NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48321

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 4.0 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48321 soc.men:19470 alt.dads-rights:2627
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!murignis!horus.ap.mchp.sni.de!D012S658!frank
From: [e-mail] (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 17 Nov 1992 20:32:38 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> [deadbeat dad sob story]
>>>>
>>>>But the issue under discussion is whether a father has to support his
>>>>children.  It seems to me that the father I describe is not.
>>>
>>> Sheesh. Can't you see the difference between voluntary acceptance of
>>> responsibility, and imposed obligations not grounded in any fair accounting
>>> of liability? Prior consent of the one liable makes all the difference.
>>
>>So, there was no prior consent to sex?  The man was raped?  The law looks
>>upon consenual sex as being the consent to being a parent.
>
>The abortion laws do NOT look upon things this way. Why should the paternity
>child support laws differ?

They could, without affecting the woman's right to abort.  And they should,
IMO.  You consent to sex, you take a risk.  In the woman's case, she has a
compelling right to preserve her bodily autonomy and withdraw from physically
supporting the foetus.  A side effect of this is that the foetus is
indirectly caused to die.  A man has the same right - he just has less
opportunity to use it.

What you need to establish, or find, is a principle whereby either parent may
unilaterally withdraw from the financial obligations of parenthood - in
essence, give their share of parenthood up for adoption.  Good luck to you in
finding this principle of half-adoption - abortion isn't it.  Anything you
turn up is probably an injustice to be removed, rather than a principle to
be used to allow fathers to escape their financial responsibilities.

>>Sigh, we've talked about this before in this group.
>
>In talk.abortion?

Sure have.  I used to get told I wanted to punish women for having sex.  Now
I'm pro-choice, and I have exactly the same opinion of the responsibilities
that should attach to consensual sex.  Apparently I don't want to punish
women for having sex, anymore.  No doubt someone will now tell me that I wish
to punish men instead.

>>I'm the mother (and foster mother)
>>of a housefull of boys.  I tell my boys that if they get a girl pregnant
>>then they are responsible for the child that ensues.  They are told that the
>>only safe sex is no sex.  There's always a chance of error in the contrecetives
>>and they must take this risk into consideration.  If they don't realize that
>>pregnancy happens then they are being stupid.
>
>Have you also told them that if they are lied to or misled or defrauded about
>birth control and/or fertility, that they are STILL "on the hook" legally
>speaking? Have you told them that, in theory at least, they're still on the
>hook, even -if- they are raped? Have you told them about the "free ride" effect
>aka the illegitimate child incentive for women?

Where were these gangs of women who want to gull innocent men into fatherhood
when I was 14, is what I want to know.

>                                - Kevin

--
[e-mail]   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'