From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:21:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1i7uatINN7ph@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>In article <1i4ul0INNjf6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>Would you be satisfied with paternal notification of the child's birth?
>>>I would have no problem with that with regards to privacy considerations,
>>>since the birth is already a matter of the public record.  (I have problems
>>>with requiring additional governmental paperwork, but that is not an 
>>>direct inequity issue.)  However, requiring a woman to notify anyone of 
>>>her pregnancy is a violation of her privacy.
>
>>If she wants 18 years of child support, then the father should be notified
>>of the pregnancy. Otherwise the man has no say. After birth, all she has to
>>do is to take hime to court, it is too late a joint decision. 
>
>The father has no say whether or not he is notified of the pregnancy.

What does the law have to do with right and wrong? I said that he SHOULD
be notified of the pregnancy if child support is expected. And you have
not refuted this. Responsibile action is not required once she gets
pregnant I guess. 

>As the law currently stands, one conception has occurred he is obligated
>to support the child if it is born (unless he and the mother *both*
>agree to put the child up for adoption.)

Once again, what does the law have to do with right and wrong? And what
does this have to do with the concept of notification of the pregnancy?
 
>>The notion that the pregnancy is not the fathers business, but the child after
>>birth is is a bit odd. If she wants to raise the child herself, she need not
>>notify the father at all. If she wants child support, then the father has 
>>a need and a right to know about the pregnancy.
>
>No, he has a need and a right to know about the birth.

By what twisted logic does the women have some moral right to keep the
pregnany secret, then claim financial compensation for the birth of the
baby (the -result- of the pregnanct)?
 
>> Unless, as you seem to feel,
>>it really does not matter what the father feels/wants/can afford, the women
>>has every right to make the decisions for him, after all, the idiot unzipped
>>his zipper. 
>
>That is exactly what I feel.  

This is interesting. There was just a thread dealing with responsibility.
Your concept of responsibility is very odd.

>                                   The woman has a right to make decisions 
>regarding the outcome of the pregnancy, because it occurs within her body.

As well as putting the mans body in indentured servitude for 18 years. 
What right does one person have to make MAJOR life decisions for another
without their consent, or even the simple expediant of notification?

This is a matter of -assigning- responsibility, not acting responsibly.

>And if the child is born then the father *is* obliged to support. Regardless
>of what he feels/wants/can afford.
 
You mean if the mother decides (independantly, his input is irrelevant anyway)
to have the child (she can also decide to -not- have the child), then she 
should not be obligated to be responsible for her independant decision in the
same way you claim the man must be?

 
>-- 
>
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism