NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/men/23077

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 3.3 KB

Xref: sparky soc.men:23077 alt.abortion.inequity:6646 alt.feminism:7493
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!doug.cae.wisc.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!payner
From: [e-mail] (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:50:55 GMT
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Holt) writes:
>[e-mail] (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Chris Holt) writes:
>
>>>Well now; consider the case where (b) is the only reason for a woman
>>>to have an abortion.  That is, there are no rapes, no congenital
>>>defects, no pain or possible medical problems for the mother or
>>>child-to-be.  Do you think such a society would make abortion
>>>legal or illegal?
>
>>A lovely ideal.  But how does one ensure pain-free pregnancy and birth?
>
>Apologies for being unclear.  Imagine an alternative universe in
>which the positions of men and women were identical w.r.t. the
>production of a child (clearly we can't get there from here, but
>it's an interesting thought experiment).  That is, there would be
>no more burden on women than there is right now on men.  The question
>is whether such a society would make abortion illegal altogether,
>whether it would allow either parent the decision of whether
>to abort, or whether it would require joint consent.
>
>If abortion would be illegal, then financial burdens would be
>considered an insufficient basis for choosing abortion.  If joint
>consent were required for an abortion, then in the case of disagreement
>it is possible to argue that the parent wanting the child should
>shoulder a greater share of the childcare/financial burden.  If
>either parent could cause the abortion, then it would be assumed
>that both parents wanted the child, and the burden would be shared
>equitably (possibly with time/money tradeoffs).
>
>I would tend towards the belief that such a society would make
>abortion illegal, at least if it had ethics comparable to those
>of our industrialized world, because it is so controversial at
>present, and many of those who support abortion do so only because
>of the burden placed on women.  This would suggest that financial
>burdens are not considered sufficient reason; which removes the
>force behind the movement for men to have (formal) input into the
>abortion decision.

Chris, what does baseless idealogical speculation prove? I observe that
reality often bears little similarity to the way I think things would
work out on their own. The problem is not with reality, but with the
model, which is unreal.

If pigs could fly, we'd all carry stout umbrellas. Sounds deep, don't
it? :^)  But it is meaningless.

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [e-mail]      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Sometimes when you think the earth moves, it is only an earthquake.


Rich

[e-mail]