virus: RE: Abortion (formerly AIDS Meme)

Hakeeb A. Nandalal (
Tue, 29 Oct 1996 15:19:06 +0000

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 *
* *
* *