From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 16:41:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr06.204327.6592@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.185715.4692@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>In <1992Apr06.160847.22990@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>All of which completely and totally misses the point.  This is EXACTLY the
>>same as saying "Women have a responsibility not to do those things that our
>>society has determined that they have a responsibility not to do."  Such
>>a list may very well include abortion in the near future.
>
>Not really.  What I'm pointing out that people tend to gloss right over
>is that our existing social structure is in fact a STRUCTURE, with a whole
>mess of intertwining links.  And a whole mess of costs associated with them.
>To reduce this to "if women have choice why don't men?" is not only simplis-
>tic, but it also defeats the point of *any* rational argument because it
>isn't addressing what's *really* going on within the structure.  

You have manipulated the question, and then thrashed away at a straw man,
Adrienne. I am not asking "if women have choice why don't men?". Rather, I 
am asking "if sexual intercourse is determinative of liability why isn't 
abortion?". I am not identifying a gender inequity as much as a 
skewed determination-inequity which happens to benefit one gender at the 
expense of another.

>The basis
>of the rights and responsibilties loaded upon the two parties, male and female
>in an unwanted pregnancy come from two completely different areas.  They
>aren't similar in a whole mess of ways.  To compare them is to go completely
>non-linear.

The child-support responsibilites loaded upon the two parties, male and female,
come from the SAME area, with the explicit objective of equalization. That is,
as we know, not their -result-, but it was their -objective- when they were
implemented, for the most part.

>>We're not (well, some of us aren't) discussing what IS here; we're discussing
>>what we think SHOULD BE.
>
>That's all very well and good, but if you want to actually *do* something
>about it, don't you think it's a good idea to understand what is going on
>NOW, so you can be effective about CHANGING it?  Changing what *is* has
>ramifications that you would need to handle or justify in your change 
>scenario in order to talk anybody into accepting it.  Just saying what you
>want, without covering the ramifications, garners you an argument that won't
>get much support.

What makes you think we understand the ramifications any less than you do, 
Adrienne?

>>My interpretation of your statements above is that responsibility is
>>something which is forced upon a person against his will.  Yes?  No?
>
>Responsibility is frequently forced upon people against their wills.

Please give examples. If you're talking about strict liability, then you
should realize that the social policy and/or economic-efficiency rationales 
for strict liability simply FALL FLAT ON THEIR FACES when applied to 
paternity child-support.

								- Kevin