From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: KEITH " A A COCHRAN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:38:00 GMT

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes...
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(I just realised whence you appropriated that particular nomenclature.  I
hadn't known that you were a fan of the KLF, singing along with Tammy Wynette...
"We're Justified, and We're Ancient...")

K"AAC> In article <1992Oct20.225628.28756@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zo
K"AAC> ld.org> writes:

K"AAC> [Note: DB> - Don Beaver?]
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       Yes.

K"AAC> >DB>    "Section 3209 of the Act contains the spousal notification
K"AAC> >DB>    provision.  It requires that, before a physician may perform

K"AAC> [Deletia]

K"AAC> >DB>   A woman is not required to notify her husband if

K"AAC> [Deletia]

K"AAC> >DB>    (4) the woman has reason to believe that notifying her husband is
K"AAC> >DB>    likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by h
K"AAC> >DB>    or by another individual.
K"AAC> >
K"AAC> >I didn't know that!  If this is the case, then why are the detractors of
K"AAC> >law, saying that it endangers women by forcing them to tell their husban
K"AAC> >even if they fear of violence?  This law says that if they fear for thei
K"AAC> >lives, then they need not give notification.
K"AAC> >
K"AAC> >So, I ask  (Not a flame) .... Dan, Keith, Drieux, Larry, Susan :  Did yo
K"AAC> >know that this provision was in the law?  (This is not a flame...  How m
K"AAC> >times do I have to say that?  (-: )  Or, if you did, what did you base y
K"AAC> >judgement upon?  Did you believe that it "isn't much of a choice"?

K"AAC> Because I don't believe in treating women like cows.  I don't believe a w
K"AAC> should have to tell her husband that she's getting an abortion.  I don't
K"AAC> believe that a woman should have to tell her husband she's getting steral
K"AAC> I don't believe that a woman should have to tell her husband that she's
K"AAC> getting a tonsilectomy.  I don't believe that a woman should have to tell
K"AAC> her husband that she's getting her plastic surgery, her hair done, or a
K"AAC> pedicure.

While you have valid points about privacy, they only cover one half of the
possible spectrum of treating people "like cows".  For example, if notifying
a husband that her wife is unwillingly pregnant (and in some cases not by her
husband), is unjustified treatment, as you say, what about the case where a
woman implictly becomes aware of her husband's infidelity by his sudden drain
in income, thus giving her an advantage in court proceedings?

And furthermore, in many provinces and states, a woman is allowed to use a
husband's impotence, or even the unwillingness to parent (*Can someone confirm
or disprove the letter?*  Thanks...) is a valid basis for a divorce suit, but
a woman's unwillingess apparently is not, since abortion is *not* a valid basis
for divorce (in Canada, we have WLEAF, the Women's Legal and Educational Fund
to thank for this...).

Finally, consider a man who has had a vasectomy, *even though* he is married
to a woman who married him with the implicit agreement of both parties (or so
she thought?) to start a family...  If he does not inform her of his actions,
she will go on for years, possibly decades, without becoming pregnant and
even beginning to blame herself.  And indeed, if she *does* somehow manage to
get pregnant, she has just given her husband the carte-blanche to take her to
the cleaners in a divorce suit for adultery ("She got pregnant, even though I
had a vasectomy two years ago...  Err, do you REALLY think that it was by me,
Your Honour?")

While it may be true that spousal notification with regard to reproductive
issues, can be a double-edged sword to both men and women, I also think that
husbands and wives should have the right to know about factors which could
potentially change the results of either party's expectations of the marriage.
In other words, if either party has an interest, and indeed, entered the marriag
with either an implicity or even explicit agreement or interest in starting a
family, I feel that the other party should be made aware, if one party does
something which could alter the status of these expectations.  This would allow
a man or woman whose spouse has decided against starting or continuing a family,
to make the choice to leave the marriage.  Denied this knowledge, the marriage,
stripped of its common goals and interests, becomes a mockery of the ideals of
love and trust.

And also notice that I am including women as being equally deserving of the
right to know when her husband does not wish to have children, and takes
decisive action to accomplish this intention.  If it is treating women like
cows to inform the husband of an abortion, then it is hardly any better for
a husband to mislead his wife into thinking that he will assist her in
having a family.  It is for this reason that I consider both sides equally
deserving of knowledge regarding actions which can alter reproductive
expectations in marriage.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * When money speaks, the truth keeps silent.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.singles,soc.women