From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:10:21 GMT

In article <1egjaqINNlcc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <Bxy8KK.KwF@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>The Right to Life crowd would like you to believe, however, that your right
>>to kill an unborn child ended when it was conceived, as that unborn child
>>has rights too, and you can no more kill it than you can force a separation
>>of siamese twins.
>
>Yeah, they probably would like me to believe that the world is flat, too.
>Doesn't mean that the belief makes any sense or that we must, through force
>of law, act in accordance with the belief.
>
>>I am asking women, and men, to consider that the "mine! mine! mine!" argument
>>is sexist and unnecessary.  It is unreasonably hostile to half the population.
>>It is not in your best interest.  There are other interpretations available.  
>
>Sure, there are some that are 'available'.
>
>However, since a pregnancy arguably involves a womans body, and only a woman's
>body, I don't see why it should be thrown out of consideration as justification
>for what action a woman may or may not take on her own body because you don't
>feel it is politically 'correct' to make note of the biological difference.
>Sure, it doesn't serve your view of the rights streams, but then, not every-
>one agrees with your view of the rights streams.....

Pregnancy is not at issue here. Making a non-consensual decision about 
someone else's wallet, who is innocent of any wrongdoing, *is* the issue.

Please address the issue.

>>for the cost (exhorbitant I'm sure) of providing an artificial placental
>>attachment point and gestational unit?  After all, the PHYSICAL SOVERIEGNTY
>>issue evaporates when that becomes possible.  With the pace of medical
>>science I give it 10-20 years before this is possible -- or perhaps sooner.
>
>because of exhorbitant costs, I don't believe this will become a common
>practice, and I don't believe that the legislators will make it become a
>common practice for the simple reason that it would bankrupt our country.
>So, I don't much worry about this particular outcome.

What if, in spite of its "exhorbitant" [sic] costs, it is still more
demonstrably economically-efficient to use these "auto-mamas" than traditional 
birth methods? Would you still hold the father responsible for the mother's 
unilateral choice? If so, why?

>But it brings us back to the point of child-support enforcment, and the
>question of what are the current laws FOR.  They are FOR the benefit of 
>the child, and both parents (BOTH) are presumed to be serving that best
>interest.  

I don't think it generally serves the interests of children to be created in 
unstable, single-parent situations. That's why I'd like to reduce the current 
incentive/subsidy to create such social situations.

>If we can bring fetuses to term in a test tube, the family
>services act remains in force, because it still requires parents to per-
>form to benefit the child.  

By that point, the last vestiges of a whiff of a memory of a shadow of a 
rationalization will have then disappeared, and the "family services act" 
(whatever that is) will evaporate also. Cessante ratione legis cessat et 
ipsa lex.

(Unless, of course, some bright spark comes up with a NEW rationalization.)

>Society *has* to make some default assumptions, you know.

I'd say it's a fairly good default assumption that if two people MUTUALLY
wish to start a family, that they at least get married first (?)

								- Kevin