NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48277

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 7.0 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48277 soc.men:19457 alt.dads-rights:2624
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!sdd.hp.com!nobody
From: [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 17 Nov 1992 12:14:58 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>I suppose then that you won't mind if all of us men who see it as terribly
>>>unequal that women can choose AFTER sex whether or not to have a child,
>>>while we cannot, make damn sure you LOSE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
>>This fellow isn't out to equalize the situation between parents.  He's out
>>to take away a woman's bodily autonomy because he can't get a legal 'out'
>>to a biological reality.
>Nope.  There is no biological reality which claims that it is necessary that
>since I pulled down my zipper as a man, that I want to support a child if
>one ensues - EVEN IF I PRACTICE BIRTH CONTROL.

Karl, you are missing one very important point, entirely.

A woman's right to abort has nothing to do with her 'right to be a parent'
or her 'right not to be a parent'.  That isn't a right that anybody has
(probably on account of it would make for very difficult definition and
protections).  What a woman has is the right to define how her physical
body will or will not be used.

Which is precisely analogous and symetrical to a man's right to determine how
his physical body will or will not be used.

However, the minute to transmute a woman's right to PHYSICAL soveriegnty
into some kind of social obligation, you get a dandy, but useless, argument
for male-choice.  Because you are basing your argument on air.

>It most certainly IS about male choice.  It is about reproductive freedom
>for BOTH sexes.

Which is *not* what the abortion argument is based upon, now, is it, Karl?

>No, Adrienne, the choice is between reproductive rights for everyone or no
>one.  The law does not have to be sexist.

It isn't, now.

>But biology has >nothing< to do with responsibility
>for resulting offspring.

And the law does, and the law is symetrical.

What is *not* symetrical is the circumstances of the persons involved going
into the realm of the law.  GENERALLY, the woman has physical custody.
GENERALLY, the man does not.  GENERALLY, males are hit for court mandated
child support.

These things ARE inequitable.  But I haven't seen a proposal to this net
yet that does a very good job of addressing the causes of the inequity, or
the inequity itself in any particularly good way.

See, there are rich people and poor people in this world.  We *could* make
it all *fair* by paying everybody the same amount and charging everybody the
same amount for the same stuff, but even then it wouldn't be 'fair', now
would it?

>Men are damn tired of playing this game and aren't going to take it any
>more.  The feminists of this world have a few things to learn -- that the

Ah.  You imply that you know of multiple men who have some reason to take
action on this front.  Which in turn implies that this concern is a 'real'
concern, as opposed to merely more convenient rhetoric to oppose abortion.
Perhaps you can help us out here on this by giving us any supporting data
you may have on how 'big' the 'problem' is?

See, I've participated in this particular discussion a number of times
over the years, and I've heard and we've seen on this net, all kinds of
anecdotal evidence to support both sides of the argument.  But I've never
seen any information that would help persuade me that this is a real
problem that really needs addressing through legislative action, and that
the cost of the cure, as I perceive it, is more than born out by the
current cost of the problem.

Now, I fancy myself to be a semi reasonable person.  I have been swayed
by arguments pro and con on birth control, gun control, abortion, literally
hundreds of local ballot measures, etc.  Do you have any data that can help
convince the reasonable persons on this net that we are facing a 'real'
problem that needs a legislative solution?

I don't care whether or not you offer supporting evidence on what
'feminists need to learn'.  I'm talking about the first portion of your
sentence.

>I am all for reproductive freedom -- IF and ONLY IF it is applied fairly.

How would you have the people of this net interpret this line?  I have
used your postings so far as an example to Will of people who feel that
if they don't get what they want with issueA, then they WILL remove from
women the right to abort.  Is that or is that not a correct interpretation
of your position?

>This is incongruent with the radical feminist element which proclaims that
>....... and whether a man will be a parent or not -- and then attaches to
>that choice the financial consequences of HER DECISION to the other party.

You will note, if and when you do your research, Karl, that the woman does
not make this assumption for the man.  It is the laws of the state and country
that make this assumption.  The woman couldn't waive it if she wanted to.
Now, certainly, she can neglect to enforce it, and many have.  But that isn't
the same thing.  It is also undoubtedly true that some women have gleefully
USED the state force, but that isn't the same thing either.

The presumption that the parents of the child (defined by law) will be
required to support the child (defined by law, and satisfied within hte
confines of still more definition having to do with 'ability to pay') is
a presumption adopted by the state because of two things:  1.  it pretty
much reflected our historical practice* and 2. it is less costly to the
state to set it up this way.

(*note that if our historical practice had differed significantly, for
example, if we had been a strongly tribal society, this series of laws
wouldn't have looked so good, and probably wouldn't have been adopted.  It
may have been that the children would all belong to the 'tribe', or to the
'state', or whatever social constructs were in effect at the time.  Because
of the cost consideration, we would have probably seen a concomittant
financial [support] obligation levied against all members of the tribe for
the maintenance of these children because it ain't free, and the kids aren't
yet productive.)

>I say that if a man's choice ends when his zipper falls, so shall a woman's.

Please remind me again on how to interpret this comment, because I really
wouldn't care to misrepresent you.

Would you or would you not vote to revoke a woman's right to abort?

>Women can either decide to fight >with< men for reproductive freedom, or
>against men.

Too bad you see it as an either/or battle, Karl.

Adrienne Regard