From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion 
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 23:04:21 GMT

Followups set to talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity

ws>In article <1992Nov10.035431.19484@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
 
Just out of curiosity, Will, is there any area of your own personal
life you would rather not have governmental involvement in?  I 
sympathize with what happened to you in the past.  I think it is
good that you are trying to form a support group.  But I strongly
disagree that every injustice requires government intervention.  
There have been many instances in my past were I did believe I 
was really treated unfairly, but I'm not about to call for a bigger
and bigger government for those reasons.  Government serves 
various functions, but I would not include making sure nothing
bad ever happens to you as one of them.  
 
>For example, if notifying
>a husband that her wife is unwillingly pregnant (and in some cases not by her
>husband), is unjustified treatment, as you say, what about the case where a
>woman implictly becomes aware of her husband's infidelity by his sudden drain
>in income, thus giving her an advantage in court proceedings?
 
To draw a parallel to your current legislative agenda, the woman finds
out about his infidelity by his possible sudden drain on income while
the husband could find out about an abortion by the sudden disappearance
of $300-$500.  I fail to see why you would feel one circumstance would
require government intervention and one should be left to chance.
 
>And furthermore, in many provinces and states, a woman is allowed to use a
>husband's impotence, or even the unwillingness to parent (*Can someone confirm
>or disprove the letter?*  Thanks...) is a valid basis for a divorce suit, but
>a woman's unwillingess apparently is not, since abortion is *not* a valid basis
>for divorce 
 
In California we have "No Fault" divorce.  If what you say above bothers 
you, perhaps this would be an avenue to investigate.  
 
>Finally, consider a man who has had a vasectomy, *even though* he is married
>to a woman who married him with the implicit agreement of both parties (or so
>she thought?) to start a family...  If he does not inform her of his actions,
>she will go on for years, possibly decades, without becoming pregnant and
>even beginning to blame herself. 
 
Are you proposing spousal notification for men getting a vasectomy?  
Currently there is no such requirement that I am aware of.
 
Husbands and wives talking may be a good thing, but is it worth 
letting government get involved to ensure they talk?  We would all
have to give up much of our privacy to ensure this.  I have had 
a vasectomy.  If I were to ever marry, I think it should remain
my choice if I do or don't inform my wife of this fact.  I very
much oppose someone using force of government into my personal
decision.

>Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism