From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:58:10 GMT
     <1992Sep1.215256.15400@advtech.uswest.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>
>>No, on the basis of "those who object need not get one, those who
>>do not object will not have to worry about self-induced hysterectomies".
>
>You miss my point.  The father has to get an "abortion" (loose his child).
>This is NOT "those who object need not get one".

No, this is miscommunication of a high order.  I do not believe that the
father gets an abortion in any way.  You obviously do.  Therefore, there
is no agreement possible on this issue.

>>She is trying to occupy the middle ground and not mandate ANY action
>>or beliefs.
>
>She IS trying to mandate beliefs if she supports the abortion
>status quo.

How so?  What belief does she mandate?  How does she prevent you or me from
believing what we wish?

>>She is not forcing anyone.  No one is knocking on your door, asking you
>>to sign a belief statement about fetuses.  You may believe whatever you
>>wish.
>
>You are right.  They are NOT knocking at my door.  They are simply going
>toenforce their will on me, irregardless of my wishes or beliefs.
>
>Under the status quo, I already live in a country that legally enforces
>a certain belief system upon the members of my family.

What belief system would that be?

>>I'm going to try another tack here.
>
>Feel free.  But how about listening to me as closely as you want me to
>listen to you?

I'm doing my best, but I can't understand where you're coming from.  I'll
gladly listen if you'd like to elaborate.

>>John, you DO realize that the fetus/embryo/baby/whatever is completely
>>disjoint from the father's body, don't you?
>
>Nope.  Part of me now exists PHYSICALLY separated from me, but it is
>still a part of me, and I have a GREAT deal of interest in what happens
>to it.

It is still partly your DNA.  That is not the same as it being part of
you.  If you wish to believe that your souls (or philotes, or whatever)
are still somehow connected, that's your business, but I don't.  I
won't deny that if my wife aborted a fetus we jointly created, I'd feel
some regret -- but I certainly wouldn't attempt to block her. (I might
try to convince her of another option, if I felt the pregnancy wouldn't
unduly harm her, physically or otherwise, but her decision would be
final.)

>>That the father suffers no true physical effects?
>
>Under current law, this is not true either.  I can be REQUIRED to work
>to support the child in question for 18 YEARS.  If don't consider this
>to be a violation of my right to bodily autonomy, or if you don't
>consider this to be a physical effect, what is it?

I don't know.  It does seem awfully unfair -- but I refuse to "balance"
this seeming unfairness with an equal unfairness on the mother.

Netters, any solutions?

>>The woman does all the physical work of a pregnancy.
>
>Wrong again.  The mother simply supplies nutrients.  The physical work
>of development is done by the fetus.

The mother supplies nutrients AND a warm, ready home AND transportation
AND goes through physical changes from increased weight to severe
hormonal imbalances.  This isn't as little as you seem to think it is.

The fetus does the actual development, true -- but that is ALL it does.
The mother does all the rest of the work.

>If the father is not willing to be a father, he should not have sex.

Or use adequate contraception -- that is not a negligent response.  And
if I were married, I would find it nigh unto impossible to abstain from
sex for fear of pregnancy, nor should I have to.

>If he does become a father, he should be responsible for half the
>maintenance of the child.

And most people would do so happily.  You, apparently, would resent it.

>You see, I believe that both men AND WOMEN should be responsible for
>their actions.

As do I.  Abortion is not, IMO, irresponsible in and of itself.

>>Why, then, should
>>the man have any say in whether or not she chooses to go through nine
>>months of literally back-breaking labor (no pun intended -- sorry) when
>>he cannot share the burden?
>
>He does share the burden.  

In a pure financial sense, yes.  I, for one, would rather sacrifice any
sum of money than to have to go through what a pregnant woman goes 
through, because I hate pain. :-)

>He does not HAVE to.  

Then why make the blanket statement that he DOES?

>But I picked up, carried,
>cleaned and then worked my ass off during the labor when my wife was
>pregnant.  And I work to take care of my child at home.

I'm not saying you don't, and I admire your dedication.  I'd like to think
that I will work as hard at being a father.  I'd also like to think that I
won't be forced into knowing before I'm ready -- or before my future wife
is.

>>The man can walk away AT ANY TIME; the woman
>>does not have that luxury.
>
>The man CAN NOT walk away at any time.  Immediately after the birth, the
>woman can apply for child support, and in almost all cases get it.
>
>You are not telling the truth here.

I am as I see it.  It's a matter of little trouble (logistically, though
it's psychologically difficult, I'm sure) to simply pack up and disappear
one day.  If I were really motivated, I could do it right now.  The woman
doesn't have that option.

>>How you can claim that the man and woman should have equal rights in the
>>decision is beyond me, when they don't share equally in the actual work
>>of hosting this new life.
>
>And how you can keep conviently forgetting paternity suits and child
>support payments is beyond me.

It's not convenient -- it's simply that I didn't and don't see their
relevance in any large way to the issue of whether or not a woman should
be able to control her own body.

Look.  You're looking at this from the point of view that the two parents-
to-possibly-be are diametrically opposed and can't communicate and work out
a satisfactory agreement.  I happen to think that this is virtually never
the case, and it's not worthwhile to legislate extreme cases -- that's why
we have case law.

Opinions from the net.at.large?

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."
                                                  Au revoir, *ma* cherie.
                                                  (Sorry, kiddo.)