From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:48:08 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Jul21.231513.6905@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
>Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo
>Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:15:13 GMT

>In article <nb7tk10@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>>---
>>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>|cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>>|>I will repeat: the biology forces an inequity.  Women take a
>>|>risk that men do not take, so they have the right to opt out
>>|>of that risk.
>>|
>>|Agreed. But in the other case -- where she foregoes the abortion -- why 
>>|should he have to subsidize the consequences of her unilateral choice?
>>
>>I'm not sure he should have to, if he
>>    - informed his partner of his wishes before sex (preferably in writing);

>Agreed.

>>    - used birth control himself; 

>To the same extent she did, in terms of inconvenience/effort, etc. Sure.

>>    - once the pregnancy had been detected, reminded his partner
>>      of his wishes during the window of time when abortion was
>>      available to her; and

>Agreed.

>>    - offered to pay for half.

>More than half. She has to actually go THROUGH the experience of the 
>abortion, after all. She makes more of a physical contribution, so he can
>make significantly more of a financial one. I think that's fair.

>>I'm giving some honest thought to fair solutions to this problem.
>>The biology *does* force inequities.  Men like Steeves will
>>just have to cope with the fact that women have the right to
>>choose abortion against their will.  I can't see any way around
>>that one.  But what about the situation that strikes such fear
>>into the little Darcy heart?  What about when the woman refuses
>>abortion, against the man's will?

>This may sound cold, but Steeves and men like him always have the option
>to try again, with another partner, or possibly even the same one. They
>can "cure" their non-fatherhood relatively easily. Once a man is made an
>involuntary father, however, it's very hard to cure that without 
>dispossessing a child. That's why I see the whole scenario not just as
>a matter of simple FAIRNESS, but also as a way of discouraging such 
>"accidents" in the future. Prevention is an important goal.

>>The solution above still gives me some qualms.  Single women with
>>children are much more likely to live in poverty in this society
>>than single childless men.  You don't owe child support to the 
>>woman, you owe it to the child.  Does the child deserve poverty
>>for the choices of its mother?

>I don't think ANY child deserves poverty. I think that we as a society,
>as a COLLECTIVE, owe all children an adequate standard of living, if no
>other alternative exists. However, when alternatives DO exist, then we 
>should first expect the people most directly responsible for the creation
>of the child to support it, before burdening strangers. By "responsible",
>however, I mean in terms of ACTIONS, not just a no-brainer DNA similarity. 
>In many cases, I think only one of the parents is actually "responsible",
>even though the current laws always hold BOTH responsible.

>>|CJ, If I make a unilateral choice to chop off my right arm, can I bill you 
>>|for the medical expenses, the lost future wages, the pain and suffering?
>>|
>>|No causal connection, you say? Not so, not so. You see, my decision to chop 
>>|off my arm was inspired by this article you posted. If you hadn't posted it, 
>>|my arm would still be firmly attached to my torso. So, you see, it was your
>>|"irresponsible" behavior of posting to Usenet that caused my dismemberment.
>>|You should be more careful. Now we'll make you pay dearly for your 
>>|complicity.
>>
>>Is there an "arm-chopper" test as reliable as paternity tests?
>>Is the cause and effect so directly linked?  

>Whoa! Wait a minute there, let's not compare apples to oranges. "Chopping
>off my right arm" is analogous to "continuing pregnancy", not to "causing
>conception". Important distinction there. Paternity tests can't measure the 
>woman's state of mind any more than a "arm-chopper" test can measure mine.
>The analogy stands.

>                                                        - Kevin
It is indeed difficult sometimes to get clear on just what it is some 
parties to this dicussion on abortion think the problem is. Is it legal? 
Moral? What?  I mean, if we're talking about the legality of abortions, then 
it seems any one who thinks all abortions are killings would have to be 
against 'abortion on demand', that is, he would have to be against 
making it legal for a woman to walk into a clinic and have an abortion. But 
such a position obviously faces some problems: Not all killings are 
murders, and it is sometime right to kill a person. So some exceptions must 
be allowed. The question is, should this be matter for legislation?  The pro-
lifer I am now describing, it seems to me, could say that only certain 
abortions should be treated judicially as crimes (A woman aborting a fetus 
in the 3rd trimester in order to avoid having to postpone a trip to Europe, 
e.g.), but not others (having an abortion to save the mother's life, or 
even aborting a fetus known to be going to die moments after birth, 
etc). But cases such as these raise no deep and perplexing legal issues; 
in the same way we distinguish killings from murders and manslaughter we 
can distinguish innocent from culpable acts of abortion. I think a pro-
lifer would be giving us his best argument if he were to say that just as 
killings are generally impermissable but are sometimes justified, so 
abortions should be thought of as in general impermissable though as 
being sometimes justified. But this would still require a prohibition on 
abortions in general, just as there is a prohibition on killings in 
general. In other words, a woman should have to justify an act of abortion. 
If this can be readily done, either to a doctor (who would himself/herself 
be held legally liable in case it became known that he performed 'abortions 
on demand' or cases of unjustified abortion, such as in the case of 
the mother aborting a fetus so as not to miss a vacation she had planned) or 
some other responsible party, then, of course, no criminal sanctions should 
be applied here.

What we have to watch out for here is, how much power are we going to give 
the state in prohibiting certain kinds of behavior? I would personally 
like to see more discussions focussing on the distinction between 'public' 
and 'private' morality issues in matters of prospective legislation. When it 
is said that govt should not 'legislate morals', what is (or should) be 
intended by this is not that it is no business of criminal law to 
prohibit certain actions which are also immoral, for murder and rape and 
theft and fraud are all of them immoral, but we nevertheless quite 
legitimately include them in our criminal law. So some such 'legislation of 
morals' is necessary and unavoidable. But how much and on what grounds? is 
the question we must always ask here.

My own feeling is that abortion can be potentially a murder (that is, an 
unjustified taking of a human life), and actually a killing of a life. Even 
if you don't think that a fetus is a 'person' (which many think is a very 
plausible claim), you are still obliged to view it as a living thing. Now, 
nobody thinks it is OK to kill a dog just for the fun of it. That isn't 
morally justifiable treatment of animal life, but by what logic could one 
reason that it is, nevertheless, OK, to kill the life inside a womb? It is, 
then, just as wrong (I'm not talking about legality here now, though it may 
be illegal to kill dogs in some states) to kill a dog as to kill a fetus, if 
the circumstances are the same (I.e. killing a unwanted dog=killing an 
unwanted or misbegotten child). But perhaps its just a tissue issue? 
Different rules for different kinds of tissue. Fetal tissue, I hear, can be 
very useful in some industries.  If we legalize abortion in the manner some 
are suggesting, then I could go into business paying women to get pregnant 
and offer them money for the fetal tissue, so that after the abortion, I 
could then grind it up and sell it to cosmetic industries or whoever 
else could find a use for the stuff. 

uhmmm. Come to think of it, if it's just a tissue-issue, and if there really 
is money to be made in using fetal tissue from aborted babies, maybe the 
govt itself could get into the abortion business. Yeah, pay women who are 
pregnant or who are contemplating getting in that condition to have 
abortions and give the govt the fetal tissue so they can turn around and 
sell it to various industries and possibly make enough money to help cut the 
federal deficit! 

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity