Comments on: Throwing the Baby Out With the Amniotic Fluid

By: David Cox

David Cox — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 03:26:52 +0000

“Once there is a child, there is a child.” Sounds like we have differing views on at what point after conception there exists a “child” as I am in agreement with the rest of your statements.

By: Madeline Knapp

Madeline Knapp — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:12:30 +0000

In answer to David Cox’s rebuttal, there is still no legal right to NOT procreate; there is only a right to choose bodily autonomy. What this essentially means is that having a choice to use a legal procedure, like abortion, will not sustain a dissimilar right to NOT produce. Once there is a child, there is a child. If David doesn’t like the legal logic behind this, consider the scientific one; doctors maintain that over 2/3 of embryonic attachments spontaneously abort. One cannot take out a life insurance policy on potential life for reasons like that. Thus, until there is a child, there is no child. Trying to couch unethical men’s desires to NOT parent an existing child is just a way to turn men into little boys for not accepting their own responsibility in sexual intercourse, which is, in fact, the biological imperitive for making babies. Being angry because women have a choice in their own bodies will not sustain a chance for men to pretend they are not fathers.

By: David Cox

David Cox — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:02:33 +0000

I think that the distinction is warranted and truly represents two distinct and discrete types of reproductive discourse. The legal definition of a child is “a person’s natural offspring” and, given that we do not alot rights to any fetus until the child is born, would indicate that one has not procreated (i.e. “brought into being”, because if they were legally viewed as a being they would have rights to be protected) abortion and contraception would indeed fall under the right to not procreate. The distinction is thus sufficiently warranted and the argument an insightful and welcomed view.

By: Madeline Knapp

Madeline Knapp — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:56:15 +0000

The author is confused. There is no right to NOT procreate. There are privacy (bodily) rights that allow for procedures like the choice to abort, but if a woman HAS A CHILD there is no right to NOT procreate. Once the horse is out of the barn, there’s no going back. :-) The “liberals” are safe.

By: T Hodge

T Hodge — Sat, 23 May 2009 00:27:20 +0000

The author argues that the right to procreate is not quite as sacrosanct as the right not to procreate. The Chinese would agree, of course.

Apparently, some choices are more equal than others.

By: Becky

Becky — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:13:33 +0000

After reading what appeared to be, for once, a delightfully thoughtful ethical/philosophical discussion of this topic (though I might quibble with some points), I ran into Diane Brown’s comment. Thinking I missed something, I read it again.

Maybe Diane read it hurriedly. Or maybe she is just indicative of the moral, intellectual and ethical shallowness that characterizes so much on both sides of this debate.

By: Diane Brown

Diane Brown — Thu, 07 May 2009 00:06:13 +0000

This is pure right-wing poppy cock. Your claims on liberal views are lies.

Take me off you email list.