From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:00:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.151337.26405@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.203518.20259@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.172929.12103@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug31.220151.12113@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>>>In  <1992Aug31.162715.17289@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>>> In article <1992Aug27.045340.13162@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purd
>>>And this is exactly the reason I'm here.  Because it isn't an individual
>>>decision.  It is the decision of TWO people, father and mother.
>>
>>Not until fathers bear children it's not.  If you can't handle that, be more
>>careful in choosing your mate.
>
>Bearing the child is only a small part of parenting. 

We weren't discussing parenting, we were discussing giving birth. You have
*no* part in that. You also aren't required to have a part in parenting.
I know a number of women who raised their children just fine without the
aid of a man.

> And until you
>realize that, you really have no chance at all of understanding my position.

I cannot 'realize' that, because it is simply incorrect.

>The fact that women bear children, is not sufficient reason to give them
>all the rights.

Huh? All the rights over their bodily functions? You think they should not
have all the control over their body because there are men who may want
the baby only they can give? That strikes me as bizarre. Bizarre and 
unfortunate for you because you are at odds with nature, not policy.



>>>I have no problem with allowing other COUPLES to make their own decision
>>>about abortion.  But what you are pushing for, is to cut out the father
>>>entirely (until, of course, you decide that you want to keep the child,
>>>then he suddenly gets roped back in).
>>
>>Ah, I agree with you here. If the woman wants a baby and the man doesn't,
>>and they aren't going to work it out between them, the man should be
>>absolved of child support. (IMO). That just seems to make sense.
>
>>>I don't want to make abortion illegal, but it does look like the
>>>politically expedient way of achieving fairness in this area.
>>
>>I disagree and I am surprised you would think the process of making abortion
>>illegal is expedient in the first place.
>
>There is already a VERY large group of people who want to make abortion
>at least more controlled, and most want it made illegal.  In fact, the
>registered number of anti-abortion supporters is much larger than the
>number of abortion supporters, but due to a truly incredible media
>slant, most people are unaware of just how large the numbers are.

Really? Let's just vote on the issue then. I'm all for it.

>>It might ultimately be that 'fair' doesn't matter *anyway*.
>
>Frightening words from a man who espouses personal choice.
>
>>If abortion is outlawed in this country, I'm going to bust my ass to
>>change that.
>
>Feel free.  I'm busting my ass to get my rights enforced, and you are
>equally free to attempt to get yours enforced.

Your rights 'enforced'. I like that. I am only working to retain and 
protect womens right to decide what is done with their bodies by themselves.
Frankly, men can't know what the hell to do with them *anyway* because
men have never been women. I trust them to do a better job of it.


>>If I cannot help reverse this fascist trend, I'll move to a country where 
>>individual freedom is cherished.
>
>Feel free.  Just what country would this be, anyway? 

Most northern European countries although I would have to read up on 
current policies for those countries.

>Some time ago, I
>started looking around to do just that, and found (much to my amazement)
>that as much as we bitch, we have it better than anywhere else.

Not sure.

>>>I would be much happier with a constitutional amendment that requires
>>>the consent of the father before abortion is allowed.
>>
>>Then in many cases you are agreeing with making a woman's pregnancy an issue
>>of the state, which violates the personal freedom this country was founded on.
>
>A woman's pregnancy (when the couple are married) has always been an
>issue of the state.

Hopefully, that will be carefully monitored.

>And to be honest, I don't understand why you would object to this.  After all,
>you claim to support personal choice.  So how do you intend to guarantee
>a right to personal choice without involving the state?

You think state intervention automatically implies loss of personal freedom?

>Besides, aren't you missing a great big fat fact, that a woman's
>pregnancy is ALREADY an issue of the state.  If it wasn't, then we wouldn't
>be discussing this, because there would be no Roe vs Wade, no attempt to
>codify the 'right-to-abortion' into law, no . . . oh hell, you either get
>it, or you never will.

Only in that it is a hot topic. Right now, women are free to have an 
early term abortion in most states.  That is what we're working to retain.
You'll have to detail how the actual pregnancy is an issue of the state,
unless you bring up food stamps or some such thing.

Perhaps you are using the term 'issue' differently than I am.


>>Personally, if a man wants a baby and his SO doesn't, he should just smell
>>the coffee and go find another SO that does.  Who would want to have the law
>>force one's wife into having a baby that only the father wants?
>
>You act as if babies are interchangeable. 

Where did I do that?


>They are NOT. 

Thanks for the biology pointer.

>If my SO tells
>me that she doesn't want children, fine.  If I couln't live with out them,
>I would do what you suggest and go elsewhere.

Yes.

>But that isn't what this discussion is about.  It is about one particular
>case: the woman is ALREADY pregnant, she wants to have an abortion, and
>I, as the father, do not want her to have an abortion.

Yes, then you're fucked. Give up. I'm sorry. I think your attempting to have
the state then force her to give birth is barbarian. It is no hair off your
ass to go impregnate another woman. Most men like the procedure.

>The question is: how do we resolve the conflict in her and my rights?

I'd say you have no rights in that regard and you simply need to get used to it.

>Currently, the answer is, that the state does not view me as having ANY
>rights, just obligations.

I support your choice to *not* be obligated if you do not want the baby.
That makes sense to me. After the birth, the baby is then up for grabs
in terms of responsibility. In the womb, it's really sorta stuck and up
to the woman 'cuz it's her womb.

>This must change.

Good luck. One thing that might help is simply trying to get over your pain
of your past experience in this matter. It would certainly make you
happier and more objective.


>>>If a law or constitutional amendment is passed that allows abortion to
>>>remain the sole choice of the woman, then I will have to turn to getting
>>>fatherhood to be legally recognized as a choice, not an obligation.
>>
>>I think, if I understand that sentence, that's the way to go.
>
>Nah.  It's a dark horse at best, much less likely to be succesful than
>limiting or eliminating abortion.

Go for what is right, not what will suffice.

-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion