Posted on 10/31/2002 10:38:05 PM PST by WarSlut
I don't think your analogy is a good one here: when I was a child, the "don't touch the hot stove" rule didn't really stick until I touched the hot stove. That was, in and of itself, punishment and 'education' enough.
In general, though probably not with abortion (for obvious reasons), I think it's better for society to try to moderate people's self-destructive impulses rather than block them completely. It's a tough balancing act, but the goal should be to minimize the harm people do to themselves while ensuring that the bulk of the harm that does occur is caused by people's self-destructive behavior, and not by society's efforts to prevent it.
Simple, elegant truth. Beautifully stated.
As relates to abortion, "consequences" to the perpetrator get buried---or more exactly, redirected---in many cases. Those who abort don't learn not to abort, they simply redirect what would be post-abortive guilt into equally intense motions---like male-bashing.
Often, harm is too great to fail to stop it by every available route.
Post Roe, the first thing I'd pursue legislatively is a conception-forward paternal veto.
In the meantime, a lot of things, such as those mentioned above, can help.
Plus, altering the social fabric in ways that support moral absolutes; in the schools, the churches, in families, in pop culture.
In a sense, I agree, but I think winning fathers the "right" to a paper abortion is much more politically feasible. The net effect would be to make women much more cautious again...the original dynamic. If it weren't for pro-life women not wanting to risk the preferential legal position of women in general, pro-lifers teamed with pro-choice men could finally punch a real hole in the Roe v. Wade doctrine.
However, I don't mind having pro-life men coalitioning with C4M guys to jointly expose the incongruity of the current situation. Which, of course, is a situation where DNA imparted at the conception of one's child results in responsibilities, enforced to a draconian degree, without concordant rights.
Men are logic-based, and tend to view things in terms of inviolably linked pairs: cause and effect, rights and responsibilities, weight and counterweight.
On a natural level, the incongruity of having any one-half of any of the pairings above without the other one-half bothers men greatly, a well it should.
While feminist men sublimate their own nature, it is still---at least amongst the straight ones---an intrinsic part of what they are, and so not hard to call out. If you put a duck in water, it will paddle.
Thus, having pro-life men coalitioning with C4M guys to jointly expose the incongruity of the current situation is a very legitimate venture.
Now the two groups reach different conclusions:
---The C4M crowd contends that given the lack of a paternal veto of abortion (which the C4M crowd doesn't want anyway), there should be no financial responsibilities for fathers who want to opt out.
---The Veto For Fathers contingent, of which I am the progenitor, contends that as fathers have financial responsibility based upon DNA imparted at conception, there must concordantly (although not derivatively) be a conception-forward father's right to veto the abortion of his own preborn child.
Either way, both groups expose the incongruity, and seek internally congruous packages: no rights and no responsibilities (C4M), or complete rights and complete responsibilities (V4F).
However, I don't mind having pro-life men coalitioning with C4M guys to jointly expose the incongruity of the current situation. Which, of course, is a situation where DNA imparted at the conception of one's child results in responsibilities, enforced to a draconian degree, without concordant rights.
Men are logic-based, and tend to view things in terms of inviolably linked pairs: cause and effect, rights and responsibilities, weight and counterweight.
On a natural level, the incongruity of having any one-half of any of the pairings above without the other one-half bothers men greatly, a well it should.
While feminist men sublimate their own nature, it is still---at least amongst the straight ones---an intrinsic part of what they are, and so not hard to call out. If you put a duck in water, it will paddle.
Thus, having pro-life men coalitioning with C4M guys to jointly expose the incongruity of the current situation is a very legitimate venture.
Now the two groups reach different conclusions:
---The C4M crowd contends that given the lack of a paternal veto of abortion (which the C4M crowd doesn't want anyway), there should be no financial responsibilities for fathers who want to opt out.
---The Veto For Fathers contingent, of which I am the progenitor, contends that as fathers have financial responsibility based upon DNA imparted at conception, there must concordantly (although not derivatively) be a conception-forward father's right to veto the abortion of his own preborn child.
Either way, both groups expose the incongruity, and seek internally congruous packages: no rights and no responsibilities (C4M), or complete rights and complete responsibilities (V4F).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.