From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:59:50 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov17.215527.23123@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
writes in response to my complaint about the special burden that
forced pregnancy laws place on women:

>People should be responsible for their sexual activity, as they are
>for their other activity.  That responsibility includes the
>responsibility to foster and support rather than destroy the life that
>results from sexual activity.  It is true that prohibition of abortion
>puts a special burden on women; however, since that burden results
>from the application of the same principle (responsibility for one's
>actions) to persons in different circumstances (persons who can and
>persons who can not become pregnant) I see no reason to view the
>special burden as unjust.  Nor have you suggested a reason.

I cannot believe that you can make the last statement with a straight
face.  Scarce state resources should not be devoted to regulating the
use of one's body; a particularly injust use of these regulations are
laws on bodily autonomy that have a differential impact with regard to
demographic variables.  

>You seem to object to the view that one's obligations depend in part
>on one's circumstances.  I don't understand the objection.

If your forced pregnancy position had an effect that corresponded only
with behavior, then I would support it.  However, it is quite possible
to engage in the behavior that you want to regulate, i.e. `hold people
responsible for' using state resources, and suffer very different
consequences, not based on behavior but based on gender.  Your
position is that sex --> consequences for both genders.  However, this
equivalence does not stand up to scrutiny:

                                       Women: Financial support. 
                                      / Enforced bodily support.
                        Consequences
Sex -->  pregnancy -->  of Forced Birth 
                        Policy       
                                       \
                                        Men: Financial support.

So despite your claim that the law is aimed at behavior, we see that
consequence of the law is to impose the burden of financial support on
both genders.  Unfortunately, the burden of bodily support can be
traced uniquely to the gender: Both men and women must have sex in
order for a /z/e/f/ to be formed.  However, the punishment you would
prescribe for this behavior is grossly unequal.  Among the
consequences that would fall uniquely on women are the following: (1)
diminished earnings power, including lost work time and damage to
workforce progression, (2) higher mortality than early term abortion,
(3) enhanced risks of serious health damage, and (4) psychological
trauma of being forced to have your body occupied by an entity that
you do not wish to have there.  You may claim that you really are
gender neutral despite these obvious differences in effect of the law
you advocate.  In this face of this discriminatory effect, I find the
behavior of supporting such laws as a pretty serious threat to equal
treatment under the law.  

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion