From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:11:41 GMT

In article <1ebjs2INNmmn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BxuK2B.32F@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>In article <1e9108INNlmu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>In article <BxsMAv.93I@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>>I suppose then that you won't mind if all of us men who see it as terribly
>>>>unequal that women can choose AFTER sex whether or not to have a child,
>>>>while we cannot, make damn sure you LOSE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
>>>This fellow isn't out to equalize the situation between parents.  He's out
>>>to take away a woman's bodily autonomy because he can't get a legal 'out'
>>>to a biological reality.
>>Nope.  There is no biological reality which claims that it is necessary that
>>since I pulled down my zipper as a man, that I want to support a child if
>>one ensues - EVEN IF I PRACTICE BIRTH CONTROL.
>
>Karl, you are missing one very important point, entirely.
>
>A woman's right to abort has nothing to do with her 'right to be a parent'
>or her 'right not to be a parent'.  That isn't a right that anybody has
>(probably on account of it would make for very difficult definition and
>protections).  What a woman has is the right to define how her physical
>body will or will not be used. 
>
>Which is precisely analogous and symetrical to a man's right to determine how
>his physical body will or will not be used.
>
>However, the minute to transmute a woman's right to PHYSICAL soveriegnty
>into some kind of social obligation, you get a dandy, but useless, argument
>for male-choice.  Because you are basing your argument on air.

But this is *EXACTLY* what you apologists are doing, Adrienne. Can't you
see that? Under the current repugnant laws, the woman's choice to carry the 
child to term (an exercise of her physical sovereignty) translates into a
social obligation for the man (paternity child support). The very thing
you criticize here, is what you are defending. You're admitting that the
current paternity child support laws are based on "air" [sic].

>See, I've participated in this particular discussion a number of times
>over the years, and I've heard and we've seen on this net, all kinds of
>anecdotal evidence to support both sides of the argument.  But I've never
>seen any information that would help persuade me that this is a real
>problem that really needs addressing through legislative action, and that
>the cost of the cure, as I perceive it, is more than born out by the 
>current cost of the problem.
>
>Now, I fancy myself to be a semi reasonable person.  I have been swayed
>by arguments pro and con on birth control, gun control, abortion, literally
>hundreds of local ballot measures, etc.  Do you have any data that can help
>convince the reasonable persons on this net that we are facing a 'real'
>problem that needs a legislative solution?

"See no evil", eh, Adrienne? Don't those blinders get a little uncomfortable?

I guess all those men who are being jailed, or their lives and/or careers
otherwise destroyed, are "invisible" to you, eh? How conveeeeeenient.

>The presumption that the parents of the child (defined by law) will be
>required to support the child (defined by law, and satisfied within hte
>confines of still more definition having to do with 'ability to pay') is
>a presumption adopted by the state because of two things:  1.  it pretty
>much reflected our historical practice* and 2. it is less costly to the
>state to set it up this way.

#1 is incorrect. Under the Common Law, an illegitimate child was considered
"nobody's child", and had no rights to inheritance or support.

#2 is very probably incorrect, since Adrienne apparently isn't factoring in
how removing the "free ride" effect might deter impatient-mother-wannabes 
from creating these "problems" in the first place (thereby reducing the
cost to the state).

>>Women can either decide to fight >with< men for reproductive freedom, or
>>against men. 
>
>Too bad you see it as an either/or battle, Karl.

Translation: resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion