From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:15:13 GMT

In article <nb7tk10@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>---
>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>|cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>|>I will repeat: the biology forces an inequity.  Women take a
>|>risk that men do not take, so they have the right to opt out
>|>of that risk.
>|
>|Agreed. But in the other case -- where she foregoes the abortion -- why 
>|should he have to subsidize the consequences of her unilateral choice?
>
>I'm not sure he should have to, if he
>    - informed his partner of his wishes before sex (preferably in writing);

Agreed.

>    - used birth control himself; 

To the same extent she did, in terms of inconvenience/effort, etc. Sure.

>    - once the pregnancy had been detected, reminded his partner
>      of his wishes during the window of time when abortion was
>      available to her; and

Agreed.

>    - offered to pay for half.

More than half. She has to actually go THROUGH the experience of the 
abortion, after all. She makes more of a physical contribution, so he can
make significantly more of a financial one. I think that's fair.

>I'm giving some honest thought to fair solutions to this problem.
>The biology *does* force inequities.  Men like Steeves will
>just have to cope with the fact that women have the right to
>choose abortion against their will.  I can't see any way around
>that one.  But what about the situation that strikes such fear
>into the little Darcy heart?  What about when the woman refuses
>abortion, against the man's will?

This may sound cold, but Steeves and men like him always have the option
to try again, with another partner, or possibly even the same one. They
can "cure" their non-fatherhood relatively easily. Once a man is made an
involuntary father, however, it's very hard to cure that without 
dispossessing a child. That's why I see the whole scenario not just as
a matter of simple FAIRNESS, but also as a way of discouraging such 
"accidents" in the future. Prevention is an important goal.

>The solution above still gives me some qualms.  Single women with
>children are much more likely to live in poverty in this society
>than single childless men.  You don't owe child support to the 
>woman, you owe it to the child.  Does the child deserve poverty
>for the choices of its mother?

I don't think ANY child deserves poverty. I think that we as a society,
as a COLLECTIVE, owe all children an adequate standard of living, if no
other alternative exists. However, when alternatives DO exist, then we 
should first expect the people most directly responsible for the creation
of the child to support it, before burdening strangers. By "responsible",
however, I mean in terms of ACTIONS, not just a no-brainer DNA similarity. 
In many cases, I think only one of the parents is actually "responsible",
even though the current laws always hold BOTH responsible.

>|CJ, If I make a unilateral choice to chop off my right arm, can I bill you 
>|for the medical expenses, the lost future wages, the pain and suffering?
>|
>|No causal connection, you say? Not so, not so. You see, my decision to chop 
>|off my arm was inspired by this article you posted. If you hadn't posted it, 
>|my arm would still be firmly attached to my torso. So, you see, it was your
>|"irresponsible" behavior of posting to Usenet that caused my dismemberment.
>|You should be more careful. Now we'll make you pay dearly for your 
>|complicity.
>
>Is there an "arm-chopper" test as reliable as paternity tests?
>Is the cause and effect so directly linked?  

Whoa! Wait a minute there, let's not compare apples to oranges. "Chopping
off my right arm" is analogous to "continuing pregnancy", not to "causing
conception". Important distinction there. Paternity tests can't measure the 
woman's state of mind any more than a "arm-chopper" test can measure mine.
The analogy stands.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity