From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Men and Abortion
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:15:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: hydra.73763
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

[ I don't have access to alt.abortion.inequity.]
In article <1992Nov5.152450.27641@news.nd.edu> slarsen@mozart.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
|In article <Bx7IIF.4Lq@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
|>In article <1992Nov4.142327.27388@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
|>>I can appreciate the agony of discovering that a trusted partner has 
|>>betrayed the trust.

I'm gald to see that at least in some cases there is an understood trust
or at least there should be trust between the two.  I really do believe
this trust IMPLIES or hints at BOTH of the two as having responsibility.

|>[...]
|>>People will continue to betray and be 
|>>betrayed, regardless of how the laws are manipulated in an attempt to 
|>>control human actions.  

Agreed.  Laws can't correct human desires, but one can't let human 
desires run rampant either.  Human reasoning/anger/rage leads to
murder, rape, theft and many other wrongs, but we readily legislate there.

|>It seems as though you missed the point, which was not about the
|>pain of betrayal but about whether a man can have "deeply felt agony" 
|>over abortion, and whether saying it is not "misplaced and unwarranted" 
|>is the same as sanctifying fetuses.

This deeply felt agony has to have a reason.  It is that people really
do realize/know that the unborn, the just conceived, is really a living
growing person, who will emerge into the world one day.  Two people have
started the process and they know the outcome, whether they look forward
to having a baby or not - they know there is life there.

The whole thing keys on one's respect for life and oneself.  Some
don't care about anything, but their immediate and/or short-term 
satisfaction.  If one respects themself and the life they have 
created, they should look forward to seeing the unborn develop.
If one doesn't respect life, whether they are in wedlock or out of
wedlock, then it seems they have NO problem with aborting.  

|>Yes to the former, no to the latter.
|>
|>Do you accept men's emotions over losing wanted children by abortion 
|>as valid and significant?  Comparable to the emotional pain of miscarriage?
|
|I recognize the variety of emotional responses involved.  I can accept that 
|men can experience emotional pain from abortion.  Comparable?  No, I won't 
|say that, simply because I think it is unfair to use such scenarios in an 
|attempt to show that one  response is somehow nobler or higher than another  
|response.  I've known women who have walked through miscarriages and another 
|who 
|committed suicide over a miscarriage.  Which pain set would you wish me 
|to compare to a man's pain set?  I knew a woman who was beaten up because 
|she would not get an abortion, the wish of the father.  And as Will has 
|pointed out, he, among many other men I'm sure, is experiencing great 
|trauma because his SO did abort.  To recognize that these are emotionally 
|charged issues is relevant, but to change the rules in response to these 
|emotions is impossible because within the human condition are expressions 
|of emotion which run all over the scale.  There is no way to satisfy all 
|emotional responses here.
|
|I don't think it is fair to characterize anyone's deeply felt agony as 
|misplaced or unwarranted simply because the pain is not politically 
|expedient.  I do think that it is fair, as a gesture of kindness and 
|friendship, to suggest to anyone being deeply effected by an emotional 
|state that they seek assistance from professionals to sort out those 
|feelings.  
|
|In my usually too-roundabout fashion, I am trying to show that legislation 
|based on some arbitrary system of quantifying pain and emotional response 
|is not going to be effective.  Pain and betrayal cannot be prevented by 
|legislation.  Anger from such pain and betrayal can certainly be misplaced 
|and this is why it is important to sort out that anger.  I do think that 
|conjuring up new rules and laws in response to emotions *alone* is not 
|good social or legal policy.

Agreed.  Not for emotions alone, but you can't ignore emotions either.
Emotions have to do with one's beliefs - religious and family teachings.

|It seems to me that any system of father notification regarding pregnancy 
|and intent to abort is doomed to run into all sorts of problems with 
|respect to patient-doctor confidentiality, rights to procure medical 
|treatment/procedures, the rights of marrieds vis-a-vis the rights of 
|singles, etc.  Since there is no father involvement with fetal life 
|except for the initial sex act, and since all the "investment" in the 

No other sex act is needed, but that is not the same as NO INVOLVEMENT.
A father's respect for the mother and for the unborn will determine
his involvement.  The mother cares the unborn, but to me that is 
complaining about one's design - that is the way things work.

|fetus is made by the mother, I can see no *logical* argument that a 
|father, married or not, has a say-so in a woman's pregnant state. Yes, 

Again, I think this is arguing against design, for the women is the
one who bears the child.  The father, by your own admission, has 
much say so after birth and was very responsible for the starting of
this new life, but he is ruled out in the mean time.  Again, this
assumes that the father has no concern and does not do ANYTHING or
have ANY responsibility during the pregancy.  The father should be
there helping - if all he is a sperm donor and supplier after birth,
then you have a point, but he is or rather should be involved from 
beginning to end. 

|I've read the arguments in this thread and I remain unconvinced that 
|fathers have any sort of legal right to notification of intent to abort.
|I would say that if a woman values her relationship to the father and if 
|she is a "good person" she will discuss it with the father, but legally, 
|no.

Again, we get back to a "good person", which is well and good, but
mankind is not all good - that's why there are so many problems in the
world.

|Does this mean that men have no "right" to mourn?  Of course not.  They 
|have every right to feel betrayed and to act on that---within the boundaries 
|of the law.  Divorce her, walk out, take another lover, post to the net, 
|get blindingly drunk, write sad songs, heck, lobby for father notification 

How about forgive her?  How about making sure both of you trust the 
other and know the others desires and commit yourselves to the other
BEFORE you get to the point of the mother aborting without the father's
knowledge.  

Again.  I think if one's relationship is so lacking in trust, the
relationship/marriage is in bad trouble anyway.  The two should be
commited to each other and not themselves - they should desire the
best for each other - considering the other in their actions and 
NOT BE SO SELFISH.

|laws.  Expect that I will respect your legal expressions of that pain, but 
|do not expect me to set aside my own systems of logic and beliefs to 
|willingly embrace what I view as bad law.  If the injured father can touch 
|my mind, as well as my heart, I would wholeheartedly agree with his mission.
|My heart is touched, but my mind remains steadfast in the belief that a 
|woman has the right to exercise her choices regarding her own body without 
|being required to inform anyone of those choices.

Your mind should be touched by the breaking of the trust a marriage
is supposed to represent.  If marriage is just a legal contract for
sex and no resposibility nor trust between the two, then you have a point.
However, I believe most people think marriage should be the joining of
two hearts together into one - looking out for the best of each other.

As addressing the issue of father notification out of wedlock, the
issue should have been considered before hand not after.  However, the
whole concept of marriage not being needed falls into the idea of 
I'm looking out for myself and I don't really trust the other one.
For if they did, there shouldn't be a reason not to get married, IMO.

|Disclaimer:  My beliefs along these lines are confined to the state of 
|pregnancy only.  A born child has, IMHO, a right to know her/his father. 
|The father has a right to know his child(ren).  

I know this sounds trivial and even overused, but I believe your above 
statement begs the question: What is the difference between a born child 
and one an hour from birth or even a day from birth?  The point is that 
you have a definite point (birth) at which you grant some rights or 
personhood or something to the young one, yet it seems to have NONE of 
this just prior to that point.

|I hope this clarifies a bit more the intent of my earlier posting.  It is 
|so difficult to sort out the gray areas in this forum, you know.

Your sentiments are understood, but I think there are some holes you 
need to address.

|Sue Larsen
|slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |