From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: 15 Oct 1992 07:50:06 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com


Don and me:
>>>Before participating in sex, a man has a full right to decide
>>>issues of "personal or family privacy."  That is, if he doesn't
>>>want to be a parent, he has the power and right not to become a parent.
>>Ah.  I see.  An *excellent* argument for not leaving one's personal property
>>(one's sperm) lying about outside of the realm of one's control.  Now, if
>>*you* can think of a way to allow a man to repossess sperm HE left lying
>>about, I'll support you in it.  Always presuming, of course, that he isn't
>>going to be encroaching upon the body of another human....
>Ah, so you think that a man has a right to get his sperm back --
>if so, let her give it back, using whatever means she decides.

Wait a minute.  *He* left it there.  I think the job falls to him.  After
all, if you leave your property lying about somewhere, it's really up to
you do retreive it.  And you don't have permission to break laws in order
to accomplish this.  How 'bout not leaving it lying about in the first
place?

>I don't recall any laws that say you can keep my car if I lend it
>to you; nor can I take it back by force; but you can be legally required
>to return it to me, even if it means you have to walk home on the
>interstate. 

Ah.  Did the man 'lend' his sperm?  I don't think there are a whole lot
of women who 'accept' such a loan... 
>>Ah.  I see.  He cannot abort the child (gee, we don't let men abort
>>children within their bodies?  How unfair).  And he cannot escape
>>child support obligations, which is a burden imposed upon men, but
>>NOT upon women?  I don't think so.
>You asked a question about how men's rights are restricted.

Not really.  I did ask what you meant by your stipulations, but I also
happen to think you have your bases of law confused, and that this partic-
ular 'restriction' is a convenient but inaccurate argument.

Abortion is available to women because it is a woman's body (and only a
woman's body) that supports a pregnancy.  Child support, on the other 
hand, is required of BOTH men and women when a child exists.  And
while it may be a burdensome thing, is not 'inequitable' in it's legal
assignment.

>The woman's unalterable obligation to support begins, 
>at the earliest, after the last legal moment to abort.  
>This is usually 6 or more months later than the moment 
>the man's rights are restricted.

Horseshit.  The man has *no* legal obligation until a child is born.

>If the woman does not choose abortion, the man's obligation
>cannot be terminated by her or by him, whereas she can "escape" 
>her own obligations through adoption.

Horseshit again.  If the child is adopted, BOTH the man's and the 
woman's obligations are terminated.  So are both rights to the child.  
If the child is not adopted, BOTH parents retain their rights and 
obligations.

>In very real and practical terms, child support burdens are imposed
>far more greatly on men than on women -- not just in numbers but amounts.

I respect your right to your own opinion, Don, but this particular sentence
is sheer value judgement, and there are millions of women who would argue
the point with you.  Not that such an argument would be productive , you
understand....

>Men do not have the same "liberties" as women with respect to
>reproductive choice.  This goes far beyond biology.

Men don't have the same biological capabilities, and this leads to one
important difference in terms of the legal application of parenting laws:
they aren't required to be present at birth (they may not, in fact, even
know about the birth until months later).  This means that, in any 
argument for possession, or custody, women have an edge on claiming 
prior possession.    
   
But I think it's important to note that while the biological differences
exist, and in fact are exploited by a few unscrupulous persons, it's also
true that EVEN IF WE WANTED TO change the biological reality, we can't yet.
I'd be *thrilled*, Don, absolutely tickled _pink_, trust me on this, for
Jon to carry our next child to term so I wouldn't have to.  And happily
cede him 'prior possession'.

>Yes:  Male Choice.  Allow men to decide, before viability, that they
>"want an abortion" -- which means, NOT that the woman must have an
>abortion, BUT that the man no longer has any obligations to 
>(or rights regarding) the child or woman.  Except arguably to share 
>the cost of an abortion.

Which merely undermines the whole of family law and western culture in
one fell swoop.  I can understand your desire for such a thing, but I 
really don't think it works within any currently imaginable legal or 
social framework.  We already see thousands of children in poverty, and it
is the social norm still for men to be the major $$ earners.  Your proposal
would do nothing but exacerbate an already unteneble situation.

To accomplish such would require a massive change in social norms,
tax structure and private business.  With the legal situation following by
about 20 years as it always does, which means there would be a dead center
when everybody ws unhappy.  You might be able to pull it off in a country
where it could be mandated from the top down, but with the costs to over
2/3rds of the country so high, you won't find your idea implemented in a 
populist state.
 
>Second:  Allow men to have custody without court bias against them.
>Such bias is an effective (and often explicitly legislated) restriction 
>of their rights.

Now, I'd go for this, wholeheartedly, except for one thing:  the "Second"
on the beginning.  You want men to have the capability to completely
deny their parenthood on the one hand, and completely seize it on the
other?  Don't you think that's a somewhat conflicting political message?
I seem implementation problems that makes congress look like the fast lane.

>You are basing women's rights on biology; but there is no biological
>factor that requires a man to pay money to a woman or her child.

Nor, frankly is there any biological factor that requires a woman to pay
money to a man and his child.  This aspect of parenting is a social and
legal construct and always has been, and is symetrical with respect to
the sexes involved.  Which means also that it's a bankrupt argument, Don.
There isn't any 'inequity' in a parent supporting it's child.  Both are
required to do it, once a child exists, until the parental responsibility
is either fulfilled or replaced via adoption.

Adrienne Regard