From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:26:46
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
	<1992Oct06.163104.33123@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> <BvqFAy.LvC@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<1992Oct07.095858.43892@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: caisr1.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk's message of 7 Oct 92 09:58:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct07.095858.43892@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:
>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes: (in response to my
>comment, following; his alterations of gender, etc, between lines of my
>original comment):

>>>I'm sorry-- he was FORCED to have sex with her?  If not, he knew what
>>            she                             him?          she
>>>he was getting into, and the risks involved.  He DID know, didn't he?
>>she                                           She                 she?
>>>If not, the fact that his parents never explained the birds and the bees
>>                       her
>>>to him hardly justifies an alteration of the law.
>>    her                                       ^abortion

The point is that if consent to sex is not consent to parental
responsibilities for the mother, why should it be so for the father?

>If one accepts abortion as a legal option (as I do), the question becomes
>who has control over the decision as to whether to carry the child to term.
>It seems to me that can only be the woman: it is her body, not the father's
>which is directly affected by the choice.

I agree 100%.  This should be the woman's choice.

>That is a completely different question than dealing with the economic
>consequences of a birth.  Civil law is about holding people to financial
>account for their actions, and I do not see that this branch of civil law
>is particularly distinguishable from others in this regard.  I hesitate
>to comment on the United States situation (the US striking me as a country
>devoid of civilization in any regard), but certainly in the UK and Canada
>both parents acquire rights and duties over the child, and both have to 
>contribute to the support of the child.

This misses the point.  Since the legal choice is the woman's (and it
should be), the legal responsibilities for that choice should also be
the woman's.  If the father had a 50% part in the decision, requiring
either both parents' consent for abortion or both parents' consent for
childbirth, then he would have 50% responsibility for the consequences
of that decision.

Don't get me wrong, I think a father *should* help to support a child
born under such circumstances, and I also think a mother *should*
consult with the father before making such a decision.  Nevertheless,
I don't believe that the government should be involved in coercively
enforcing these value judgements upon people's personal decisions.

One thing I might add is that if the father does decline to support
the child, he should also be required to give up all parental rights
with regard to that child (guardianship, visitation, etc.).
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41505 talk.politics.misc:50441