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

Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com
Mon Jun 6 18:13:51 UTC 2005


On Jun 6, 2005, at 8:26 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- 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....

Why would you think I have "eco-buddies"?  You seem to have stuffed  
me into one of your collectivist pigeon-holes.  Strange that an  
individualist refuses to bother to see me as an individual and  
respond to what I say rather than what the collection he things I am  
part of would (so he thinks) say about totally unrelated topics.

>
>
>>
>> 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".
>

There is no "clearly" about it as I have never said any such thing.    
I don't believe as it turns out that the male who is not  
contractually obligated to a female who became pregnant by him should  
have to support the child for a couple of decades if she decides to  
have it.  In actuality I think the divorce laws concerning child  
support have many unfair biases against the guys.  See, if you had  
bothered to find out what I think on this side matter it would have  
been much better than blasting away at the pattern you think I am  
part of.

> 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,

That would be as objectionable as what you object to.

> 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.

You don't believe this is just so why are you spewing this?


> 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.
>

There is no escape clause because there was no contract just by  
having sex to start with.  So everyone is not obligated by a surprise  
pregnancy therefrom.  Fair?

>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.

That is dumb.  It is in her body.  As long as she doesn't have the  
right to force the male to pay child support if he is not otherwise  
contractually obligated (as a spouse) then it very much is her  
choice.   It is dumb to throw out the rights of others if some rights  
and reasonableness are not already upheld by law.   Lack of balance  
needs to be fixed by making it better for all parties not by making  
it more broken for everyone.

>
>
>>
>> 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.
>

This supposed event on the other side of the world has nothing to do  
with the question.

> 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.

There are currently no rights of the unborn that I recognize except  
as derived from the rights of the parents.  I recognize no right of  
the male involved or of the state to force a woman to carry to term.

- samantha



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list