From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Subject: Re: logic
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 03:43:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.013954.8664@news.iastate.edu>, txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling) writes:
>One thing that logic would show is that in a descusion of what equil rigts
>includes-men and wimen having an equil say/chance at/in everything that 
>has to do with both of them. -does not mean -ban abortin- so what does the 
>anology of just because people die in car crashis we dont have to ban cars
>have to do with this descusion. I unlike some chouse to not be excesively
>windy in my posts. 

I'd hardly call my posts "windy"; wordy, maybe/yes, windy, no.  By the way that's
equal not equil; I have NO idea what "equil rights" are.  Please, have the
common decency to at least spell the point of contention correctly.
(also it is "unplanned", "pregnancy", "other", "custody",  git-->get ...)
Maybe you aren't a native speaker of English, in which case I suggest you
buy a dictionary (I am and use one regularly BEFORE posting), but your
lack of *care* in posting carries over to many readers as a lack of THOUGHT about
the subject matter as well.  These are complex issues; I may write dense
prose (looked that one up for spelling :-) but it is demanded by the subject matter.

1) If we're not talking about (banning) abortions then it has no point
   being here in alt.abortion.inequity.  Take discussions solely of unfair 
   paternity laws somewhere relevant.  My original posting was in reply
   to someone who wanted to ban abortion because it was the only "fair"
   way to deal with:
      a) unplanned pregnancies where the father didn't want to supply $$
         so somehow it would make it more "equal" to force OTHER women who
         DO want abortions to carry to term.  (twisted logic in my book)
      b) women who have abortions without consent of the sperm provider
   Go up and read the above paragraph again.  And now again slowly.

2) you seem to have a hard time grasping the concept of analogies.  Maybe
   you should visit a library and study up some.  Please re-read my
   previous post in its entirety and THINK hard about the analogies.
   I won't try to explain it here in detail as my posts are windy enough ;-)
   I'll refrain from any in this post.

> ..... here is my proposal
>1=men and wimen have an equil say in an unplaned pregnincy.
> he/they can decide	a.its her decision (note he did have his equil say)
>			b.one wants the child the uther doesnt-the one who
>		wants the child takes the child the uther pays -nothing-

This is just a change of the "default"; if you want to put energy into
changing this part of the law I say fine.  Until it IS changed my
proposition makes sense.  If/When it is changed then we modify my proposal
to state that "women expecting a man to supply child support in case
of an unplanned pregnacy should get it in writing beforehand".  That was easy.
But this makes sense only in the case where the woman wants the child and
the man does not.  It makes NO sense in the other case -- because there is
no current technology for extracting the FETUS/ZYGOTE from the woman and 
giving it to the man.  So in order for YOUR proposal to work here, you
would have to FORCE the women to carry the child for 9 months.  Details on 
why this would be a *bad* thing I'll leave to other hotly discussed
ongoing threads.  Actually such a case would then be classified as (c) 
below (as "unwilling") I guess.

>			c.she cant/is unwilling to have the child
>				-he can respect this
>				-he can ask her for her reasons agree/disagree

                                 ^^^^^^^^^^ What the point of this?? Sure he
can ask.  So what?  She has an abortion?  There are those here that would say
that in such a case (she want abortion; he does not want her to) that the male 
can overrule the woman's choice -- THIS is the point of contention I was
attempting to address.  (My bias/current law: she has an abortion if she desires)
Propose a resolution to this quandry that *everyone* can agree upon (under
all circumstances) and I think we're homefree in this news group.

>			d.the child is put up for adoption
>			e.both want the child on git custidy the uther gets 
>		visitation rights and pays child suport

On this one I can't figure your sentence out.  My translation (correct me
if I'm wrong):

         e. both want the child; one gets custody while the other gets
     visitation rights and pays child support.

This sound vaguely familiar ... hmmm maybe that's because it the current
state of things.  Though there are some inequities here, in practice and
sometimes in the law itself, in deciding WHO gets custody and WHO pays
(and how much).  But again: nothing to do with abortion.

Sarcasm aside.  The crux of the matter is: *IF* there is a difference and
the two parties can't reach a mutual agreement, how is this resolved?
My "modest proposal" requires prior agreement for those expecting 
exceptions to current law.  Failure to make such agreement IMPLIES
acceptance of said law.  A pretty modest proposal if you ask me. ;-)

>we teach our young people about birth controle and make it easaly obtanable
>so that they are at lest half way responsable. By having the knowlige and
>means they can develop a habite of using birth controle.

Is this a statement of the current state of affairs or a proposal?  As a
ideal I would certainly *applaud* its implementation.  But if you think it is
a statement of fact then I think you are sadly deluded and need a reality check.

>I see no reason how ever that someone should be hurt because they had no
>chouce in wether or not to keep/have there child.

Again I agree wholeheartedly! (surprised? I'm not sadistic.)  There SHOULD 
be no reason. The problem is that some people have expectations that are
in conflict with reality and DO feel hurt.  I place the burden on them.

>ELF-KIN

-robert
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity