From: slarsen@mozart.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Subject: Re: Men and Abortion
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:21:08 GMT

In article <73763@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>[ I don't have access to alt.abortion.inequity.]
[I post from soc.women, so I kept that in the newsgroups line --sl]
>In article <1992Nov5.152450.27641@news.nd.edu> slarsen@mozart.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

--Please note, I've done lots of cutting for sake of brevity--

>This deeply felt agony has to have a reason.  It is that people really
>do realize/know that the unborn, the just conceived, is really a living
>growing person, who will emerge into the world one day.  Two people have
>started the process and they know the outcome, whether they look forward
>to having a baby or not - they know there is life there.
>
>The whole thing keys on one's respect for life and oneself.  Some
>don't care about anything, but their immediate and/or short-term 
>satisfaction.  If one respects themself and the life they have 
>created, they should look forward to seeing the unborn develop.
>If one doesn't respect life, whether they are in wedlock or out of
>wedlock, then it seems they have NO problem with aborting.  

I agree. What I consider to be good is a respect for life.  Where
things become complicated is that just about any old person is 
capable of creating life and they will do it for the best of reasons, 
the worst of reasons and for no reason at all.  All things being ideal, 
a lovely goal is for us, as humans, as a species, as a society to 
view life as not only worthy of respect, but entitled to respect.
However, just as I personally view war to be a bad thing, but 
unfortunately a necessary response in an imperfect world, I view 
abortion in the same light.  

>|It seems to me that any system of father notification regarding pregnancy 
>|and intent to abort is doomed to run into all sorts of problems with 
>|respect to patient-doctor confidentiality, rights to procure medical 
>|treatment/procedures, the rights of marrieds vis-a-vis the rights of 
>|singles, etc.  Since there is no father involvement with fetal life 
>|except for the initial sex act, and since all the "investment" in the 
>
>No other sex act is needed, but that is not the same as NO INVOLVEMENT.
>A father's respect for the mother and for the unborn will determine
>his involvement.  The mother cares the unborn, but to me that is 
>complaining about one's design - that is the way things work.

Yes, and the "way things work" has to be considered in designing 
our human legal and social systems, to make them fair and somewhat 
consistent.  We as individuals can help ourselves by carefully 
selecting our partners and by searching out those who we can trust.
However, a father's respect cannot be legislated, nor can it be 
demanded in a court of law.  One can demand his money, one can 
move against his resources, but one cannot enslave his respect.
That is also part of the way things work.

>|fetus is made by the mother, I can see no *logical* argument that a 
>|father, married or not, has a say-so in a woman's pregnant state. Yes, 
>
>Again, I think this is arguing against design, for the women is the
>one who bears the child.  The father, by your own admission, has 
>much say so after birth and was very responsible for the starting of
>this new life, but he is ruled out in the mean time.  Again, this
>assumes that the father has no concern and does not do ANYTHING or
>have ANY responsibility during the pregancy.  The father should be
>there helping - if all he is a sperm donor and supplier after birth,
>then you have a point, but he is or rather should be involved from 
>beginning to end. 

In a world populated by good people, yes the father should be there 
helping.  But again, there is no way to force him to do that.  He 
can choose to make an emotional investment in a woman's pregnancy, or 
he can choose not to.  As for the woman, she has that same choice, but 
she also has the added responsibility of placing her body on the line.
I believe that it is true that father involvement with the child, by 
law, begins at birth.  A mother cannot collect "support" for a child 
in utero.  Also, at least from my own experience with child birth, the 
medical expenses of the pregnancy are borne by the mother and are her 
sole responsibility.  She is the patient, her name is on the chart and 
on the bill.  Privately, the couple, married or not, can agree to 
finance the medical costs of pregnancy jointly, but if push comes to 
shove, the pregnant mother who actually received the medical care is 
the legally liable party.

I make my statements not on an assumption that a father has no concern 
or interest in the pregnancy, but that he has no *legal* or *physical* 
responsibility to the state of pregnancy.  It is consistent, then, to 
leave the decisions with respect to the state of pregnancy in the hands 
of the person most impacted by the pregnancy: the woman.
>
>|Does this mean that men have no "right" to mourn?  Of course not.  They 
>|have every right to feel betrayed and to act on that---within the boundaries 
>|of the law.  Divorce her, walk out, take another lover, post to the net, 
>|get blindingly drunk, write sad songs, heck, lobby for father notification 
>
>How about forgive her?  How about making sure both of you trust the 
>other and know the others desires and commit yourselves to the other
>BEFORE you get to the point of the mother aborting without the father's
>knowledge.  

Yes.  Agreed one hundred percent.

>Again.  I think if one's relationship is so lacking in trust, the
>relationship/marriage is in bad trouble anyway.  The two should be
>commited to each other and not themselves - they should desire the
>best for each other - considering the other in their actions and 
>NOT BE SO SELFISH.

Agreed.  But such selflessness and trust cannot be forced by the state.

>|Disclaimer:  My beliefs along these lines are confined to the state of 
>|pregnancy only.  A born child has, IMHO, a right to know her/his father. 
>|The father has a right to know his child(ren).  
>
>I know this sounds trivial and even overused, but I believe your above 
>statement begs the question: What is the difference between a born child 
>and one an hour from birth or even a day from birth?  The point is that 
>you have a definite point (birth) at which you grant some rights or 
>personhood or something to the young one, yet it seems to have NONE of 
>this just prior to that point.

Do again note, I have edited out a lot, mostly because I agreed with 
your statements, but if you care to bring back any ideas for discussion, 
feel free.

Yes, I do have a definite point at which I believe rights and personhood 
exist.  But, I also believe that different states of being hold 
different rights.  Analogous to the situation in which children have 
fewer rights than adults, prisoners have fewer rights than freemen, 
mental incompetents have fewer rights than competents, I believe a fetus 
has fewer rights than a born child.  But I also believe that fetal 
viability must be taken into consideration in determining its rights.
My own personal definition of life involves a separateness between 
beings.  An 8-week fetus has no separateness from its mother, whereas an 
8-month fetus does or can separate from its mother.

>|I hope this clarifies a bit more the intent of my earlier posting.  It is 
>|so difficult to sort out the gray areas in this forum, you know.
>
>Your sentiments are understood, but I think there are some holes you 
>need to address.

Well, I've addressed some holes.  Perhaps created some more.  I do wish 
to share that with respect to abortion, I take a relativist viewpoint.
Abortion and its historical partner, infanticide, have been a part of the 
human condition for a very, very long time.  To legislate abortion out of 
existence and then step back and decree that all is right with the world 
is an inadequate response.  Just like prohibition could not wipe out 
the use of alcohol, the demand for abortion is too great.  I think a wise 
course of action involves an ongoing dialog of what you or I or anyone 
else feels is "good" or "moral".  It is also wise to explore why a woman
or a couple would choose abortion.  There are many, many examples of 
abortion being the most rational decision that a woman can make.  In fact, 
I have been witness to and confidant in the decision making process of 
loving, trusting couples who have opted for abortion, just as I have 
been witness to scared young girls sneaking out of town having abortions 
in fear of their parents.  I may believe that abortion is a violent act 
and in itself is not a "good" thing, but as I pointed out before, I think 
war is a bad, yet often necessary, event.  If we can work to make 
abortion not necessary, instead of working to make it illegal, I think 
the pay off for that effort will be an increased respect for life.  Pie 
in the sky, perhaps, but I could never feel comfortable in counseling 
a woman to bear a child when the woman in question is incapable of 
meeting her own needs, for instance.  I know full good and well what 
resources are available to care for such people in our communities, and
it is too little given out too grudgingly.  

In the meantime, thank you for posting.

>Sincerely,
>Richard Pitts
>-- 
>rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
>Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
>                        -|-  |  -|-
>                         |   |   |

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion