From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:16:36 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Sep8.200158.26512@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <Bu7rGC.LE1@cs.psu.edu>
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep7.033921.8119@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep3.143636.26067@advtech.uswest.com>
>>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
>>>>You will not admit that.  You keep conviently side stepping the difficult
>>>>questions, or ignoring pertinent facts.
>
>>>Pertinent fact: your "father's consent" wished-for-law ignores the
>>>woman's right to control her body, since it divides control over her
>>>body equally between the two people who have created the z/e/f and
>>>ignores the fact that the body is hers.
>
>>>Difficult question: doesn't this make this position the most
>>>miogynistic position around, as its premises are misogynistic (women
>>>don't have a right to control their bodies)?
>
>>Look up "mysogyny" in the dictionary.  How is it +necessarily+
>>"woman-hating" to defend what one believes is one's child?  Or to defend
>
>If he wants me to believe that he thinks a z/e/f is a child, then he
>shouldn't go around saying that he has "no problem" with a couple
>agreeing on abortion.
>
>>what one believes is his/her own right, when that right is in conflict
>>with the right of a woman?  Perhaps a position that "a woman's rights should
>>be overridden under all circumstances" would be misogynistic, but a position
>>stating that 
>
>>   "a woman's rights can be overridden under circumstances X,Y,Z",
>>   "a   man's rights can be overridden under circumstances A,B,C",
>>   "a fetus's rights can be overridden under circumstances P,Q,R"
>
>>is hardly necessarily woman-hating.
>
>I've said that I think accusations of misogyny for thinking that
>z/e/fs have the right to life are at best unproven; see my "Beth
>Bartley on Misogyny" article.

Where was it published?  Or please send a copy.


>>>Child support contracts are unenforcible, which creates an
>>>infringement on men's rights, so instead of changing this you want to
>>>destroy women's rights to control their bodies?!!
>
>>>Excuse me if I think this shows total disregard for women's rights.
>
>>Actually, I think Mr. Steven's position is equitable for all genders,
>>and it represents the "hard-line" view that if you unzip your pants,
>>you should be prepared to pay (via dollars, pregnancy, care, time, etc.).
>>This isn't necessarily misanthropic or anti anyone's rights, it is 
>>just a belief about which rights supercede conflicting rights, and 
>>how to assure an equitable balance of rights.
>
>If he addresses the problem of child support contracts being
>unenforcible by trying to destroy a woman's current legal right to
>abortion, I think he's showing a total lack of concern for women's
>rights.

Given the lack of real consensus in this country, I can hardly accept that
there does or doesn't exist a "right" (in a deeper sense, not a legal sense)
to abortion.  There exists a currently-granted legal power that can be 
removed (we have heard many fears voiced about that).

It is not necessarily misogynistic to correct the balance of 
the more arbitrary powers ("rights") granted to individuals 
by the constitution, its amendments, and the interpretations 
of the supreme court, especially when a non-agreed-upon power, which
directly cause inequities to another subpopulation, is in question.

The feeling I get is that if the year were 1950 and Mr. Steeves were 
to suggest that the best thing to do after a divorce is to split the 
bank account according to need, you might have called him a communist.  
Sorry if that's a bad analogy, but I don't see anything necessarily 
misogynistic in looking for a balance of rights, even if correcting
the balance means reducing women's rights.



[I moved a paragraph down here]
>The position that "a man and a woman each contributed 50% of this
>fetus, therefore each ought to get 50% of the decision whether or not
>to kill this fetus" is misogynistic because unless the woman's rights
>to control her own body are nil, that right then becomes the
>tie-breaker.

>>Perhaps "imbalance against" is better than "infringement on."
>
>The problem is that if the rights to have a child or not have a child
>are equal, dividing the decision equally says that the woman's right
>to control her body is nil.

You are presupposing your own belief, namely that there is no
fetal right involved.  Based on a right-to-life position, we'd have:

. man's right (to have child, not to have child, to equal protection)
. woman's right (to have child, not to have child, to privacy)
. fetus's right (to uterine support)

If we ignore the "equal protection" for men by permitting men to
"abort" their child-support liabilities, we still have two
tie-breaking rights:  woman-privacy and fetus-support.

Thus if one claims that the woman-privacy right should not prevail,
it isn't the same as saying it's nil, and it need not be misogynistic
(nor demonstrate a "lack of concern").  

Your point is very perceptive and compelling, and I'm glad you mentioned it.
It applies, though, mainly to "pro-choicers" claiming no fetal rights.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36639 alt.abortion.inequity:3778