From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Reproductive freedom (was: Re: Foetal removal)
Summary: New version of proposal
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:19:44 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1ebv3uINNd8g@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>>In a previous article, Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> wrote:
>>>This is why I support some sort of technological advance which will *safely*
>>>allow the "foetus" to be removed, without harm to either the woman or the
>>>child.
>
>>If such a technological advance can be found, and is proven not to harm the 
>>women, then I would support that.  Right now we do not have the medical 
>>technology to do this, and until we do, if a man wants to have a child he 
>>has to find a women who is willing to be pregnant and stay pregnant.  Biology 
>>says men can't do it on their own, and I do not support forcing women to stay 
>>pregnant against their wills.
>
>Does this suppose that the father would pay all costs of the removal of the
>foetus from the woman and costs of the nurturance of the foetus in the 
>artificial womb?
>
>Would the would-be father be able to force the woman to undergo the
>foetal removal proceedure rather than a standard abortion, even though
>she may prefer the stadnard proceedure?
>
>If the woman is injured during the foetal removal proceedure, would 
>she be able to sue the would-be father for damages?

Nope to all three.  Since the claim to the right to an abortion is the "my
body, my choice" argument, and fetal removal voids this argument (since
aborting the parasitical relationship no longer requires killing the fetus)
then fetal removal would become, under law, the >required< procedure.

Both man and woman would be responsible for the cost of removal, the cost 
of nurturing the fetus until it is old enough to survive as a "baby" and then
the raising of the child until adulthood WHETHER THEY WANT TO OR NOT.  Just
like men are today.  

Oops.  So much for abortion as a means of birth control.

Women had better be careful here.  As Adrienne Regard pointed out, a women's 
right to an abortion isn't a reproductive rights issue.  Its a bodily
autonomy issue.  Given that as a point of view, it is indefensible to kill
the fetus if it is not necessary.

When abortion no longer is a matter of unavoidably killing a fetus, if the
basis for abortion rights at that time is one of bodily autonomy then
abortion become an illegal procedure on the premise that it unnecessarily
harms another.  I suggest that women and men both re-think the basis of 
reproductive freedom to be a desirable aim in and of itself.  Once you do
that you come up with a right which can be implemented in a non-sexist
manner.  The basis now becomes the right to decide whether or not to
reproduce -- not privacy or bodily autonomy.  THAT right can be handled
in a non-sexist implementation.

I have read a few criticisms of my original proposal, and have re-written it
to satisfy them.  Here's the new one:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems to me that we have, as a people in America, reached a crossroads:

	On the one hand there are people who wish to remove a woman's right
	to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.  They are gaining
	ground.

	On the other hand there are people who believe that a man is a
	walking wallet when there are children concerned and the couple
	which produced those kids aren't married at the current moment.

	I posit that both of these situations are undesirable for the people
	concerned.

	I further posit that it is >impossible<, or nearly so, for either
	group of people to make a significant difference on their own.

However, we don't have to act alone.

I propose we act together.  I propose that both women AND men do something
historic -- act together as a group to secure reproductive and parental
rights for both genders.

What I envision is a law which provides all of the following:

1)	Provides a declaration of a woman's right to choose up to the 12th
	week of pregnancy whether or not to have an abortion -- as a federal
	law.  Not on privacy grounds -- but on ownership of one's body.

1.5)	Provides a declaration that in the event that a woman does not want
	to keep a child, but also does not wish to abort for any reason, she
	may place said child up for adoption at birth.  The male parent shall 
	have the right of first refusal to adopt a child produced in this 
	circumstance.

2)	Provides a declaration that >men< have the right, up to the 12th
	week of pregnancy of a women that they have fatherd a potential child,
	to state whether or not they want the rights and responsibilities of
	the foetus in-utereo.  Include a provision that should the pregnancy
	be concealed from the man, that he has 30 days from the date of
	discovery to declare his intentions.

	Rights (1) and (2) are to apply >regardless< of the marital status
	of the parties.  (Should married parties disagree on these points 
	there may not be a marriage shortly thereafter)

	Declaration of either acceptance or refutation of the rights and
	responsibilities of parenthood by both parties shall be both binding 
	and irrevocable.

Points one and two are to be implemented by the following means:

o)	A pregnancy occurs.

o)	Within 12 weeks, it is required that the woman either:
	1)	Abort the fetus.  This ends the matter.  The man involved
		has neither control over nor responsibility for the abortion,
		nor is he entitled to be informed.
					or
	2)	Inform the man and request his intentions as to parental 
		responsibility.  Doing so is an >explicit< agreement to bear 
		the child should the male respond that he is willing to accept
		full responsibility for the potential child.  The man may 
		declare one of three things within 30 days:
		1)	He is willing to accept responsibility, either split
			(50-50) or full (100%) parental responsibility.
		2)	He is willing to accept split (50-50) responsibility
			only.
		3)	He declines both responsibility and parental rights.

	Should the woman fail, for any reason, to notify the man within 12
	weeks of gestation the time period for response of the man shall be
	fourteen days from the date he is notified that the woman is
	pregnant.  In no case, including the case where birth takes place
	before the man is notified, shall delay in notification cause the
	man to lose his right of choice, although the woman may lose the
	right to abort due to the delay.

o)	Should the man decide to decline responsibility and parental rights
	he is responsible for half (50%) of the cost of an abortion.  The
	woman may choose to either use those funds for the procedure or 
	continue the pregnancy.  Either way, the man's involvement in the 
	matter is over.  The woman may either bear the child or not, as she
	sees fit, and may place it for adoption or raise the child should
	she bear the child.

o)	Should the man decide to accept full or split responsibility, the 
	woman may:
	1)	Bear the child and share parental rights and responsibility.
	2)	Bear the child and turn it over at birth to the man.  The
		man then becomes the sole adopting parent; the woman
		relinquishes both parental rights and responsibilities.
	In both cases the man and woman are each responsible for 50% of the
	cost of the birth and prenatal medical care.

o)	Should the man decide to accept split responsibility only, the 
	woman may:
	1)	Bear the child and share parental rights and responsibility
	2)	Abort the fetus if she is unwilling to accept 50%
		responsibility.
	In this case the man and woman are each responsible for 50% of the
	cost of the birth and prenatal medical care OR the abortion, at the
	woman's option.  The decision as to disposition rests with the woman.

Each choice must take place within 30 days of notification, except those
which cause the 12-week limit to be breached, in which case each choice must
take place within fourteen (14) days.  This puts the >outside< limit on an
abortive choice by the woman at 16 weeks into a pregnancy.  These choices
must be made in writing, and properly notarized.  "Choices" are deemed to be
made when delivered to the party on whom they impact.  Choices may be made
simultaneously (it is completely legitimate for man and woman to declare
>simultaneously< their intentions in a legal sense should they so choose)

No state may pass law restricting abortion before the 16th week of pregnancy,
in order to insure that these rights of reproductive choice are guaranteed
in all 50 states.  Further, no state may attempt to attach parental
responsibility to any person who has followed these declarative steps as 
set out in law and has declined responsibility.

----

For children who are born, the law shall be modified as follows:

3)	Provides a declaration that in custody cases, and in the event of
	a split of a present-case family unit, that both parties will be
	presumed to be equally capable of parenting, and that the split
	shall be 50-50 with regards to custody and responsibility.  Further, 
	the default support award shall be >zero< (since both parents have 
	the responsibility half the time, they both inherently bear half the
	costs).  In particular, repeal the "tender years" doctrine at
	the federal level and require proof by preponderance of the
	evidence that a parent is >unsuitable< -- not "less suitable" --
	before the default custody split of 50-50 is modified.

	Further, should one parent choose to move away from the original area
	where the divorce took place, the parent which decides to move shall 
	bear the cost(s) of transporting the child(ren) involved to comply
	with the custody decision.  In no case shall this movement by a
	parent be grounds for modification of custody unless both parents
	agree.

4)	Provide a declaration that any allegation of abuse made by one
	parent or another which is proven false and baseless shall be:
	1)	A class X felony (similar to dealing narcotics)
	2)	Immediately cause the accusing person to be ineligible to
		receive further custody of children in said dispute.

5)	Provide that interference with custody arrangements of any kind 
	by a parent is grounds for immediate loss of custody of the child(ren)
	affected, and is additionally a federal felony.  This is intended to 
	prevent situations where parents "impound" their children against a 
	court order or in the hopes of "swinging" a custody dispute.

6)	None of the above shall prevent parents who separate from drafting 
	their own contractual arrangement for the care of their minor 
	children if it is mutually agreeable to both parents.

This package of legislation would provide the following:

1)	It would >guarantee< the right of a woman to choose whether or not
	to carry a pregnancy to term - - that is, codify at a federal level
	the freedom of reproductive choice and control of body that women 
	want.

2)	It would >guarantee< the right of a man to choose whether or not to
	become a father, while insuring that the woman (who is the ultimate
	authority on the final disposition of the fetus) has enough
	information to know whether or not she can expect a full 1/2
	or more contribution in the raising and parenting of a potential 
	child BEFORE it becomes her (or their) ward.

3)	It would provide that should a potential child be wanted by EITHER of 
	its parents that it would have a home with said parent(s) in preference
	to adoptive placement with any other person should it be born.

4)	It would provide a strong incentive for women to be open and
	up-front about pregnancy with their mates, lest they lose the right
	to choose before discovering their mate's intentions.

5)	It would remove the presumption that a man and woman who are married
	automatically want or are willing to support children.

6)	It would provide that any parent who makes a false accusation of
	child abuse will be punished for the extreme psychological damage 
	done to that child and its relationship with the innocent parent(s).

7)	It would provide children with the right to be parented by >both<
	parents, and properly punish unlawful interferance with child
	custody.

8)	It would remove the presumption that women are the "better" parent;
	that women are automatically entitled to preferrential treatment in
	terms of support awards and custody, and that men should be treated
	as "walking wallets".


I believe that a >balanced< approach such as this, which can be supported 
by both men and women, is the only way both men and women will manage to 
guarantee their reproductive freedom >and< their rights and responsibilities 
with regards to minor children.

Further, I will go so far as to suggest that there is a simpler solution to
the problem of "fair" reproductive freedom that is now present in law:
	Remove a woman's right to choose whether or not to become a parent
	after a pregnancy occurs.

	That is, move the decision point for both men and women to "when the
	zipper falls", as it currently is for men.

I think it is obvious to both men and women that this is a less desirable
alternative than the proposal above.  Nonetheless, I believe it is a
defensible position for men should women decide not to permit equality,
within the limits of biology, in this process.

Anyone want to join in on this one and see if we can get some legislative
action on this proposal at a federal level?

You can register your support for this proposal by sending electronic mail to:

repro-support@ddsw1.mcs.com

Please include your comments and mailing address in your mail message.  Your 
commentary, including your address and voice of support will be forwarded to 
the office of the President after Bill Clinton's Inaugeration.  I expect
that the package to be sent to him will be a large one.

It is time we took responsibility for our reproductive rights, regardless of
gender.  It is time to stand up and be counted.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5175 soc.men:19582 soc.women:19944 talk.abortion:48575 alt.feminism:4719 misc.legal:20174