From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:31:03 GMT

uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:

>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes in response to 
>olga@csiatl.Gwinnett.COM (olga from the volga):

>[after his usual red herring claim that if you believe that both
>parties share responsibility for a birth, you must also believe
>that abortion is wrong-- an argument to which I have responded once,
>and which is sufficiently absurd as to not warrant further comment]

Funny, that's what they said about legal abortion in 1970.

>>As we all know, procreation is merely a minor
>>and unwanted side effect of what is a purely sensual act, biological
>>"facts" to the contrary notwithstanding.  

>If you don't understand the absurdity of that statement, there's not
>a whole lot of point continuing the discussion.

Au contraire.  What is the resounding chant of those who support legal
abortion?  "2,4,6,8, You can't make me procreate!" Obviously, the 
technology of sterility is in the process of divorcing the concept of
procreation from the sexual act.  Sex is primarily viewed today as an
act of sensuality and physical enjoyment, NOT as anything which is
necessarily or primarily procreative.  When Huxley's predictions come
true, and the artificial womb is developed, this will be even more
completely seperated.  When either a man or a woman, via artificial 
womb, can commission a child, child support payments will definitely 
die, if they have not died well before then.  It will be the summation
of abortion logic - that children are manufacturable entities and sex
is primarily an act of sensuality - nevermore shall the twain meet.

>>Obviously the legal liabilities to which men
>>are currently heir are remnants of an archaic, patriarchal, paternalistic
>>system which saw women as weak creatures needing male support and 
>>sustenance.  As we all know, this is certainly not true.  Women need men
>>like fish need bicycles.  I suggest you take classes in feminine discourse
>>so that you may widen your horizons and free yourself from the submissive
>>self-image which the dominant male culture has imposed on you. ONce you
>>manage to free yourself from the concept that women must somehow rely on
>>men in order to lead their lives, you will clearly see the need to sever
>>this last link of paternalism. The idea that males should be held 
>>responsible for the life decisions of (minor, illogical, incapable,
>>irresponsible, child-like) women via payment for the damages these "minors"
>>caused themselves through child-bearing is certainly something no true 
>>feminist would support.    

>I'm sorry; is this intended as humour?  Or sarcasm?  It is difficult
>to see it as a serious argument.

>I find it difficult to believe that any serious feminist would support
>the notion that women, with statistically smaller incomes, ought to be
>saddled with the ENTIRE cost of the raising of children.  

Yet this is the outcome of their logic when they argue for legal abortion.
They have framed the argument to state that women are ENTIRELY responsible
for the choice of manufacturing a child.  It is simply another lifestyle
choice.  If the woman's decision on her economic future can only be 
completely free when abortion is among the suite of options and the man
has no right to a voice, then, similarly, the woman's decision to have a
child is specific to the WOMAN'S economic future - there is no more 
compelling reason why the voiceless, invisible man should enter into the
results of THIS decision than he would into the results of the abortion 
decision.  It is HER choice, not his.  It must be HER responsibility, not 
his.

>That certainly
>doesn't involve equality; it certainly doesn't involve liberation.  At
>least not for the woman.  I note that it does involve liberation for the
>man, who can essentially fuck and run.

Again, I must disagree.  It DOES involve equality.  Equal responsibility
under the law for the consequences of decisions entered into.  It is
liberating for the woman in that she is freed from the economic constraints
of the hated man, freed from the dependencies of relying on the arrival of
someone else's paycheck.  The woman can also "fuck and run" - that is the
whole point behind keeping abortion legal.  That is the entirety of their
argument, dear sir. However, the woman has another option which the man
does not.  She can choose to "fuck and produce".  If she does so, it is
most certainly HER choice, a choice which the man has no part of, and no
responsibility for.

>>>olga@csiatl.gwinnett
>>>YOW!

>>Ah, I see. You re-inforce these negative images via the "cat-like" 
>>onomopoetic device you used at the end.  Please refrain from denigrating
>>the feminine image in such a stereotypical manner.  If this continues,
>>you may lose your membership in NOW.

>I can only read this as a sarcastic attack of someone who has no 
>serious rational argument to present.  We have done you the courtesy of
>serious responses no matter how pigheaded your arguments are.  Kindly
>show us the same respect.

Please, sir!  Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere.  You have never 
successfully refuted any particle of my argument, you have merely 
demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the current legal/social/
cultural arguments in favor of abortion, and the ramifications these
arguments have for society.  Your puritanical insistance on punishing
the man for a decision in which he plays no role, for a process in which
he plays only the part of a mute deliveryman, is truly archaic.  Please,
do not force your old-fashioned morality on the rest of us.

>peter.

Undoubtedly.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal