From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: U.S. Supreme Court Ab
X-To: PAUL WALLICH
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:38:00 GMT

pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes...
PW> In article <1992Jun29.095852.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
PW> >  The U.S. Supreme Court has just declared that any mechanism designed to
PW> >protect the rights and interests of a man within such a marriage is an
PW> >"unneccesary burden" on the wife.

PW> The striking down of the husband-notification requirement is the
PW> vestigial remnant of the court's recognition that women still have
PW> rights to their own bodies, rights that they _cannot_ legally

Paul, what does requiring a man to have the right to know that he is
likely going to lose a child, have to do with denying women's "right to
their bodies"?  Remember, the requirement is only for Husband *Notification*,
not Husband *Veto*.  If it had been a case of a veto, I might think that the
regulation was closer to being an issue of "women's bodies," but the issue
of MERE notification is a matter of *dignity* - While you might say that a
woman should "have the right to choose" for (at least) the sake of her dignity,
a father should also "have the right to know".

In fact, there is even more to it than you think ... For example, if the
husband and wife had not had sex for a protracted period, the fact that she
was considering an abortion would be *very* big news, and would be grounds
for a divorce on the grounds of adultery.  Surely, if a *wife* should have the
right to know if her husband has been unfaithful, a husband should have that
same right!  Mind you, this is only a minority of cases, but still, the
question of dignity remains.


PW> Sigh. You can divorce a woman who won't bear you children, you

Actually, you can't...not in Canada at least.  I recently read part of a book
published by Canada's WLEAF, (Women's Legal Education and Action Fund), which
stated that thanks to their lobbying, a wife's abortion will no longer be
permitted grounds for a divorce.  Granted, in the case in question, the
abortion had been considered as "mental cruelty," by the husband, which is
probably in large part the reason why this case went the way it did.

Even so, even though the wife *probably* did not maliciously mentally torture
the husband, he still suffered emotionally, and IMHO, *that* should be grounds
for a divorce, although I would *prefer* that abortion be considered along
the lines of "irreconcilable differences" as opposed to "mental cruelty".

I predict that if a divorce case over abortion goes to court, and the request
is on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, it will be granted without
difficulty.  Mind you, it does *not* "stain" the wife like a charge of
mental cruelty does, but I feel that in MOST cases, an abortion is *not* an
act of mental cruelty, *unless* the woman deliberately gets pregnant in order
to abort, but I think that *this* would be a rare case indeed.


PW> can humiliate her to her face or on the net, but you can't force
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I don't offend easily, but *that* managed to do it...  Just the fact that
he had the guts to go public and discuss his pain, does NOT mean that he is
intending to publically humiliate her.

I *KNOW* this, as someone who made the agonising decision to go public about
my own situation, in spite of the fact that I realised that the woman involved
would hate me forever for doing do.  It KILLED me to have that happen, but I
felt that it was also very crucial to break men's silence and men's pain on
this issue.


PW> (Of course, if she is pregnant, and a doctor decides that she
PW> really ought to have a c-section delivery, the court will sign
PW> an order forcing her to have her belly cut open, so all is not lost.)

Whoa, hold on a second there, Paul...  I'm calling your bluff.  I'd like some
details on *this* statement, in other words:

1) Has this happened *in North America or Europe* in the past five years?  Ten?

2) How far along was the pregnancy?

3) Did the husband/father inform the doctor(s) that he wanted the child?  Or,
   was the father uninvolved?


I'm sceptical, because I *really* doubt that any court would make such a
ruling, except to save the woman's life.


PW> This one is right up there with the idea that a woman can't rescind
PW> her consent to having sex.

No, Paul, there *is* a difference between a man knowing that he is going to
lose a child, and the "right" to force a woman to have sex.  Giving a father
the right to know, does *not* force the woman to do ANYTHING, so long as the
notification is just that, and not a veto.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                     "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Vulcans have less fun.