From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Thought experiment
Date: 21 Jan 1993 20:06:03 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

>Imagine an alternative universe in
>which the positions of men and women were identical w.r.t. the
>production of a child (clearly we can't get there from here, but
>it's an interesting thought experiment).  That is, there would be
>no more burden on women than there is right now on men.  The question
>is whether such a society would make abortion illegal altogether,
>whether it would allow either parent the decision of whether
>to abort, or whether it would require joint consent.

Let's constrain this a bit:  assume that women didn't exist and
that 2 men could conceive a child by mixing their sperm in a petri
dish and then sending it to a Fetal Processing Laboratory (FPL).  
No pain involved.  Nothing occurs within either partner's body 
(post-conception).  Any two people (the "parents") can conceive.
To keep things simple, assume that the output of the FPL lab would
be a self-sufficient person who would not require monetary support.

>If abortion would be illegal, then financial burdens would be
>considered an insufficient basis for choosing abortion.  If joint
>consent were required for an abortion, then in the case of disagreement
>it is possible to argue that the parent wanting the child should
>shoulder a greater share of the childcare/financial burden.  If
>either parent could cause the abortion, then it would be assumed
>that both parents wanted the child, and the burden would be shared
>equitably (possibly with time/money tradeoffs).

>I would tend towards the belief that such a society would make
>abortion illegal, at least if it had ethics comparable to those
>of our industrialized world, because it is so controversial at
>present, and many of those who support abortion do so only because
>of the burden placed on women.  This would suggest that financial
>burdens are not considered sufficient reason; which removes the
>force behind the movement for men to have (formal) input into the
>abortion decision.

What about the rest of you out there?  Care to offer an opinion?

Would both parent's consent be required by the FPL?  Or would the
consent of one person suffice?  

If the consent of one parent were held to be sufficient, would that
one person be held solely responsible for the FPL bill?

Would the second person,if he initially consented, be able to get out 
of paying his share of the FPL bill by changing his mind after the 
petri dish was mailed to the FPL?  Would he owe anything to the other
parent?

What if it was possible to retreive the package?  Would that change his
liability for half the FPL bill?  Would he be liable for the postage 
fee?  half the postage fee?

What if one parent changed his mind after the lab had begun the 
processing?  Would this be allowed?  What, if any, responsibilities 
would befall each parent in this situation?
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism