NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48530

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-19 | 13.8 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48530 soc.men:19561 alt.dads-rights:2642
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!ddsw1!karl
From: [e-mail] (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Summary: More discussion on this issue
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:57:54 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL
Lines: 270

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>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.
>
>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.

That is one way to define it.

The Right to Life crowd would like you to believe, however, that your right
to kill an unborn child ended when it was conceived, as that unborn child
has rights too, and you can no more kill it than you can force a separation
of siamese twins.

Some fanatical religious people would even argue that it is immoral (and
maybe ought to be illegal) to practice >chemical< birth control, or even ANY
birth control!  "Every sperm is sacred" you know.

There are many interpretations of >why< a woman should or should not have a
right to choose.  "My body, my choice", is a particularly convenient one for
women.  It happens to be one which has only a sexist implementation available.
Given the historical context of its implementation it seems rather obvious
how this particular "why" became the rallying cry of women across the
country.

I am asking women, and men, to consider that the "mine! mine! mine!" argument
is sexist and unnecessary.  It is unreasonably hostile to half the population.
It is not in your best interest.  There are other interpretations available.
Some of them, such as the one which I happen to base my argument on, happen
to be gender-blind and thus are, IMHO, preferrable.  That interpretation
sacrifices >no< rights of a woman -- or man.  In fact, it gains rights for
both sexes in both reproductive choice and custody issues, and it gains
rights for minor children.

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

My sperm is my body's product.  I declare that it is not to be used in
reproduction.  Further, my penis is to be used only for pleasurable sexual
encounters.  I declare that it is not intended to reproduce human beings.

Now just how does that differ from a woman saying that her eggs (or uterus)
are not to be used for reproduction?

The difference is that women today have the right to enforce their desire
based on the zygote being implanted in the uterus.  Men do not, since their
sperm is "detached" from their body after sexual contact.

Careful though.  Note that recently it was decided that >fertilized< eggs
which were frozen were the property of both man and woman (the famous
divorce fight) and that the man involved could >not< be compelled to become
a father against his wishes.

Now, from that decision as relavent case law I bet that it will be a short
time before a man with the money to fight manages to have it decided that
whether that zygote is internal to a human being is irrelavent to the
question of who has the right to demand that the man be a parent to the
potential result!

When (not if) science can manage to abort a fetus and keep it >alive< do you
then support that a woman who becomes pregnant, and aborts the fetus, should
STILL remain liable for the child which WILL results?  Is the woman liable
for the cost (exhorbitant I'm sure) of providing an artificial placental
attachment point and gestational unit?  After all, the PHYSICAL SOVERIEGNTY
issue evaporates when that becomes possible.  With the pace of medical
science I give it 10-20 years before this is possible -- or perhaps sooner.

BTW, some religious right-wing scientist is going to have a field day with
this one.  I bet this research is going on right now.  After all, this is
the scientific "magic bullet" that makes the entire "abortion is murder"
argument disappear.

>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.

Nope.  See above.

>>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?

Yes it is.  One must look at the effect of a right, not just the supposed
definition of "why" someone has it.  This is the basis for law in this
country Adrienne.  The reason we have anti-discrimination laws is not
because someone "ought" to have it.  It is because the >effect< of
discrimination is undesirable, and the >effect< of the lack thereof is
desirable.

>>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.

I respectfully disagree.  It is, the sexism is a deliberate product of the
method in which women decided to get the right to reproductive freedom in
the first place, and women have been guarding that gate from male entry for
20 years.

>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.

Yes you have.  The one which I posted.  The one which I will post again.
The fact is that if custody were to be split 50-50 as a matter of law, with
NO support awarded, you would have the same general effect for the kids.
One difference -- women could no longer use child support as a way to support
themselves instead, and could no longer abuse the custody process to bludgeon
men.

This, in fact, is a >win< for the children -- the people the law is supposed
to protect.  It is unarguable that kids are better off when they're not used
as prybars in divorce proceedings.  Splitting custody 50-50, awarding no
support to either party (you got the kids half the time, you got half the
expense too) and placing HEAVY penalties on baseless assertions of abuse or
obstruction of custody are all in the best interests of kids.  But it is not
in the best interests of women.

It is interesting to note that it used to be the norm that "dad" got the
kids - on the basis that the man, being the nominal wage-earner, was better
disposed to support the kids.  During the feminist "revolution", about the
time that women got the right to choose, they also managed to modify the
suppositions of the court system during custody battles.  "Tender years"
came into vogue.  I fail to believe for a minute that this was not an
intentional act.  That women refuse to help modify this situation is
hard proof -- it is in their interest, they know it, and they're going
to enjoy it as long as they can.

>>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?

You have a rapidly growing group of anti-choice people.  More men than
women are involved in this movement.  One might stop and think of the
reasons.  Hint: It isn't all religious fanatacism.

Hell, we have an entire political party which has a plank in its platform
calling for a ban on abortions >even in cases of rape or incest<!  If that
isn't a strong statement on the issue I don't know what is.  Note that the
Republicans didn't lose this election by that many popular votes.

Women are skating on >very< thin ice on this issue.

>>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?

A correct interpretation of my position is that if women aren't interested
in equality in the reproductive and child-support process, then perhaps men
have it in their best interest to gain equality by removing choices from
women.

I would prefer that men take a step up the ladder.  However, if women won't
give us a hand up we could decide to yank women down a step or two instead.

>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.

Laws can be changed.  The support of both men and women will guarantee that
it be changed.  We >do< live in a representative democracy after all.

>much reflected our historical practice* and 2. it is less costly to the
>state to set it up this way.

It is, however, more costly to the children in terms of their mental
well-being, which is the entire purpose of this "protectionism" approach.

>>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.

I think it is self-explanatory.

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

Under the present cirucmstances - yes - with much regret.   Only by being
willing to vote in this fashion will women see that I am quite serious about
this issue.

My >preference< would be to vote YES to a different proposal -- one which
guarantees reproductive rights for both genders.

>>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.

Too bad women see it as an "absolute" right based on the wrong principle.

Fact is that most abortions in this country today are for reasons of birth
control -- "aka" reproductive freedom.  Darn few are due to bodily-health
decisions, or rape/incest.  An alarming number of them are performed as
>primary< birth control.  This is not a "my body, my choice" issue -- its
a "I don't want a(nother) child at this time" issue.

A choice that only women have after the zipper falls.  Birth control ex-post
facto from the sex act, with the results of that birth control choice being
imposed on men without prior consent -- in fact, imposed on men even when
they have stated >in advance< that they do not want children.

Only women today can make that decision to not have kids stick and yet
enjoy the benefits of sexual activity.  That is sexist and unnecesary.

Just wait 10 years until science can "abort" a fetus and keep it alive.
When that happens men will be sitting back laughing their heads off.  For
then, Adrienne, women will be faced with the reality that men are today --
that their choice to have or not have a child ends when the zipper falls.

Men need do nothing other than wait for this to happen.  Oh sure, it is
sometimes interesting to work towards removing reproductive freedom for the
only gender which really has it today.  Medical technology will make the
entire question moot soon.

Trust me -- WHEN this becomes possible there had BETTER be a strong
reproductive freedom law on the books.  If there isn't women are just as
screwed as men are today -- you will have NO defense against the "life is
sacred" crowd left.  Bodily autonomy?  No problem -- get an abortion.  The
kid's yours anyway, and guess what -- you get to raise it for 18 years --
like it or not.  Don't like that choice?  Don't have sex.

Sound familiar Adrienne?  It is familiar to all men today.  Soon, it will
be a familiar refrain for women too.  UNLESS we work together to secure
our rights in this matter NOW based on gender-neutral terms.

Placing the foundation of your argument on the "my body, my choice" platform
is a seriously dangerous cornerstone to utilize.  It is one which will be
shown, in time, to be fatally flawed.  The result will be that women will
lose the right to determine when or if to have children on their own
schedule, just as men have now.

Be careful with the rationalization process you use to guard your rights
today.  Picking the wrong one so that you can be sexist in your interpretation
and implementation will have profound implications for your gender a few years
down the road.

Re-think your rationalization process.  I think you'll understand that in
the long term your position and reasons for supporting a right to choose are
the wrong ones.

--
Karl Denninger ([e-mail], <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [[phone]] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions