From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... STUPIDITY!
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:18:22 GMT

In article <BvIEJ6.LnI@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.182157.12461@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.717909582@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <Bv8z4z.86I@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>
>>
>>>>You seem to conveniently and persistently ignore the proposal that 
>>>>a woman need not inform her husband if it poses a danger to her.
>>
>>Who determines that informing her husband poses a danger to her. The
>>courts?
>
>Yes.
>
> [story of murder after wife left husband]
>
>>Do you really think that women should leave their lives in the hands of
>>people like that?
>
>For that kind of question, I'd respond,
>     When did you stop beating your husband?
>
>Do you have an anecdote about a man killing a woman because she got
>pregnant and had children against his will?  Would such a story
>mean that men should not be informed that they have children?
>
>Would you agree that any murder story in which the murderer was upset
>about some given information  would imply that such information need
>not be given?  If your boss fires you, are you entitled to two weeks'
>notice?  If your bank repossesses the house, are you entitled to move
>out first?  
>
>Perhaps if such violence occurs more often among African-Americans, 
>we should have a law that says only African-Americans need not be informed 
>of information to which other people have a right?  I don't think so.
>
>
>The principle that a man is guilty until proven innocent is not one I accept.
>
>The principle of treating all humans as potential murderers is not 
>one I accept.
>
>The principle of treating all men unequally with respect to women
>on the basis of a minority of extreme cases is not one I accept.
>
>As long as husbands must foot the bill for child support without choice
>(and as long as sterility remains grounds for immediate divorce), they 
>should have the right to full knowledge of reproductive matters.
>
>Don
>-- 
>beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged


You are addressing only one side of the issue, while the example given by
Nadja really pointed to the other side.

  1) Should we *legislate* that a man be notified if a woman decides 
     to bear his child?

	This I have less problem with, because she does not have 
	any say	over whether or not he is financially liable for 
	that child.  The courts have said that she can not make 
	such a decision for the child.

	I would prefer that a man be allowed to effectively
	give the child up for "adoption", even if the mother
	intends to keep the child, so that the man is not
	forced to be financially responsible for a child he
	did not want.  (There are many nuances to this as 
	has been discussed before.)

  2) Should we *legislate* that a man be notified if a woman decides to 
     abort his child?

	I would say, definitely No.  The woman knows full well if
	she is at risk for violence.  Women that don't fear their
	mates will willingly discuss the situation with them.

	Nadja's point was that the judicial system can not be trusted
	to look after the well-being of women.
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

		"Creativity overcomes violence."
				John Bradshaw on "Homecoming"