|
fta: i think you're making my argument for me...so thanks. I know I can't make my argument objectively "better," the point is that it's indeterminant, when averaged over multiple people. No one can agree. Reasonable people...can't agree. We all agree that putting a gun into a kid who has just been popped is a bad thing. Slitting your grandmother's throat...probably immoral. When it comes to the z/e/f or whatever you want to call it, there's a lot of confusion. Perhaps not for you, but for others. So I say, in your personal life make personal decisions that affect you personally. That's called choice, and is why I'm pro-choice. Make your choice.
However, since we don't have that little question nailed down, I don't see how we can make official policy about a potential father's rights...when the fundamental of question of "is there anything to have rights over?" hasn't been settled. It's putting the cart before the horse. If we give some sort of "father's rights" to the fetus, then it gets argued backwards that there must have been a human life to give rights over. It's like intelligent design, in my opinion. We don't give a man the "rights" over anything else in a woman's body...so if we grant rights in this particular situation...then what exactly are we doing?
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
|