From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Observations
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:09:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.033921.8119@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.143636.26067@advtech.uswest.com>
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep01.193909.24105@watson.ibm.com>
>>margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>>In  <1992Sep1.165853.11816@advtech.uswest.com>
>>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
>>>> Which is a statement of personal belief, not fact.  My belief is that the
>>>> woman should be aware of the possibility of pregnancy, and be prepared to
>>>> carry through (just as the man has to) in the event of a pregnancy.
>
>>>> My beliefs are just as valid as yours, so if you tell me what I 'should'
>>>> do, then I take it I have the right to tell you what YOU should do.
>
>>>Naturally.  As long as you don't try to enforce it against my will.
>
>>Nope.  They are still just as valid when I try to enforce them.  This is
>>called law.  And right now, you are enforcing your beliefs on others.
>
>>You will not admit that.  You keep conviently side stepping the difficult
>>questions, or ignoring pertinent facts.
>
>Pertinent fact: your "father's consent" wished-for-law ignores the
>woman's right to control her body, since it divides control over her
>body equally between the two people who have created the z/e/f and
>ignores the fact that the body is hers.
>
>Difficult question: doesn't this make this position the most
>miogynistic position around, as its premises are misogynistic (women
>don't have a right to control their bodies)?


Look up "mysogyny" in the dictionary.  How is it +necessarily+
"woman-hating" to defend what one believes is one's child?  Or to defend
what one believes is his/her own right, when that right is in conflict
with the right of a woman?  Perhaps a position that "a woman's rights should
be overridden under all circumstances" would be misogynistic, but a position
stating that 

   "a woman's rights can be overridden under circumstances X,Y,Z",
   "a   man's rights can be overridden under circumstances A,B,C",
   "a fetus's rights can be overridden under circumstances P,Q,R"

is hardly necessarily woman-hating.

I don't think a father-consent law is very practical, and it introduces
many real-life problems, but I can think of several non-misogynistic
beliefs to motivate it (I hold these forth to dispute your position,
not to claim them as my beliefs):

. a fetus is a person with rights (to life, to support) that can only
  be overridden by the woman's right to privacy by unanimous decision 
  of those who "best" represent the fetus

. a woman who has entered into a marriage contract has implicitly
  agreed to bear children (and a man has implicitly agreed to support them)
  [either not misogynistic, or both misogynistic and misandric]

. a woman who has consented to sex has implicitly agreed to bear 
  any resulting children (and a man has implicitly agreed to support them)
  [either not misogynistic, or both misogynistic and misandric]


By way of analogy (always a big risk), consider child support: some women
use it +against+ men, and it can be misandric.  Some people believe it
is an inalienable right of the child, and there is no misandry involved.
It is not necessarily misandric to want to enforce child support, although
it +can+ be.


>Child support contracts are unenforcible, which creates an
>infringement on men's rights, so instead of changing this you want to
>destroy women's rights to control their bodies?!!
>
>Excuse me if I think this shows total disregard for women's rights.

Actually, I think Mr. Steven's position is equitable for all genders,
and it represents the "hard-line" view that if you unzip your pants,
you should be prepared to pay (via dollars, pregnancy, care, time, etc.).
This isn't necessarily misanthropic or anti anyone's rights, it is 
just a belief about which rights supercede conflicting rights, and 
how to assure an equitable balance of rights.

Perhaps "imbalance against" is better than "infringement on."


>>Are you trying to call into question the entire body of law?
>
>Yes.  Both Larry and I have said that child support contracts should
>be enforcible as a general rule long before you poked your nose into
>talk.abortion.

Great, I agree here.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion