From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:07:28 GMT

jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton) writes:

>In article <Oct05.203207.51974@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.100717.6029@sniap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>|> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:

>[...stuff deleted...]

>>	Well put.  It is no more punishment to require a woman to fulfil her
>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>parental responsibilities than it is punishment to require one who signed an
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>enlistment contract to go to boot camp, or to require one who injures another in
>>a car accident to do everything possible to save the life and health of the one
>>injured.

>Ummm...last time I checked, it takes TWO to produce a child...I notice
>you make no mention of requiring a man to fulfill *his* parental
>responsibilities... Is this anything akin to saying "if a woman gets
>pregnant its her fault and therefore *she* has to pay the
>consequences??? I guess this is what is meant by "family values..."

>John


John, I'm afraid that the logic of legal abortion makes it QUITE clear that
it takes *ONE* to produce a child.  As the pro-aborts are so pleased to
re-iterate these sovereign truths, I hate to repeat them here yet again,
but I'm afraid I must.  Please read closely so that you may not make the
same logical error again.  People may think you are pro-life.

1) The fertilized egg is not a child.
2) A fetus is an unviable tissue mass.
3) Woman's body, woman's choice i.e. a man has no right to interfere with
   a woman's right to choose an abortion.
4) Abortion is NOT murder (see 1 and 2 above for clarification), it is
   a medical procedure involving the removal of unwanted tissue that must
   be kept safe and legal.
5) Abortion must be kept available so that all women have equal choices 
    about maintaining a viable economic lifestyle choice.

Now it is clear that a man merely provides an infinitesimal amount of raw
material to a child manufacturer.  The woman provides 99.999% of all raw
material and 100% of the labor.  Men do not create children, only women do.
Men are legally forbidden from altering the women's choice.

If a woman must have abortion available in order to have her economic
lifestyle choices remain free and open, then it logically follows that
the decision to unilaterally create a child is an economic lifestyle 
choice.  Certainly the woman is an adult, and can make such choices on
her own.  Certianly she also understands the burdens involved. It is 
logically impossible to hold the man responsible for a manufacturing 
process he has nothing to do with, or for a product (child) which he
is legally forbidden from choosing to produce.

Thus Pro-choice = Anti-child-support.

It is completely illogical for anyone who is pro-choice to speak of
TWO parents, when their position depends on the fact that only ONE
person makes a child.  It is completely illogical for them to demand
child support from a virtual bystander, someone who delivers nothing
but raw materials nine full months before any child exists, and despite
the fact that they contributed ONLY epsilon amounts of that material
and absolutely no labor at all, ESPECIALLY when the decision to produce
is completely and totally out of their hands.

Before you go nuts with the biological bit, note the following facts:

Anonymous sperm donors can NEVER, under any circumstances, be held for
child support, even if all parties involve desire it.

Surrogate mothers: egg donors are NOT considered the mother - only the
woman who carries to term (manufactures the child) is.

Tennessee has ruled that a man has a right to choose not to be a father
if the embryos inhabit a nitrogen freezer.  Note that the court implied
that the man was NOT YET a father.  He still retained this right to "abort"
even though he took actions which were specifically and narrowly 
procreative in nature.  Thus, it is completely illogical to expect a man
who took actions which were primarily sensual in nature to have any sort
of implied contract to support a future child, especially since his equally
actionable partner has NO duties to that future child if she chooses to 
destroy the possibility of it emerging.  Currently, a legal group has been
formed to bring a test case before the courts (of Virginia, I believe) to
challenge the legal underpinnnings of male child support.

If they succeed, they will undoubtedly extend thanks to all the pro-aborts,
without whom such a legal and financial victory would not have been 
possible.

Steve Kellmeyer
  

>>
>>Steve


-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu