From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab
	<VIXIE.92Aug11032337@cognition.pa.dec.com>
	<1992Aug17.014720.4936@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil>
Distribution: usa
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:36:58

[Charles Perez demands...]
>> Tell me, what happens if that choice is obliterated? When a woman gets
>> pregnant, she can abort over the man's objections or allow the pregnancy
>> to progress to term, again over the man's objections. This removes all
>> of the man's options whether to have a child or not once a pregnancy
>> has commenced. When all of a man's options are taken away, there can
>> be no choice left, so how can a man make it.
>>
>> Don't duck the issue by saying that the man "made his choice when he
>> dropped his pants". I have just argued that a woman's unilateral
>> right to an abortion severs completely the choice to drop his pants
>> from the choice to have a child. Refute that argument. Don't just
>> assert that a woman's unilateral right to an abortion has no effect.
>> Argue the case.

I am going to interpret your imperative writing style as a style issue
rather than as intentional rudeness on your part.  But it's taking some
effort, and if it continues, you may find that you've alienated me.

You are speaking of a man's objections in the context of the choice that
a woman can currently make as to whether or not to abort a fetus, asserting
that since a man has no say in the abortion decision, his choice of whether
or not to be a father "has been obliterated."

*Did* he have a choice, or didn't he?  I assert that he had at least one:
had he not "dropped his pants", the woman would not be making the abortion
decision.  Assuming that a given man in a given situation has the choice
of whether to "drop his pants" or not, then he definitely has a say in
whether there can be a child.  If he doesn't want one, he can prevent one
from being possible.  His choice precedes the woman's abortion choice.

It happens that a woman, assuming that she had a choice about dropping *her*
pants, likewise has a say in whether or not a future abortion decision can
be made.  But that's apparently not relevant to your point so other than
mentioning it I won't address its implications here.

So to you assertion that a pregnant woman's right to choose abortion "removes
all of the man's options whether to have a child or not...", my argument is
that the man's earlier option has the potential to preclude the woman's
choice in a way that would not infringe on anyone's rights.

However, I feel a little bit uncomfortable arguing it at that level since the
real issue in my opinion is that any choice the man *could* potentially make
(use your imagination -- anything goes, for this purpose) that would override
the woman's abortion choice *would* infringe on her rights of privacy and of
self-determination.  Since I automatically discount any so-called "right"
which would infringe on someone else's rights, my response to any claim of
unfairness made by anyone who is unhappy with a woman's abortion choice is:
"it's none of your damned business."

Let the cries of "vixie, you feminazi asshole" begin anew.  But please send
them to /dev/null -- I'm not reading them at this point and I doubt that anyone
else is, either.  I am not a feminist.  I don't know that I'm any kind of
"-ist", really, though if the term weren't in current and popular mis-use
I might describe myself as a "humanist" since that addresses the asexual
nature of my quest for truth and justice.
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men