Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Slavery

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Kendall K. Down

unread,
May 9, 2022, 3:29:53 AM5/9/22
to
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.

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.

If Roe v. Wade is repealed, nothing will change except that women will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If, when Roe v. Wade is repealed, additional legislation is introduced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.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down


Adam Funk

unread,
May 9, 2022, 9:09:53 AM5/9/22
to
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


Kendall K. Down

unread,
May 10, 2022, 2:09:54 AM5/10/22
to
On 09/05/2022 13:54, Adam Funk wrote:

> It's a very good book.

I have since looked it up on Wikipedia, which gives a plot summary. I'll
take your word for it, for it doesn't sound like the sort of thing I
would bother reading.

> 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.

But is a failure in contraception a good reason for infanticide?

You are aware, I hope, that some abortion protagonists over here are
arguing for post-birth abortion? I wonder what age limit would you put
on such a procedure? Would you allow a woman to conclude that having her
son was a mistake and kill him on his 21st birthday? 18th? 12th? 3rd?

I presume you react with horror to the suggestion, which would do you
credit.

Now explain to me the ethical and moral reason why it is all right to
kill a baby three months before it is born but wrong to kill it three
months *after* it is born?[1]

> 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.

It would be interesting to see what forms of contraception they have in
mind. Condoms and the pill are one thing, but the morning-after pill
(which, in practice, is an abortifacient) is another.

> 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).

Well, he *was* asking for it, in exactly the same way as if he had been
robbed while drunk out of his mind, but I disagree with the court's
decision.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

Note 1: I am taking the usual medical reasons as granted.


Adam Funk

unread,
May 18, 2022, 7:19:51 AM5/18/22
to
On 2022-05-10, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 09/05/2022 13:54, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> It's a very good book.
>
> I have since looked it up on Wikipedia, which gives a plot summary. I'll
> take your word for it, for it doesn't sound like the sort of thing I
> would bother reading.
>
>> 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.
>
> But is a failure in contraception a good reason for infanticide?

No, but it's a legitimate reason for abortion, which (if we want to
have a sensible discussion) is not the same thing.


> You are aware, I hope, that some abortion protagonists over here are
> arguing for post-birth abortion? I wonder what age limit would you put

Who?


> on such a procedure? Would you allow a woman to conclude that having her
> son was a mistake and kill him on his 21st birthday? 18th? 12th? 3rd?
>
> I presume you react with horror to the suggestion, which would do you
> credit.
>
> Now explain to me the ethical and moral reason why it is all right to
> kill a baby three months before it is born but wrong to kill it three
> months *after* it is born?[1]

It's not a baby until it's born --- it's a fetus before that. A
grown-up discussion should use the correct medical terminology.


>> 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.
>
> It would be interesting to see what forms of contraception they have in
> mind. Condoms and the pill are one thing, but the morning-after pill
> (which, in practice, is an abortifacient) is another.

The morning-after pill merely prevents implantation --- the same
function as an IUD (which some of the American extremists want to ban
too). Again, a grown-up discussion should respect the science.



>> 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).
>
> Well, he *was* asking for it, in exactly the same way as if he had been
> robbed while drunk out of his mind, but I disagree with the court's
> decision.

I haven't looked up the actual ruling, but from that summary I get the
impression the judge would have ruled the same way if someone had
drugged him.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
May 19, 2022, 2:49:52 PM5/19/22
to
On 18/05/2022 12:08, Adam Funk wrote:

>> But is a failure in contraception a good reason for infanticide?

> No, but it's a legitimate reason for abortion, which (if we want to
> have a sensible discussion) is not the same thing.

Killing babies is killing babies.

>> You are aware, I hope, that some abortion protagonists over here are
>> arguing for post-birth abortion? I wonder what age limit would you put

> Who?

We were invited to sign a petition against a bill for post-birth
abortion that was going to be presented to parliament. Fortunately
sufficient protest was aroused that the sponsor withdrew the bill.

>> Now explain to me the ethical and moral reason why it is all right to
>> kill a baby three months before it is born but wrong to kill it three
>> months *after* it is born?[1]

> It's not a baby until it's born --- it's a fetus before that. A
> grown-up discussion should use the correct medical terminology.

You are splitting hairs. Whether you call the organism a "foetus" or a
"baby", it is the same individual - the same cells, the same facial
features. Yet you - it seems - will happily kill that child before it is
born.

> The morning-after pill merely prevents implantation --- the same
> function as an IUD (which some of the American extremists want to ban
> too). Again, a grown-up discussion should respect the science.

*Some* morning-after pills prevent implanation; others, especially those
taken a couple of mornings after, abort the newly implanted egg.

> I haven't looked up the actual ruling, but from that summary I get the
> impression the judge would have ruled the same way if someone had
> drugged him.

As I say, I disagree with that decision. I think it was morally wrong.

Adam Funk

unread,
May 30, 2022, 2:49:50 PM5/30/22
to
On 2022-05-19, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 18/05/2022 12:08, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>>> But is a failure in contraception a good reason for infanticide?
>
>> No, but it's a legitimate reason for abortion, which (if we want to
>> have a sensible discussion) is not the same thing.
>
> Killing babies is killing babies.

I think you said earlier you would allow abortion for rape and serious
fetal defects --- that recognises that there is a distinction.



>>> You are aware, I hope, that some abortion protagonists over here are
>>> arguing for post-birth abortion? I wonder what age limit would you put
>
>> Who?
>
> We were invited to sign a petition against a bill for post-birth
> abortion that was going to be presented to parliament. Fortunately
> sufficient protest was aroused that the sponsor withdrew the bill.

So one person, irrelevant to the current status of abortion in the UK.



>>> Now explain to me the ethical and moral reason why it is all right to
>>> kill a baby three months before it is born but wrong to kill it three
>>> months *after* it is born?[1]
>
>> It's not a baby until it's born --- it's a fetus before that. A
>> grown-up discussion should use the correct medical terminology.
>
> You are splitting hairs. Whether you call the organism a "foetus" or a
> "baby", it is the same individual - the same cells, the same facial
> features. Yet you - it seems - will happily kill that child before it is
> born.
>
>> The morning-after pill merely prevents implantation --- the same
>> function as an IUD (which some of the American extremists want to ban
>> too). Again, a grown-up discussion should respect the science.
>
> *Some* morning-after pills prevent implanation; others, especially those
> taken a couple of mornings after, abort the newly implanted egg.
>
>> I haven't looked up the actual ruling, but from that summary I get the
>> impression the judge would have ruled the same way if someone had
>> drugged him.
>
> As I say, I disagree with that decision. I think it was morally wrong.
>
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down
>
>
>

--
When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him
whose? --- Don Marquis


Kendall K. Down

unread,
May 30, 2022, 4:09:49 PM5/30/22
to
On 30/05/2022 19:43, Adam Funk wrote:

>> Killing babies is killing babies.

> I think you said earlier you would allow abortion for rape and serious
> fetal defects --- that recognises that there is a distinction.

Certainly, but that is to recognise that there are some circumstances
which justify killing a human being. It doesn't make abortion anything
other than killing babies.

>> We were invited to sign a petition against a bill for post-birth
>> abortion that was going to be presented to parliament. Fortunately
>> sufficient protest was aroused that the sponsor withdrew the bill.

> So one person, irrelevant to the current status of abortion in the UK.

It was one person who presented the bill, but she (I think it was a she)
was certainly not acting alone
0 new messages