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

[Robert Skinner]

Herb - where you and I (and many others as well) 
part company is on the question of when a zygote 
becomes a human entity.  I say that it occurs 
when the woman parts company with a critter that 
she (and no one else) has chosen to nurture.

As this is a matter of belief rather than a 
question of motility, cognition, or other 
technicality, it is not debatable.  As such I 
hold that no one but the woman in question has 
any right to define right and wrong with respect 
to this question.  

I once worked in a Catholic hospital, and 
watched as the staff deliberately chose to let 
an unconscious woman (an anonymous victim of an 
auto accident) die so that they could collect 
the contents of her body.  It was clear both
before and after the fact that she would have 
survived if they had chosen to sacrifice the 
unborn child.  The woman never had a chance to 
express her desires in te matter.  The belief 
structure of the staff defined the outcome.

I was revolted, and left shortly thereafter.

I act on the principle that a woman's own 
beliefs trump any rights society may claim 
over the contents of her womb until she 
delivers a child to the world.  

I do not expect to change your opinion any more 
than you probably would expect to change mine.  

However, note that my position stops short of 
defining what a woman may do or not do.  Whether 
as an individual or as a member of society, I 
claim no property rights or regulatory power 
over how a woman chooses to handle a pregnancy.  

I do not own her ability to procreate.  She does.
She has as much right to stop the process as she 
has to start it.

Having said that, I will shut up on the topic 
and say no more.  No man has a dog in this hunt.

/Robert


Herb Parsons wrote:
> 
> You're missing the point Stan (thought I think deliberately). No one
> argues the woman's right to "use her insides". She's free to screw
> whoever she wants (as long as he/she is willing and of an age of
> consent). The woman is free to choose whether or not to also use
> something on her insides that can prevent a pregnancy.
> 
> However, when she has made those decisions, and the creation of another
> human life is the result of her making those decisions; then yes, there
> are many among us that say her "right" to choose to kill that life
> should be restricted.
> 
> I'm among them. However, if you, or anyone else, tries to say that I'm
> "against a woman choosing to do what she wants with her insides" I'll
> stridently say, and yes even RANT, that it's a gross misrepresentation
> of my view.
> 
> Again, one's rights to their body SHOULD end where another human's
> rights begin.
> 
> stan wrote:
> > Sorry if I have offended anyone - it is just that I am such a convinced
> > advocate of a woman's right to choose and I thought McCain was not.
> >
> > Most men would admit that if they were the ones who could be told by the
> > government what they must do with that thing inside their body, they would
> > take advantage of their constitutional right to bear arms and shoot in self
> > defense.
> >
> > ss