Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Articles you might be interested in.
From: dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 00:02:33 GMT
Reply-To: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross)
Organization: Mousebat, Follicle, Goosecreature, Ampersand, Spong, Wapcaplet,                 Looseliver, Vendetta & Pang

I do not necessarily agree with the following opinions.
-------------------------------------------------------

HIS SEXUALITY, HER REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
by Richard Newman

From "Changing Men," Spring/Summer 1988

        Your lover on the phone is very excited.

        "Congratulations!" she says.  "You're going to be a father!  I just got
back from the doctor and she tells me I'm pregnant.  Isn't that great?"  Your
heart sinks.  You want to scream, "What do you mean, `Isn't that great?'"  You
want to tell her to have an abortion.

        Or she calls and her voice is slow over the phone, and hse has a hard
time getting the words out.  Finally, she tells you, "I'm pregnant."  "Why so
glum?" you ask elatedly.  "That's wonderful!"  She replies, "I want an
abortion."

        Or she calls and tells you she's already had an abortion.  She says she
feels guilty for not telling you first but she was afraid.  You hang up
screaming "Murderer!" into the phone.

        Or she tells you she's pregnant and doesn't know what to do.  Neither
do you.  This is the first time the subject has come up.

                        ABORTION:  WHOSE RIGHTS?

        These scenarios, each perfectly understandable in its own context,
raise questions about the rights of both men and women in relation to the
fetuses we create together.  Can a man claim a fetus as half his?  Can he say
that if his lover aborts it against his will, she violated his bodily and
reproductive rights?  Or can he claim that if he does not want to have a
child, she had no right to carry the pregnancy to term?  On the other hand,
can the woman claim that, since _she_ carries the fetus and his body is no
longer involved, the man's claims are irrelevant?

        An important difference separates these two sets of claims.  The man's
claim assumes power over the body of the woman.  Although his active
participation in the reproductive process is finished, he believes that his
feelings about having children are enough to keep the woman from doing what she
wants with her body.  The woman's claim, however, involves no such power over
the man.  She merely states that since the sex act is over, he has no bodily
and/or reproductive rights to exercise.  She refuses to acknowledge his claim
to power over her, and instead asserts her right to her own autonomy.

        Women's liberation concerns precisely this right of women to their
own independence without regard for patriarchial ideas of who, what or how
women should be.  Women's liberation, in other words, concerns woman-centered-
ness, or "gynocentry."  In the situations described above, the woman's claim
concerning her right to abortion is based on a woman-centered sexuality in
which her relationship to her own body is more important than her relationship
to the man.  The man's claims grow out of an hierarchical sexuality in which
the woman's body -- because of her relationship to him -- becomes an object
over which he has control.  Her body becomes a part of him the way anything we
acquire becomes in some way a part of ourselves.

        If we men want to redefine the nature of our reproductive and sexual
relationships with women, we must look, not to the women, but to other men.
From men comes the possibility of a male-centered, male-defined heterosexuality
in which our relationships to ourselves become primary.  Developing these
relationships should command our attention with some urgency because any hopes
we have of real and complete male liberation depend on our ability to live our
lives without recourse to the possession/oppression of a subservient other --
the role into which we coerce the women of our culture.

        The politics of abortion seem to me a good place to start defining this
male-centered sexuality.  This is because the issues concerning women's
reproductive choice and men's role in the reproductive process ultimately
involve understanding the boundaries between male and female sexualities.

                        RELINQUISHING MALE PRIVILEGES

        We can begin with what is probably a radical assumption in our culture,
an assumption that we shouldn't have to mention at all:  that women are fully
adult human beings, fully capable of making responsible life decisions.  They
do this not only within the context of the female community but also, along
with fully adult and fully capable men, within the context of the human
species.  Second, we can recognize a simple biological fact:  men do not get
pregnant.  Because the physical processes of pregnancy, abortion and childbirth
are experienced only by women, it is only common sense that the final decision
to experience either childbirth or abortion should rest with no one but a
pregnant woman.  (Just imagine how unreasonable it would be if women decided
when and whether men should undergo vasectomy operations.)  I accept this right
of women to reproductive choice as a fact inaccessable to argument; it simply
is, and demands nothing more of me and other men than our full awareness of
this right.  To the extent that we lack this awareness, or that we fail in our
acknowledgement, we can not enter fully into egalitarian relationships with
women.

        Probably most men would agree with a woman's "right to choose," but I
wonder how many of us understand fully the implications of what we are agreeing
to.

        The politics of reproduction in our culture are such that women have
functioned primarily as baby machines without their having much, if any,
control over when or whether this function should be performed.  Even today,
despite the relative availability of birth control, many women -- for
religious, social or family reasons -- have children they can't afford, don't
want or shouldn't have all because "that's what women do."  The patriarchial
institution of monogamous marriage has "privileged" the reproductive aspect
of female sexuality by essentially enslaving women to the "duty" of having a
family.  We have created the notion that a woman without a husband and children
lives, by definition, an unfulfilled life.  In effect, women acquire 
fulfillment in a patriarchal culture by prostituting themselves, offering their
bodies as sexual and reproductive machines serving the needs of men.

        Such a hierarchical relationship between ourselves and women has deep
implications for how men perceive our sexuality and our role in reproduction.
By presuming to insist that women's sexual biology exists to serve male need,
we have, in essence, confined our reproductive role to one of control.  We also
have made it virtually impossible, for both men and women, to separate erotic
sex from reproductive sex.

        In an essay entitles "Erotica and Pornography," Gloria Steinem observed
that human beings are the only animals who engage in erotic sex, in sex as "a
way of bonding differentness, discovering sameness, and communicating emotion"
(1).  She also makes the point that the yoking together of erotic sexuality and
reproduction, and the insistence that the breaking of this yoke is somehow
obscene and pornographic, constitutes a major strategy by which men use
religious and political institutions to intimidate women into resisting women's
liberation.  If a woman, having conceived, can decide without recourse to any
authority but herself whether or not to carry her pregnancy to term, she is a
woman free to determine the who, what, when, where, why and how of her own
sexuality.  Her sexuality, then, becomes a part of her whole identity, and she
can, at her will, explore whatever other parts of herself she chooses.  Her
life becomes woman-centered and the patriarchal power of the male collapses.

        When the courts of this country granted women the right to abortion,
women gained a sexual freedom previously lacking in their lives.  However, in
our male-dominated society, what the King can grant the King can also take
away.  Presuming to grant women a right which is intrinsically theirs merely
reinforces the same old attitudes about female sexuality.  Even though male-
permitted abortion-on-demand allows women, married or not, a necessary option
to unwanted pregnancy, it also gives men one more possible reason to insist
that women make themselves sexually available to us.  Further, if we don't like
how they use this "privilege" we have "granted" them, we can take it away.  For
example, anti-abortionists use this strategy when they point to the rise in
the number of teen-age abortions as a reason to make abortion against the law.
The fact that the right to abortion can be challenged in court and its
availibility restricted by law indicates how little of our actual pribilege
men have relinquished.

        Women's right to reproductive choice -- if we men understand if fully 
-- not only allows women freedom of sexual expression, both reproductive and
erotic, it also leaves men with a minor biological role in the reproductive
process.  Full reproductive choice for women means they regain the control we
previously enjoyed.  If a woman, simply by having an abortion, can thwart a
man's desire to have children, he loses a great deal of what men traditionally
invest in having children to begin with.

        Currently, male control of conception and childbirth functions to
reinforce heterosexual notions of virility, self-worth and masculinity.  Part
of the traditional significance for men in the birth of a child is not only
that we perpetuate ourselves, but that we _cause_ it to happen.  Take, for
instance, the notion of "fathering" a son to carry on the family name,
tradition, or business.  Also, it was common to blame the lack of a male child
in the family on the wife's inability to produce one -- as if her interference
botched what the husband could, almost by himself, do all along.  If women
possess complete control over their reproductive biology -- which unrestricted
abortion on demand provides them -- we men may perpetuate ourselves through
the birth of a male or female child, but that self-perpetuation takes place
only by _permission_ of the mother.

                        MALE-CENTERED HETEROSEXUALITY

        Merely acknowledging the reality of the male role in reproduction and
thereby relinquishing our perceived right to control the process, however,
accomplishes little more than an inversion of the present situation.  The
injustice of men controlling the biology of reproduction will find on remedy
in the injustice of women's control over our emotional investment in having
children.

        I think we men need to redefine our relationship to reproduction, both
symobolically and physically.  We need to find a way of being sexual and
reproductive that neither exploits others nor puts our sexual and reproductive
fulfillment at the mercy of someone else's freedom of choice.  We need to put
ourselves -- not the women (or other men) with whom we make love -- at the
center of our sexuality.  Then we can begin to learn truly who we are as loving
and vulnerable human beings.

        To the degree that the primary power relationship in patriarchal
society is between men and women, gay men, by virtue of their sexual
choices, do not participate in one aspect of that relationship:  they do not
require/ask for the specifically sexual surrender of women.  I do _not_ mean
that gay men, because they are gay, are not sexist.  I do not mean that by
definition relationships among gay men will not duplicate the sexual hierarchy
of the dominant culture.  Nor do I mean that they gay male community, simply by
existing, subverts the connections between sexism and heterosexism.  I _do_
mean that relationships between gay men take place in a community which is
defined by men interms of men.  Heterosexual men can begin to develop from this
aspect of the gay male community a political/physical male-centered sexuality
for ourselves that is analogous to the women-centered sexuality I discussed
above.  Because a male-centered sexuality asserts the primacy of our
relationships with ourselves and other men, it will subvert the hierarchy of a
heterosexuality organized around our possession and control of women.

        Probably the most common and easily identifiable aspect of sexist
culture is the physical/sexual objectification of women by men.  Such
objectification is, however, an aspect of any sexual relationship.  It is
reasonable that bed partners like each other's bodies as bodies.  A sexually
defined power hierarchy reveals itself when the objectification becomes chronic
and represents the entire relationship, or even just the entire sexual aspect
of the relationship.

        Of course, sexual objectification of men by men does not in and of
itself avoid or subvert sexual hierarchies.  A homosexual couple may fall
quite conventionally into easily recognizable male ("dominant") and female
("submissive") roles.  However, if it is the "idea" of the female which
determines the hierarchical structure of the relationship, it is possible
for each man to recognize himself, if only on a physical level, in the other.
Since a chronic hierarchy can only be maintained by the denial of the basic
sameness between the two lovers, such recognition will work to subvert the
hierarchy.

        Recognizing aspects of oneself in another human being and accepting
that basic sameness as positive requires a certain amount of self-acceptance,
of self-love.  A male-centered sexuality will depend upon our claiming the
primacy of our relationships with ourselves and other men.  I can only love
the man in other men if I love the man in me _as_a_man_.  If this self-love
becomes the basis for my life decisions, then my art, my science, politics,
religion -- everything I do, including my sexual activity, becomes an
expression of my love for myself.  My homo/autoeroticism gives my life its
power, and I do not need to depend on someone else's surrender, male or
female, to tell me who and what I am.  A community in which the primary
motivating principle of human action is self-love would honor non-hierarchical
social arrangements.  The integrity of its communal structure would depend
on a constant awareness of, and fidelity to, the basic sameness of each of
its members.

                    HETEROSEXUAL RESPONSIBILITY REDEFINED

        Currently, male heterosexual responsibility usually consists of
something like "don't get her pregnant unless you're ready to accept the
consequences" (i.e. marry her, pay for the abortion).  But women either get
pregnant or they don't, _and we need to know what we're about if we take the
chance that they might_.  The basic assumptions are still the same.  Since
women exists as objects to fill male sexual and reproductive needs, traditional
male heterosexual responsibility requires that, if we choose to use them, we
maintain them properly.

        Real male heterosexual responsibility requires that we be aware of and
responsible for the consequences _for_ourselves_ of our own sexual activity,
not the use to which we put women-as-objects.  How many of us, for instance,
can honsetly say that before we became sexually involved with a woman we found
out whether we agreed on what would happen if she got pregnant -- and then,
based on that discussion, decided the extent to which we were willing to become
physically involved with her.  I suggest this discussion as the very point at
which male heterosexual responsibility starts.

        That the physical facts of abortion and childbirth take place within an
exclusively female communisy does not prevent men from having feelings and
opinions about those facts.  Nor should it prevent us from taking responsibil-
ity for what we think and feel.  For instance, if a man who believes abortion
is murder finds himself involved with a woman who explicitly says she will have
an abortion should she become pregnant, that man has a responsibility to
himself to avoid _completely_ the possibility of her becoming pregnant.

        Since he cannot question her right to an abortion, the moral dilemma
if she gets pregnant is his, not hers.  If she has an abortion because of his
sexual involvement with her, he -- according to his own ethic -- implicates
himself in a murder.  Since he cannot hold the woman accountable for any
beliefs but her own, the responsibility to say "no" is his.  The same
reasoning would apply to a man who does not want to have a child and a woman
who does not believe in abortion.

        Male heterosexual responsibility should begin with the realization
that once we fertilize the egg -- unless we have agreed beforehand with our
partner on the consequences -- what happens thereafter is beyond our control.
We need to start with what we can control:  the extent and nature of our
heterosexual relationships.

        For heterosexual men, the idea that we can and must control only our
own participation in our sexual relationships has many implications.  It
implies a new way of thinking about ourselves that is in direct opposition
to the general stereotype of men as people whose sexual responsibility hangs
from our penises by a thread that breaks when we get hard.

        It means we can tell a woman, "no, I don't want to fuck," out of
fidelity to our own beliefs about abortion or our desire not to have children
-- not simply to avoid the fertilization of an egg.

        It means that our choice of sexual partners and the character of our
sexual relationships will be determined by our sexual biology (not a
comfortable situation for anyone).  One possible result is that men will
discover a renewed interest in developing -- for ourselves as well as our
partners -- truly safe and effective contraceptives, thereby rendering
obsolete the question of abortion.

        It means we can assert and explore the fullness of our own erotic
selves by insisting that oral, anal and manual sex -- or even non-genital
intimacy such as massage -- are not mere substitutes for or preludes to
sexual intercourse.  Rather, they are perfectly valid erotic acts in and of
themselves.

        Finally, it means that men will learn how true erotic fulfillment
comes from within ourselves, as a result of understanding who we are, and
not from controlling who does what to whom and how often.
 
                                REFERENCES

        1) G. Steinem, "Erotica and Pornography," in _Outrageous Acts and
           Everyday Rebellions_.  (Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1983)

-----

(FROM:  Men's Rights" by Wishard & Wishard)

        Recent changes in the law mirror the father's new image.  He has again
become a serious, reliable parent, although perhaps not in a traditional sense.
Working mothers have demanded that men assume a share of the child-care
responsibilities.  Men have been subjected to the diapers but, in the process,
often gained closeness with their children and self-assurance as parents.
Their relationship with their children has become real and their own -- not one
experienced through the children's mother.
        However, in 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion-on-demand,
it decided that a woman's right to privacy was more important that whatever
rights a father had.  This current abortion law does not reflect biological
reality.  Pregnancy is the result of a man and a woman having a sexual
relationship.  The fetus is _their_ fetus, not the woman's alone.  The lives
of _both_ the man and the woman will be immensely affected by whatever decision
is made in regard to abortion.
        Furthermore, the current law reinforces very outdated and sexist
stereotypes.  Do "women still have most to lose by an unwanted pregnancy"?  Are
men "bungling parents"?  Are "women always in the end responsible alone for
their children"?  And are "men untrustworthy in their commitments"?
        We hesitate to suggest that the law further meddle in relationships.
Obviously, decisions about abortion are best resolved by negotiation between
individual men and women.  But the law defines the bottom-line rights and
duties in a relationship.  In order for men and women to negotiate effectively,
they both must feel they have some power and a stake in an equitable decision.
The following proposals for changes in the abortion laws are suggested in this
spirit.

Abortion:  The Present Law
--------------------------
        Years ago, when David and Janet were first married, they
        decided that they eventually wanted children.  At 38 Janet
        surprisingly became pregnant.  David picked up a schedule
        for Lamaze classes and Janet planned an abortion.  David
        was shocked, hurt, and generally madder than hell.  When
        his impassioned pleas didn't work, David threatened legal
        action.  Janet told him to stop being so emotional -- the
        abortion would go ahead as planned.  It did.

        Years ago, when Pete and Susan were first married, they
        too decided that they eventually wanted children.  But they
        were very specific as to when -- after they had both
        finished eight years of higher education.  Five years later
        Susan decided babies were more interesting than books and
        became pregnant.  Pete was furious that their agreed plans
        were intentionally disrupted.  He asked, demanded, cajoled,
        pleaded, and ordered Susan to have an abortion.  She
        refused and Pete is a father.

Under present law, established by the United States Supreme Court in 1973,
David is powerless to interfere with Janet's unilateral decision to abort their
child.  Pete, in the second example, has no right to force Susan to have an
abortion nor would he have any such right even under the old law.
        In both situations at least two things are apparent:  first, the
pregnant woman has the power to unilaterally choose whether to terminate her
pregnancy, and second, her male partner has no legal, enforceable interest in
her decision.  How have our laws on abortion reached these results?

BACKGROUND:  A SUMMARY  --  Before 1973, abortion was a crime unless the state
approved the abortion.  Approval was generally given when the pregnant woman's
life or health were threatened by the birth.  The criminal abortion laws
reflected the long-standing moral and legal prohibitions against the taking of
human life.  These laws caused human suffering in many instances and were
evaded when necessary by those with means.  Criticism grew and pressure for
legal reform mounted.

1973:  ABORTION LEGALIZED  --  By about 1970 the Women's Liberation Movement
had become a social and political reality.  The Movement took dead aim on the
criminal abortion laws, exerting immense pressure on state and federal
lawmakers to abolish these laws.  The courts were also besieged by litigants
and lawyers attacking the same laws.  In 1973 two such cases reached the
nation's highest court and made sweeping new law.
        The cases were called Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton.  Both presented
the abortion case squarely:  The majority of justices in both cases held that:
                 No state or federal laws may prohibit
                 the taking of human fetal life in the
                 approximate first three months (the
                 first trimester) of its existence.
        The Court further ruled that abortions may be regulated by a state
during the fourth to sixth month of pregnancy but _only_ to the extend of
requiring safe conditions for the woman.  Abortion was legalized and the law
of the land was rewritten.  The basis for the new law was a woman's
constitutional right to privacy.  This right, said the justices, was broad.
Broad enough to permit a woman to terminate her pregnancy by abortion _without
interference_ -- at least during the first trimester.
        The effect of these court decisions was to invalidate state laws that
made abortion a crime or required a husband's consent to the abortion.  After
these decisions and others like them, various state and national groups mounted
political campaigns to change this court-made law.  And the battle lines were
drawn.

FATHERS' RIGHTS:  WHAT ARE THEY?  --  Before the court decisions in 1973, there
was little occasion for the courts to determine what rights a father may have
in his unborn child when abortion is the issue.  Abortion was a crime and that
was that.
        After 1973, however, prospective fathers whose wives sought abortion
without the father's consent looked to the courts for help.  Did these fathers
have any rights?  What kind?  How could they enforce them?
        Cases by such fathers were brought before the courts in Florida,
Massachusetts, Utah, Wisconsin, and New York.  Some of those seeking help were
unmarried and others married.  Some still lived with their partners; others
had separated.
        In each of these cases the courts conceded that the father had rights
-- of some kind -- in his wife's unborn child.
                The father has rights.  They are familial.
                They antedate the Constitution; they are about
                as old as civilization itself.  They center in
                the main potentiality of marriage: the birth
                and raising of children.  Few human experiences
                have meaning comparable to parenthood.  The
                father's rights ... are surely among the
                fundamental rights protected by the Consti-
                tution.  (Hennessey, J., dissenting in Doe vs.
                Doe 314 NE2d 128)
        Some have called a father's rights in an unborn child "proprietary,"
whereas the mother's are "personal."  In other words, the father's rights are
similar to those he has in his property, but the mother's rights are her
individual and private concern.  Such stereotyping of a man and woman's 
interest in the birth process is badly outdated -- and never was true.
        It is absurd to believe that the interest of a father in his child
springs into existence full grown on the day of birth.  As with women, the
pregnancy period is, for the father, often one of anxiety, anticipation, and
growing in feeling for the unborn child.  Indeed, many fathers participate
during the mother's labor and delivery of the child.  In short, their
involvement is usually manifested upon learning of the pregnancy.

Can the Law be Changed?
-----------------------
        Do not "women's rights" have to be set in the framework of
        the full spectrum of human rights -- species-rights, body-
        rights, etc. -- thus subjecting them to the possible claims
        of other human rights?  It is one thing to emancipate women
        from discrimination and male tyranny; it is quite another to
        emancipate them from all human claims and obligations toward
        the rights of others.  But to claim or presume an absolute
        right to abortion or to make "women's rights" absolute is to
        create a set of rights for women subject to none of the
        normal limitations of life in the human community. [1]

        In effect, under the present law a woman may abort her child if she
wishes.  If, however, she decides to carry her child to term, the father
incurs legal liabilities for the child's care.  In neither instance does the
father have an effective voice should he disagree with the mother's decision.
Is this the kind of situation envisioned by those who support the Equal Rights
Amendment?  The father's rights in his wife's ability to have children have
been recognized elsewhere.  In most states, a father may sue a person who
intentionally or negligently injures his wife and destroys her fetus (provided
the fetus is "viable" -- about six months developed).  In the same vein, a
husband may recover damages for an injury to his wife that renders her sterile.
In short, recognition of a father's interest in the future children of his
marriage is not all that new or startling.
        There simply is no way that the courts will _force_ a woman to have a
child -- even if they could.  Still, the mother's interest in childbearing is
linked directly to her physical and emotional wellbeing.  Furthermore, if the
legislature of any state enacts a law interfering with the freedom of a woman
to have an abortion, the law will be ruled unconstitutional.  {Note from
dgross:  This was copyrighted in 1980, before the Reagan appointees to the
Supreme Court changed the ballgame}
        A careful reading of the opinions in the cases referred to above give
one the impression that even the majority of judges who reject the father's
claims would _like_ to accommodate those claims.  But not at the expense of 
ordering a woman not to have an abortion.  In other words, under the law as it
stands the courts simply cannot solve the dilemma posed.

How Can the Law Be Changed?
---------------------------
        We believe the law can be changed -- at lease to the extend that the
father's interest in his unborn child is more effectively recognized and
honored.  Furthermore, the changes suggested do not infringe on the legal
right of the mother to have her abortion under the law.

NOTICE TO THE FATHER  --  At present a physician performing an abortion is
under no legal obligation to notify the expectant mother's husband that she has
applied for an abortion.  One irony here is that physicians are "expected,"
though not legally required, to obtain a husband's consent to his wife's
tubal ligation (sterilization).
        The law can be changed to require that notice be given by physicians to
husbands.  Such a notice requirement before the abortion would in no way
infringe on the mother's constitutional rights to have the abortion.  It would,
however, at least have the effect of _recognizing_ the father's interest and
informing him of her intentions.
        What practical results would such notice achieve?  First, it might
provide a "cooling-off" period (a very short one), in which the woman could
resolve conflicting feelings she might have about the procedure.  She might
reconsider her decision if it arose from a temporary problem in her relation-
ship with her partner.
        More importantly, such a requirement would expose the decision to
discussion.  A woman can only guess her husband's reaction before he is
actually confronted with the facts.  The man would be able to state his case
and negotiate.  And, even if he disagreed with his wife's final decision, he
would gain a better understanding of his wife's feelings and of the status of
their relationship.  For example:
                Rosalind is pregnant but determined that her
                successful career will not be interrupted.
                She applies for an abortion and her husband
                Sam is notified.  Deeply hurt and shocked,
                Sam tells her the abortion will end their
                marriage.  Rosalind is angry but reflects on
                what divorce and the loss of her husband
                and home would mean to her.  She and Sam
                talk and work out a solution whereby she can
                have the child, save her marriage, and still    
                successfully pursue her career.
Another probable situation:
                Kathy is pregnant and very unhappy.  And
                telling her husband, Jason, will only mean
                another of their terrible fights.  But their
                marriage is so shaky Kathy won't risk having
                a child.  When notified, Jason is predictably
                furious.  He just can't understand why Kathy
                won't settle down and act like a "normal"
                woman.  Over his protests, Kathy has an
                abortion.  Jason files for divorce and looks
                for a more accommodating partner.

COUNSELING  --  In many states when a person files for divorce each spouse must
indicate whether he or she desires counseling.  If either person wants this
service both husband and wife must attend at least one counseling session.
This procedure does not delay or stop the divorce proceedings.
        Such a requirement would be very valuable in contested abortion cases
such as the ones described above.  Certainly this simple procedure would
reflect the obvious -- that a father has some moral and legal rights in his
unborn child.  Furthermore, such a requirement would not interfere with a
woman's constitutional right to have an abortion if she wishes.

GETTING ORGANIZED POLITICALLY  --  How can men force the law to reflect
fathers' interests in unborn children and to correct the inequity of the
present law?  The same way women did -- by being vocal about this unequal
treatment, by lobbying their representatives, and by bringing cases to court.
Men must convince the public and the lawmakers that fathers are serious parents
and that men as well as women are irrevocably affected by the abortion
decision.
        Perhaps Equal Rights for Fathers might help -- try them [2].  And some
women's organizations have assisted men in the enforcement of equal rights,
most notably NOW (National Organization of [sic.] Women).  They are vocally on
record as opposed to any change in the abortion law.  But perhaps when women
finally realize that men are equal partners in pregnancy and parenthood, their
women's organizations may recognize the unfairness of the present law.

Damages for Breach of Contract
------------------------------
        A contract is a binding agreement between at least two persons to do or
not to do a certain thing.  A contract creates obligations (legal duties),
which may be enforced by the courts.  A breach of contract is an unjustified
failure by one of the parties to the contract to perform or fulfill his or her
legal obligations or duties under the contract.
        When one person breaches a contract the other person is legally injured
and has two court remedies.  First he or she can ask the court to order that
the contract be performed (called "specific performance").  For example, a
court can force a person to sell property if he or she has agreed to sell it
under a contract.  If this is not appropriate or simply can't be done, then the
injured person can ask the court to award him or her damages as compensation
for the breach.  Damages are usually a certain amount of money.

IN TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE  --
        Charlie and Virginia marry.  Later they discuss children,
        and both agree that a family is essential to their future
        happiness.  Virginia becomes pregnant but plans an abortion
        over Charlie's protests.  When they separate, Charlie sues
        Virginia for breach of contract in failing to carry the
        child to term.

        Charlie has wasted his time and money.  The modern marriage "contract"
does not state the rights and duties that spouses have to each other.  At the
altar Charlie and his bride promised only to love, honor, and cherish each
other.  Whatever else they must do is left for them to work out or to be
decided legally when their marriage fails.  Even having children, though
expected, is not a right that Charlie (or Virginia) can demand because they are
married.
        Charlie's only recourses are to accept Virginia's decision or to
divorce her and try to find a more understanding woman.

IN MARRIAGE OR PARTNERSHIP BY CONTRACT  --  A judge in one of the contested
abortion cases mentioned above commented:  "Some things must be left to
private agreement."
        The judge was probably stating the obvious -- that a father and mother
should agree on whether to abort their child.  But the language is interesting.
        More and more unmarried couples live together.  Some of them work out
the details as they go and encounter many of the same problems that married
couples do.  To avoid some of the legal difficulties presented by living-
together arrangements, we suggest written agreements that specify the rights
and duties of each partner.  Such agreements are discussed in detail in Chapter
Three.
        These agreements or contracts commonly state whether the partners
intend to have or to adopt children.  Few, however, state the intentions of the
parties as to abortion (except perhaps to provide for the costs of abortion).
        If the agreement expressly prohibits abortion except where the life or
health of the mother is at stake, and she breaches the agreement, the courts
might consider the father's lawsuit for breach of contract.
        Again, the courts will not -- and cannot -- require the mother to
perform her part of the agreement, that is, carry the baby to term.  But the
courts may decide that under these circumstances the father should be awarded
money damages for the mother's failure to follow through on her agreement.
        What would a father's damages be if he won such a lawsuit?  Obviously,
the worth of children to their parents cannot be measured in money.  However,
courts regularly award money damages for such reasons as pain, suffering, and
emotional distress.  The same is true for the loss of a spouse's ability to
function sexually and the loss of an unborn child -- none of which can be 
truly compensated for monetarily.
        More importantly, the possibility of such a lawsuit might deter some
women from obtaining abortions with _no_ consideration of the father's rights.
Another result might be that the partners would negotiate something that would
work for both of them.
        If you are an expectant father whose partner plans an abortion against
your wishes and against the terms of the agreement under which you formed your
partnership, call your lawyer and give it a try.  Remember, new law is made
from new cases -- as women have learned.

No Abortion:  Your Partner's Right
----------------------------------
        As mentioned above, a woman cannot be forced to have an abortion by
you, by the terms of a written agreement, or by a court.  The law has not
changed in that respect.  This is true even though the woman signed a written
agreement with you that she would practice strict birth control, since neither
of you wanted children.
        One reason for this, obviously, is that birth control is not fail-safe.
Another is that it takes two to tango.  And finally, of course, no one can
force a woman to undergo such a medical procedure without her consent.
        If your partner becomes pregnant despite your mutual plans and
agreement and decides to carry the baby to term you can either divorce your
spouse, provided you live in a no-fault state; or you can decide it may be a
blessing in disguise and enjoy it.  You may as well try the latter -- you'll
have to support the baby anyway.

-- 
******************* INTERNET: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU **********************
      "We should keep the Panama Canal.  After all, we stole it fair and
       square."                         -- S.I. Hayakawa
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity