion" no
    more than buying a gun is to shooting and killing someone.  I think in
    that context the topic is quite clear (remember the brainwashing -
    never mind).
    
    I agree with what the ...um ....."doctah" has said.  Men lose on
    account of biology.  If I wanted to keep a baby, by my partner wanted
    an abortion, I would give birth to the baby myself if I could!  Yes,
    that is true - please do not deny my fatherly rights.  
    
    Another thing... what's this "talk is cheap" routine.  What're you
    trying to do?  Throw this whole conference down the drain?  That's some
    heckuva choice you leave too:  Masturbate or be allow someone else to
    decide the fate of your child.  I never said that you slept with
    society - nor do I have any evidence that you WOULD.  Please stop
    twisting my sentences around out of context.  I take back what I said
    about feminists - I do dislike labels - I let my emotions take over and
    I shouldn't have.  Please don't take this wrong.  I love women.  I am
    just fed up with this "feminist" attitude whether it be prevalent in a
    male or female.  
    
    I see abortion simply an extension of today's "disposable" society.
    
    It's true,  if more people considered the results of their actions, we
    wouldn't be stuck in this mess.  In that context, I'm glad to hear that
    you, Charles, take these possiblities into consideration. But then
    again, people who didn't care, wouldn't be here in this conference. 
    The father IS at the disadvantage here when it comes to abortion.  I'm
    not just saying this as a man......but as a human being.
    
    After all, I didn't CHOOSE to be a man, did I?
    
    Greg
    (who yes, is proud to be heterosexual)
    

> What you are in support of here is the right to concieve.

Not particularly. No one has the "right" to concieve. I do believe you have the
right and responsibility to prevent a conception you won't support. I also
believe that once conception has happened, it is up to the person who would have
to carry and bear the child to decide if the pregnancy will continue. I would
hope that she would talk to me about it and that my wishes would be considered
as well, but the bottom line is that she gets the final decision and I think
that's right.


> What we here in the topic are discussing here is a father's right in an
> abortion.  There is a marked difference here.  I have a right to have
> sex/conceive a child, but so do women.  Women have a "right" to an abortion,
> we (yes, say "we" you're a MAN aren't you??) have NO RIGHT whatsoever to
> stop them (legal right that is).  That is that.  

We are in 100% agreement about the facts. Let's consider them stipulated.

> My choice in sex partners (and yours for that matter) are not a "right to
> abortion" no more than buying a gun is to shooting and killing someone. I
> think in that context the topic is quite clear (remember the brain washing -
> never mind).

Correct. I was saying that, as a man, the only guaranteed option you have for
avoiding an abortion is avoiding an unwanted pregnancy. I have absolutely no
problem with that. If I were pro-life, I would therefore never have sex with
a woman that would consider an abortion. Determining if someone is such a
woman is very hard, and I consider the only guarantee to be if you find a
woman who would regard a pregnancy as a joyous event. I can see no other way
of for certain avoiding an abortion, given the current laws.
    
> I agree with what the ...um ....."doctah" has said.  Men lose on
> account of biology.  If I wanted to keep a baby, by my partner wanted
> an abortion, I would give birth to the baby myself if I could!  Yes,
> that is true - please do not deny my fatherly rights.

If it were possible for you to bear the child, I would support you completely
in your right to bear any child you fathered. Since you cannot, your fatherly
rights must unfortunately come second to the right of the woman to terminate
any pregnancy she is unwilling to carry. I believe that as the person taking
the risks, she is the final authority on whether to continue the pregnancy.
    
> Another thing... what's this "talk is cheap" routine.

As a man, you cannot experience the reality of being pregnant and having to
decide whether to bear a child or terminate the pregnancy. For you and me,
talk about abortion is cheap. In the ham and eggs of pregnancy you and I are
chickens, not pigs. ("The chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.") Given
that reality, anything you and I say is necessarily just talk.

> That's some heckuva choice you leave too:  Masturbate or be allow someone
> else to decide the fate of your child.

Or practice an effective form of birth control, and have sex only with women
that would gladly bear your child and give you a say.

> I never said that you slept with society - nor do I have any evidence that you
> WOULD.  Please stop twisting my sentences around out of context.  I take back
> what I said about feminists - I do dislike labels - I let my emotions take
> over and I shouldn't have.  Please don't take this wrong.  I love women. 
> I am just fed up with this "feminist" attitude whether it be prevalent in a
> male or female.

You just labelled that attitude "feminist" again. In any case, I love women as
well. I would NEVER ask a woman I loved to risk her health and life for a child
of mine that she did not want. I love the actual woman more than the potential
child, which is not to say that I don't love the child as well - simply that I
know which side of this hard choice I stand on.
    
> I see abortion simply an extension of today's "disposable" society.

I don't.
    
> It's true,  if more people considered the results of their actions, we
> wouldn't be stuck in this mess.  In that context, I'm glad to hear that
> you, Charles, take these possiblities into consideration. But then
> again, people who didn't care, wouldn't be here in this conference. 
> The father IS at the disadvantage here when it comes to abortion.  I'm
> not just saying this as a man......but as a human being.

Even thoughtful considerate people sometimes have birth control fail, and are
then faced with an awesome decision. If you are categorically against abortion,
only have sex with a woman who wants your child. Anything else would be immoral.

> (who yes, is proud to be heterosexual)

Now why did you have to go and add that? What does it have to do with the topic?
What're you trying to do?  Throw this whole conference down the drain?

	-- Charles

    
    
>>> (who yes, is proud to be heterosexual)
>>
>>Now why did you have to go and add that? What does it have to do with the topic?
>>What're you trying to do?  Throw this whole conference down the drain?
>>
>>	-- Charles
    
    Great question, Charles.  I'm all a-quiver waiting for the answer!!!!!! 
    
    	Greg

Why isn't it okay for men to be completely subjected to the control
and power of women...once in a while, in contexts that make sense?  Is
that such a bad thing?  (It had happened in reverse for so long, and, 
can you tell me that all the results were unconditionally horrible?)

I can certainly see that, in some cases, it would be horrible.  But, 
in the case of abortion, why is it such a bad thing to let the woman 
have complete control from the time of conception from the time of 
birth?  (Not that it's her "right," let's say.  Let's approach it 
from, "This is a system that might work really well."

Doesn't the context (their body and the inability of a fetus to live
alone) kind of set up a context under which this would work pretty
well?  (Working "pretty well" does not mean that men will never feel
sad about a decision that a woman makes in regard to a pregancy.) 
Don't we trust them? 

"Okay.  For nine months, it's her call.  It's out of my hands.  I'll
give her my opinion, and then I'll just deal with whatever happens." 

There's plenty of time before and after the 9-month period in which
the man can use/regain some control in regards to sex/children. 
Right? 

 "What _you_ saaaayyy???"

 "Well, I'm just AS-kin!"

							--Gerry

 Gerry-

 I really feel you are looking at this as an academic exercise, and as such
are unlikely to be grounded to the emotions and issues in the same manner as
a "practising heterosexual." We are talking about some pretty emotional and
difficult issues here.

 anyway.

 The simple fact is that biology has decreed that men and women cannot possibly
have an equal footing with regards to child bearing. This, I believe, is a 
given. I suspect that anyone that does not take this as a given will have 
problems with the rest of my position. :-)

 There are four possible outcomes of an unplanned pregnancy. If either both
people want the baby or neither want the baby, the solutions are relatively
simple and uninteresting. If on the other hand, one party wants the child and
the other does not, then we have a problem.

 How do we resolve this situation? The current "solution" places all of the
control in the woman's hands, and leaves at least half the responsibility in
the hands of the man (the one with no control.) So what she says goes and the 
man gets to pay according to her choice. This is substantially more unfair
than my proposed solution.

 My proposed solution takes into account the following premises: nobody should
be forced to have children they don't want, and nobody should be forced to
undergo an abortion that they don't want.

 My solution is this: if the man wants the baby and the woman does not, the man
is out of luck. If the man does not want the baby and the woman does, the man
must pay her half the cost of an abortion and sign over all rights of parental
custody. He is then free and clear of any _legal_ responsibility for the
child.

 It's not perfect, but it at least given the man a degree of control over his
own destiny. And the woman's control is not infringed upon (except there is no
longer a free ride at the expense of her sex partner.)

 It is not perfectly fair. I am of the opinion that is cannot _be_ perfectly
fair because biology prevents equality in this instance. But I believe
it is substantially less unfair than the current system.

 The Doctah

    It seems that when it is their bodies, it is their call, it is all of
    the above. But where do you, as a man have any rights? What can I say
    if I would like to have this child, the women decides no. Are they
    playing "God" with life? They can say, you live and you die? Is it
    really giving birth or is it in some cases giving power to a
    gender who feels that they have none? No, I am not wanting to control
    their bodies. But why are we controling destiny of something that
    cannot speak for itself (unborn child)?

RE .283
    
    There is (are) a problem(s) with part of your solution:
    
    
>
    > How do we resolve this situation? The current "solution" places all of the
>control in the woman's hands, and leaves at least half the responsibility in
>the hands of the man (the one with no control.) So what she says goes and the 
>man gets to pay according to her choice. This is substantially more unfair
>than my proposed solution.
>
> My proposed solution takes into account the following premises: nobody should
>be forced to have children they don't want, and nobody should be forced to
>undergo an abortion that they don't want.
>
> My solution is this: if the man wants the baby and the woman does not, the man
>is out of luck. If the man does not want the baby and the woman does, the man
>must pay her half the cost of an abortion and sign over all rights of parental
>custody. He is then free and clear of any _legal_ responsibility for the
>child.

> It's not perfect, but it at least given the man a degree of control over his
>own destiny. And the woman's control is not infringed upon (except there is no
>longer a free ride at the expense of her sex partner.)

    
    The problem is that with the woman wanting the child, and the man not,
    he gets off the hook for the $$ of an abortion and the woman <and here
    is my problem> society get to foot the bill. The woman may not feel
    abortion is right and so wants to have the baby and will not give it up
    for adoption. Worse, she may not be able to adeqautely support the
    child and this is where society [ME] comes in.
    
    
    Steve

> I really feel you are looking at this as an academic exercise, and as such
>are unlikely to be grounded to the emotions and issues in the same manner as
>a "practising heterosexual." We are talking about some pretty emotional and
>difficult issues here.

First, I think that the emotional experience belongs to fathers and
potential fathers, not to heterosexuals.  If I can become a father as
I plan to, then I will have a similar (not exact) experience.  Until
then, all I can do is approach it academically.  It's not always a bad
thing to have people from the outside looking in saying, "What if?"  
As long as I'm not claiming to have experience here that I don't have.

Also, I notice that the experience seems to be a lot more charged for 
some fathers than for others.  I've heard from some men who don't seem 
particularly upset at the idea of letting the woman have complete 
control for 9 months.  (Though I suppose you can argue that those men 
probably have not had a fetus aborted that they wanted to see carried 
to full term.)


							--Gerry

>    No, I am not wanting to control
>    their bodies. But why are we controling destiny of something that
>    cannot speak for itself (unborn child)?

Maybe because you cannot legally enforce "the destiny of the fetus"
without also controling the woman's body.  Without saying, "Sorry, 
this is what you will be doing with your womb for the next 9 months."

							--Gerry

> I really feel you are looking at this as an academic exercise, and as such
>are unlikely to be grounded to the emotions and issues in the same manner as
>a "practising heterosexual." We are talking about some pretty emotional and
>difficult issues here.

I forgot about something...

I had this experience once in college.  I didn't use protection, and I 
had no clue as to whether she had used any.  (Chances were good that 
she didn't.)

I remember waiting the few months to see if I would get the phone call
(she had moved to another state).  I remember the helpless feeling; it
was a done deal.  I remember being scared.  I remember wondering how I
would react to any decisions that she would make.  I remember
wondering if I had thrown away my future, or at least seriously
altered it.  I remember feeling so relieved when X number of months 
had gone by, what it felt like to have more control again.  I remember 
it feeling like a reprieve for a mistake, a gift.  (Very Catholic of 
me, I guess.)

I know that this is a pretty limited experience, but I've been there.  
Briefly.


							--Gerry

    Gerry,
    
    	Sound like a pro-lifer don't I. I guess its some recient things in
    my life that has made me much more aware of how fradgile life really
    is. What is like to have a second chance to watch my daughter grow. I
    get alittle worked up thinking about it all. How fradgile... How some
    people take things for granted what many of us would cut an arm off
    for. I will get the chance to watch my daugher grow. A chamce that
     I would never have had, had I not recieved custody. 
    Your right, you can get over cooked thinking about
    it. But then agian, its the case of what would it be like vs of what
    is it like too have or do or have not that you were making statement
    too. I guess when a child looks deep into your face for the love,
    security, that you can give, you are able to move very big mountains.
    God, I hope some day your able to feel these things that I feel. And to
    take the accidemic outsiders posture will suck you into a stark raving
    maniac like me!:) Sounds like fun hua? 
    
    I think of the neet things that I am going to watch her do. Like ride
    her first two wheeler. We already have shared choclet ice cream
    together, got my refridge covered with those silly scribles, my cube is
    the same thing, house if filled with dolls, stuffed animals, toys,
    I think that sometimes that I spend about as much on toys as I do on
    food each week. Gee, you know that I am going to help her with her
    first puppy love, her first broken heart, I am going to watch her play
    jump rope, even watch her graduate from high school. And hopefully give
    her away to some deserving man. You know something? Kids are never
    yours, they are on loan to you from God for 18 years, then they belong
    to someone else.  

Let's review what happens with a baby.

The two parents make love. 

Then the mother carries the child for nine months, putting up with morning
sickness at the outset, an uncomfortable weight and shape toward the end of
pregnancy, and finally ten or twenty hours of pain and exhaustion, maybe 
surgery, certainly physical danger, during delivery. She never fully recovers,
being forevermore a bit thicker in the midriff. 

Then both parents spend a couple years getting up in the night, changing
diapers, and worrying constantly. Then both parents enjoy the little person
learning to throw and ride and draw. Both parents discipline the child, and
both parents rejoice at it's successes. Both parents drive it to lessons and to
friends' houses. Both parents pick up from late night parties. Both parents
attend graduation. Both parents work to pay for college. Then both parents
spend the rest of their lives worrying about their baby and hoping it will pick
up the telephone. 

Altogether, the parents share at least eighteen years of more or less intensive
care for the child. Throughout those eighteen years, the average level of 
engagement is at least that of pregnancy, where Mom's big job is to put GOOD
things and not BAD things into her body. DAD IS RESPONSIBLE THROUGHOUT THOSE
EIGHTEEN YEARS AND MORE, witness recent note entries re child support. Counting
from inception, the eighteen years represent 96% of the child's existance. 

             WHY DOESN'T DAD HAVE ANY SAY ABOUT THE INITIAL 4%?

In the context of 1/2 of the getting up in the night, 1/2 of the diaper 
changing, 1/2 of the teaching-to-ride-a-bike, 1/2 of the no-you-can't-stay-up, 
on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on ...

         DOESN'T THE NINE MONTHS, THE 4%, SEEM KINDA INSIGNIFICANT?

I am convinced that the few months of morning sickness and rolypoly waddling
and bad sleep are a *paltry* burden compared to the larger job of raising a
child. It's her body. Big deal. IT'S THEIR LIFE. 

    IT IS A JOINT DECISION TO TAKE ON 18+ YEARS OF OBLIGATION, AND SHOULD BE 
    MADE JOINTLY.

One way to look at this is the usual economist's market-clearing-price 
viewpoint. From occasional browsing of national media during times when I had 
no other reading matter, I gather that a typical price for a surrogate mother 
is on the order of $10,000 to $20,000. These women deem it worth that amount 
to endure the morning sickness and rolypolyness. If he wants the baby and she 
doesn't, let him pay her the going rate and that's the end of the discussion.

If she wants the baby and he doesn't, then she should optimize her own
happiness knowing that he is spurning Dad-hood: the expense, the hassle, the
etc. Dad-hood should be a state entered into voluntarily, with a cheerful if
wry grin. The fact that it's HER body, in this case, seems to imply that it's
HER responsibility, if she so chooses. Her choice, her cost, her hassle.

    THE CURRENT SEPARATION BETWEEN RESPONSIBILTY (CHILD SUPPORT) AND 
    AUTHORITY (IT'S HER BODY, SHE'LL DECIDE) IS PATHOLOGICAL AND UNJUST.

In the worst-case scenario, she assures him she's has a hysterectomy, she's 
palpably wearing an IUD *and* a diaphragm, he's had a vasectomy and puts on the
rubber just to be sure... and she gets pregnant, decides to keep the baby, and
takes 35% of his income for the next eighteen years. Because it's *her* body, 
he has to face an expense of (say) $300,000?! 

Say, this could be an enterprise! Get preggers, settle for twenty percent of
the net present value of $300,000, maybe about $40,000, then sell the baby to 
some couple for $15,000 and go find another sucker. $55,000 for (1) doing a 
credit check, (2) lying back, and (3) phoning the attorney is not a bad wage!

One (serious) solution is 100% effective, reversible male birth control. "I
will prove that my client could not have fathered the child, because he had the
HNELSON FREEDOM-VALVE (TM) set to OFF and the seals are in still place and
notarized (ouch!)." If I had my druthers, we would ALL (men and women) be on
birth control, possibly through something in the water supply, so it would be
impossible to get pregnant without both parties expressly trying. "No, I can't
eat or drink anything native to the United States until Mary gets pregnant!" 

Regarding the argument that "society pays for all those babies who are born 
without Dads to pay the bills." My solution is the Anti-Abortionist Tax Act of 
1991. Under the terms of this bill, the IRS will identify anti-abortionists
through membership in anti-abortionist organizations, letters to Congress,
police files on demonstrations, and other sources. Dedicated anti-abortionists
will volunteer their identities, because this IS an anti-abortion bill. The
Anti-Abortionist Tax Act of 1991 will assess a levy on so-identified
anti-abortionists in an amount sufficient to pay for ALL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
which goes to the support of children who would have been aborted but for the
anti-abortionists' outlawing things like clinics mentioning to pregnant women
the alternative of abortion. In fact, the number of abortions will drop, since 
women will know that their carried-to-term children will be provided for by the
anti-abortionists extra tax levy. And we will all rejoice because 

    AT LAST THE ANTI-ABORTIONISTS WILL BE PUTTING THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR
    MOUTHS ARE, I.E. PAYING THE TREMENDOUS COSTS THAT THEIR VIEWS INCUR,
    INSTEAD OF PUTTING IT ON THE REST OF US TO PAY FOR THEIR "VALUES".

An interesting side-effect of the AATA91 will be sudden and fervent support for
birth control among anti-abortionists, who historically have been against
terminating pregnancies and ALSO AGAINST PREVENTING PREGNANCIES (except by
means which the anti-abortionists accept as proven ineffective, such as *not*
*doing* *it*). 

Watch out, water supply!

- Hoyt