From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Summary: Is unwanted pregnancy slavery?
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Date: 14 Dec 92 07:16:11 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Design, Salem, OR, USA

[Sorry for the delay in posting this, but my computer has (and still is)
having disk problems.]

In article <1992Nov27.195814.17466@rotag.mi.org>
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|In article <1152@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|>Child birth is a natural thing.  Unless the mother takes action to
|>prevent it, or there is a miscarriage, the baby will be born.  When it
|>is, and perhaps before (parents have been held accountable for what
|>they did during pregnancy)*, the parents are responsible for him.  In no
|>meaningful sense do the parents "assume custody" of the child as you say
|>above.
|
|None of the above disproves the fact that, legally speaking, parents assume
|custody of the child. Just because it's the default, i.e. natural parents get
|custody UNLESS special arrangements have been made, doesn't alter the fact
|that a legal transition occurs when they take the baby home.

Then slavery is ok if you don't take action to prevent it?

|>In any case, how is this different than saying, "they implicitly agree
|>to arrange care for the [possible] child" when people willingly engage
|>in heterosexual intercourse (i.e. excluding rape or incest cases)?
|
|Because of the "[possible]" part you felt compelled to insert into your
|sentence. The legality of possibilities differs substantially from the
|legality of actualities. In the case of law wrt reproduction, there can be
|no such implicit agreement before birth, although an explicit agreement
|is always permissible.

You argue above in effect that allowing the child to be born is an
implicit agreement to care for it.  How is that different from saying
there is an implicit responsibility on those who engage in sex to care
for any resultant children?  It isn't.  Your statement that there can
be no such implicit agreement before birth is without foundation.  In
fact, the father has exactly such a responsibility under the law now in
most if not all states.  If the mother wants to keep the child, the
father* is legally bound to help pay for support until the child is an
adult, regardless of his wishes after conception.  There is no legal
way for him to get out of or transfer this responsibility (unless the
mother agrees).  That many fathers manage to avoid this responsibility
or that many mothers choose not to pursue it is irrelevant: it doesn't
change what his legal responsibility is.  Isn't this slavery by your
argument, and for 18 years, not nine months?

* In many states, such as California, if the mother is married, the
"father" isn't necessarily the natural father, but is in law, the
husband.  In this case the husband is legally responsible for the
children even though they aren't biologically his. 

|>>This is _not_ particularly burdensome.
|>
|>A little bit of slavery is ok?  Perhaps.  How do we qualify it?  Why
|>is nine months obviously not ok and a few weeks is?  
|
|Because "a few weeks" is a function of economic necessity, whereas 9 months
|is not. If we, as a society, were willing to pay huge amounts of taxes, so
|that thousands of state workers distributed strategically throughout the
|state were sitting by the phone, ready and waiting for that phone call, so
|that they could rush over to your house within a matter of minutes to pick
|up the unwanted child, then we could do it. But over the course of centuries, 
|people have deemed that not important enough to warrant such a staggering
|tax burden. The people are getting exactly what they want, and what they are
|willing to pay for. In the case of abortion, however, those who seek abortions
|obviously feel that 9 months is too much slavery, otherwise they wouldn't get
|one.

You are arguing here that need, "economic necessity" or in fact in this
case, the wish of the people, overrides principle, "slavery".  What
would be wrong then, by this argument, with the majority saying that
nine months is ok, i.e. not too much slavery?

...
|>>We're only talking a few days here, a week maybe.
|>
|>Perhaps if we are talking about a normal baby or if arrangements are
|>made beforehand, this maybe true.  In fact, it can be even less.  But
|>if the baby is not normal, or we are talking about an older child, then
|>this isn't true.  It may be impossible to transfer responsibility for
|>the child.
|
|We're only talking about the time it takes to transfer the child into the
|temporary custodianship of the STATE, not the total time it takes to transfer 
|the child into the custodianship of another family.

Wrong.  As I said here and elsewhere, the state will not always accept
custody of the child.  The parents could well be in for eighteen years,
not just nine months.  Doesn't this collapse your argument?

...
|>I don't want to make too much of the "burden" or pregnancy or child
|>care.  I don't think we do anyone any favors by doing that.  My wife and
|>I love our two children and don't view them as burdens, but as blessings.
|
|Then don't have an abortion or give either of your children up for adoptions. 
|But be aware that many people DO regard pregnancy and/or the raising of 
|children as "burdens". Those people's wishes, to deal with their burdens in
|the most reasonable way possible, deserve to be respected.

I don't ever consider abortion to be responsible, except to save the
life of the mother.  People who have them or advocate them have no
claim on my respect.*  Sorry.

* That isn't to say that they don't have it for other reasons, just that
they have no claim to it just from their choice on abortion.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11812 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10324 alt.politics.clinton:18802 alt.politics.bush:14660 alt.politics.homosexuality:8090