"KK" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:31:03 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>
>> "KK" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:29:03 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article > ,
>>>>> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When a woman can get pregant without a man's sperm, she can have
>>>>>> total say.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's her body, so she has total say.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> So you don't believe in equal rights. What I have come to expect from
>>>> *** people.
>>>
>>> I believe in equal rights. If there was a protoperson growing in a
>>> man's body, I'd believe in his right to have it removed.
>>
>> We have already established that you like abortion.
>
> Why do you have to do that? Your assigning a feeling I don't have (and
> which you couldn't know I had if I did) doesn't change the facts or what
> makes up either of our opinions.

Why are you asking when you've seen me do it a million times before. It
gets boring writing sentences the same way over and over. What's wrong with
stirring it up a little?


>
> The fact (and this issue is short on them and long on emotion on both
> sides) is that, if the right to abortion comes from ownership of one's
> body, then there's no contradiction when a man's not allowed to decide
> what the woman's to do, or to not do.
>

I understand how the fetus has been misinterpreted by the abortion people.
My point is that it is wrong and the baby is equally the man's. This is
proven legally by the way men are required to provide child support if the
woman choses to have the baby.

Therefore, the man should have some say, if not equal say, as to the
disposition of the unborn baby.