Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!sophie
From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Equal Access to Pleasure
Message-ID: <2059@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 8-Sep-85 17:59:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.2059
Posted: Sun Sep  8 17:59:06 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 19:16:21 EDT
References: <1261@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Distribution: net
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 28
Summary: 

In article <1261@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes:
>Since "Equal Access to Pleasure" was MY article title, let me
>state my position on the argument between R. Frank and unixcorn:
>
>Consistent "Responsibility" positions:
>
>	1)  No abortion on demand for the pregnant woman;
>	2)  Enforcement of the father's obligation to support his child.
>
>Consistent "No-responsibility" positions:
>
>	1)  Abortion on demand for the woman if she
>	    does not want the child.
>	2)  The father can walk away scot-free from 
>	    any support obligations if he did not want the child.
>
>I support the consistent "Responsibility" positions, as does the Reagan
>administration.

And as I am pro-choice, I support option 2 with the reservations that the
father should be under the obligation the pay for half of the abortion if
the mother desires one, or that he should be obligated to support the
child if he decided he did not want the child when it was too late for
the woman to have an abortion (assuming he was aware of the pregnancy of
course).
-- 
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie