NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48707

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-19 | 5.2 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48707 alt.abortion.inequity:5190 soc.women:19981 soc.men:19620
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uunet.ca!geac!zooid!goid
From: Will Steeves <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Men and Abortion
X-To: [e-mail]
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:17:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: Will Steeves <[e-mail]>
Lines: 87

[e-mail] () writes...
PA> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
PA> >In <[e-mail]> Will Steeves <[e-mail].o
PA> writes:
PA> >>Steve Novak writes...
PA> >>SN> venture that Steeves' "deeply felt agony" is misplaced and unwarranted
PA> >>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PA> >>SN> unless you wanna start sanctifying the fetus again.
PA> >>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

PA> >>Try telling that to a couple who suffered a miscarriage.  Do you also deny
PA> >>*their* agony at their loss?  And what about a single woman who *does* wan
PA> >>the child - will you tell her that she's out to lunch and that *her* deepl
PA> >>felt agony is misplaced and unwarranted because it amounts to "sanctifying
PA> >>the foetus"?

PA> >Excellent point, Will.  Whole books have been written on the subject of the
PA> >loss felt in miscarriage.


PA> No, it's a lousy point.  A couple who has "suffered" a miscarriage *wanted*
PA> that child (I assume, otherwise they won't have "suffered" so much).  I
PA> certainly sympathize with their loss.


Please allow me to explain...

In a miscarriage, a woman who *does* want her child, loses him/her through no
fault of her own.  Regardless of whether the father wanted the child or not,
she *will* suffer the pain of that loss.  In this case, the man's feelings are
irrelevant, because we are discussing the *woman's* feelings.  And since we
have long ago dispelled the myth that women are supposed to feel the same way
that men feel, I have *no* qualms about saying that the man's feelings are
irrelevant with respect to what the woman is feeling.

In an abortion situation, a man who *does* want the child, loses him/her through
no fault of his own.  Regardless of whether the mother wanted the child or not,
he *will* suffer the pain of that loss.  In this case, the woman's feelings are
irrelevant, because we are discussing the *man's* feelings.  And since we have
long ago dispelled the myth that women are supposed to feel the same way that
men feel, I consider it extremely disingenous to conversely suggest that a man
is not justified in feeling pain, *just* because the woman did not want the
child.   Just as I have no qualms about saying that the man's feelings are
irrelevant with respect to whether the woman is "right" in feeling sorrow, I
also have *no* qualms about saying that the woman's feelings are irrelevant
with respect to what the man is feeling.


PA> It is theoretically possible for a man to carry a child (I think the idea is
PA> attatch the placenta to the outside of the small intestine)--I remember hear
PA> this on the news a few years ago.  However, I don't think it has ever been
PA> attempted.  Maybe if you offer yourself as a vict...oops, I mean a guiny-p..
PA> oops, no, I really meant to say subject, yeah that's the tickit, a subject..
PA> someone will attempt it with you.  You could have your child, your wife woul
PA> not have to carry a child she doesn't want, your child would get that chance
PA> life that pro-lifers want to give it, the woman would have that right to cho
PA> that pro-choicers want her to have, and the medical profession could find ou
PA> whether that sort of thing can actually work.  Gee, EVERYONE wins!  ...as lo
PA> as it works.  But hey, wouldn't it be worth the risk?  No?  But you expect h
PA> to take that risk; why wouldn't you?  (That's a rhetorical question, it does
PA> not require an answer.  Of course you could have a hypothetical answer...whi
PA> doesn't require my question.  ;)


Yes, *I* too have been arguing for research into a method of gestation outside
of the womb.  The man's body is an option which many men would gladly choose
(myself included), but an even better option for men *and* women, is : the
artficial womb.

While *you* were probably just being sarcastic about men being pregnant or other
non-uterine methods of gestation, the fact remains that such methods can
possibly provide a cease-fire in this decades-long war between "pro-life" and
"pro-choice".  While certainly some "pro-lifers" will say "Technology shouldn't
have a place in nature," and some "pro-choicers" will say "it intrudes on
women's control over reproduction," I believe that the majority of the
population *will* support a method of gestation which doesn't force women to
remain pregnant, but at the same time, allows the "foetus" to remain alive.

---
Will Steeves, [e-mail]                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
[phone]

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Come on Brian, let's go to the stoning.