From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: NADJA ADOLF
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:22:00 GMT

nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes...
NA> In article <1992Oct26.060133.12105@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.
NA> (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
NA> >In article <1992Oct23.222349.18437@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.C
NA> Nadja Adolf) writes:
NA> >>In article <BwL7qo.B5D@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) w

NA> >The "debate" at hand is:  Does a man have the right to know that his
NA> >soon-to-be-ex-wife just aborted their child?  Does he have the right to
NA> >know that she was even pregnant in the first place (which he might find
NA> >curious if he knows that it could not possibly be his (see vasectomy,
NA> >condom, impotency, abstinence, celibacy))?

NA> No, he does not. See above. And neither does she have the right to know
NA> about children he has fathered outside their relationship.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This looks good "on paper," but this is hardly the reality.  Just as a husband
*might* conceivably find out about an infidelity because of the wife's pregnancy
a wife could *very* easily discover a husband's infidelity when the bailiff
comes to the door with a court summons for a paternity hearing...  Even if she
somehow doesn't hear about it, she certainly will, once his money starts to
disappear...


NA> >If women are given all "control" over the decision of abortion, and the
NA> >husband does not even have the right to know after the fact, well, then
NA> >have we handed out rights unequally?

NA> Since men don't get pregnant, it would be hard to give them control of
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
NA> the abortion decision without making the woman's body subject to her
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
NA> husband.


Yo!  Reality check, please...

Don was *NOT* talking about men having any control OVER the decision, just the
*knowledge* of the decision.  We keep on stressing this particular point, yet
you and others are *still* persisting in throwing up the strawman (oops, straw
person...) of insisting that we are asking for control over the *DECISION*.
This certainly gives your side a certain illusion of strength, yet it does not
contribute to rational discussion when you keep on insisting that we are asking
for something which we are not.


NA> >Now, the relevance to the state of law during honest Abe's heyday...?
NA> >Ok, you got me.  I have NO idea.

NA> In honest Abe's heyday, he could force her to have an abortion, or to
NA> become a prostitute.

Sure, but nowadays, she could force *him* to become a prostitute for 18-24
years.  I don't hear you complaining about *this*, yet in fact a lot of people
who claim that "family values" are oppressive to women, have started reading
out the corollaries of said "family values" to us, to justify why men ought to
be forced into such an untenable position.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Puns are bad, but poetry is verse.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women