From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab
	<1992Aug1.220246.21267@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
	<VIXIE.92Aug1184449@adelphi.pa.dec.com> <1992Aug6.191759.8771@sni.ca>
Distribution: usa
Date: 6 Sep 92 17:35:24

Apologies for the delay in answering this.  I wanted to let emotions cool.

Dave Silver wrote:

> The viewpoint which is espoused by Mr. Vixie, among others, can be
> summarized as follows (fairly, I hope):
> 
> "If a man engages in the act of sexual intercourse, he is fully
> responsible for any child which may be produced as the result of that act."

No, that's not it.  But if you change
	fully
to
	equally, with the mother,
then you've understood my position (and others' here).

> I, personally, have no problem with this:  I would support an unwanted child
> if I was responsible for bringing one into the world.  (Flame-prone people,
> take note.)

Noted.

> But, I have this to add to the debate:
>
> Responsible pro-choice women see abortion as a last resort in case of
> an unwanted pregnancy following a birth control failure.  They insist
> on the right to an abortion in order to preserve their reproductive
> freedom.

This is not correct.  It has a nice ring to it, but it is just not correct.

The basis by which an adult female is granted the legal right to terminate a
pregnancy has nothing to do with "last resort...birth control" and it has
nothing to do with "reproductive freedom".  Legally, this "right" comes out
of the right of "privacy" which in turn comes out of the combination of "right
of use and disposal of property" and the fact that one's own body is one's own
property.  Put another way, the legality of abortion currently hinges on a
woman's right to choose the uses to which her body will be put, pregnancy and
birth being "uses of her body" for the purposes of this explaination.

Abortion may be *used* as a form of birth control but the legal right to it
is not *granted* on that basis.  From the law's point of view, birth control
is a side-effect rather than the goal of an abortion; the goal has to do with
the woman's freedom, not with the possible future existence of a child.  Birth
control on the other hand *is* concerned with the possible future existence of
a child.

I know this sounds to a lot of you as if I'm splitting hairs, but upon such
splitting does depend every one of our individual liberties.  And upon which
also depends the answer to the issue before us now.

Continuing:

> If one assumes that abortion is not an immoral act (and I am pro-choice,
> so I make this assumption), then a woman who does not wish to become a
> mother can, morally, still engage in sexual intercourse.

This does not follow.  That is, I agree with it but the previous discussion
was not about "morality" as much as about the reasons women tend to, and are
permitted to, choose abortion.  Still, since I agree, let's see where it goes:

> I believe your view is that a man does not -- and, morally, cannot -- have
> reproductive freedom, and that this is a consequence of human biology.
> (Again, correct me if I am misrepresenting your viewpoint.)  As a
> consequence, a moral man who wishes to ensure that he does not become a
> father (with all the associated responsibilities) has only one option
> available to him:  to abstain from sexual intercourse.

If we define "morality" as that which underlies the legal premise which grants
women the right to choose abortion, then yes, it is not moral for a man to
choose abortion since the premise only applies to the fetus-carrier, i.e.,
the woman.  So, yes, a moral man with the values you describe would have to
make the choice you proclaimed.

> To summarize the above:  moral women can engage in sexual intercourse;
> moral men cannot.  The problem: who are these women going to have sex *with*?
> And should a moral man only have sex when he wishes to father a child, and
> never at any other time?  (Note that birth control is not a factor here.
> No method of birth control is perfect.)

To answer your last question first: a moral and rational man will only have
sex if he is *prepared* to become a fully-responsible father if birth control
fails and the woman does not choose abortion.  He might not *wish* to become
a father each time he engages in sexual intercourse.  But if that's what
happens, then that's what he has to accept, which means: equal responsibility,
with the mother, for the welfare of the resulting baby/child/human.

Your first question is easier: "immoral or irrational men".

> While I fully believe that every human being should take responsibility
> for his or her own actions, I'm not sure that a system of ethics which
> eliminates recreational sex entirely is the one we want to adopt.
> Do we really want to eliminate one of the few reliable sources of pleasure
> available to us poor humans?

In the grand ordering of things, it would be better to kill off recreational
sex than to kill off individual liberties.  As argued, that's what this issue
comes down to.

> My belief, for what it's worth, is this:  no person should have sex
> unless he or she is either (a) willing to raise the child of this union,
> or (b) is correctly using a reliable method of birth control.
> However, I *do not* believe that a person should abstain from sex
> if he or she does not want to raise a child.

I agree with your first statement but not, obviously from what I said above,
with your second statement.

> This leads to the next question:  what happens if a woman becomes
> pregnant after birth control failure, and abortion is not available (for
> whatever reason)?  At this point, I think the best approach is this:  an
> accident has happened, and now an unwanted child needs to be cared for.
> The people affected (the parents, any close relatives, and a representative
> of the state) should sit down and figure out some way of ensuring that
> the child is cared for, and that the lives of the adults in question
> are not affected more than is necessary.  This is the sort of thing we
> already do during other times of human crisis.

And it's more or less what we do now.  If there are other responsible parties
willing to take care of the child, and these parties are willing to assume
full responsibility, and if the parents are willing to give up full responsib-
ility, then what happens is "adoption".  But such situations are somewhat rare
and the responsibility starts with the parents and does not transfer unless it
can be shown to be in the viable best interests of the child.

> Consider the following example:  a grandparent becomes ill with Alzheimer
> Disease, and requires round-the-clock, full-time supervision.  No one
> expects the children of this parent to turn themselves into full-time
> nursemaids:  in this instance, society tolerates the introduction of
> a third party (in this case, an old-age home).

Such an old-age home has to be paid for by somebody.  As it turns out, the
children of this parent are not legally held responsible for their care,
which is an interesting idea but not relevant to this discussion.  The point
is that old-age homes don't work for free and there is noone legally required
to pay for that care, other than taxpayers, and that's another long discussion.

> I claim that the introduction of an unwanted child into a family is
> another example of an unfortunate circumstance, in which the introduction
> of a third party (a reliable adoption agency, or some form of natal/day care
> agency) should not be seen as an immoral choice. When something unplanned-for
> happens, let's all try to give everybody concerned as much leeway as
> possible.  Life is too short to do otherwise.

I think that parents ought to be held responsible for the welfare of the baby
until/unless new adoptive parents are found, not just until the baby can be
dropped off on the adoption agency's doorstep.  But that's not the interesting
problem here.

The interesting problem here is that if one parent wants to keep the baby
but the other one does not, the one who doesn't want it still has to support
the baby through supporting the efforts of the parent who *does* want it.
That's the hair we've been splitting here for such a long time.

> (By the way:  if you want a response from me to any rebuttal of the points
> I have made here, could you do me a favour and mail me your response as
> well as posting it?  I may not have the time to read this group on a
> regular basis.  Thanks.)

Will do.
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me
Xref: sparky soc.men:16362 soc.women:16531