On 2022-05-09, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> Apparently Margaret Atwood, the author of "The Handmaid's Tale", has
> weighed in on the abortion debate and declared that "forcing a woman to
> bear a child that she doesn't want is slavery".
>
> I think she needs to read her own book. As I understand it - I've not
> read the book - the tale concerns a society in which women are
> controlled and forced into marriage and forbidden contraception and
> therefore repeated pregnancies are the result.
It's a very good book.
> Possibly I have been gravely misinformed about American society, but to
> the best of my knowledge, women are not controlled (the odd controlling
> husband or boy-friend aside), they are not forced into marriage nor are
> they forbidden contraception. What does happen is that women (and, of
> course, men) get drunk and behave in ways that are likely to result in
> pregnancy.
You're letting prejudices get in the way of the facts. A lot of
abortion patients (maybe the majority now) are women in monogamous
relationships, and a lot of them already have children but can't
afford to have more. Many are subjects of contraception failure (no
method is 100% reliable) rather than failure to use it.
> If Roe v. Wade is repealed, nothing will change except that women will
> be obliged to face the consequences of their own freely-chosen actions.
> The idea that actions have undesired consequences is repugnant to the
> "woke" generation, but it is thoroughly Biblical. "Whatsoever a man
> soweth, that shall his significant other surely reap".
If you look at the news from the US, you'll see many backward
legislators also saying they want to ban various forms of
contraception next.
> If, when Roe v. Wade is repealed, additional legislation is introduced
> to force men to face the consequences of *their* freely-choesn actions,
> it will have my full support.
Child support laws already exist. There was even a case in the US
where a man who was raped while unconscious was forced to pay it
(you'll no doubt say he was asking for it).
SF vs. TM (1996). S.F. was a man who passed out intoxicated at a
party in the home of a woman (T.M.), who had sex with him while he
was unconscious. S.F. had no knowledge of this until he woke up the
following morning with his lower clothes removed. T.M. became
pregnant as a result of the encounter and S.F. was ordered to pay
child support. He appealed, arguing that he "did not knowingly and
willfully participate in any sexual activity with the mother of the
minor child." S.F. further asserted that being compelled to pay
child support for a child conceived as a result of non-consensual
intercourse deprived him of property rights and equal protection
under the law. He produced expert testimony that it was possible
for a male to get an erection and ejaculate while
unconscious. While the court acknowledged that the mother's
misconduct was "reprehensible" and a "misdemeanor", it nevertheless
rejected his argument, stating that "the child is an innocent
party... any wrongful conduct on the part of the mother should not
alter the father's duty to provide support for the child." S.F. was
ordered to pay $106.04 per month in child support, plus $8,960.64
in arrears.[36][37]
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_theft#United_States>
--
Well, I just said that Jesus and I were both Jewish and that neither
of us ever had a job, we never had a home, we never married and we
traveled around the countryside irritating people.
--- Kinky Friedman