From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: I'm Pro-Male-Choice
Keywords: RU 486
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 01:50:33 GMT

In article <18965@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <1992Jul15.020611.16710@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <18930@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>>writes:
>
>>>Being a father is a status relationship based on blood and birth,
>>>not a contract relationship based on choice and consent.  Once a
>>>father, always a father.  [Matt Rosenblatt]
>
>>Say, last time I looked, this was supposedly a Classless Society. That's 
>>one of its main "selling points" over the Old World societies. Now you're 
>>telling me that the law respects relationships based on "blood and birth" 
>>[sic]?  What's the deal here?   [Kevin Darcy]
>
>Right.  A classless society.  So, just as a grown man is entitled only
>to what he earns and what he can get by making agreements -- contracts
>-- with other folks, so a newborn baby is entitled (remember, classless
> ==> same rules for everybody!) only to what *he* earns and what *he* 
>can get by making contracts.  Which means, he is entitled to starve.

Did I say RIGHT-less society, Mr. Rosenblatt? No I did not. I said CLASS-less
society. You seem to use the terms interchangeably, even though they are not.
I agree, with you, that a child has a right to life (after birth, if not 
earlier). This, in turn, translates into a DUTY on all of our parts (as,
collectively, "society") to keep that child alive. We do not, however, do
this because the child somehow belongs to a priveleged "class" -- we do it
for the child just as we would do it for an old person, or someone in the
prime of their life, who, through some accident, affliction, or whatever,
was unable to fend for themself. We would do it for all of our citizens,
of any gender, race, religion, or "blood line". There are (at least in theory) 
no class distinctions in our general Right to Life. Rights != classes.

>A law that sets down the same rules for everybody on the grounds that
>"this was supposedly a Classless Society" grants the rich man, as well
>as the poor man, the right to sleep under bridges and eat from garbage
>cans.  In truth, the worst injustice consists of treating unequals
>equally.  If the only basis for rights is contract and consent, then
>babies, who can neither contract nor consent, have no rights.  And
>let our readers remember that each of them was once a baby.

Again, you equate "no classes" with "no rights". Not a valid equivalence.

>Or is it that "society" somehow has a "duty" to keep babies from
>starving?  If so, the money to support a baby is going to be deducted 
>from *someone's* paycheck.  If the baby's own father has no duty to let
>that money be deducted from his paycheck, how can it be that perfect
>strangers, taxpayers who have no blood relationship to the baby and 
>who had no part in bringing him into existence, have a duty to let
>the money to support that baby be deducted from their paychecks?

Because of a general social duty to help the needy, _regardless_ of their 
"class" or "status".

>Yes, "society" has a duty to keep babies from starving, and babies
>have a right to support *based on their status*, not on contract.

Wrong. Babies have a right to support *based on their >>NEED<< for support*.
Status has nothing to do with it.

>But the primary duty to support that baby falls on his parents, and
>only if they are unable -- not merely unwilling to bother -- does
>the duty fall on the rest of us.

Only in the case where the parents are unable to support it, and for exactly
the same reasons that we support the poor REGARDLESS of whether they were
instrumental in their own impoverishment. Do you think promiscuous lifestyles
are the ONLY reason people find themselves in the position of not being able
to afford to raise their children? Why are you willing to support all of those 
other cases, but suddenly you draw the purse-strings tight when there's a
whiff of sexual promiscuity in the woman's past? Sounds like your agenda is 
driven much more by your subjective moral judgments than economic pragmatism...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: misc.legal