From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:34:06 GMT

In article <1bhi7lINN9bu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <Bw42t5.8L5@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1bfgu1INNpie@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>.After conception, men have no such right to decide issues of 
>>>."personal or family privacy."  This decision is made solely
>>>.by the woman.
>>>Scuse, please, how?  In what way have men lost their right to privacy (or
>>>suffered a reduction in their right to privacy) as a result of particpating
>>>in sex?  
>>Before participating in sex, a man has a full right to decide
>>issues of "personal or family privacy."  That is, if he doesn't
>>want to be a parent, he has the power and right not to become a parent.
>
>Ah.  I see.  An *excellent* argument for not leaving one's personal property
>(one's sperm) lying about outside of the realm of one's control.  Now, if
>*you* can think of a way to allow a man to repossess sperm HE left lying
>about, I'll support you in it.  Always presuming, of course, that he isn't
>going to be encroaching upon the body of another human....

If I you invite me to your house, and I drop my wallet there, is it yours?

Get real, Adrienne. The property of invited guests does not automatically
become the property of the host simply because physical contact is lost.
If you're going to cite a legal principle, please cite one that EXISTS.

>>After sex, even if the man has never wanted to become a parent
>>and used a condom and spermicide, he has no right to make decisions
>>about his "personal or family privacy."  He cannot abort the child;
>>he cannot escape child support obligations.
>
>Ah.  I see.  He cannot abort the child (gee, we don't let men abort
>children within their bodies?  How unfair).  

"Abort" was obviously meant in a metaphorical sense. Your literalism here 
seems very conveeeeeenient, Adrienne.

>And he cannot escape
>child support obligations, which is a burden imposed upon men, but
>NOT upon women?  I don't think so.

It's a burden voluntarily ACCEPTED by women, but involuntarily IMPOSED on men.
Consent makes all the difference, Adrienne. Rape is different from consensual
sex, for instance. Or is it your position that consent makes no difference
whatsoever?

>>This is a reduction relative to men's pre-sex rights as well as 
>>relative to women's post-sex rights to terminate pregnancies -- 
>>based on "personal or family privacy."
>
>Since a woman's right to terminate pregnancy is based upon the fact that
>a pregnancy resides within her body, I'm not sure how we should 'fix' this
>for men.  They don't have pregnancies within their bodies.  Do you have a
>suggestion?

Yes. Separate the biological decision from the financial liability decision.
The woman gets to make the biological decision unilaterally without 
interference. The financial liability decision is made, using the traditional
adversary relationships and based on tort/contract principles, negligence 
theory, contributory/comparitive negligence, last-clear-chance, or whatever 
tools can be brought to bear from the vast body of Common Law. No special 
legislation should be necessary for either decision.

Do you see a problem with this approach?

								- Kevin