From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: None whatsoever, ThankYouVeryMuch!
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:13:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.203518.20259@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.172929.12103@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.220151.12113@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>>In  <1992Aug31.162715.17289@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>> In article <1992Aug27.045340.13162@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purd
>>And this is exactly the reason I'm here.  Because it isn't an individual
>>decision.  It is the decision of TWO people, father and mother.
>
>Not until fathers bear children it's not.  If you can't handle that, be more
>careful in choosing your mate.

Bearing the child is only a small part of parenting.  And until you
realize that, you really have no chance at all of understanding my position.

The fact that women bear children, is not sufficient reason to give them
all the rights.

>>I have no problem with allowing other COUPLES to make their own decision
>>about abortion.  But what you are pushing for, is to cut out the father
>>entirely (until, of course, you decide that you want to keep the child,
>>then he suddenly gets roped back in).
>
>Ah, I agree with you here. If the woman wants a baby and the man doesn't,
>and they aren't going to work it out between them, the man should be
>absolved of child support. (IMO). That just seems to make sense.

>>I don't want to make abortion illegal, but it does look like the
>>politically expedient way of achieving fairness in this area.
>
>I disagree and I am surprised you would think the process of making abortion
>illegal is expedient in the first place.

There is already a VERY large group of people who want to make abortion
at least more controlled, and most want it made illegal.  In fact, the
registered number of anti-abortion supporters is much larger than the
number of abortion supporters, but due to a truly incredible media
slant, most people are unaware of just how large the numbers are.

>It might ultimately be that 'fair' doesn't matter *anyway*.

Frightening words from a man who espouses personal choice.

>If abortion is outlawed in this country, I'm going to bust my ass to
>change that.

Feel free.  I'm busting my ass to get my rights enforced, and you are
equally free to attempt to get yours enforced.

>If I cannot help reverse this fascist trend, I'll move to a country where 
>individual freedom is cherished.

Feel free.  Just what country would this be, anyway?  Some time ago, I
started looking around to do just that, and found (much to my amazement)
that as much as we bitch, we have it better than anywhere else.

>>I would be much happier with a constitutional amendment that requires
>>the consent of the father before abortion is allowed.
>
>Then in many cases you are agreeing with making a woman's pregnancy an issue
>of the state, which violates the personal freedom this country was founded on.

A woman's pregnancy (when the couple are married) has always been an
issue of the state.

And to be honest, I don't understand why you would object to this.  After all,
you claim to support personal choice.  So how do you intend to guarantee
a right to personal choice without involving the state?

Besides, aren't you missing a great big fat fact, that a woman's
pregnancy is ALREADY an issue of the state.  If it wasn't, then we wouldn't
be discussing this, because there would be no Roe vs Wade, no attempt to
codify the 'right-to-abortion' into law, no . . . oh hell, you either get
it, or you never will.

>Personally, if a man wants a baby and his SO doesn't, he should just smell
>the coffee and go find another SO that does.  Who would want to have the law
>force one's wife into having a baby that only the father wants?

You act as if babies are interchangeable.  They are NOT.  If my SO tells
me that she doesn't want children, fine.  If I couln't live with out them,
I would do what you suggest and go elsewhere.

But that isn't what this discussion is about.  It is about one particular
case: the woman is ALREADY pregnant, she wants to have an abortion, and
I, as the father, do not want her to have an abortion.

The question is: how do we resolve the conflict in her and my rights?
Currently, the answer is, that the state does not view me as having ANY
rights, just obligations.

This must change.

>>If a law or constitutional amendment is passed that allows abortion to
>>remain the sole choice of the woman, then I will have to turn to getting
>>fatherhood to be legally recognized as a choice, not an obligation.
>
>I think, if I understand that sentence, that's the way to go.

Nah.  It's a dark horse at best, much less likely to be succesful than
limiting or eliminating abortion.

>David Knapp                                  University of Colorado, Boulder

John
stevens@uswest.com