Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!mcnc!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!mazur
From: mazur@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re Abortion - Men's Rights - (nf)
Message-ID: <1178@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 31-Mar-84 00:35:08 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1178
Posted: Sat Mar 31 00:35:08 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Apr-84 19:49:39 EST
Lines: 28

#R:csin:-37000:inmet:10900065:000:1143
inmet!mazur    Mar 28 18:22:00 1984

< let's try this again >

   	another problem with this is that it treats the result of intercourse 
	as a property in which both parties have an ownership interest, which 
	is a hell of a way to start trying to raise a human being. 

Well if you replace property with child, and delete ownership, I think you'll
come alot closer to what Larry was trying to express.  While I don't agree that
the father's wishes should take precedence over the mother's, it is an issue
that is raised occasionally.  As far as treating the potential child as  
property, this is not much worse than what usually happens to children during
the divorce of their parents.  Actually, it is worse; the children are usually
aware of it then.

   	If she takes any precautions, or encourages you to take any, she's 
	stated her choice in the matter;

I tend to agree with this statement.  The reason a woman may not want to carry
a child to term for the father to raise are more or less similar to the reasons
a woman may not want to carry the child to term to be adopted.

I'll go quietly to net.abortion now, sorry :-).

Beth Mazur
{ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazur