From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:25:57 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

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

>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes: (in response to my
>comment, following; his alterations of gender, etc, between lines of my
>original comment):


>>>I'm sorry-- he was FORCED to have sex with her?  If not, he knew what
>>            she                             him?          she
>>>he was getting into, and the risks involved.  He DID know, didn't he?
>>she                                           She                 she?
>>>If not, the fact that his parents never explained the birds and the bees
>>                       her
>>>to him hardly justifies an alteration of the law.
>>    her                                       ^abortion
>> 
>>>peter bartlett.

>>I told you this was going to happen months ago.  It doesn't take a rocket
>>scientist to read the logic of society and make a very simple linear 
>>prediction.  This HAD to happen.  It may not succeed now, but unless this
>>society's attitude towards reproduction changes radically, it *must*
>>eventually succeed.  Eventually, if you'll recall, was less than 20 years,
>>according to my earlier predictions.  Anyone care to make wagers on that
>>guesstimate?

>This response seems to me totally illogical, but since a couple of people
>have raised it, I shall respond briefly.

>It seems to me that the fundamental question about the *availability* of
>abortion involves when life is taken to commence.  If you adopt the "every
>sperm is sacred" approach, then masturbation is murder; if you adopt the
>"when it has left the mother" approach, you have abortion on demand right
>up until the birth is complete.

The latter is currently the situation in the United States.

>  Various ethical positions and legal 
>positions support various intermediate stages.  That seems to be the real
>issue, an issue quite different from the argument about the need to take
>economic responsibility for ones actions.

>If one accepts abortion as a legal option (as I do), the question becomes
>who has control over the decision as to whether to carry the child to term.
>It seems to me that can only be the woman: it is her body, not the father's
>which is directly affected by the choice.

Ok.  But the delivery of the raw material HAD to be accepted by the
receiver in order for child manufacture to take place.  The supplier is
legally forbidden to have a legal voice in manufacturing decisions.
Thus, any damages which may ensue from manufacturing a product from 
a freely accepted supplier of raw material can only be the manufacturer's.
The supplier loses all control, and all rights, at the moment of delivery.

>That is a completely different question than dealing with the economic
>consequences of a birth.  Civil law is about holding people to financial
>account for their actions, and I do not see that this branch of civil law
>is particularly distinguishable from others in this regard.  I hesitate
>to comment on the United States situation (the US striking me as a country
>devoid of civilization in any regard), but certainly in the UK and Canada
>both parents acquire rights and duties over the child, and both have to 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>contribute to the support of the child.  

Archaic concept.  Men only supply raw material.  They do *NOT* create 
children.  The fertilized egg is legally not recognized as a child in
any sense of the word, or abortion could be outlawed.  Thus, men can, under
no circumstance, be considered a biological parent.  They may choose to
adopt, certainly, but that is the only thing which can make them a parent
if we follow the logic which permits legal abortion.

Cf. Anonymous sperm donors who can legally NEVER be considered fathers, no
matter what the circumstances.
Cf. Surrogate motherhood, in which the woman who carries to term is 
considered to be the mother, *NOT* the egg donor.
Cf. Tennessee court case in which a man's "right to choose not to be a 
father" was found simply because non-viable tissue masses happened to
inhabit a nitrogen freezer instead of a womb.

Note that the Tennessee man retained this right even though he took
action which was purely and narrowly procreative in intent.  If such
action STILL permitted him to exercise a "right not to be a father"
why doesn't this right hold for men who take actions which are
primarily sensual in nature and which are not intended to have
any procreative result at all, at least from the man's point of view?

>It strikes me as completely 
>bizarre that men talk about being taken advantage of in this regard.  As
>we have (statistically) larger disposable incomes than women, we can
>afford these payments with much less pain than women.  To suggest that
>the woman somehow gets off totally free in this scenario strikes me as
>out of touch to the point of offensive.

I realize that socialism in the UK has progressed pretty well, despite
Thatcher's efforts to the contrary.  That is the only explanation for the
paragraph above.  If disposable income were the determining factor, Bill
Gates ought to be held responsible for the births of ALL children, 
since he certainly has more disposable income than any male-female couple
in the US.  He can afford the payments with much less pain than anyone
else.  

Women are perfectly capable of making economic decisions regarding their
own future.  That is part of the rationale behind legalized abortion, after
all.  If this is so, why hold an innocent supplier of raw material 
responsible for what is purely a manufacturing decision?

>peter.
>

Steve Kellmeyer 
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18709 alt.activism:17501