Restricting access to abortion to a woman who wants one is therefore a way of forcing her to work on behalf of a third party -- the fetus (who may or may not have legal standing.)
So you're against staxes then? Because taxes, for the half of us who actually pay them, is the forcing of me to work on behalf of a third party, whether I want to or not. And it's a great deal harder to argue that I'm responsible for seeing to it that some drunken redneck who was too busy skipping school to get a degree so he can provide for himself is fed, clothed and housed, then it is to argue that a woman is responsible for the consequences of her decision to have sex.
Further, in a society that has the legal precedent that a man can be responsible for child support for a child that he didn't father, it rings a little hollow. Add in things like prostitution, drug use, suicide, gambling and even things like helmet laws, and while I don't know your personal stand on all of these, many who make the argument you are making turn right around and argue that the government should be able to interfere in your personal life in all kinds of ways.
As for Roe v. Wade itself, the SCOTUS screwed the pooch. Roe v. Wade should be left to the States. There should be neither a federal prohibition or prescription of abortion. Would some states have abortion on demand right up til a minute before birth? Some would, yes. Would some restrict it completely? Yes. But if you don't like the way your state law is, you can change it or you can move. With the Roe v. Wade, the court stepped in and truncated a political process that was working up until that point. Abortion laws had been liberalizing across the country at the time of the decision, and the trend was accelerating. Without an imposition of the Roe from on high, this very well could be a largely settled issue with much less acrimony on all sides.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-01 02:42 pm (UTC)So you're against staxes then? Because taxes, for the half of us who actually pay them, is the forcing of me to work on behalf of a third party, whether I want to or not. And it's a great deal harder to argue that I'm responsible for seeing to it that some drunken redneck who was too busy skipping school to get a degree so he can provide for himself is fed, clothed and housed, then it is to argue that a woman is responsible for the consequences of her decision to have sex.
Further, in a society that has the legal precedent that a man can be responsible for child support for a child that he didn't father, it rings a little hollow. Add in things like prostitution, drug use, suicide, gambling and even things like helmet laws, and while I don't know your personal stand on all of these, many who make the argument you are making turn right around and argue that the government should be able to interfere in your personal life in all kinds of ways.
As for Roe v. Wade itself, the SCOTUS screwed the pooch. Roe v. Wade should be left to the States. There should be neither a federal prohibition or prescription of abortion. Would some states have abortion on demand right up til a minute before birth? Some would, yes. Would some restrict it completely? Yes. But if you don't like the way your state law is, you can change it or you can move. With the Roe v. Wade, the court stepped in and truncated a political process that was working up until that point. Abortion laws had been liberalizing across the country at the time of the decision, and the trend was accelerating. Without an imposition of the Roe from on high, this very well could be a largely settled issue with much less acrimony on all sides.