From: pimentel@earrth.enet.dec.com (John Pimentel)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:36:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Oct12.102950.26136@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>, uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes...
>I find it difficult to believe that any serious feminist would support
>the notion that women, with statistically smaller incomes, ought to be
>saddled with the ENTIRE cost of the raising of children.  That certainly
>doesn't involve equality; it certainly doesn't involve liberation.  At
>least not for the woman.  I note that it does involve liberation for the

This world is here for choices.  In this case the woman chose to have 
unprotected sex.  "Protection" is the responsiblity of both participants,
male and female, anything short is careless disregard. So the woman is now
pregant and the courts have decided that this creation is not a living
person until birth be it 6 months, 7 months, 8 months, or 9 months, thus
until that time the pregancy of this product can be terminated.  The woman
chooses to take this to term over the objections of the man, because he
doesn't want to be a father/parent to this future person.  There's
no legal precedent to allow him to have it terminated.  I remember the
same argument only reversed and now we have this supreme court ruling.
Amazing wouldn't you say.  A woman can choose now to be a parent or
the woman can choose not too.  A man does not have this "right".  So
let's give it to him.  Or let's abolish this "legal right" for both.

So the woman has made the choice to bring to term (6-9 months depending
on how strong the process is).  If the man can not go to court and get
the abortion performed then he should have the right to go their and
have the future person declared the sole responsibility of the woman
(and the state) as far as regard to financial "burden".  

Let's wander into the future and assume that the man can now go to court
and he does not want to be a parent (remember way back when the woman
said the same thing -- I do) and doesn't want the responsiblities.  
Well the judge says to the woman that since the future person is not yet
born she can seek an abortion or she can take care of the child on her
own. If she chooses the sugical extraction of living tissue that the state 
will pay to have the abortion performed at one of the their many Grade A 
butcher shops (er... "Family Planning Centers") or that they will pay 
for it to be done at her favorite butcher shop.

Well the woman decides that she is going to be a lone parent.  The court
has decided that the man will not have financial responsibility (er...
I mean be a parent).  The state is notified of this by the end of the
day and first thing the next morning the woman is back in court and
this time the state is demanding that the court they don't want to
pay the mother welfare to have this person loaf around having free care
for five years while her child grows up (just in time for the next 
pregnancy).  Again the judge informs her that she may either have this
future person or that the state will fund an abortion.

Now if this was all in place, the choice would be at this level:
	1) Love of a free ride
	2) Love of a future person

Remember the show Baretta "If you can't to the time don't do the crime."
(read: If you can't deal with the consequence don't make the choice that
provides that result.)

For the record I'm against abortion.  And welfare is not a career.
=============================================================================
-- John Pimentel

The opinions expressed are my own.  No rights are granted to take them out of
context nor do they represent the views of my employer, whomever it might be
for the moment.
=============================================================================
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18684 soc.history:8968 alt.politics.usa.constitution:691