From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:07:16 GMT

In article <1bhi7lINN9bu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <Bw42t5.8L5@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1bfgu1INNpie@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>>.After conception, men have no such right to decide issues of 
>>>."personal or family privacy."  This decision is made solely
>>>.by the woman.
>>>Scuse, please, how?  In what way have men lost their right to privacy (or
>>>suffered a reduction in their right to privacy) as a result of particpating
>>>in sex?  

>>Before participating in sex, a man has a full right to decide
>>issues of "personal or family privacy."  That is, if he doesn't
>>want to be a parent, he has the power and right not to become a parent.
>
>Ah.  I see.  An *excellent* argument for not leaving one's personal property
>(one's sperm) lying about outside of the realm of one's control.  Now, if
>*you* can think of a way to allow a man to repossess sperm HE left lying
>about, I'll support you in it.  Always presuming, of course, that he isn't
>going to be encroaching upon the body of another human....

Ah, so you think that a man has a right to get his sperm back --
if so, let her give it back, using whatever means she decides.
I don't recall any laws that say you can keep my car if I lend it
to you; nor can I take it back by force; but you can be legally required
to return it to me, even if it means you have to walk home on the
interstate.  So here's a way:  make a law that simply says the
woman must return the sperm, and let +her+ figure out how to extract
the "pound of flesh" without spilling blood.  Anyway, I don't think 
your approach of ownership leads to any productive solutions.


>>After sex, even if the man has never wanted to become a parent
>>and used a condom and spermicide, he has no right to make decisions
>>about his "personal or family privacy."  He cannot abort the child;
>>he cannot escape child support obligations.
>
>Ah.  I see.  He cannot abort the child (gee, we don't let men abort
>children within their bodies?  How unfair).  And he cannot escape
>child support obligations, which is a burden imposed upon men, but
>NOT upon women?  I don't think so.

You asked a question about how men's rights are restricted.

The woman's unalterable obligation to support begins, 
at the earliest, after the last legal moment to abort.  
This is usually 6 or more months later than the moment 
the man's rights are restricted.

The man's obligation to support begins at the moment of
conception and cannot be terminated except by the woman,
and only then through abortion.

If the woman does not choose abortion, the man's obligation
cannot be terminated by her or by him, whereas she can "escape" 
her own obligations through adoption.

In very real and practical terms, child support burdens are imposed
far more greatly on men than on women -- not just in numbers but amounts.


Men do not have the same "liberties" as women with respect to
reproductive choice.  This goes far beyond biology.


>>This is a reduction relative to men's pre-sex rights as well as 
>>relative to women's post-sex rights to terminate pregnancies -- 
>>based on "personal or family privacy."
>
>Since a woman's right to terminate pregnancy is based upon the fact that
>a pregnancy resides within her body, I'm not sure how we should 'fix' this
>for men.  They don't have pregnancies within their bodies.  Do you have a
>suggestion?

Yes:  Male Choice.  Allow men to decide, before viability, that they
"want an abortion" -- which means, NOT that the woman must have an
abortion, BUT that the man no longer has any obligations to 
(or rights regarding) the child or woman.  Except arguably to share 
the cost of an abortion.

Second:  Allow men to have custody without court bias against them.
Such bias is an effective (and often explicitly legislated) restriction 
of their rights.

You are basing women's rights on biology; but there is no biological
factor that requires a man to pay money to a woman or her child.


Don

PS  If you follow a.a.i, I suggest we restrict this to a.a.i.
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion