NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/women/21943

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 3.5 KB

Xref: sparky soc.women:21943 soc.men:21867 alt.feminism:6610 talk.abortion:53283
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Parallell situations (was Re: Muffy becomes anti-choice)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:13:44 GMT
Lines: 56

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>
>>>Unsupported assertion.  Why?  A woman retains the right NOT to legally
>>>dissolve all ties, but to REMOVE the fetus from her body.
>>
>>However, the EFFECT of a successful abortion is NOT ONLY to remove the
>>biological dependency, but to also remove the associated financial obligation
>>as well. If we parallel the latter, and it would result in more equity.
>
>Minor quibble - there is no financial obligation prior to birth.

We've had this discussion before, Larry. Saying that there is no financial
obligation before birth is like saying that there I have no financial
obligation for my credit card purchases until the bill arrives from the bank,
gas company, department store or wherever. True, there is no STATEMENT OF
ACCOUNT, until the bill arrives, but the charges are incurred well before
then. Similarly, there is no formal "billing" of pregnancy/child-support costs
until a child is born, and the paternity award is made, but that doesn't mean
the charges aren't INCURRED before the child is born.

Now, you could say that, since the mother may choose to abort, there is no
"charge" in the ordinary sense at all. To which I respond:

    A) In many states, assuming no unusual medical complications, she may
       not legally abort in the third trimester. At that point, the
       "charge" is unavoidable, and the later "billing" merely a formality.

    B) Going back to the credit card analogy, I can return merchandise
       before I receive my credit card bill. But, although the net effect
       of those two transactions is zero, legally (and according to the
       generally-accepted rules of accounting) that's two transactions --
       a debit and a credit. It's therefore still technically valid to
       say that I incurred a "charge". That the charge was later reversed
       is incidental.

>>>Upon what basis do you make this unsupported assertion?  What leads you to
>>>the conclusion that a woman's right to her physical person is a 'parallell'
>>>to a man's control  over his wallet
>>
>>No-one is saying that. Straw man. A woman's right to terminate her financial
>>liability to the child AT THE SAME TIME as her unquestioned (by me, at least)
>>right to terminate her biological connection, should be paralleled by the
>>right of a man to terminate _his_ financial liability to the child, in
>>approximately the time frame.
>
>You're assuming a "right to terminate her financial liability"; it seems
>to me that preventing any such liability from coming into being is a side
>effect of preventing any child from being born.

It's an effect, nonetheless, and that's all that matters. Whether it's one
of the "main" effects or a "side" effect is just a matter of arbitrary
semantics.

                                - Kevin