Re: Sobran's thoughts on baby killing

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:56:48 -0800, El Castor
<justuschickens@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Gary James <gnajmes43@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:02:08 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
>><PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 08:06:26 -0500, Gary James <gnajmes43@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>The Reactionary Utopian
>>>> November 8, 2005
>>>>
>>>>WORDS OF CHOICE
>>>>by Joe Sobran
>>>>
>>>> A leading abortion advocate, Kate Michelman, says
>>>>that if it had been up to Judge Samuel Alito, she might
>>>>not have been allowed, many years ago, to have the baby
>>>>she was carrying killed. As you may know by now, Alito
>>>>once ruled in favor of a law requiring that a married
>>>>woman get her husband's consent before aborting.
>>>
>>>
>>> We had a Proposition #73 on the recent election. It
>>>lost, but was close. It said that an underage girl had to
>>>get her parents' consent before having an abortion.
>>>As noted, the count was close, and the proposition might
>>>well have passed except that a fetus was referred to it as
>>>an "unborn child", which would be the first time in
>>>California law that a fetus was called a child. That term
>>>really got people's attention, as a backdoor way for the
>>>fundies to impose their opinions on State law.
>>
>>Wasn't that guy, Scott Peterson, who killed his wife and their fetus
>>charged with a double murder ? That was in CA. I cannot
>>understand how in the same state it is (a) OK to flush it down the
>>drain if you are a woman, but (b) it is murder, if you are a man.
>>They could at least be consistent.
>
>I have mixed feelings on abortion, but that one is easy to explain.
>
>A. A woman considers the alternatives and chooses to have an abortion.
>
>B. A woman is pregnant and intends to have the baby, and along comes
>some guy and punches her in the stomach. The baby is dead, and the
>woman still alive. It does seem like something more than simple
>assault just happened.



I feel pretty much the same way, though I can't justify my
feelings and still feel I'm being consistent. A fetus is a baby
or not a baby. Its status before it died doesn't depend on
how it died.




>>I personally believe that the fetus is the property of both man and
>>woman.
>
>That's not the way your fellow liberals look at it.



I agree with Gary, personally. I've gotten raked over the
coals in this newsgroup for suggesting that view. That's
assuming the fertilization was consensual, of course.



>Here's an
>interesting conundrum for you which was true several years ago and
>probably still is. If a married man went to Kaiser and asked for a
>vasectomy, they wouldn't do it without the written permission of his
>wife. If the wife wanted to have her tubes tied, no permission was
>needed.
>
>>It's sort of like a tree growing on my property line. It
>>belongs to both me and my neighbor. I am legally free to cut my half
>>down. But if that results in the death of my neighbors half, then
>>I'm up s--- creek. That's the way it should be with a fetus. If a
>>woman kills her partners half, she should do prison time just like
>>Scott is doing.
>>
>>Just a thought.
>
>Nah, be reasonable. She may not even know who the father is, and
>besides the father doesn't have to risk his life and health lugging
>around the baby for 9 months -- and if he walks out on the mother to
>be, there is a 99% chance she is going to spend the next 18 years
>raising it.



And the father is probably going to be paying for it. yet he
has no say in the matter but she does? It's inconvenient
to see things that way, granted, but convenience, while it
must be a consideration in action, never makes truth.



> I do think that before a woman gets an abortion it would
>be best to notify the father so the father could discuss it with her,
>but that's the extent of it. I recall being in high school when in
>walks this idiot and announces that he is a father. How would you like
>to be the 15 year old girl that he got pregnant and have him announce
>that he was going to require her to have the baby? In this case, she
>and her parents must have decided it was the best thing to do, and
>good for them, but I sure wouldn't want some 16 year old guy who
>couldn't keep his pants zipped making that decision.



Assuming he didn't rape her or deceive her, it takes two to
tango.



>
>"Arguing on UseNet is like competing in the Special
>Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Attention Paul G
    ... It is the anti-abortion nutcases who want to debate the ... trying to assert when a fetus becomes a baby: ... >> is to be opposed to abortion from the moment of conception onward. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Hunter gone ugly OT or not
    ... how many of you want less government unless its something you ... I am completely against government involvement in people's personal business - the problem with abortion is that the thing being aborted might be a person. ... More recently people have used the time that the baby can survive outside the womb. ... So, for me, it becomes a matter of conscience, I can happily support abortion right up to the moment the fetus becomes a person, but not one second longer. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT: Attention Paul G
    ... >Apparently you are trying to make the case that a fetus IS a baby. ... >Another question which has absolutely nothing to do with whether abortion ... >assertion of fact for which you have zero factual basis. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Why is killing babies so important to Democrats?
    ... the first on the agenda is ALWAYS abortion. ... >>> It proves my point all the further, Democrats foam at the mouth at the ... >>But what about a woman who wants to take her fetus to term and give birth, ... own body as "baby killers". ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Time to Abort Fatherhood at Will
    ... Abortion is baby killing. ... Technically speaking it can't accurately be called murder, ... He is a father with her permission and approval only. ...
    (soc.men)