[extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public!Filmateleven.

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> Judgmental and prejudicial of discussion as ever I see.   Why do you 
> belief that just because the 56 day old fetus has a bit more rounded 
> head and recognizable 10 fingers and ten toes that it is now fully  
> endowed with all rights of the actually born and has all the rights  
> at least of the woman carrying it?  Your demarcation seems  
> arbitrary.  It certainly doesn't seem objective enough to call those 
> who don't see it as you do sociopaths or insane.

It is far less arbitrary than your eco-buddies selecting only cute and
fuzzy animals to demonstrate over....

> 
> Deciding some point in pregnancy that the pregnancy should only be  
> terminated for more extreme reason makes sense to me on multiple  
> levels.   Part of what I said about a foetus not being a child until 
> the parents say so is also a recognition that after the point of  
> thinking of the foetus as child accidental loss or abortion becomes  
> much more painful emotionally and psychologically. Contrasted with
> the difficult to define purported rights of the unborn are the  
> obviously present rights of the woman carrying it to self- 
> determination.   Many are the hormonal and psychological pressures to
> carry to term.  But pregnancy is no cakewalk physically or  
> psychologically.  Saying a woman must carry to term just because she 
> is pregnant is an abrogation of her rights and involuntary servitude.
> It is a placing of the purported right of the unborn above the rights
> of the woman.  This is obviously problematic.  In practice a balance 
> will be struck.  In my personal view I would tend to place the line  
> before which abortion is an at will decision roughly at the end of  
> the first trimester.   Abortion after some point in pregnancy should 
> in my opinion only be for very substantial reasons.

Ah, the old 'involuntary servitude' claim rears its head! It is odd,
Samantha, that you so clearly dismiss such a claim when it is the male
making it, particularly when the state starts garnishing his wages for
child support for a child he never wanted.... When did he ever have the
right to an abortion? Feminists like yourself claim he had his choice
in the few minutes of copulation, while claiming the mother has 9
months of choice. Sorry, that isn't "equal protection under the law" or
"equal rights".

Sorry, Samantha, it doesn't wash. The woman chose to take the risk to
temporarily and voluntarily indenture herself to the kid at the moment
she chose to procreate, just as her sexual partner did, just as anyone
is bound, indentured, when they sign any sort of contract with another
party, be it an employment contract, a mortgage, or a marriage, or
social security: you choose to contract by act (signature or screw,
doesn't matter), you get bound, and you fulfill the terms of the
contract. No woman can claim she didn't realize the demands of a 9
month pregancy contract. Incognizance or incompetence is really the
only escape from such a contract: in this regard, a minor child is
incognizant and/or incompetent to enter into contract.

If you are going to demand that one party have an escape clause, all
parties must have the same escape clause.

> >
> >
> > I'd like to hear Samantha's view on this. 56 days isn't even two  
> > months yet, well within the first trimester that most women tend
> > to believe is their rightful period to execute an abortion
> > without guilt or remorse.
> 
> There is almost always a lot of psychologically difficult stuff  
> around deciding to abort after the hormones are flowing especially.  
>  
> It is not an easy decision and you do women a disservice by painting 
> them as uncaring if they abort.   But it is the woman's decision to  
> make.

If the male doesn't have an equal right to decide, then I refuse to
recognise hers.

> 
> How do you feel about the morning after pill, Mike?   About a week  
> after pill?  A month?   Where do you draw your line?   And where do  
> you get off calling those who disagree insane or sociopaths?

When I see pictures on the internet of Chinese people eating fetus
soup, it becomes clear to me that the abortion movement has slipped its
rails of rationality and has become an advocate for genocide.

As I've stated before, a morning after pill is fine. Out to two weeks
seems fine. Beyond that we enter a sea of gradually rising rights of
the unborn as well as the full rights of the father that are of equal
importance as the mothers rights.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html