roachboy

pigglet: i agree with your post up to the point where you extend it into an equal protection types argument concerning the law itself.

so far as i can tell, nothing that you outline is either included or excluded by the present law--all of what you say can--and should (to my mind, but whatever)--take place in the context of the deliberations that (i would think necessarily) precede anyone availing themselves of the procedure.

it turns out that, in the last analysis, the decision belongs to the woman: i am not bothered by it. it is, after all, her that undergoes the procedure. i am not the only person to say this. and i see no scenario that changes it. do you?

you could always devise scenarios to correlate with an issue, fictional or not.
it is easy. whether you would indulge in that or not is a function of whether you find the issue behind the scenarios compelling. i do not.

but i do not think i am wrong in a scenario of my own: what the consequences of any adjustment to the existing law would be, based on this logic.

this is linked to the position i took, whcih is that i see the issue of "male reproductive rights" as a tactic. i outlined an analogy to aa solely as a way to justify my taking it as a tactic.

such motives as i imputed i read off previous posts in the thread--i have not been tracking this non-issue as it may or may not been tracking out there in 3-d land.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite