From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
X-To: GORDON FITCH
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:02:00 GMT
Keywords: Two Legs Good, Three Legs Bad...

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes...
GF> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
GF> | GF> While I'm in this thread, I'd like to note that while
GF> | GF> people are willing to argue at great length about the
GF> | GF> obligations of the father and sometimes of the mother
GF> | GF> as they are and should be, no one takes the point of
GF> | GF> view of the child and asks how, having been born, it
GF> | GF> is to be fed and clothed.  I realize that in most of
GF> |                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
GF> | GF> your minds, that is an entirely different subject.
GF> |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
GF> |
GF> | I note that you are appealing to "family values" (ie., "Think about the CH
GF> | you heartless brutes!") *here*, where it can be used against Male Choice,
GF> | I don't see you on the abortion threads, arguing...
GF> |
GF> | "no one takes the point of view of the unborn child, and asks how, having
GF> | been conceived, he/she should be nurtured and cared for".

GF> As things stand now, the fetus cannot continue its life
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
GF> without using its mother's body.  I believe the mother
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
GF> has the right to withdraw that access, and the state has
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
GF> no right to interfere.  Once the fetus becomes a child
GF> by being born, anyone can support it; it has emerged
GF> into the human community.  Questions of its support have
GF> become social, rather than (immediately) biological.  So


As things stand now, given the hysterical fervour of the WarOnDeadBeatDads, it
is being made out as though a born child cannot continue "its" life without the
father's wallet, the more unwilling the father, the greater the need, or so it
seems to most cynics...

I take it that you'll realise my sarcasm, but the point remains that I also
believe that the father should have the right to "withdraw that access".  I
cannot see why the mother cannot chose to not have the child, seeing that she
will have difficulties raising him/her by herself, rather than choosing (as
she currently can) to force the father, kicking and screaming, into an unwanted
child's life.  I needn't belabour the point of how an unwanted child is very
often resented by the unwilling parent(s).



GF> I don't see a contradiction between my ardent support
GF> for reproductive choice and my question as to whether
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
GF> anyone is going to take the point of view of the child
GF> in the support question.


I called it contradictory because as it stands, your statement of being in
favour of "reproductive choice" applies only to reproductive choice for women
*only*, which I consider to be a one-sided view of reproductive "choices".

Two legs good, three legs bad...

---
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 * Press Hyperspace to continue.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.women