My own view lies somewhere in the middle: I'm against abortion ... so I refuse to have one. Seeing how I've never had an unwanted or life-threatening pregnancy, I don't feel equipped to tell complete strangers in those circumstances what they should do with their bodies.Now, given that LZ is also gay, it's probably true that he will never have to deal with pregnancy in any form.* So he seems to have an open and shut case: live and let die.
I can dig that. In fact, I think his logic is impeccable and could be used to inform us on all kinds of other matters related to American law. For example, I'm against assaulting people for being homosexual... so I refuse to beat one. Since I've never had an unwanted or uncomfortable meeting with a gay person, I don't feel equipped to tell complete strangers in those circumstances what they should do with their baseball bats.
He's also black but has a European surname, which means that his ancestors quite probably crossed the Big Drink against their will. Hey, I'm against chattel slavery, too... so I refuse to own one. Since I've never had a cotton field that needed to be harvested, I don't feel equipped to tell complete strangers in those circumstances what they should do with their neck shackles and bull whips.
Of course, LZ would be the first of many liberals to tell you that people ought not be able to beat gays or enslave blacks, not just because he doesn't want to be beaten and enslaved but because it's wrong. Blacks and gays have human rights that the law ought to respect** even if there's cotton that needs picking. Those rights, as Rachel Maddow once noted, are not up for vote.
However, Liberals are perfectly happy to ignore what they see in the sonogram, instead voting on the human rights of that child with an electorate of one. If mom*** wants it, it's a baby, a human being with full human rights and even medical coverage for in-utero surgery. If she doesn't, then it's a burst appendix or an artery blockage or something. Biology doesn't matter. Rights don't matter. All that matters is a woman's desire.
* From here on out. He does have a son. I'm not sure how that happened and didn't ask.
** and actively protect. Even if it means expelling students for expressing themselves in the Free Expression Tunnel.
*** And only Mom. If Dad decides he does not want to be a parent, he's a deadbeat, to be pursued for material support to the ends of the earth by the full force of law. If Mom doesn't want to be a parent, she's simply an outpatient.
View Bill Hoyt's profile
Posts
9 comments:
Don't know if it's the hiatus or the experience of writing the book, but you've been on fire since you got back.
Of course all the "if you don't want * then don't *" ignores taxes. Why should everyone else pay for * if they don't want to * in the first place?
I think I'm going to lobby for the Affordable Duck Act, which will require everyone to own at least 20 ducks and have a large pond--or pay a fine. Hey, if you don't want ducks, don't get ducks!
Regarding deadbeat dads, I just saw an article about "preglimony".
CJ: Thanks, Amigo.
Doom: I don't have a NY Times account, but I'm betting that it's an article demanding that men pay more based solely on a woman's choice.
I've another idea. Since women now have complete sexual freedom - freedom to carry, freedom to abort, without husbands or boyfriends or parents having a say - and men have none, women should be solely responsible for the lifetime costs of the child. If dad doesn't want to dad, any time during the first 6 months of pregnancy, he can pay $500 for a virtual abortion and walk away, as free as a woman can.
If that idea upsets feministas, I wonder why? Doesn't *everyone* have the right to decide if they are ready to be a parent? Or is this a right that only belongs to women?
The main point of the article:
"Former spouses are often required to pay alimony; former cohabiting partners may have to pay palimony; why not ask men who conceive with a woman to whom they are not married to pay “preglimony”? Alternatively, we might simply encourage preglimony through the tax code, by allowing pregnancy-support payments to be deductible (which is how alimony is treated)."
Why not? Because women have the choice, not men. I was going to write more, but really, what is there to say?
why not ask men...
They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
El Borak has always been en fuego.
Don't know if it's the hiatus or the experience of writing the book, but you've been on fire since you got back.
when you acclimate to writing 5-10k words per day, a couple of hundreds words for a blog post no longer really impinges on your consciousness as :effort:.
i'm sure in no time at all, El Borak will be blog posting at Vox levels and hosting multiple blogs.
*grins*
The problem presently is apathy.* I read the news and find almost nothing worth commenting upon.
* The thing is, bob, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.
you don't say?
can i interest you in joining my political party / philosophical movement, the MAP?
the Militant Apathist Party
motto: Defending to the death our right not to care
Post a Comment