Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero-c!nadel From: uunet!infmx!robert@handies.UCAR.EDU (robert coleman) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: birth control failure? Keywords: feminism,men's rights,parenthood,choice,children Message-ID: Date: 10 Jun 91 19:10:50 GMT References: <675716623@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1991Jun3.225158.2825@milton.u.washington.edu> <676071224@lime.cs.duke.edu> <9106062203.1796@mydog.UUCP> Sender: uunet!infmx!news@handies.UCAR.EDU (Usenet News) Organization: Informix Software, Inc. Lines: 55 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >I may have missed something, but everyone in this discussion >seems to be forgetting that the claim against the father comes >not from the mother but from the child. Hillel, and usually his >antagonists as well, persist in avoiding this point so they can >get on with the war between the sexes. This has been true in >previous incarnations of this discussion, too. Nevertheless, it >remains the central issue. If the child has a "right" to two parents, then a woman who uses a sperm bank to have a child (without a partner who has agreed to share in the subsequent responsibilities) has committed a crime against the child. A mother who decides to have a child when she doesn't know who the father is has committed a crime against the child. A mother who chooses not to make publicly known who the father of the child is, because she wants full rights to raise the child, has committed a crime against the child. Strictly speaking, parents who get divorced are forcing the child to share the emotional aspects of living with parents on a part-time basis, and are committing a crime against the child. Furthermore, given only financial considerations, a family where both parents are out of work (because of layoffs, for instance) is committing a crime against the child. If the father cannot find a job, and the mother can but chooses not to, she is committing a crime against the child. A family where the income of both parents is below poverty level to begin with is committing a crime against any children they choose to bear. The law obviously does not deal consistently with the issue. For some bizarre reason, a child has these "rights" only if the parents are divorced, or if Mom is making the decision to raise the child singly and *decides* not to take full responsibility. People normally feel that, in the above cases, the child does not have any claims against the parents. Why should the child, which does not exist at the time an abortion decision must be made, have a claim against the father, who does not wish a child, in this exceptional instances? In particular, why should the child's rights hinge on whether the Mother unilaterally *decides* to name the Father? How do you feel the child's "rights" should be applied in the above situations? You need to answer this question before we can take seriously the "exceptional" cases. In the meantime, we'll continue to debate the father's right to an abortion, which occurs before there is a child, with the understanding that it wouldn't really matter whether the claim is brought by the possible child or the mother; the mother's right to an abortion is not affected by the possible existence of a child, and the father's rights should not be affected either. Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.