From: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,soc.women
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:54:52 GMT
Reply-To: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr (Toby Kelsey)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: School of Chemistry, University of Bath, UK

In article <1992Apr06.160847.22990@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.045457.14159@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar30.200846.15452@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>In article <kteqemINN71u@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>>
>>>>	I have talked to women in the past, as well as some women at the rally,
>>>>and asked if pro-choice is for women only?  They often don't understand,
>>>>so I explain:
>>>>	pro-choice is about having choice *after* conception.
>>>>	Does this apply to men as well?

	[ ...much discussion deleted... ]

>>But, statutes loudly declare the FINANCIAL LIABILITY for such "biological"
>>scenarios, and statutes, unlike biology itself, are ARTIFICIAL, MAN-MADE
>>CONSTRUCTS, which can be changed on a whim. Constructs which can be made a 
>>HELL of lot fairer than presently, IMO.
>
>Bingo.  Be my guest.  Present something to the net that enhances the lives
>of all the parties:
>
>1. the children
>2. the women who want children
>3. the women who don't want children
>4. the men who want children
>5. the men who don't want children
>6. the taxpayers at large
>
>Good luck.

First I would mention that the alternative that has been
mentioned most often has been to give the man who has not
consented to fatherhood the ability to say he does not want
to be the legal father, and to thereby lose his rights and
responsibilities to the child.  One obvious problem is that
whatever the legal position, he has still been forced into
fatherhood.  Many people, including myself, would feel an
attachment to our children which isn't dissolved by any
legal ruling.

Consider a more abstract position.  Suppose you had placed
some of your genetic material in storage (perhaps because
you were about to undergo sterilization).  Would some
third party have the right to use your material from the
storage bank for procreative (or other) purposes?

The obvious answer is no, not without your express
permission.  No-one should be able to use your genetic or
biological material without your permission.  If you think
all this is too abstract, consider how IVF and surrogate
parenthood have become more common.  For example doctors who
have 'spare eggs' left after fertility treatment need
the permission of the woman to do anything with them.

Unfortunately this 'obvious' answer is currently applied to
all situations except that of potential fatherhood.

I hope no-one will disagree that to bring a child into the
world without the agreement of both its parents is wrong and
immoral.  The solution to these situations is to extend the
law to also apply to fathers and simply say that the
permission of both parents is required before a child can
be born.  This is the only fundamentally fair answer.

The main effect of this will be that anyone who wants a
child will have to find a consenting partner, or adopt. 
Naturally since both agreed to parenthood, the question of
who should be responsible for what is simple: both equally.

To answer the questions:

1. the children
	Only wanted children are born - less risk of
	mistreatment of children.
	(I have been assuming abortion is legal)

2&4. the women and men who want children
	Must find a consenting partner.

3&5. the women and men who don't want children
	No-one will be forced into parenthood or
	responsibility for children.

6. the taxpayers at large
	No effect

  Toby

-- 
Toby Kelsey
School of Chemistry,  # JANET: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr, otherwise
University of Bath.   # chpetk%gdr.bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk