Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!matt
From: matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt )
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Right to Procreate
Message-ID: <254@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 29-Jul-85 11:32:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.254
Posted: Mon Jul 29 11:32:52 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 05:39:06 EDT
References: <393@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1283@pyuxd.UUCP> <164@brl-tgr.ARPA> <471@mit-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 23

> >3)  The father's right to procreate (a Constitutional right -- I can
> >    cite cases) is subordinate to the woman's right to remove the
> >    fetus from her body.  (MATT ROSENBLATT)
> 
> The whole idea that a male's right to produce offspring is higher than
> the female's NOT to it so fascist I cannot find a less flame-oriented
> way to respond!  (CHARLES FORSYTHE)

O, let's turn it around.  Suppose the woman wants the baby, and the man
doesn't.  Is the female's right to produce offspring higher than the male's
right NOT to?  (In other words, does he have the right to force her to
abort?)  I don't believe you would say so.  So we are left with the idea
that once the man has taken part in the act of conception, he has no more
right to procreate or not that the woman need respect.  And the only way
_that_ idea is supportable is if we assume the woman has the right to
remove that fetus, and to hell with the fetus's or the man's rights to
anything!

But once you stop assuming the right to remove the fetus, the same rule
applies to both man and woman:  You've started something, now let it 
finish itself -- no abortion.

				-- Matt Rosenblatt