RE: Your post # 75....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Do we really want to go there? A procedure to force an unwilling woman to endure a pregancy to full term and delivery at the insistance of a man who can afford financially, to qualify to do that?
|
Much better to protect the children of both wealthy and poor fathers. But it'd be an improvement nonetheless. Yes, I would really want to go there, but by no means would I want to stop there.
As to the OP:
A system in which women can disregard the rights of the z/e/f - 'I can abort anytime I want to' - but in which men can't, is a terrible system.
A system 'fair' to both women - 'I can abort the responsibilities' - and men - 'You can always abort your responsibilities, it's on you' - is an even worse system.
Consistency here is not necessarily better. Consistency could mean more state-condoned murder. Consistency would only be an improvement if it meant the criminalization of z/e/f abandoment for both sexes.
Otherwise, it's a foolish consistency.
(Needless to say, I don't like Roe.) |
This thread was predicated (I think....) on an issue revolving around "fairness"....is it fair that women have so much more control (total)over the decision to bear a child, or not....and a man who has sperm "invested" in a given set of circumstances, is financially liable, or not....due to decisions beyond his control, made by a woman who hosts a pregnancy and delivers a resulting child. This same man, legally compelled to provide support for a child brought into the world by a woman who decided for both parents, to complete a pregnancy and give birth, has no legal means to prevent a woman from deciding to do the opposite....to terminate the pregnancy.
Ironically, in FoolThemAll's response to my comment, is the opposite sentiment of the "fairness", that willravel seems to be seeking in this thread's OP. FoolThemAll wants to see his view of what a recently impregnated woman's legal and safe choices should be, if she decides to attempt to terminate her pregnancy, affect as many women in as many jurisdictions as possible, even if it disproportionally burdensome, or "unfair", to the least wealthy in these jurisdictions.
I see it as an agenda to impose a set of restrictions to "save unborn babies", and if it only traps the poorest women, the ones with the least options, due to their poverty that tends to "lock them down", unable to travel to an unaffected jusrisdiction to then pay a fee to safely and legally end an unwanted pregnancy, so be it, because it is not about fairness to women, or to men involved at all.
It is a mindset that seems to run this way:
"As long as we restrict a "bunch of them", from access to safe, legal, clinical abortion, we are not concerned that women with wealth can put themselves beyond our capabilities to block clinical abortion and other reproductive health services, from the "least of us", in our society".
It is a mindset that seems to me, to be...."Un-American", and I saw it similarly in FoolThemAll's statement, quoted above:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
....Much better to protect the children of both wealthy and poor fathers. But it'd be an improvement nonetheless....
|
....so you have one side of the argument this thread's topic has evloved into, who make it plain that they are not about "fairness" or "consistency", they are about imposing their restrictions on the most women, possible.
So, why are they even participating on this thread? There is a thread on this forum where a discussion closer to their take on this can be resumed:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=82025
In fact, I am going there, now.....