From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Back to responsibility
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:30:20 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1jhnskINN964@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>It is not my business to tell a man whether or not to engage in intercourse.
>>>He needs to assess both the payoff and the risk and make that decision for 
>>>himself.  But he does need to realize that there *is* risk involved.
>
>>This could easily be applied to women in the 1950's.  Thus, there's 
>>no problem with outlawing abortion.
>
>I do not advocate abortion as birth control.  

Please define "birth control" in this context. 

>The statement "a woman needs to assess both the payoff and the risk and
>make that decision" would seem to make it OK to outlaw abortion *IF*
>that birth control was the only motivation behind legalized abortion. 
>(Rape would still be a problem, however.)  
>But it is *not* the only motivation.
>There is still the question of bodily autonomy.  A woman has a right
>to decide to what uses her body will be put.  

And a man has a right to decide to what uses his body will be put. 
Paternity child support forces his body to be put to uses he does not
consent to, i.e. working to support an unwanted child, or being thrown into
jail.

>Consent to sex is not consent to allow one's body to be used by the
>foetus, nor is it consent to allow the father to force or rent one's
>body for the gestation of his child.

Are you changing the subject now? We've been talking about the case where
the mother WANTS the child, and the father DOESN'T, now you seem to be
reversing the roles...

>Consent to sex is not consent to allow the father or the state to 
>force one to undergo surgery (abortion *is* surgery).

I'm not advocating forced abortion. I'm advocating, however, that if a woman
makes a choice not to abort, that she should be fully liable for that choice,
without any artificial "subsidies". This is an economic argument, not a 
reproductive rights argument. And, quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired 
of people (purposely?) mixing up the two.

>>Thus, if a responsible man tells the responsible woman that
>>he does not want to become a parent and does not have the resources
>>to support a child, then the responsible woman should consider
>>her ability to raise/support a child +alone+, in her decision about
>>what occurs within her body.
>
>Why *alone*?  Doesn't a child have the right to be supported by both
>of its parents?

A right to be supported? Yes. A right to get that support from a particular 
source or sources? Why? What's the justification? Does it really matter to 
the child whether his or next meal is paid for by Mommy's greenbacks, Daddy's
greenbacks, taxpayer's greenbacks, or a combination of the above? Seems to
me that the legislature only has a vital interest in whether the child is
adequately supported. The question of WHERE that support comes from should
be settled using common law notions of legal obligation, as I have proposed.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism