From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Dough v. Wade (Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:55:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.193329.25249@exu.ericsson.se> exudnw@exu.ericsson.se writes:
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>                  Fighting For Fairness and Equal Rights
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>                                                       Post Office Box 317
>>                                                       Brooklyn, New York 11240
>>                                                       Telephone (718) 845-2010
>>
>>	We are attempting to overturn very sexist laws which deny men the
>>right to decline fatherhood in this age of "reproductive freedom" for women.
>>
>>	A man's life, future and wallet are currently in the hands of his 
>>female partner if she gets pregnant and decides to have the child contrary
>>to his wishes. He is denied any say in the matter. He is not allowed to say, 
>>"I do not choose to be a father and I don't want to be held financially
>>responsible for this child." We are going to petition the federal courts to
>>permit a man, prior to fetal viability, to go into a family court and 
>>relinquish rights and responsibilities to the unborn child. We want a legal
>>"right to choose," too.
>
>
>Please define viability.  Others who have used this as a definition of "human"
>have come to realize that it's a moving target.

Perhaps interesting, but completely irrelevant.  The Supreme Court stated:

 The Court's decisions have afforded constitutional protection
 to personal decisions relating to marriage, see, e. g., Loving v.
 Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S.
 535, family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158,
 child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S.
 510, and contraception, see, e. g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S.
 479, and have recognized the right of the individual to be free from
 unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally
 affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child,
 Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453.

Should a man's choice regarding contraceiving, bearing, begetting, 
committing to support, and raising a child  not be equally protected
as a fundamental right free from governmental intrusion?

Do these issues not fundamentally affect a man?


>Since such artificial definitions of humanity are usually flawed, why not 
>go backwards to the moment *before* conception and invest in birth control
>and education - it's a lot more effective than trying to force a woman into
>doing something she is unlikely to agree to.

Where does the proposal suggest forcing a woman to do anything?

What sort of action are _you_ imagining forcing a woman to do?

What kind of birth control do you have that permits sex without 
significant risk of pregnancy?


>If you persist in this, you will only fortify the view of NCP's/fathers/men
>as selfish ogres.

This may be true.  Perhaps it was also true of early feminist demands
for reproductive freedom that such demands only fortified the view of
feminists as selfish and morally bankrupt.  But I think equality is a
worthy cause, even when demanding equality makes you look selfish.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women