From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 13 Dec 1992 21:10:46 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>In article <1g821iINN17f@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>>>how do you justify your claim that a man should support 
>>>one of those "hungry children" he took precautions not to have
>>>(and stated clearly should not be born)?

>>Once it is born it has certain rights.  One of these is the right
>>right to life, another is the right to be supported by it's parents, 
>>or to otherwise have it's care provided for
>>(eg, the parents can give it up for adoption.)

>Why do you assume "by its parents"?  The unspoken basis for this
>is that the parents caused the child to exist, hence they are liable.
>In the case of a man who uses contraception and explicitly states
>he does not want a child, the only person who creates such a liability
>is the mother, since you say that no such liability exists before birth:

This is the pivotal point on which you and I differ.  You seem
to feel that if a man took "adequate precautions" (whatever *that*
means) then he's off the hook.  In your view it becomes all the mother's 
fault, and all her responsibility.  I, on the other hand, believe that 
"adequate precautions" do not let anybody off the hook -- neither the 
mother nor the father.  If a child is born then they are "on the hook" 
to provide for it.

One could say that our beliefs do line up given the following 
interpretation of the term "adequate precautions":  actions which
*ensure* that a child not be born.  For a man that means abstinence
from vaginal intercourse, or vasectomy (if it's a good one, if not
it's not adequate -- and I acknowledge that he has no way of knowing
in advance).  For a woman it means abstinence, or surgical sterilization
(with the same caveat), or abortion.  Other forms of contraception can
hedge your bets.  But if you lose (and a child is born) then you are
"on the hook".  Period.

>Your goal, however, is a societal purpose: ensure that all helpless human
>beings are supported.  Thus, either society (or you) should foot the 
>bill, or those responsible for creating the specific liability should.

I'm in favor of the latter, whenever possible, and the former only in
cases of dire emergency, as when a child is orphaned.  (And I only
include this because we can't figure out a way to extend responsibility
to the grave -- though whenever possible the care of the child should 
be paid for by the estate of its parents).

>Apparently, you don't want society (and you, yourself) to pay for
>a liability someone else created.  Why would you want a sperm donor
>to pay?

Read what you just wrote!  I want a "sperm donor" to pay because I 
*don't* want to kid to become a liability on society, nor on me,
myself.  You're right, the motive is selfish!


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion