From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:11:10 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1992Nov10.035431.19484@zooid.guild.org>, goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
[lots o' stuff]
>While it may be true that spousal notification with regard to reproductive
>issues, can be a double-edged sword to both men and women, I also think that
>husbands and wives should have the right to know about factors which could
>potentially change the results of either party's expectations of the marriage.
>In other words, if either party has an interest, and indeed, entered the marriag
>with either an implicity or even explicit agreement or interest in starting a
>family, I feel that the other party should be made aware, if one party does
>something which could alter the status of these expectations.  This would allow
>a man or woman whose spouse has decided against starting or continuing a family,
>to make the choice to leave the marriage.  Denied this knowledge, the marriage,
>stripped of its common goals and interests, becomes a mockery of the ideals of
>love and trust.

If a spouse needs outside notification of infidelity or unwillingness to
become a parent (vacetomy (sp?) / abortion) then I think it's pretty much
a given that the marriage has already made a "mockery of the ideals of
love and trust".  Just thougth I'd point that out.  Requiring notification
will not put those ideals back into a marriage, but just add to the hurt
and distrust.   If the couple is not discussing these issue among
themselves then the marriage HAS broken down.  Honesty and integrity on
each individual's part *should* be a given, unfortunately it is not.  I
highly doubt that you can legislate this and notification just seems to
have too many bad side effect (possible violence, etc..previously
discussed) for my tastes.  Yes, there are inequities in the law; writing
more bad law is not the way to solve them.  Differences over reproductive
desires *should* be grounds for divorce by either side; that would be fair.
I'm no lawyer, but here in the USA most states grant divorces with nothing
more than "irreconcilable differences".  This would cover just these cases
as well; maybe you should just work for that in Canada, if your whole
argument is based on Canada not allowing divorce over an abortion.
Similarly you should probably be working on reforming the paternity laws
and/or male-choice laws.  Then the evil husband could be just as conviving
in his extra marital affairs (with impunity) as those evil women you're
so worried about.  As for vacectomy/abortion medical records, I see that
as a privacy issue which I'm unwilling to allow people to start eating
away at.  Keep those records private.  If one party of a couple suspects
the other of trying to prevent a pregnancy against a "consensus" to do so
(ie. secretly getting vac/abortion) then go to court and claim "irrec 
differences", get the damn divorce and find someone else.  If you're
that suspicious then the marriage is due to break down anyway.  

Leave the gov't out of informing on individuals to other individuals.
Analogy:  Marriage is a contract.  Businesses also enter into contracts.
The gov't does not inform a party to a business contract that the other
is attempting to abrogate it.  Disputed results of such a breach are
settled in civil courts; in the case of marriages they are called
divorce proceedings.

>And also notice that I am including women as being equally deserving of the
>right to know when her husband does not wish to have children, and takes
>decisive action to accomplish this intention.  If it is treating women like
>cows to inform the husband of an abortion, then it is hardly any better for
>a husband to mislead his wife into thinking that he will assist her in
>having a family.  It is for this reason that I consider both sides equally
>deserving of knowledge regarding actions which can alter reproductive
>expectations in marriage.

A wonderfull ideal.  And if abortion (and reproduction in general) weren't
such an emotional/volitile issue that seems to be able to provoke certain
individuals to violence, then I'd probably agree with you.  Unfortunately
it's not quite that simple.  Point in fact, are you then going to have
the gov't conduct complete medical background checks on men when they
get married, just to make sure that the man didn't have the vac. BEFORE
they got married (and didn't inform her)?  What if he got it under a alias?
Your proposal sounds all so nice and tight, but it's swiss cheeze just
due to *biological* differences that nobody has control over.  The ideal
would be "love and trust", the problem is that it's so damn hard to
legislate equitably without (un)forseen side effects.


>Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.men