M> Ken Sartor wrote :-
>
> > I think the subject is complex enough that there is more room for
> > debate than what you present above...
> >
> > My personal beliefs happen to think that "women and as people of color"
> > are not the only ones affected (one way or another) by this topic.
> >
> > Also - the apparent lack of symmetry in the topic also bothers me.
> > If a man impregnates a women she can solely determine whether to
> > bear the child or not. If married, he may lose his child, if single
> > he may be forced to pay child support for 2 decades. All regardless
> > of what he chooses.
> >
> > (Maybe men should be allowed a "paper abortion". If they choose to
> > get it, they lose all rights and responsibilities to the child. But
> > they have to get it before the child is born, subject to the
> > same rules that constrain women on getting real abortions. ???)
> >
> > Again, the topic strikes me as very complex and emotionally charged.
>
> This argument would be valid if the fetus physically occupied the man's body as well. It has been argued, and I
> agree 100%, that if men could get pregnant, the Congress would pass a "right to abortion" law in a minute.
>
> Women aren't breed-cows who have to carry out a function for family purposes. If a man is so concerned he may
> impregnate a woman and have to pay child support - he should get a much socially praised vasectomy. No one will
> block him a the clinic, and there won't be any need for a 15-foot clearance rule from the Supreme Court.
>
> BTW, if I formed a church call "Order of the Sacred Seed" and then used my political power making it illegal
> for men to have vasectomies because it violated my "religious" beliefs, would you fall in line? Everything is
> relative, you just have to shift your point of view a little bit to expose well-meaning tyrannical sentiments.
>
> **************************
> * *
> * Hakeeb A. Nandalal *
> * nanco@trinidad.net *
> * *
> **************************
>