al885@cwns9.ins.cwru.edu (Gerard Pinzone a.k.a. Ataru Moroboshi) (06/13/91)
| Gordon persists in avoiding | this point, but he tries to give moral and legal arguments why a | break in condom (or a woman's lie about birth control) should | destroy a man's life. | |It's not the break in the condom, it's the man's own stupidity. If he's |so worried, let him get a vasectomy. If he's willing to take the risk |of condoms, read CR to find out which ones are less likely to break. |Why should a woman have to go through one of two dangerous procedures |(abortion and pregnancy) because of a *man's* lie or a "break in |condom"? *Everyone* involved needs to be responsible. Well, using your own logic....why couldn't the woman get a tubal ligation? It was her own stupidity that she got pregnant in the first place. To use such unreliable methods such as condoms (accidents happen) and vasectomy (which has NUMEROUS cases of failure to protect) instead of a more practical and safe form of BC, surely would shift the responsibility to the woman. Like you said....*everyone* involved needs to be responsible. =========Gerard Pinzone=======================gpinzone@george.poly.edu========= _______ ________ ________ Just on the border of your waking mind / ___/ / _____/ / __ / There lies another time / ___/ / /____ / __ / Where darkness and light are one /______/ /_______/ /__/ /__/ And as you tread the halls of sanity East Coast Anime You feel so glad to be unable to go beyond ELO: "Prologue" -=- Daicon IV I have a message from another time...
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun13.155237.12650@aero.org> al885@cwns9.ins.cwru.edu (Gerard Pinzone a.k.a. Ataru Moroboshi) writes: | Gordon persists in avoiding | this point, but he tries to give moral and legal arguments why a | break in condom (or a woman's lie about birth control) should | destroy a man's life. | |It's not the break in the condom, it's the man's own stupidity. If he's |so worried, let him get a vasectomy. If he's willing to take the risk |of condoms, read CR to find out which ones are less likely to break. |Why should a woman have to go through one of two dangerous procedures |(abortion and pregnancy) because of a *man's* lie or a "break in |condom"? *Everyone* involved needs to be responsible. Well, using your own logic....why couldn't the woman get a tubal ligation? Because the woman *wants* a child. Since she does, it would be silly for her to have an operation preventing her from having one, eh? This whole discussion has been based on "men's right to an abortion" (hey, it's fine with me if they want to get vacuumed or scraped out), which apparently means that men should have the right to reject all responsibility if a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep the child. So, it is the *man* who does not want children, and it is therefore up to him to prevent them. After all, he might sleep with *anyone*, so *one* woman having an operation won't do him much good. It was her own stupidity that she got pregnant in the first place. Not at all. If she wants a child, it is hardly stupid for her to be pregnant. To use such unreliable methods such as condoms (accidents happen) and vasectomy (which has NUMEROUS cases of failure to protect) Humm...well, if that's true, maybe men who want sex but not children should just have their testicles removed altogether? I understand that that is 100% effective. After all, tubal ligations are not 100% effective either (hysterectomies are, though) - plus, if the men who don't want children want to sleep with more than one woman, it can be *so* time-consuming to make each woman go have an operation before sex. Also, as I recall, when I had (minor) abdominal surgery, I had to stay in bed for a week afterward, so there'd also be all the missed work and such. Kind of a pain, and I don't think most women would want to go through that just so they could have sex with a man who didn't want children. instead of a more practical and safe form of BC, surely would shift the responsibility to the woman. Like you said....*everyone* involved needs to be responsible. But, again, it would be silly to shift the responsibility to only one person, especially when it's the other person that is the one who doesn't want children. I know it's a little difficult to grasp (in this society, anyway) that the person who doesn't want children (if there is only one) should do something about it, but it seems like the natural conclusion to me. Muffy
newman@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Bill Newman) (06/16/91)
In article <MUFFY.91Jun13102345@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >In article <1991Jun13.155237.12650@aero.org> al885@cwns9.ins.cwru.edu (Gerard Pinzone a.k.a. Ataru Moroboshi) writes: > instead of a more practical and safe form of BC, surely would shift > the responsibility to the woman. Like you said....*everyone* involved > needs to be responsible. > >But, again, it would be silly to shift the responsibility to only one >person, especially when it's the other person that is the one who ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >doesn't want children. I know it's a little difficult to grasp (in this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >society, anyway) that the person who doesn't want children (if there is >only one) should do something about it, but it seems like the natural >conclusion to me. > >Muffy I don't understand this at all. To me, it seems unreasonable to say that a person who opposed an action is more responsible for the consequences of that action than someone who favored the action. "It would be silly to shift the responsibility for the consequences of America's involvement in the Persian Gulf war to the people who supported our involvement, especially when it was the other people who didn't want to get involved."? As for the second part, Most People On Both Sides Of This Argument agree that the best way to avoid having children you don't want is to prevent conception. However, accidents happen, and MPOBSOTA are willing to at least accept the policy that a pregnant woman has the right to decide whether to have an abortion. This makes it impossible for the man who doesn't want children to do anything about it after birth control failure. If you want the man who doesn't want children to do something about it, how do you propose modifying this policy? I can imagine forced abortions, or perhaps a gubernatorial policy of pardons for men who are forced to kill their sex partners to avoid unwanted children. I honestly can't think of a palatable policy. Can you? Bill Newman newman@theory.tn.cornell.edu
jmm@cs.brown.EDU (Jim Meyers) (06/16/91)
In article <1991Jun14.131823.10859@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> newman@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Bill Newman) writes: > >As for the second part, Most People On Both Sides Of This Argument >agree that the best way to avoid having children you don't want is to >prevent conception. However, accidents happen, and MPOBSOTA are >willing to at least accept the policy that a pregnant woman has the >right to decide whether to have an abortion. This makes it impossible >for the man who doesn't want children to do anything about it after >birth control failure. If you want the man who doesn't want children >to do something about it, how do you propose modifying this policy? I >can imagine forced abortions, or perhaps a gubernatorial policy of >pardons for men who are forced to kill their sex partners to avoid >unwanted children. I honestly can't think of a palatable policy. Can >you? It's really not that complicated... - The original purpose of sexual intercourse was to reproduce. - Every method of birth control has a failure rate. - The consequence of this failure is pregnancy. - Thus, "recreational" sex has it's risks. - Once a woman becomes pregnant, she should have to right to decide to do whatever she wants to with her body. (If you and your sex partner do not share the same opinion about the right to choose, then you shouldn't be having sex). - If a child is born, then both parents are equally responsible for him/her. If the man involved doesn't like the rules, then he shouldn't play the game. Nobody should have the "right" to engage in sexual intercourse as a purely recreational activity without assuming responsibility for the consequences. ________________________________________________________________________ Jim Meyers | | Brown University Box 1910 | jmm@cs.brown.edu | Providence, RI 02912 | (401)-863-7682 |
rawdon@rex.cs.tulane.EDU (Michael Rawdon) (06/18/91)
In <78595@brunix.UUCP> jmm@cs.brown.EDU (Jim Meyers) writes: >It's really not that complicated... >- The original purpose of sexual intercourse was to reproduce. I would debate that this was "the" original purpose, though I doubt the debate would be very fruitful, seeing as we don't really know anyone from the "original" times. >- Every method of birth control has a failure rate. >- The consequence of this failure is pregnancy. >- Thus, "recreational" sex has it's risks. True, but so does walking down the street. You could get hit by a car, or, perhaps, have a meteor fall on your head. (A miniscule chance, true, but it could happen.) >- Once a woman becomes pregnant, she should have to right to decide to > do whatever she wants to with her body. (If you and your sex partner > do not share the same opinion about the right to choose, then you > shouldn't be having sex). Fair enough. >- If a child is born, then both parents are equally responsible for him/her. This I would agree with only if both parents agreed, of their own free will (i.e. no annoying legislation compelling them) to be responsible for the child. I think that either or both should have the ability to bow out (I'm mainly thinking financially) if they want. >If the man involved doesn't like the rules, then he shouldn't play the >game. Nobody should have the "right" to engage in sexual intercourse >as a purely recreational activity without assuming responsibility for >the consequences. I always get a little leery of some of the concepts of responsibility that I see tossed around. I personally prefer the following scheme: - The woman can abort the fetus at any time for any reason. It's her body, after all. (Longtime talk.abortion readers will be familiar with my stance on the subject, but it's mostly peripheral to the issue here.) - The woman can choose to have the child but not accept responsibility for it (i.e., give it up for adoption, or give it to the father). In this case, the father may or may not choose to accept responsibility for it, but he makes his decision recognizing that the woman is not accepting responsibility. - The man can choose not to accept responsibility for the child if the woman has it. In this case, the woman may choose not to have the child (if, for instance, she decides she doesn't want to give it up for adoption and can't raise it by herself), or have the child and give it up for adoption, or have the child and raise it herself. - Both the parents may choose not to accept responsibility for the child, but the woman has it anyway (and gives it up for adoption). I think this is an entirely responsible approach which promotes the greatest freedom of choice among both the man and the woman. I don't believe that a woman should, under any circumstances, have the right to raise a child with money that is (essentially) stolen from someone else (the father). Even if she makes it clear prior to sex that she is not using birth control and actually wants a child , I believe the man should have the ability to back out up to the time of birth. I believe the woman should also have this ability to back out, or to have an abortion, at any time up to birth of the child. The attitude I disagree with is that of, "You only get one roll of the dice - when you have sex - and if you blow it, well, it's time to cash in your chips and start paying child support." (Block that metaphor! :-) My attitude is one of, "Give the man (or woman) another roll. It's their money, after all." -- Michael Rawdon Internet: rawdon@rex.cs.tulane.edu Bitnet: CS6FECU@TCSVM "...I guess I'd rather have mediocre Star Trek than none at all." - A friend, about the TNG episode "Legacy"
robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) (06/20/91)
jmm@cs.brown.EDU (Jim Meyers) writes:
-It's really not that complicated...
-- The original purpose of sexual intercourse was to reproduce.
-- Every method of birth control has a failure rate.
-- The consequence of this failure is pregnancy.
-- Thus, "recreational" sex has it's risks.
-- Once a woman becomes pregnant, she should have to right to decide to
- do whatever she wants to with her body. (If you and your sex partner
- do not share the same opinion about the right to choose, then you
- shouldn't be having sex).
Wow, you're going great guns up to this point...
-- If a child is born, then both parents are equally responsible for him/her.
And then you blow it. Why? If the woman has the choice
whether to create a child from some fuzzy raw material, why shouldn't
she be responsible for that choice? Really, this thinking is a
construct left over from a social system based on the fact that a
woman *didn't* have control over her own body; a social system
designed to work around the fact that abortions weren't possible (in
any kind of safe or predictable way).
Now it's possible, both medically and socially, for a woman to
take control of her own body. It's time to revamp our social system to
account for the inequities involved in applying an old social system
in a new environment.
It used to be that women didn't have any choice. It was fair
then for men to have no choice. Now a woman has a choice; it becomes
fair for a man to have a choice. To quote someone else, "It's really
not that complicated".
-If the man involved doesn't like the rules, then he shouldn't play the
-game.
The "rules" are entirely social constructs. Rather than
simply saying "this is the way it should be" with no justification,
show us some valid reason for the rules as applied to men to remain
static while the rules as applied to women change.
-Nobody should have the "right" to engage in sexual intercourse
-as a purely recreational activity without assuming responsibility for
-the consequences.
Not even women? Abortions can and have been used as a method
of birth control, you know, a method of having purely recreation
sexual intercourse without assuming the responsibility for the
consequences. Or did you really men "No men" when you said "Nobody"?
Robert C.
--
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.ben@cs.warwick.ac.UK (Ben Dessau) (06/21/91)
uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) writes: > And then you blow it. Why? If the woman has the choice >whether to create a child from some fuzzy raw material, why shouldn't >she be responsible for that choice? > Not even women? Abortions can and have been used as a method >of birth control, you know, a method of having purely recreation >sexual intercourse without assuming the responsibility for the >consequences. Or did you really men "No men" when you said "Nobody"? You make it sound as if the woman's choice was as simple as deciding what to have for lunch. Deciding to have an abortion is very traumatic, (especially with LIFE-ers calling you a murderer). Giving up a baby for adoption is very traumatic. A lot of women don't want to work full time (so that they can support the baby to a reasonable standard) and have their baby in a chreche/childminder etc. In your scheme the man has the choice of: A financial burden vs no financial burden. The woman has the choice of: Financial burden vs Major trauma. Not a fair choice. -Ben -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: "What do you say to people who | Ben Dessau cs/res/ben Postgrad accuse you of blatant electioneering?" | ben@cs.warwick.ac.uk A: "VOTE FOR ME!!!" | +44 203 523523 ex 2368
robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) (06/24/91)
ben@cs.warwick.ac.UK (Ben Dessau) writes: >uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) writes: >> And then you blow it. Why? If the woman has the choice >>whether to create a child from some fuzzy raw material, why shouldn't >>she be responsible for that choice? >> Not even women? Abortions can and have been used as a method >>of birth control, you know, a method of having purely recreation >>sexual intercourse without assuming the responsibility for the >>consequences. Or did you really men "No men" when you said "Nobody"? > You make it sound as if the woman's choice was as simple as >deciding what to have for lunch. Deciding to have an abortion is very >traumatic, (especially with LIFE-ers calling you a murderer). Giving >up a baby for adoption is very traumatic. A lot of women don't want to >work full time (so that they can support the baby to a reasonable >standard) and have their baby in a chreche/childminder etc. > In your scheme the man has the choice of: >A financial burden vs no financial burden. > The woman has the choice of: >Financial burden vs Major trauma. >Not a fair choice. You're right. It's not fair. It's biology. Biology means that men cannot ultimately decide, after conception, that a child will be created from some of his genetic material. Biology means that men cannot ultimately decide, after conception, that a child *will not* be created from some of his genetic material. Biology means that men cannot have a child without a willing female partner. And biology means that one of the choices women face in the case of pregnancy is Major trauma. We can't fix any of these things, and every one of them is unfair. Notice, though, that both sides have advantages over the other, as well as disadvantages. I should also point out that for some women, abortion is not a major trauma. And for some men, the choice between financial burden or no isn't as easy as you make it sound. You'd probably be surprised to learn that I'd find having to make that choice very traumatic. I'll bet you would too. My scheme is nowhere as simple as you describe it, however. Since I support the idea of pre-coital contract, what I support is making the decision in advance of the situation rather than during the situation, and knowing what your partner's decision is. Is it unreasonable to cause two people to consider the consequences of their actions before they take those actions? And even that can't be made fair, because the woman can choose to renege on part of her decision if she finds herself in the situation. If the man doesn't believe in abortion, and she agrees to have a child to be supported by both in the event of accidental conception, she can change her mind and have an abortion, and there's nothing he can do about it. And if she decides to have a baby when she's agreed not to, there's nothing he can do about it again. If, however, the man decides he does want to father his child, but has given up paternal rights/responsibilites, he cannot alter his choice. If he decides he doesn't want to pay support after he's agreed to, he cannot renege. There is no way to make the situation fair. The current situation is not fair either. What I'd like is some way to make the situation as fair as possible, and I think this idea takes us several steps closer. Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.