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

[Herb Parsons]

I had to smile at this one. I can imagine some of what you went through, 
but only imagine. I CAN however, understand.

Here's the irony. Society has pretty much (at this point in time) 
accepted the notion that "it's the woman's body for her to choose" (I 
haven't, but I accept that I'm not in the majority); however, they leave 
"choice" out of it ENTIRELY for the male.

Both adults made a decision to do the deed that produces a child. 
Whether through deception, ignorance, or just "I don't care, I live for 
the moment", both (usually) made the decision to do it without taking 
the precautions necessary to prevent a pregnancy.

So, both basically made equal choices.

So, why is it suddenly the WOMANS's sole "choice" as to whether or not 
to accept the results of those choices?

Is the male NOT going to have to use "his body" to earn the money 
required to support this child for the next 18-23 years?

I know, I know, totally different situation, and totally politically 
incorrect to even bring up for discussion.

Except neither of notions are true. It's not different, and it is 
correct to bring up for discussion.


Brad Haslett wrote:
> Robert,
>
> Who started this mess?  We're attempting to answer a question for which
> there is no "one size fits all" solution and yet every four years some
> insist this be the litmus test for their vote.  I sure as hell don't have
> the answer but do feel compelled to point out some "grey areas" from another
> side of the issue.
>
> You wrote, "no man has a dog in this hunt". Until women learn to
> spontaneously conceive, a man was out hunting somewhere. Perhaps a better
> statement would be, "no man has any ammunition in this hunt", after
> conception.  Having been down this road armed with only persuasion, I feel a
> bit differently about the "it's the woman's choice".  So, when I read
> statements such as yours,
> "She has as much right to stop the process as she has to start it", I'm
> reminded of some old uncomfortable memories that, by law, prove you are all
> too correct.
>
> Is there a correct answer?  No, there isn't and never will be.  There are
> limits to government and this issue is  best left to individuals, or at
> least to individual states. Patrick Moynihan presciently warned in 1965 that
> some of the Great Society programs would have the opposite effect of what
> was intended by weakening the family structure.  Combined with the women's
> liberation movement (which I support), we've witnessed a weakening of
> father's rights, and in some communities, have seen an overwhelming
> breakdown of traditional families. Ah, the law of unintended consequences!
>
> For me personally,  perfectly acceptable answers on abortion from someone
> running for office would be, "I'm for/against it but will leave it to
> individuals to choose", or, "I don't have an answer". Once the child is
> here, however, the role of government changes.  Traditional marriage and
> family structure evolved in the human race over tens of thousands of years
> for a reason. We need to be very careful and tread lightly when discussing
> changing that process.
>
> You won't hear me say this too many times so mark today on your calender.
> What is the answer to this issue? I don't know!
>
> Brad
>
>
>   
>