muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (05/31/91)
In article <675575737@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: In article <15263.283c1f6f@zeus.unomaha.edu> (Sharon L. O'Neil) writes: [Gloria Steinem's talk/concern for men] > environment. Of course she talked a lot about pro-choice. Did a person who is so "deeply concern" about men has a single word to say about choice-for-men in a case of birth control failure? Why you tossed this irrelevant point in (like, "if you're so concerned about the environment, what do you have to say about office air-conditioning?"), I do not know. However, I think I have an answer for *your* concern. If there is a birth control failure with me and a man, he is welcome to choose to carry (or otherwise incubate) and raise the child if he wants to. He can't tell me I have to, though. Muffy
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (06/01/91)
[Gloria Steinem's talk/concern for men] # environment. Of course she talked a lot about pro-choice. $ Did a person who is so "deeply concern" about men has a single word $ to say about choice-for-men in a case of birth control failure? In article <MUFFY.91May30141445@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >Why you tossed this irrelevant point in (like, "if you're so concerned >about the environment, what do you have to say about office >air-conditioning?"), I do not know. I asked "if you are so concerned about X then why did not you talk about that, even when you talked about a strongly related issue"? >However, I think I have an answer >for *your* concern. If there is a birth control failure with me and a >man, he is welcome to choose to carry (or otherwise incubate) and raise >the child if he wants to. He can't tell me I have to, though. I have no intention to force you to carry a child you don't want, so please lay down your prepared "choice for *WOMEN*" speech. The question is if you, personally, will support a law the will give a choice for men in a case of birth control failure, and what kind of choice you may be willing to offer to *MEN*. >Muffy Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "It's because he's "concerned," George -- which in today's Esalen- Speak means he's going to be a good liberal and show that he is aware, no disgusted, by these things, but he just can't be bothered to do anything about them. Concerned. That's what it means." -- Clay Bond
DOCTORJ@slacvm.slac.stanford.EDU (Jon J Thaler) (06/01/91)
In article <MUFFY.91May30141445@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) says: > >In article <675575737@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) : >writes > > Did a person who is so "deeply concern" about men has a single word > to say about choice-for-men in a case of birth control failure? > >Why you tossed this irrelevant point in (like, "if you're so concerned >about the environment, what do you have to say about office >air-conditioning?"), I do not know. However, I think I have an answer >for *your* concern. If there is a birth control failure with me and a >man, he is welcome to choose to carry (or otherwise incubate) and raise >the child if he wants to. He can't tell me I have to, though. I think you misunderstood HG's argument. This isn't hard since he seldom posts anything more substantive than one-liners. I think the argument is: Suppose there is a failure of birth control, and the man doesn't want the baby, but the woman does. Since an abortion can't be forced on the woman (it's her decision) shouldn't her decision also carry with it the release of the man from any parental obligations?
twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) (06/04/91)
In article <675716623@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: > >The question is if you, personally, will support a law the will give a >choice for men in a case of birth control failure, and what kind of >choice you may be willing to offer to *MEN*. Hillel, I'd be most interested in reading your draft of a law that would "give a choice for men in a case of birth control failure." Show us language, and defend its constitutionality. I'm really tired of hearing you endlessly criticize others who are struggling in good faith with difficult issues and offering nothing but cheap sarcasm in response. --Barbara -- Barbara Hlavin Mr Speaker, I smell a rat; I see him forming twain@milton.u.washington.edu in the air and darkening the sky; but I'll nip him in the bud. -Sir Boyle Roche
rivero@dev8b.mdcbbs.com (06/04/91)
In article <MUFFY.91May30141445@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: > If there is a birth control failure with me and a > man, he is welcome to choose to carry (or otherwise incubate) and raise > the child if he wants to. He can't tell me I have to, though. > > Muffy -- Muffy If that were in fact, a "real world" (where we all live) option, I am sure that many men (including myself) would exercise it and thereby avoid marrying a woman who didn't want to be a mother anyway! ========================================================================== \\\\ Michael Rivero | "I drank WHAT!" |"Why bother with marriage?| (. rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs | Socrates -------------------Just find a | )> DISCLAIMER::: |-----------| "Life is CHEAP! |woman you hate == "Hey man, I wasn't |Looking4luv| But toilet paper|and buy her a | ---/ even here then!" |Settle4sex!| is EXPENSIVE!" | house!" | ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------+++++++++++++++
judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) (06/04/91)
In article <675716623@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: > >The question is if you, personally, will support a law the will give a >choice for men in a case of birth control failure, and what kind of >choice you may be willing to offer to *MEN*. > >Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu Hillel, It's good to see you haven't given up this bandwagon :-) How's this sound... If the man used a birth control device and if the man can prove that this device was properly used but failed anyway, then the man can legally deny parentage to the child and cannot be brought to court later. However, if the man did NOT attempt to his best ability to provide birth control, he is stuck! That way, if you REALLY don't want a child, you have the ability to make sure in every way possible that you won't have one and the legal incentive to carry this out. (Similar incentive women have had all these years which makes us so much more consciencous about BC than our male counterparts. Just a late night thought... Judy Tyrer
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun04.053815.2412091@locus.com> judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes: >How's this sound... >If the man used a birth control device and if the man can prove that this >device was properly used but failed anyway, then the man can legally >deny parentage to the child and cannot be brought to court later. However, >if the man did NOT attempt to his best ability to provide birth control, >he is stuck! That way, if you REALLY don't want a child, you have the >ability to make sure in every way possible that you won't have one and >the legal incentive to carry this out. It sounds to *me* just like: If the woman used a birth control device and if the woman can prove that this device was properly used but failed anyway, then the woman can legally have an abortion. However, if the woman did NOT attempt to his best ability to provide birth control, she is stuck! That way, if you REALLY don't want a child, you have the ability to make sure in every way possible that you won't have one and the legal incentive to carry this out. >Judy Tyrer Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "When I do it to you it's sexism, when you do it to me it's feminism."
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun3.225158.2825@milton.u.washington.edu> twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes: >Hillel, I'd be most interested in reading your draft of a law >that would "give a choice for men in a case of birth control failure." When the woman discovers the pregnancy she will give the man two choices: 1) Signing an agreement to support the child. 2) Signing off all his rights and responsibilities toward the child. A standard form, made by the state, will be used. If he refuses to sign, or she can't locate him, she will contact a state agency that will mail it to him, registered. If he will not answer in a week then an ad will be put in a daily newspaper. If he will not answer in another week, then he will have no rights or responsibilities toward the child. The expenses will be quite low because: 1) Most women will be able to locate the expected fathers. 2) There will be just standard paper work; no running around to look for people. 3) Most men will not want to see such publication about them and a daily newspaper, and therefore they will answer, fast. Women will have an interest to start the process early so a *low* risk abortion will be an option for her. >I'm really tired of hearing you endlessly criticize others >who are struggling in good faith with difficult issues and >offering nothing but cheap sarcasm in response. 1) This offer was presented several times on the net, and it was *flamed* by feminists. [This topic has NOT come up in soc.feminism before (the last round was in soc.women, right about the time this group was formed, in early 1989. Therefore, the complaint is not valid for this group, since it is "closed off" by being moderated and non-crossposted. This should be kept in mind. --CTM] 2) I define "good faith" by what people do/suggest/support, not by the "deep concern" they express. >Barbara Hlavin Mr Speaker, I smell a rat; I see him forming Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "Were we the ones who called the shots, there would be no institutional discrimination against us." -- Clay Bond
rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun04.053815.2412091@locus.com>, judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes: > If the man used a birth control device and if the man can prove that this > device was properly used but failed anyway, then the man can legally > deny parentage to the child and cannot be brought to court later. Here is another example of "ignoring the whole for the sake of one side". This idea, while it looks good from the male point of view, saddles the woman with the result of an "industrial accident". Prior to getting married, I used condoms (Guys, women actually like it if you have an assortment). As I re-enter single life, I shall continue to do so. HOWEVER, I recognize that the little percent sign in the effectiveness column does not read 100%. And just like the lottery, there is a small but finite chance that things might work a little differently than normal! If you drive on the freeway, you reduce your chance for injury in an accident by wearing your seat belt, but you do NOT eliminate it. If you share a night with a woman, you reduce your chance for a pregnancy (and STD) by using a condom, but you do NOT eliminate it. In both cases, that risk is something you have deciced to accept, whether it is to drive to work or to play snuggles all night long. Maybe you can sue the maker of the automobile/birthcontrol, but YOU get to live with the results. How can you arbitrarily assign the child to the female and let the man go scott free? > However, > if the man did NOT attempt to his best ability to provide birth control, > he is stuck! That way, if you REALLY don't want a child, you have the > ability to make sure in every way possible that you won't have one and > the legal incentive to carry this out. (Similar incentive women have had > all these years which makes us so much more consciencous about BC than > our male counterparts. Here we get into some weird legal issues. Just how do you determine "best ability to provide birth control"? Sounds like a good way to send some lawyers kids through school. And I RESENT the crack about how women are more consciencous about BC than men. Most men are very responsible for their own bodies (and the rest are appropriatly terrified of the current legal climate). ========================================================================== \\\\ Michael Rivero | "I drank WHAT!" | "I favor population | \ (. rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs | Socrates ------------------- control, as | )> DISCLAIMER::: |-----------|Anyone who does | long as it's | == "Hey man, I wasn't |Looking4luv|not get 8 hugs a | with someone | ---/ even here then!" |Settle4sex!|day is in trouble| else's kids!"| ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------+++++++++++++++
mara@cmcl2.nyu.EDU (Mara Chibnik) (06/05/91)
In article <675716623@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) addresses Muffy Barkocy: >I have no intention to force you to carry a child you don't want, >so please lay down your prepared "choice for *WOMEN*" speech. He may honestly mean it, but it isn't enough. As things now stand, women are actively discouraged from seeking abortions. To demand that a man be able to pull out with simple efficiency by the announcement that he disowns the pregnancy is simply not sufficient unless and until a woman can truly terminate the pregnancy without having to undergo the kind of pressuring that she now faces. >choice for men in a case of birth control failure, and what kind of >choice you may be willing to offer to *MEN*. Turn the women's right to an abortion into reality rather than myth, and then let's see what we can offer men. Does this sound biased to you? Please bear in mind that unless abortion rights are guaranteed, two people will become parents, whether or not that's what they wanted and intended. Moderators should feel free to redirect followups, but I don't expect to participate further in this thread. -- cmcl2!panix!mara Mara Chibnik mara@dorsai.com Life is too important to be taken seriously.
farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.EDU (lisa ann farmer) (06/05/91)
In article <676071224@lime.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In article <1991Jun3.225158.2825@milton.u.washington.edu> twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes: > >>Hillel, I'd be most interested in reading your draft of a law >>that would "give a choice for men in a case of birth control failure." > >When the woman discovers the pregnancy she will give the man two choices: > >1) Signing an agreement to support the child. > >2) Signing off all his rights and responsibilities toward the child. > >A standard form, made by the state, will be used. > >If he refuses to sign, or she can't locate him, she will contact a state >agency that will mail it to him, registered. If he will not answer in a >week then an ad will be put in a daily newspaper. If he will not answer >in another week, then he will have no rights or responsibilities toward >the child. How Convenient! If the male ignores the fact that he has impregnated a female he will therefore have no obligation to the child. By this system I can imagine very few males (except those prepared and wanting parenthood) to accept responsibilty. I don't buy it and I won't vote for it. >The expenses will be quite low because: > >1) Most women will be able to locate the expected fathers. > >2) There will be just standard paper work; no running around > to look for people. > >3) Most men will not want to see such publication about them and > a daily newspaper, and therefore they will answer, fast. Who is going to pay for this? The newspaper? The woman? And why would a woman want to announce to the public that she is pregnant and doesn't know where the father is? This could get her into bad situations at work, she could be considered "easy" and therefore more at risk to be raped, if she does decide to get an abortion after it is announced in the paper people will know, etc. Lisa farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu "If people want to make war they should make a colour war and paint each other's cities up in the night in pinks and greens." Yoko Ono (_Louder than Words_)
jan@oas.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel) (06/06/91)
In article <676071224@lime.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In article <1991Jun3.225158.2825@milton.u.washington.edu> twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes: > >>Hillel, I'd be most interested in reading your draft of a law >>that would "give a choice for men in a case of birth control failure." > >When the woman discovers the pregnancy she will give the man two choices: > >1) Signing an agreement to support the child. > >2) Signing off all his rights and responsibilities toward the child. > >A standard form, made by the state, will be used. [details deleted] My objection to this proposal is partly emotional -- I'm tempted to say that for a man to "abort", in addition to signing the paper, he should donate 1-2 pints of blood, be given medication that will give him severe cramps for a week, and take an injection giving a small chance of infection (regardless of whether or not he is allergic to antibiotics), and some pills that will give him mood swings. Only if he is facing these consequences will he take the possibility of pregnancy as seriously as a woman has to. Without these additional consequences, there will be no motive, under Hillel's proposal, for a man *not* to say "Come on, baby, I love you forever, I'll take care of you" just to get laid. Of course, being a mildly two-headed thinker, I can think of counters to the above arguments. As it is right now, there is an incentive for a woman to lie, especially if she actually wants, consciously or unconsciously, to be pregnant. Also, a woman faces much greater dangers than the above if she chooses to carry the pregnancy to term. At the very least, there should be some way to make binding promises pre-coitally. Hillel and I have argued in e-mail about what would be a fair "default" in case of the absence of such a document, and failed to agree. I suspect, however, that we *do* agree that if it *is* in writing it should be more enforceable. It is true that right now, a mother cannot sign away a child's rights to support from the father. But, given the reality of artificial insemination, we recognize the right of women to voluntary single-parenthood. I would like to see this extended to men and women who sign, ahead-of-time, that this is what they will do if they keep the baby. I would also like to see the default (without agreement) include at a minimum that the father has the right of joint custody (with the usual support formula applicable, so if he makes less than the mom he would *receive* some support), and if the mother gives up the child for adoption, the father can have custody automatically (WITH SUPPORT from the mom and her visitation, unless they sign this away -- this would be analogous to what happens now if the woman keeps the child and stays off welfare.) In short, I still don't like Hillel's proposal as-is, it creates too little disincentive for men to have irresponsible sex, but I agree that there is currently not enough disincentive for women. Achieving a balance, given that the woman's body is involved no matter what, will be difficult, but the status quo is definitely not fair. ~~~ jan@orc.olivetti.com or jan@oas.olivetti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We must worship Universal Consciousness as each of the 5 genders in turn if we wish to be fully open to Yr glory. -- St. Xyphlb of Alpha III
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun4.233445.1484@panix.uucp> (Mara Chibnik) writes: >As things now stand, women are actively discouraged from seeking >abortions. To demand that a man be able to pull out with simple >efficiency by the announcement that he disowns the pregnancy is >simply not sufficient unless and until a woman can truly terminate >the pregnancy without having to undergo the kind of pressuring that >she now faces. I want to see "choice for men" and "choice for women" as part of the same package. Right now women may have an abortion right in *most* states, men have "no way out" in every state. *I* don't think that the situation is symmetric, feel free to disagree. >>choice for men in a case of birth control failure, and what kind of >>choice you may be willing to offer to *MEN*. >Turn the women's right to an abortion into reality rather than myth, >and then let's see what we can offer men. You had a choice from 1974. In Carter's times there were no actions against abortion rights. If you had any intention to agree to choice for men then you had more than enough time to come to a compromise. My prediction is that the feminists organizations will be willing to support "choice for men" only if abortion rights will be at *risk* and they will be in a desperate need to mass support. What is your prediction? cmcl2!panix!mara Mara Chibnik mara@dorsai.com Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "What is so special about Ryan White, when during this whole disgusting fiasco in the media, there were gay men dying all over the state of Indiana?" -- Clay Bond
gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun4.233445.1484@panix.uucp> panix!mara@cmcl2.nyu.EDU (Mara Chibnik) writes: >As things now stand, women are actively discouraged from seeking >abortions. To demand that a man be able to pull out with simple >efficiency by the announcement that he disowns the pregnancy is >simply not sufficient unless and until a woman can truly terminate >the pregnancy without having to undergo the kind of pressuring that >she now faces. The argument for men's choice is that women have a *legal* recourse (that is currently being eroded, which is bad) and men do not. Whatever social pressure a woman feels, she will not face fines and a prison sentence if she chooses to have a legal abortion (i.e., not to be a parent). Since men who choose not to be parents face fines and prison terms, this is a sexist law. Consider a society in which women are jailed for terminating pregnancy. Analogously, men live in just such a society in the U.S. Although I generally agree with Hillel's propsal, reread mine for further clarification of the logistics of men's choice. >>choice for men in a case of birth control failure, and what kind of >>choice you may be willing to offer to *MEN*. > >Turn the women's right to an abortion into reality rather than myth, >and then let's see what we can offer men. If I understand you, you are claiming that even a federally guaranteed right to abortion (as provided by Roe v. Wade) is not sufficient, and that we must somehow alter people's *opinions* to satisfy you. Since there is no way to show when this has been accomplished, I must assume you don't believe men should ever be offered choice. I hope I can convince you otherwise! -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alden B. Gannon, the Chaste. INTERNET: gannon%mdi.com@uunet.uu.net "Become who you are!" - F. Nietzsche. USENET: ..uunet!mdi.com!gannon
robert@ncar.UCAR.EDU (robert coleman) (06/06/91)
panix!mara@cmcl2.nyu.EDU (Mara Chibnik) writes: >In article <675716623@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) >addresses Muffy Barkocy: ->I have no intention to force you to carry a child you don't want, ->so please lay down your prepared "choice for *WOMEN*" speech. -He may honestly mean it, but it isn't enough. -As things now stand, women are actively discouraged from seeking -abortions. To demand that a man be able to pull out with simple -efficiency by the announcement that he disowns the pregnancy is -simply not sufficient unless and until a woman can truly terminate -the pregnancy without having to undergo the kind of pressuring that -she now faces. ->choice for men in a case of birth control failure, and what kind of ->choice you may be willing to offer to *MEN*. -Turn the women's right to an abortion into reality rather than myth, -and then let's see what we can offer men. This is rather a strange observation. We are, without question, fighting a continual battle to enable women to have a choice to have an abortion, but at the current moment, the legal right exists. I know women who have had them. That strange word "myth" is completely inapplicable in the current circumstances; it means "never". If I could find one example, it would invalidate "myth"; I can find tens of thousands of examples, if I so choose. In spite of all societal pressures, women exercise their legal right to abortions all the time. It's no myth. In contrast, the legal concept of men's right to an abortion *is* a myth. Now, perhaps you're concerned about social pressures. I think you'd find, if you were a man, that there is a great deal of social pressure on men to "make an honest woman of her", and support children born out of wedlock. If you read the net much (and I know you do) you've no doubt seen the recent go-rounds on soc.men where some men were telling other men that they were (insert your favorite male-gender-based derogatory word) for thinking that they shouldn't be required to support children they didn't want. I would expect public outcry very much on the same level as the pro-life crowd should men ever attempt to implement said rights, from these men and from other directions as well. Perhaps you think that wouldn't happen; we'll probably never know, at least not in my lifetime. You're a *big* step ahead of us; you've got your abortion rights, and are fighting to keep and implement them. We've got no abortion rights to defend. You know, your ultimatum ("Turn women's right...into reality...") could very easily be turned around from us: turn men's right to an abortion into reality, and then we'll see what we can offer women. The clearest evidence of the discrepency of our positions is this: my threat is a serious danger, because you *have* something to take away. Your threat? (shrug). Won't change my life a bit, because I have nothing to lose. ---------------- Did it ever occur to you that you might actually win that extra bit of support you need to assure that abortion will be a lasting right, and socially acceptable, if you supported men for the same privilege? That maybe some of the resistance to abortion rights comes from men who recognize that under the current situation, they have no rights, and therefore would prefer that women didn't have any either? Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com (06/06/91)
In article <49650@ricerca.UUCP>, jan@oas.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel) writes: > > Without these additional consequences, there will be no > motive, under Hillel's proposal, for a man *not* to say "Come on, baby, > I love you forever, I'll take care of you" just to get laid. Both you and Hillel continue to promote a narrow image of men as being motivated by nothing more than their genitals. How would you feel if I portrayed all women as "lying about birth control to trap a man with a pragnancy". We both know that there are INDIVIDUAL women who do this, but that does not justify saying that this is true of all women. Likewise, this image that ALL men simply want sex, and then expect the woman to handle the results is unfair to those men who desire a family. > > At the very least, there should be some way to make binding promises > pre-coitally. Hillel and I have argued in e-mail about what would be a > fair "default" in case of the absence of such a document, and failed to > agree. I suspect, however, that we *do* agree that if it *is* in writing > it should be more enforceable. In Calufornia (where you live) a verbal contract is equally enforcible under the law. > > In short, I still don't like Hillel's proposal as-is, it creates too little > disincentive for men to have irresponsible sex, but I agree that there is > currently not enough disincentive for women. Achieving a balance, given > that the woman's body is involved no matter what, will be difficult, but > the status quo is definitely not fair. > What happens when a woman uses the promise of children to induce a man to marry her, then gets pregnant? Doesn't the father have rights if he wants the child (and married the woman in order to secure the support of that child)? Neither of your proposale even address that issue. Until that issue is addressed, there are no "equal rights" to be found here. ========================================================================== \\\\ Michael Rivero | "I drank WHAT!" | "I favor population | \ (. rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs | Socrates ------------------- control, as | )> DISCLAIMER::: |-----------|Anyone who does | long as it's | == "Hey man, I wasn't |Looking4luv|not get 8 hugs a | with someone | ---/ even here then!" |Settle4sex!|day is in trouble| else's kids!"| ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------+++++++++++++++
robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) (06/07/91)
jan@oas.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel) writes: >In article <676071224@lime.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: >>In article <1991Jun3.225158.2825@milton.u.washington.edu> twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes: >> ->>Hillel, I'd be most interested in reading your draft of a law ->>that would "give a choice for men in a case of birth control failure." -> ->When the woman discovers the pregnancy she will give the man two choices: -> ->1) Signing an agreement to support the child. -> ->2) Signing off all his rights and responsibilities toward the child. -> ->A standard form, made by the state, will be used. -[details deleted] -My objection to this proposal is partly emotional -- I'm tempted to say -that for a man to "abort", in addition to signing the paper, he should -donate 1-2 pints of blood, be given medication that will give him -severe cramps for a week, and take an injection giving a small chance of -infection (regardless of whether or not he is allergic to antibiotics), and -some pills that will give him mood swings. Only if he is facing these -consequences will he take the possibility of pregnancy as seriously as -a woman has to. Without these additional consequences, there will be no -motive, under Hillel's proposal, for a man *not* to say "Come on, baby, -I love you forever, I'll take care of you" just to get laid. [Deleted: a very nice discussion on the pros and cons of Hillel's proposal, with the above point and these others: : The way things are now, the woman has an incentive to lie. : The woman faces more danger from carrying to term than from abortion. : She and Hillel probably agree that a pre-coital contract should be binding, but it's difficult to determine a fair default. : Arguments about child's rights to two parents don't jibe with the institution of artificial insemination. : Joint custody should be part of the default, with a non-gender-biased resolution of child support. : Her main objection to Hillel's proposal is that it doesn't provide enough disincentive for men to have irresponsible sex. ------- Nice article. There is no way to make the opportunities/disadvantages *equal*. It just can't be done. The man can't be made to face the physical disadvantages of either abortion or child-carrying/birth, but neither can he have a baby on his own. These have to be considered to balance each other out. Considering how much fun I'm having raising a child, I think the ability to choose whether or not to have a child without having to have a willing partner is a big plus; obviously, all the physical aspects are a big minus (except for some women, who seem to enjoy being pregnant). But you're right, it needs to be balanced a little better, to give men an incentive to have responsible sex. I think the incentive should be where it always has been: in the wallet. If the woman chooses to have an abortion, the man should pay for it. If the woman chooses to carry the child to term, he should pay a share of the associated costs, and I think it should be a large share, say 3/4. I would say all the costs, but that would be more open to exploitation by a woman who knows she wants to have a child, and just wants to get someone else to pay for it. A slight variation: he should be required to pay 50%, and the cost of a professional birthing partner, if he is unprepared to be a birthing partner (or a non-professional [read: family or friend] who is willing to be a partner, would be paid as if they were a professional). If there are costs associated with giving up a child for adoption (assuming neither partner wants to keep the child, but the woman does carry the child to term) then he should be required to pay 50% of those costs. Understand that I know this does not really balance things. Comparing money with physical suffering is like comparing money with time given; all things considered, it's easier to give money. However, I honestly think this is the best balance that can be achieved, and it takes into account both the fact the the woman must face the physical consequences, and that she also has a physical opportunity the man can never have: the possibility to have a child without a willing partner. Incentives are there for *both* partners to have responsible sex. One problem I see is that rich men will have little incentive; perhaps some sort of sliding pay scale, based on income and how many times he finds himself in this situation? This might leave a rich men a little more susceptible to exploitation if he is irresponsible, but, on the other hand, the exploitation would mean a lot less to him, as it would be a much smaller part of his income. This still bears thinking about. Any ideas? Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
tew@cbnewsb.cb.att.COM ("tricia.edge.wood") (06/08/91)
In article <676070239@lime.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: > >In article <1991Jun04.053815.2412091@locus.com> judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes: > >>How's this sound... > >>If the man used a birth control device and if the man can prove that this >>device was properly used but failed anyway, then the man can legally >>deny parentage to the child and cannot be brought to court later. However, >>if the man did NOT attempt to his best ability to provide birth control, >>he is stuck! That way, if you REALLY don't want a child, you have the >>ability to make sure in every way possible that you won't have one and >>the legal incentive to carry this out. > >It sounds to *me* just like: > >If the woman used a birth control device and if the woman can prove that >this device was properly used but failed anyway, then the woman can legally >have an abortion. However, if the woman did NOT attempt to his best >ability to provide birth control, she is stuck! That way, if you REALLY >don't want a child, you have the ability to make sure in every way possible >that you won't have one and the legal incentive to carry this out. > >>Judy Tyrer > >Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu I thought abortion was a method of birth control. Yes, you're right, Hillel, it isn't fair that women have a method of birth control available to them after pregnancy occurs and men do not. It's just not fair that if a man does not want children, he must use birth control before he engages in sexual intercourse; a woman, though, can wait until after she becomes pregnant to use birth control. It's also not fair that only women bear children and suffer all the pain and risks of pregnancy and childbirth, while men do not. Your proposal for "equality" in birth control basically says men don't have to use birth control at all; it's entirely up to the woman to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. If a man doesn't want children, he can ignore the pregnancy as long as he is willing to give up his rights (and responsibilities) to the child. A woman still has a choice, though...she can just go get that abortion. She could have used birth control before sexual intercourse, and she still can. The man doesn't want any part of it, so he says, "Hey, Babe, it's your choice. You can still exercise your right to an abortion, but I don't have any options now, and I don't want kids. Sorry." She can take consolation in the fact that he won't have any rights towards the child if she goes through with the pregnancy. She still has all these great options left, though! She can get an abortion, a (so far still) legal option for birth control. An option that she might be morally opposed to, an option that is painful and risky, but still an option. Or she could have the child and take all risk, responsibility (and rights) for the child. It sounds pretty "equal" to me. I'm being sarcastic, of course; I'm quite sure, though, that it sounds fair to you, Hillel. It is not possible to make birth control "equal" between men and women, just as it is not possible to make childbirth "equal" between men and women. Biology does not allow men to give birth, or to have a birth control option available to them after pregnancy occurs. There's no way you'll ever see that as fair, Hillel. I don't, either. -T.E. Wood
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun7.145856.12680@cbfsb.att.com> ("tricia.edge.wood") writes: >prevent an unwanted pregnancy. If a man doesn't want children, he can >ignore the pregnancy as long as he is willing to give up his rights >(and responsibilities) to the child. ......................................................................... >option for birth control. An option that she might be morally opposed I wonder how the same woman who can explain all the moral problems that a woman may have with abortion assume that most men will have no moral problems with physical abortion, or my proposed legal "abortion". Quiet a few feminists do view us (men) as very different alien creatures, and that's, in *my* opinion, a basic flaw of feminism. >There's no way you'll ever see that as fair, Hillel. I don't, either. But you are happy with the situation as is. Men have a destiny - to pay for women's choices, and it is not a discrimination, just a matter of biology. I hope that some day someone will tell *you* how your biology is your destiny; only then there will be a chance that you will understand how unfair you are. >-T.E. Wood Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "When I do it to you it's sexism, when you do it to me it's feminism."
DOCTORJ@slacvm.slac.stanford.EDU (Jon J Thaler) (06/10/91)
In article <676323635@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) says: >Quiet a few feminists do view us (men) as very different alien >creatures, and that's, in *my* opinion, a basic flaw of feminism. That is an interesting turn of logic, akin to "lots of people who believe in God are racist, and that's religion's basic flaw." This fallacy has a name, and I'm sure HG knows what it is.
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (06/10/91)
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.
--
Gordon Fitch * uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf
Bx 1238 Bowling Green Station / NYC 10274
"All that is put together falls apart.
Work out your salvation with diligence."tew@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (tricia.edge.wood) (06/10/91)
In article <676323635@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: > > >In article <1991Jun7.145856.12680@cbfsb.att.com> ("tricia.edge.wood") writes: > >>prevent an unwanted pregnancy. If a man doesn't want children, he can >>ignore the pregnancy as long as he is willing to give up his rights >>(and responsibilities) to the child. >......................................................................... >>option for birth control. An option that she might be morally opposed > >I wonder how the same woman who can explain all the moral >problems that a woman may have with abortion assume that >most men will have no moral problems with physical abortion, >or my proposed legal "abortion". > >Quiet a few feminists do view us (men) as very different alien >creatures, and that's, in *my* opinion, a basic flaw of feminism. Wow...I explained "...all the moral problems that a woman may have with abortion..."? I said only that "she might be morally opposed [to an abortion]." Hardly explaining "*all* the moral problems." And how on earth do you decide that I assume that most men will have no moral problems with abortion? I do not; in fact, it seems to me that more men than women are vocally opposed to abortion. That's another topic entirely, though, and for a different newsgroup. My posting only pointed out my objections to your so-called "legal abortion," as well as other things you said in previous postings. I am so glad, though, that I'm now a "feminist" in your eyes. You once dismissed my views in soc.women because I couldn't possibly be a feminist since I disagreed with your view of the "one-and-only" feminist stand. > >>There's no way you'll ever see that as fair, Hillel. I don't, either. > >But you are happy with the situation as is. Men have a destiny - to pay for >women's choices, and it is not a discrimination, just a matter of biology. No, actually, I'm not happy with the situation as is. But I did not agree with your proposed solution. As soon as I come up with a solution that I think is better than the current situation, I'll let you know. -T.E. Wood
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (06/11/91)
#Quiet a few feminists do view us (men) as very different alien #creatures, and that's, in *my* opinion, a basic flaw of feminism. In article <91158.182727DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DOCTORJ@slacvm.slac.stanford.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes: >That is an interesting turn of logic, akin to "lots of people who >believe in God are racist, and that's religion's basic flaw." This >fallacy has a name, and I'm sure HG knows what it is. If a religion central texts are racist, then the religion is racist. The point that DOCTORJ tries to *ignore* is that quite a few *popular* feminist text show the sexist views of men, and the feminists still read them, in large number. BTW I'm sure that a day *after* affirmative action will be canceled by Congress, almost every feminist will claim that they have never supported it...
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (06/11/91)
In article <9106062203.1796@mydog.UUCP> 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. 1) If the claim comes from the child, then why the *mother* gives it up in a case of artificial insemination? 2) If the claim comes from the child then why the man should be sued even when the woman has enough money? Why a woman can not take a full responsibility for the result of her choice? Why is it so bad if she will pay for her choice, but it is just fine if she charges someone else? 3) If the claim comes from the child, then why the support is by percentage of the father's income? E.g. Were the $1356 that Allen Wells was ordered to pay a child's support or an alimony? 4) If the child's good is a top priority then why not to force a woman who can't support a newborn to give it up to adoption. Why a situation of an unmarried mother and an angry father is better than an adoption by a pre-screened couple? >Hillel, and usually his >antagonists as well, persist in avoiding this point so they can >get on with the war between the sexes. I think that in practice women's rights come before child's right, and child's right before men's rights. 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. >Gordon Fitch * uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "There is only one difference between child support and alimony, child support isn't tax deductible." -- Allen WELLS
robert@handies.UCAR.EDU (robert coleman) (06/11/91)
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.
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (06/11/91)
In article <676577065@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: In article <9106062203.1796@mydog.UUCP> 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. 1) If the claim comes from the child, then why the *mother* gives it up in a case of artificial insemination? Do you think that the combination of two gametes is capable of signing forms? In that case, I'm surprised you're not vehemently arguing against abortion. The mother gives it up because she will act (legally) for the child until it is a legal adult, which will take many years. 2) If the claim comes from the child then why the man should be sued even when the woman has enough money? Because it is his child, too. Every child has two parents. Both are equally responsible for the child. They can go through legal contortions to eliminate the legal responsibility of one person or the other, but they each contributed to the creation of the child. Why a woman can not take a full responsibility for the result of her choice? Which choice? You are ignoring *many* possible situations in favor of just one. You seem to be imagining that women are running around forcing children on men all the time, and that this is the only important thing. In fact, the most important thing is that if a child *is* created, it will need to be taken care of for many years. I think that that is what the original poster meant in saying that the claim comes from the child - it is the child that needs the money. The child has an equivalent claim on the mother, by the way, but this whole line of argument seems to be based on the idea that the mother is raising the child, so I'm not talking about mothers being sued for support, although that would be equally reasonable. Why is it so bad if she will pay for her choice, but it is just fine if she charges someone else? Why is it so bad if he pays for his choice? If a man chooses to have sex with a woman, he has to consider the possibility that a child will result. If he does not wish to take this risk, he can avoid sex with women. If he wishes to attempt to avoid the risk, but still have sex, he can wear a condom or get a vasectomy (which is, by the way, *much* less painful and dangerous than an abortion). If the condom breaks, he can always sue the condom company for the child support, eh? Also, of course, he should check out Consumer Reports and find out about the brands with less failures. (Perhaps, though, the best solution is simply for women to avoid sex with irresponsible men.) 3) If the claim comes from the child, then why the support is by percentage of the father's income? Because if the father raised the child, he would spend a percentage of his income on it, right? That's what the mother does. E.g. Were the $1356 that Allen Wells was ordered to pay a child's support or an alimony? Who is Allen Wells? Anyway, alimony is a silly idea based on the concept that women should be supported by men. Child support is very different. The woman can at least get a job to support herself. Very few babies can do that. Or do you think that children should just starve, rather than impinging on the man's right to have a good time? >Hillel, and usually his >antagonists as well, persist in avoiding this point so they can >get on with the war between the sexes. I think that in practice women's rights come before child's right, and child's right before men's rights. You would think this. I won't argue it, but lots of people don't see it that way. 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. Muffy
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (06/11/91)
| In article <9106062203.1796@mydog.UUCP> 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. gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: | 1) If the claim comes from the child, then why the *mother* gives it | up in a case of artificial insemination? [ This argument seems to have wide popularity; Robert Coleman also advanced it, or something like it. Is it the party line now?] The difference between artificial insemination and the usual method seems so egregious as not to merit much comment. Artificial insemination, as it is usually practiced, and the laws surrounding it, cannot have a great deal of effect on the usual methods of parenthood, and the laws surrounding them, because the latter are a great deal older and more firmly established. In general, you do not establish precedents backwards, which is what this argument tries to do. I don't know why the argument is seen as so clever as to merit mention by at least two people; it seems fairly silly. I suppose, in the throes of passion, a man could stop and have the woman sign a paper waiving her right to sue for child support, should she become pregnant. She would have to have a lawyer along, of course, to check the document, and a notary public. Is this a new form of sex? | 2) If the claim comes from the child then why the man should be sued | even when the woman has enough money? Why a woman can not take | a full responsibility for the result of her choice? Why is it | so bad if she will pay for her choice, but it is just fine if | she charges someone else? In principle, both parents are responsible for child support according to their incomes and custodial duties. It does not matter who has _enough_ money, but who has the money, period. (That is, if we are going to hold people individually accountable for their reproductive activities. I'll go into this a little further below.) | 3) If the claim comes from the child, then why the support is by | percentage of the father's income? E.g. Were the $1356 that | Allen Wells was ordered to pay a child's support or an alimony? For exactly the reason I give in the previous paragraph. I do not know what name was given to the sum Mr. Wells was ordered to pay, but if it was for the support of his children it was not alimony. However, since the recipient pays taxes on alimony, and the supporter pays taxes in the case of child support, some people arrange to pay child support as nominal alimony for tax reasons. | 4) If the child's good is a top priority then why not to force a | woman who can't support a newborn to give it up to adoption. | Why a situation of an unmarried mother and an angry father is | better than an adoption by a pre-screened couple? "Good" isn't the same as "right": I have a right to drink beer, but it isn't necessarily good for me. No one said the situation was "better for the child." The child's claim on its father does not proceed from its good, but its right. | >Hillel, and usually his | >antagonists as well, persist in avoiding this point so they can | >get on with the war between the sexes. | | I think that in practice women's rights come before child's right, | and child's right before men's rights. You'd have to present a lot of cases -- maybe all of the cases, unless you could show that your sampling method was unbiased -- and demonstrate that your view had something to back it up, if it's going to be more than a mere expression of petulance. | 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. I'm not avoiding your point; I don't think you have completed the process of making it. As to "destroying a man's life": very few men are forced to engage in vaginal sex, and all of us know what the rules are. Our society _could_ arrange things so that all men were perfectly free of any responsibility for the results, but it hasn't, because in general people want to affix responsibility for important liabilities, like the support of children, onto individuals. As I have pointed out in previous incarnations of this discussion, there are several alternatives. We could communize child support. We could say that children have no rights to support whatever. We could say that mothers, but not fathers, had responsibility for children -- perhaps with some compensation, as was the case with the Navahos, who allowed only women to own land, because only women were responsible for raising children (or so I have heard). As it happens, we have a tradition and practice of individual parental responsibility which the general public seem very enthusiastic about. You can try to change this, but I think you've got a long way to go, because just as a lot of men don't want to pay for the possible results of their own sexual activities, so they don't want to pay for the results of someone else's, either. Do they? And you can't replace something with nothing. uunet!infmx!robert@handies.UCAR.EDU (robert coleman): | ... 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. ... None of these are crimes, as far as I know. Some of them may be torts. It is extremely difficult to get an emotional aspect into court, however. | 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. On the contrary, both parents can be sued for failure to support, whether they are married, divorced, or just hanging around. | 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? The fact that the child does not exist at the time an abortion decision must be made seems entirely irrelevant to the issue. No issue of child support arises until the child is born. | In particular, why should the child's |rights hinge on whether the Mother unilaterally *decides* to name the Father? I believe that the child, or someone representing the child's interests, might be able to sue the mother to compel her to testify. This usually would not be done because there would not be enough property at stake to make it worthwhile. Welfare departments often try something like it, though. | 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. I wasn't describing my feelings. I have been trying to describe what I know of our laws and customs. I rather like the Navaho system, myself. | 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. The mother's right to abortion rests on her right to control her body. The closest thing to a right of abortion in a male is the male's right to not have vaginal intercourse against his will. In other words, he has a right to control his body just as a woman does. Since he does not carry the child, no amount of control of his body can secure for him a right of abortion. If, given publicly known and generally agreed-upon laws, he engages in vaginal intercourse with a fertile woman, he has signed up for the risks involved, and I can't see what the complaint is. As I said above, you can try to change this arrangement, but I don't think it will go over, especially if you have no argument but that you're being treated unfairly and someone else should pay. Everybody says that. -- In all of the argument about what I said, I still haven't seen anyone put herself or himself in the position of the dependent child, or the taxpayer who may wind up paying for the child's support when one or more of the parents cop out. That, as I said, is where the issue is. The war of the sexes is mere teenagery beside it. -- -- Gordon Fitch
Rich.Berlin@eng.sun.COM (Rich Berlin) (06/11/91)
farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.EDU (lisa ann farmer) writes: > How Convenient! If the male ignores the fact that he has impregnated > a female he will therefore have no obligation to the child. By this > system I can imagine very few males (except those prepared and wanting > parenthood) to accept responsibilty. I don't buy it and I won't vote > for it. You make it sound as though supporting a child is the man's "punishment for having sex" the same way pregnancy is the woman's: In sorrow shall she bring forth children, and in sorrow shall he pay for them! Do most women share Lisa's view of men as irresponsible? (I find it insulting that someone would even think I'd abandon a woman who had an accidental pregnancy to which I "contributed.") Nevertheless, how many women define "irresponsible" the way Lisa seems to, i.e. "he doesn't want to pay to support a child that he didn't want but I *did*?" Remember, the man's obligation to the child comes into play only if the woman decides not only to carry to term, but to *keep* and *raise* the child as well. To my knowledge, an adopted child has no right to claim financial support from her or his genetic parents. This indicates to me that the issue is not solely one of abortion rights for women, because the *second* decision, retaining custody of the child, is the one that confers power over the father's pocketbook. And I'm a bit surprised to hear the women in this newsgroup lobbying to retain that right, since it is rooted in the same patriarchal value system that puts up barriers to women's equal employment: the assumption that mothers and children are inseparable and the father's role is to generate the income that supports them. I understand that some women feel the physical risk of pregnancy entitles them to rights that men can't share; pregnancy is obviously an ordeal for many women. But I would think that the physical pregnancy, even a nightmarish one, would pale in comparison to the enormity of the responsibility of being a parent. (I'd be interested in hearing from "retired" mothers out there who feel that "eighteen years of being responsible for them was no big deal, but the pregnancy--boy, I wouldn't wish that on anyone!") It appers to me that we are talking about a legal situation in which that eighteen+ year commitment can be forced on men but not on women. OK by me--I have reasonable options for dealing with that situation; all of us can exercise choice over whom we have sex with. But I cannot overemphasize my view that the underlying attitude displayed here befits a capitalist, patriarchical system: children are the privilege and the responsibility of those (men) who can pay for them. (Shades of the Handmaid's Tale....) In the short run, it addresses a big problem facing women and their children; forcing men to pay child support to children they sired but don't want is certainly one way of handling this social problem. But the chief, unavoidable cost of this solution is the strengthening of the patriarchy. It seems to me that feminists should be examining and changing this attitude, not perpetuating it. To really pursue reforrm, women will eventually have to give up some of their power in this area in order to obtain policy changes that make that power unnecesary. (I'm reminded of "Right-Wing Women," which Dworkin-haters should read in order to get a different perspective on her.) -- Rich
dst@dst.boltz.cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) (06/11/91)
In article <9106062203.1796@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. There is no "child" when a woman gets pregnant. There is only a fetus. The process of going from fetus to human child is long (9 months), painful (for the mother), expensive (prenatal care, birthing services, etc.), and somewhat dangerous medically (first trimester abortion is safer.) The man does not create the child by getting the woman pregnant; he merely supplies one necessary ingredient for her pregnancy. The woman may choose to create a child, but she cannot endow that child with economic claims on its genetic father if parenthoold was forced upon the man by her unilateral decision. I believe that since the physical risks of pregnancy are borne solely by the woman, and the decision to abort or continue a pregnancy is solely up to the woman, then the responsibility for contraception should also be solely the woman's. Men who want to be nice guys can help out by wearing a condom or reminding their girlfriend to take her pill every day or whatever, but that is optional behavior. Since modern women don't want to be viewed as frail little baby factories who have to be specially protected by a ruling patriarchy, but prefer to be treated as responsible adults, they should stand up and take their medicine like an adult. If they want sole control of their reproductive equipment, then they must accept sole responsibility for its use. ................ Let me make an analogy. Suppose a female friend and I decide to take a road trip. The trip is her idea, and she buys the road map and plans the route, but we take my car and I do the driving. I have an accident and injure someone in another vehicle. Do my friend and I both get sued? Of course not! Since I owned the car and solely controlled its use, I am solely responsible for what happened. My friend agreed in advance merely to go on the trip; she didn't agree to be a defendant in a civil suit resulting from any car accident that takes place. The same thing applies to pregnancy. If I got to bed with a woman, I'm agreeing to share sex. I am not agreeing to accept legal/financial responsibility for the result of HER decisions about whether to abort or proceed with HER pregnancy. -- Dave
farmerl@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (lisa ann farmer) (06/12/91)
In article <14904@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> Rich.Berlin@eng.sun.COM writes: >farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.EDU (lisa ann farmer) writes: >> How Convenient! If the male ignores the fact that he has impregnated >> a female he will therefore have no obligation to the child. By this >> system I can imagine very few males (except those prepared and wanting >> parenthood) to accept responsibilty. I don't buy it and I won't vote >> for it. > >You make it sound as though supporting a child is the man's >"punishment for having sex" the same way pregnancy is the woman's: Maybe we are speaking two different languages but I have read the above paragraph over and over and can't see how you could conclude that. > >Do most women share Lisa's view of men as irresponsible? (I find it >insulting that someone would even think I'd abandon a woman who had an >accidental pregnancy to which I "contributed.") THere is an enormous difference between the people who have access to computers and the net as compared to those who don't. I am saying that your education has been different, the people you know, your income and culture. I am not saying that you are better for it but you have come in to contact with more feminists and feminism than those of lower/lower-middle class. And I would say that age has a lot to do with it ... I can not see many of my male peers dealing maturely with the fact that someone they had sex with is pregnant. I'm talking people around 19,20,21 years old. Of course, my view of men is going to be different because my peer group is younger > >Nevertheless, how many women define "irresponsible" the way Lisa seems >to, i.e. "he doesn't want to pay to support a child that he didn't >want but I *did*?" Remember, the man's obligation to the child comes >into play only if the woman decides not only to carry to term, but to >*keep* and *raise* the child as well. To my knowledge, an adopted >child has no right to claim financial support from her or his genetic >parents. This indicates to me that the issue is not solely one of >abortion rights for women, because the *second* decision, retaining >custody of the child, is the one that confers power over the father's >pocketbook. And I'm a bit surprised to hear the women in this >newsgroup lobbying to retain that right, since it is rooted in the >same patriarchal value system that puts up barriers to women's equal >employment: the assumption that mothers and children are inseparable >and the father's role is to generate the income that supports them. I used the phrase "accept responsiblity". I don't think financial support is the only way a male can act responsibly. But let me bring up one point why I see *at this point* that financial support is important. A woman who is pregnant will have to take a leave of absence from her job - many times this is not available to her. Therefore she must quit. Now she must find another job, find someone to take care of the infant while she is looking/interviewing, maybe relocate if the area she is in has a horrible economy and once she gets a job she will most likely be paid less than her male counterparts. Now she has to live - supporting herself and the child - she may not have health insurance if she worked at a small company before and has to pay off the hospital. Plus any doctor's visits. And she missed maybe a month's pay or more having the child and finding a new job. I'm not saying this is the way it should be but for many women this is their situation. I think we need to start looking at this issue from the perspective of the "common" worker who is making $20,000 or less per year. This women cannot support herself and the child. If the U.S had national health insurance, daycare available at employment, and a women and men were paid equally and given the same amount of chances for advancement, I would not advocate that the men pay child support (or help with daycare or provide health insurance for the child) unless they wanted. But this isn't the case I don't advocate that women should have to support the child on her own. I think this society has responsibilty of keeping parents sane and able to raise children. It is an incredibly stressful situation to try to raise a child when the money isn't there. Many times that stress gets taken out on children. I think that we need to look at the overall effect not providing adequate daycare and insurance has on the future of our society - I agree it should not rest on individuals shoulders. >-- Rich Lisa farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu "If people want to make war they should make a colour war and paint each other's cities up in the night in pinks and greens." Yoko Ono (_Louder than Words_)
jan@oas.olivetti.COM (Jan Parcel) (06/12/91)
In article <14904@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> Rich.Berlin@eng.sun.COM writes: >farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.EDU (lisa ann farmer) writes: >> How Convenient! If the male ignores the fact that he has impregnated >> a female he will therefore have no obligation to the child. By this >> system I can imagine very few males (except those prepared and wanting >> parenthood) to accept responsibilty. I don't buy it and I won't vote >> for it. > >You make it sound as though supporting a child is the man's >"punishment for having sex" the same way pregnancy is the woman's: Actually, it is, in a way. I have posted before that I don't agree with the current system, but a woman does have to deal with *something* traumatic no matter what, if there is a pregnancy. I don't think it is safe to let the men of the hook entirely, and then give them the power to opt out as if it was nothing or to require joint custody. Either I would like to see the default stay the same except for allowing the man to take custody if the woman gives it up, and default to joint custody if she keeps it, or, if we took Hillel's proposal, I would like to give the woman the option of not notifying the father. (Under either mine or his proposal, I would want a pre-coital contract to override the default.) >Do most women share Lisa's view of men as irresponsible? (I find it >insulting that someone would even think I'd abandon a woman who had an >accidental pregnancy to which I "contributed.") This discussion only refers to irresponsible people. Responsible people don't need the laws to tell them what to do. Hillel's proposal would be as unnecessary as the current system if *everyone* was responsible. >Nevertheless, how many women define "irresponsible" the way Lisa seems >to, i.e. "he doesn't want to pay to support a child that he didn't >want but I *did*?" Remember, the man's obligation to the child comes >into play only if the woman decides not only to carry to term, but to >*keep* and *raise* the child as well. You make it sound like carrying a child for 9 months, with all the kicking, etc, and signs of life, will still make giving up the child the more passive decision. >To my knowledge, an adopted >child has no right to claim financial support from her or his genetic >parents. Unless the adoption doesn't go through. >enormity of the responsibility of being a parent. (I'd be interested >in hearing from "retired" mothers out there who feel that "eighteen >years of being responsible for them was no big deal, but the >pregnancy--boy, I wouldn't wish that on anyone!") It appers to me >that we are talking about a legal situation in which that eighteen+ >year commitment can be forced on men but not on women. OK by me--I >have reasonable options for dealing with that situation; all of us can >exercise choice over whom we have sex with. I'm not retired yet -- but I have 17 years experience. My first preg and birth were easy, the second one could have endangered my life and the child's from conception, whether I had had an abortion or birth. (She's fine, thank you, if she would only do her *homework* !!) But I know women whose lives were at risk for any pregnancy, and my stand on women's rights over their bodies stems partly from a fear of judges deciding medical matters (some judges got both mother and child killed this way a year or two ago!!) Back to the adoption bit. I admire women who can give up a child for adoption, but I suspect they're rare. [They are. One source noted that 3 percent of unwed mothers in the US actually give up their child at birth. cf. _Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes_ by Laurence H. Tribe. --CTM] I could no more do that than donate my heart at childbirth. Some women who *did* give up children in the 40's and 50's have said they never recovered. My kids told me they feel the same way the other day when we were discussing "what to do if". I think some of the stereotyping of men as irresponsible may come from a sort of flabbergasted inability to understand some very loud men who make it sound like this should be easy. Bear in mind, too, that I'm not especially fond of kids, although I love my own. I wouldn't sucker a man into getting me pregnant so I could have a cutsey-wootsy baby. It's just that, for me, the only thing worse than the 18-year responsibility would be not knowing where my child was. This is why I'm more sympathetic to men's demands for rights over their children than to their demands for easily avoiding responsibility for them. AND, AGAIN, I support more choice for this than already exists, such as the contract idea, but a failure of birth control WILL leave a woman with a tough choice no matter what, so I would like to see a mechanism which requires discussion and agreement ahead of time. ~~~ jan@orc.olivetti.com or jan@oas.olivetti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We must worship Universal Consciousness as each of the 5 genders in turn if we wish to be fully open to Yr glory. -- St. Xyphlb of Alpha III
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (06/12/91)
In article <49657@ricerca.UUCP> jan@oas.olivetti.COM writes: >Actually, it is, in a way. I have posted before that I don't agree >with the current system, but a woman does have to deal with >*something* traumatic no matter what, if there is a pregnancy. Do you assume that "having" a child that they don't want is not traumatic for men? Do you assume that abortion against their will is not traumatic for men? (I don't argue against choice for women; I argue against the stereotype of men as trauma-free creatures.) >This discussion only refers to irresponsible people. Responsible >people don't need the laws to tell them what to do. Do *responsible* women need a choice of abortion, in a case of a birth control failure? Do responsible men need any choice, in a case of a birth control failure? >But I know women whose lives were at risk for any pregnancy, and my >stand on women's rights over their bodies stems partly from a fear of >judges deciding medical matters (some judges got both mother and child >killed this way a year or two ago!!) #Today there is only one maternal death in 10,000 births; the vast majority of #those are women who entered their pregnancy with some kind of health problem. -- ("Planning Ahead for Pregnancy", Sheldon H. Cherry) BTW the probability of random male to die in Vietnam was 50,000/125,000,000= 1:2,500; the vast majority entered the army with no health problems... >when we were discussing "what to do if". I think some of the >stereotyping of men as irresponsible may come from a sort of >flabbergasted inability to understand some very loud men who make it >sound like this should be easy. Do you think that giving 25% of your income to a child you did not want, and you have no rights toward him/her, is easy?! Do you think that it is so easy to a teenager to put his life "on hold" because his girlfriend wants be a mother? >than already exists, such as the contract idea, but a failure of birth >control WILL leave a woman with a tough choice no matter what, A failure of birth control leaves men with no choice at all. I think that a tough choice is better than no choice at all, and IMO most pro-choice people think so too; that's why they fight so hard. >~~~ jan@orc.olivetti.com or jan@oas.olivetti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "But certainly Jess and Clay (and others) are right in insisting that none of us should be forced to sacrifice a personal dream for someone else's ideals." -- Mara Chibnik
Rich.Berlin@eng.sun.com (Rich Berlin) (06/12/91)
jan@oas.olivetti.COM (Jan Parcel) writes: > In article <14904@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> Rich.Berlin@eng.sun.COM writes: > > > >You make it sound as though supporting a child is the man's > >"punishment for having sex" the same way pregnancy is the woman's: > > Actually, it is, in a way. I have posted before that I don't agree > with the current system, but a woman does have to deal with > *something* traumatic no matter what, if there is a pregnancy. I > don't think it is safe to let the men of the hook entirely, and then > give them the power to opt out as if it was nothing or to require > joint custody. Either I would like to see the default stay the same > except for allowing the man to take custody if the woman gives it up, > and default to joint custody if she keeps it, or, if we took Hillel's > proposal, I would like to give the woman the option of not notifying > the father. (Under either mine or his proposal, I would want a > pre-coital contract to override the default.) Pregnancy is a direct *consequence* of sex. The view that it is a "punishment" is a misogynistic attitude; the stereotypic attitude appears to me to be that it's not acceptable to end the pregnancy, we have to force women to carry their unwanted babies to term and face giving up a live baby or raising it under difficult conditions. (I chose to paraphrase Genesis in the hope of capturing the harshness of this attitude but I don't think the gesture succeeded.) Analogously, it appears to me, the "punishment" mentality towards the father says that it's not enough for a man who doesn't want the child to bear the direct consequences, we have to insist on the most unfavorable possible outcome. Is that really necessary?? The way you express it--you think it's not "safe" to let the men off--could that be a hint at a basic fear underlying this whole thread? Men, if left to their own devices, will thoughtlessly traumatize every woman in their paths. And women, left to their own devices, will trap and enslave any man foolish enough. You don't trust me to do right by you, and I don't trust you to do right by me: the "mutually assured destruction" doctrine that defines the male-female cold war. Anybody know how to win a cold war? And of course, you're rightly speaking as the one in power--"letting men off the hook," and "giving them the power to opt out." One woman passed along to me (with reservations) the idea that women's control of the reproduction of the species is "one of the few areas in which women have had any power at all, and giving it up puts them at the mercy of an otherwise male-dominated culture." I wonder how many people will write me off as crazy when I say that this is mistaking cause and effect--that the male power structure is at its core a *response* to women holding the only power that is truly important? ------------------- > >Do most women share Lisa's view of men as irresponsible? (I find it > >insulting that someone would even think I'd abandon a woman who had an > >accidental pregnancy to which I "contributed.") > > This discussion only refers to irresponsible people. Responsible > people don't need the laws to tell them what to do. Hillel's proposal > would be as unnecessary as the current system if *everyone* was > responsible. I agree 100%. But it appered to me that Lisa's view was that most men are irresponsible. What I quoted was: > >farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.EDU (lisa ann farmer) writes: > >> How Convenient! If the male ignores the fact that he has impregnated > >> a female he will therefore have no obligation to the child. By this > >> system I can imagine very few males (except those prepared and wanting > >> parenthood) to accept responsibilty. I don't buy it and I won't vote > >> for it. Am I misreading something here? --------------- > >Nevertheless, how many women define "irresponsible" the way Lisa seems > >to, i.e. "he doesn't want to pay to support a child that he didn't > >want but I *did*?" Remember, the man's obligation to the child comes > >into play only if the woman decides not only to carry to term, but to > >*keep* and *raise* the child as well. > > You make it sound like carrying a child for 9 months, with all the > kicking, etc, and signs of life, will still make giving up the child > the more passive decision. I don't mean to minimize the experience of pregnancy. I was just trying to point out that there are some constitutional grounds for the laws on pregnancy we have now (and I'm sure many of us pray that the Supreme Court will continue to see it that way) but the issue of child custody is not part of that law. I firmly believe that what goes on inside the woman's body is hers alone to determine, but nobody has explained to me why the child custody decision is also hers alone to determine, since there is now a living child that belongs to *two* people. It is the asymmetry in this law that disturbs me, and the only grounds I've heard offered is that the experience of pregnancy somehow gives the woman more control over her child's destiny than the father has, to the extreme that it gives the woman some control over the destiny of the father as well as the child. > Back to the adoption bit. I admire women who can give up a child for > adoption, but I suspect they're rare. > > [They are. One source noted that 3 percent of unwed mothers in the US > actually give up their child at birth. cf. _Abortion: The Clash of > Absolutes_ by Laurence H. Tribe. --CTM] > > I could no more do that than donate my heart at childbirth. Some > women who *did* give up children in the 40's and 50's have said they > never recovered. My kids told me they feel the same way the other day > when we were discussing "what to do if". I think some of the > stereotyping of men as irresponsible may come from a sort of > flabbergasted inability to understand some very loud men who make it > sound like this should be easy. And I'm one of them. Ouch. My apologies; I didn't mean to imply that it was or should be easy. I know otherwise: I had a roomate in college who laughed and described it as "very Jewish" when, in the throes of believing I was party to a contraceptive failure, I told him I didn't think I'd be able to bear the thought of someone else raising my child. (It was a false alarm, but a remarkable learning experience. :-)) So no, I don't believe it would be easy to give up a child. I do think I could force myself to do so if I believed it would be in the child's best interests, but it would hurt like hell and I'd need a lot of support to get through it without emotional scars. I don't know how many men really think it should be easy to give up a child; I prefer to believe that most of us just think no matter how hard it is to give the child up, keeping it would be much, much harder! I suspect the experience of pregnancy *does* have something to do with the difference in this perception. -- Rich
rivero@dev8.mdcbbs.com (06/12/91)
In article <91158.182727DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, DOCTORJ@slacvm.slac.stanford.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes: > In article <676323635@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) says: > >>Quiet a few feminists do view us (men) as very different alien >>creatures, and that's, in *my* opinion, a basic flaw of feminism. > > That is an interesting turn of logic, akin to "lots of people who > believe in God are racist, and that's religion's basic flaw." This > fallacy has a name, and I'm sure HG knows what it is. -- I'm not sure I agree with your analogy. Religion does not (in most cases) adress the issue of race, only that of dealing with non-believers. Feminism, on the other hand, DOES deal with differences between the sexes. And, because politicalization tends towards factionalism, the view that the opposing camp (us male types) are very different alien creatures is reinforced. Witness the "all men are potential rapists" rhetoric. This promotes an (unfair and discriminatory) image of all men as uncivilized barbarians unable to control our primal instincts. ========================================================================== \\\\ Michael Rivero | "I drank WHAT!" |"KILL EVERYBODY! Let GOD | (. rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs | Socrates -------------------sort 'em out!"| )> DISCLAIMER::: |-----------|"Nuke the unborn | Saint | == "Hey man, I wasn't |Looking4luv| gay whales | Dominic | ---/ even here then!" |Settle4sex!| for Jesus!" | | ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------+++++++++++++++
throop@cs.utexas.EDU (David Throop) (06/15/91)
rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com writes: [concerning agreements about child support:] > In Calufornia (where you live) a verbal contract is equally enforcible >under the law. No. A friend of mine impregnated a woman in California 17 years ago. They jointly signed a document in which he > acknowledged paternity, and > relinquished any claim to the child. In this same document, the mother agreed that she would never seek support for the child. The child is now 16. The mother is now suing for child-support, insurance, college tuition and legal fees. My friend's lawyer informs him that the agreement which they signed in California has no legal significance at all. David Throop
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (06/18/91)
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.... dst@dst.boltz.cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky): | There is no "child" when a woman gets pregnant. There is only a fetus... | The man does not create the child by getting the woman pregnant; he merely | supplies one necessary ingredient for her pregnancy. The woman may choose | to create a child, but she cannot endow that child with economic claims | on its genetic father if parenthoold was forced upon the man by her | unilateral decision. | | I believe that since the physical risks of pregnancy are borne solely by the | woman, and the decision to abort or continue a pregnancy is solely up to the | woman, then the responsibility for contraception should also be solely the | woman's. ... If [ women ] want sole control | of their reproductive equipment, then they must accept sole responsibility | for its use. ... The economic, and therefore political, world you are proposing looks like this: there are two classes, (1) men and women who never have children, and (2) women who have children. The former class has no obligation in regard to producing the next generation. The latter class is entirely responsible for the production of the next generation: that is, not only bearing the children, but feeding and educating them. It is obvious that the second class will do much less well economically than the first class, since it will be distracted from business by its parental duties. Therefore, it will have less political power. In a competitive society -- no change in the competitiveness of our society is proposed in the article I am commenting on -- the members of the second class will have to make a choice. They can either attach themselves to members of the first class in a subordinate role, as pets or servants, or they can go it alone, in which case they will live in relative poverty. All children, then, will be raised by people who are oppressed as a class, and many of whom will be oppressed personally. The most important form of production, the production of the next generation, will be carried out under conditions of oppression -- in other words, an overclass will extract value from an underclass without due compensation. Historically, such conditions have often led to poor workmanship, if not sabotage or rebellion. And in this particular area, even the most ambitious members of the underclass cannot capitalize themselves, because we do not permit the sale of children. If you disbelieve the political and economic developments which I predict, check out those segments of our population where the notion of male non-responsibility has become popular. I do not think this is a very good proposal. I think if we want to avoid individual responsibility for children, we should probably think about communal responsibility. We are _already_ responsible, because we need the next generation just as we need air to breathe; it's the way our species works. We can share our responsibility, or we can individualize it, but we can't just shuck it off, as many of you seem to think. Can we? -- Gordon Fitch | mydog!gcf@panix.com
jan@oas.olivetti.COM (Jan Parcel) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun13.152031.11357@aero.org> dst@dst.boltz.cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes: >The man does not create the child by getting the woman pregnant; he >merely supplies one necessary ingredient for her pregnancy. The woman >may choose to create a child, but she cannot endow that child with >economic claims on its genetic father if parenthoold was forced upon >the man by her unilateral decision. Creating a child under these circumstances is not an active procedure. Stopping it requires a medical procedure. >I believe that since the physical risks of pregnancy are borne solely >by the woman, and the decision to abort or continue a pregnancy is >solely up to the woman, then the responsibility for contraception >should also be solely the woman's. [deletions] >The same thing applies to pregnancy. If I got to bed with a woman, >I'm agreeing to share sex. I am not agreeing to accept >legal/financial responsibility for the result of HER decisions about >whether to abort or proceed with HER pregnancy. I'd buy this plan if the following features went with it: 1. All children take their mothers' last names. 2. No man has a right to any visitation, and no child has a right to know their father. It's the mother's decision entirely. 3. When voting for President, Senator, or coporate Board members, etc, people should keep in mind that they probably want a family woman for the job -- someone with experience with responsibility. 4. When deciding how much to offer a potential employee, keep in mind that a woman is probably supporting a family, whereas the man is probably just working for "beer money." In the case of a man doing a single-parent adoption, of course, he could name the child after himself, but that will make the kid different in that respect from peers, so it is probably better to name the child after the father's girlfriend. (Hey, I thought a major factor in the men's rights movement was to gain equal rights to parenting -- but that doesn't fit will with NO responsibility for children. As I've said before, the current system needs a *lot* of work, including enforceability of contracts, but, hey, if you want to give it *all* up, maybe we'll take that solution. IMO matrilineal naming would bring down the world population.) ~~~ jan@orc.olivetti.com or jan@oas.olivetti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We must worship Universal Consciousness as each of the 5 genders in turn if we wish to be fully open to Yr glory. -- St. Xyphlb of Alpha III
rberlin@rad.eng.sun.COM (Rich Berlin) (06/18/91)
farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.EDU (lisa ann farmer) writes: >Maybe we are speaking two different languages but I have read the above >paragraph over and over and can't see how you could conclude that. Sorry. I deleted too much context, for one thing, and I was responding to more of what I'd read than just this passage. >And I would say that age has a lot to do with it ... I can not see >many of my male peers dealing maturely with the fact that someone they >had sex with is pregnant. I'm talking people around 19,20,21 years >old. Of course, my view of men is going to be different because my >peer group is younger That makes sense; you're right to be concerned (and conversely, some of us men are arguing on principle about a situation we're unlikely to ever face.) Thanks to our local library, I now know that 67% of unmarried women in the US who have babies are under 25. (1987 figures, from the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics.) So, Lisa, since this problem is statistically more likely to affect you than me, what do you feel is the "mature" thing for the male to do in this case? I think I could make a convincing argument that two young parents dropping out of college to have and support a baby they hadn't planned for is a potentially bad situation. >I think this society has responsibilty of keeping parents sane and >able to raise children. It is an incredibly stressful situation to >try to raise a child when the money isn't there. Many times that >stress gets taken out on children. I think that we need to look at >the overall effect not providing adequate daycare and insurance has on >the future of our society - I agree it should not rest on individuals >shoulders. Hear, hear!! From the same 1987 statistics, I gleaned these numbers: 300,000 babies were born to mothers under 20. 331,000 babies were born to mothers between 20 and 24. A disproportionate number (about 47%) were born to nonwhite mothers. We also know from a statistic quoted earlier that more than 95% of these mothers retain custody of the babies. If we may assume that most of these women have children by men of the same race and approximately the same age group, we can see why what Lisa is calling for is so important. To insist that the parents of these children support them without help means we are expecting young people with barely-formed lives, many of them without college degrees and facing racist and/or sexist handicaps when trying to find employment, to obtain an adequate living while dealing with the inherent stresses of caring for a completely dependent creature. If the parents remain apart, the woman is facing an incredibly difficult situation, because the law entitles support for the child but not for the mother. I argue that the support law against which I have been railing, while necessary and appropriate for the majority of the cases in which it is applied (e.g divorce, which accounts for many more support-payment situations), contributes to the above problem. A young woman who finds herself unmarried and pregnant must make quick decisions that will affect the next eighteen years of her life; in the face of patriarchal values which encourage her to assume the role of mother even if she is not prepared for it, this law holds out a misleading promise of support from the biological father. (The law can mandate support, but can't insist that it be adequate. Everything I know about the wage-earning pattern of minorities and young people suggests a bleak picture. I am looking at the Bay Area Superior Court's 1979 guidelines for court-ordered support (I am sorry I don't have more recent figures). The figures I have are divorce-related--I don't know whether they are different for never-married couples--but as a sample, a man with an AFTER-TAX income of $1200/mo can be ordered to pay $150/mo in child support. If he is supporting the woman as well, the maximum is $600 but that figure is reduced by a portion of her earnings.) Anyone for socialized childcare? -- Rich
rberlin@rad.eng.sun.COM (Rich Berlin) (06/18/91)
>My friend's lawyer tells him the agreement they signed in California >has no legal significance at all. That is correct. The pertinent California law (Penal code; not sure of the section #) says explicitly that neither parent can sign away the child's right to support from both parents. I didn't read it carefully enough to know what exceptions are made for adoption. I do remember, however, that the law is written to be sex-blind--despite the fact that it is not enforced that way, according to Lenore Weitzman--and I was surprised to find the law in the penal code rather than civil. Turns out that failure to adequately support a child is a misdemeanor tantamount to abandonment of that child; the punishment can be as much as a $2000 fine and a year-and-a-day in prison. Anyone know why the extra day? -- Rich
oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (Truth or Dare?) (06/19/91)
In article <676686826@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: > In article <49657@ricerca.UUCP> jan@oas.olivetti.COM writes: > (I don't argue against choice for women; I argue against the > stereotype of men as trauma-free creatures.) Hillel, I don't think anyone is arguing that men are trauma-free creatures. I understand that were I to become pregnant, it would be a major trauma for both my boyfriend and myself. But, he and I have taken the time to discuss what happens if I get pregnant. We both have feelings that need to be taken into consideration, should I become pregnant. >>This discussion only refers to irresponsible people. Responsible >>people don't need the laws to tell them what to do. > > Do *responsible* women need a choice of abortion, in a case > of a birth control failure? What are you saying here, Hillel? What are you asking? If a woman's birth control fails, then she doesn't need a choice -- that an abortion is a foregone conclusion? That if she's so dead set against getting pregnant in the first place that she's exercising birth control, then the obvious conclusion is that she will get an abortion if that birth control method fails? I disagree. I use birth control, but that' doesn't mean that I'm willing to have an abortion should that birth control method fail. I am personally not against preventing a pregnancy but I personally could not terminate a pregnancy. (I have already made this clear to my sexual partner, being a *responsible* woman.) > Do responsible men need any choice, in a case of a birth control failure? Responsible men should talk to the responsible women they are sleeping with first in order to decide what responsible course of action will be taken in case of a pregnancy. No doubt, you will ask what happens if the woman lies (though I haven't heard you ask what will happen if the /man/ lies...) If the woman lies, well, then, I must admit that the man does get screwed, but I am not sure how to rectify this. If she becomes pregnant, should we require her by law to inform the man? How are we to know until she gives birth exactly which man impregnated her? If she decides to carry the child to term, against the wishes of the man and names him as the father, but he does not wish to be the parent of that child, then he should have the right to refuse paternity. But if he does so, he should not be allowed any contact with that child. With rights come responsibilities. > #Today there is only one maternal death in 10,000 births; the vast majority > #of those are women who entered their pregnancy with some kind of health > #problem. > -- ("Planning Ahead for Pregnancy", Sheldon H. Cherry) > > BTW the probability of random male to die in Vietnam was 50,000/125,000,000= > 1:2,500; the vast majority entered the army with no health problems... Hillel, let's keep these issues separate, please. Pregnancy and the draft are both issues that are important to feminists and to masculinists. But let's be at least somewhat intelligent and not confuse the two issues. >>when we were discussing "what to do if". I think some of the >>stereotyping of men as irresponsible may come from a sort of >>flabbergasted inability to understand some very loud men who make it >>sound like this should be easy. > > Do you think that giving 25% of your income to a child you did > not want, and you have no rights toward him/her, is easy?! Then, damn it, fight for the right to be with that child if you do give up part of your income to support that child -- if that is what you feel is right. Or, fight for your right to give up parental support and at the same time, give up all rights to that child. If enough men and women support your position, then I'm sure that you can start a movement that is more equitable in your eyes. I know that there are men's rights forums on local bulletin boards with very major followings. And there seems to be a core of men's rights people online here. So, if your movement is so noble, then go for it and quit bitching about it. > Do you think that it is so easy to a teenager to put his life > "on hold" because his girlfriend wants be a mother? Do you think it is so easy for a teenage girl to decide to have an abortion? Do you think it is so easy for her to go downtown to the clinic and have to be escorted through the Operation Rescue people who are calling her a murderer and a baby-killer? And why are these young girls wanting to become mothers? Maybe we need to correct what is wrong in our society so that these young girls do not have this desire. Most of the young girls I know who became pregnant and gave birth did so because they were from broken homes and often they had no father figure in their life. I sincerely believe that these girls are searching for a father figure in their boyfriends. Especially since most of them got pregnant by men who were at least five years older than they were. I will tell you Hillel, most of my friends from high school who became pregnant did not marry their children's fathers and I don't think any of them ever demanded child support from the father. One friend married, but she did not marry the father of her child. She married another boy who knew exactly the circumstances he was getting himself into: he was marrying a young woman who had given birth to another young man's child. Most of my other friends either supported themselves, gave up the child for adoption, or had abortions -- in that order. >>than already exists, such as the contract idea, but a failure of birth >>control WILL leave a woman with a tough choice no matter what, > > A failure of birth control leaves men with no choice at all. So, Hillel, I suggest that you move to a country where you have more of a say over the woman's body or I suggest that you refrain from intercourse unless you know /exactly/ what is going on her pretty little head. > I think that a tough choice is better than no choice at all, and IMO > most pro-choice people think so too; that's why they fight so hard. But Hillel, I feel that you consider the man's choice more important than the woman's choice. I would say that the man's choice and the woman's choice are equal, except that they are not. She is the one who is more impacted by pregnancy: physically, financially, and emotionally. The man doesn't have to go to a doctor's office to have an abortion performed on him. The man doesn't have to gain water weight and go through morning sickness. The man doesn't have to go through labor. Sure, there's a chance that the man might be slapped with a paternity suit, but 99% of the teenage boys I know who got girls pregnant got off scot free, which should make you happy, since their lives weren't impacted in the least. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sharon Lindsey O'Neil "I could be happy/I could be quite naive/ Bitnet: oneil@unomai1 It's only me and my shadow/Happy in our Internet: oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu make believe/Soon." -- Tears for Fears ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jan@oas.olivetti.COM (Jan Parcel) (06/20/91)
In article <676686826@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In article <49657@ricerca.UUCP> jan@oas.olivetti.COM writes: >>But I know women whose lives were at risk for any pregnancy, and my >>stand on women's rights over their bodies stems partly from a fear of >>judges deciding medical matters (some judges got both mother and child >>killed this way a year or two ago!!) > >#Today there is only one maternal death in 10,000 births; the vast majority of >#those are women who entered their pregnancy with some kind of health problem. > -- ("Planning Ahead for Pregnancy", Sheldon H. Cherry) > This is due to the *lack* of interference by judges that is the usual case. If we start having judges and legislators practice medicine, this will *change*! It already has changed, a little, with very bad results. The example I read about was where a woman who was dying of cancer expressed her wishes to follow her physician's advice and carry her child as long as possible. She had already shown a tremendous resistance to cancer, so there was reason to assume, from her medical history, that she would "hold out" much longer than the average for her type of cancer. The hospital authorities got nervous, and decided to force a C-section, so as to avoid suits that they had not tried hard enough to save the baby. The physician who knew her case well fought it, and she didn't give her consent, because they felt that carrying the child as far as possible into the range where viability is not at risk would be both possible and desireable. The hospital administration took it to a judge, who ordered a C-section, which killed both mother and child. The judge had decided against the usual doctrine that medical decisions are between a patient and her own physician. The case was appealed by the woman's parents, and overturned (thank the Goddess), by, I believe, the Supreme Court. Another example that scares me is that I have heard some people want to outlaw amniocentesis, on the grounds that it is often used to decide to terminate a pregnancy. But in *my* second pregnancy, I needed one every three weeks after 6 months to monitor the health of the baby and decide whether to continue the pregnancy or have an induced birth or C-section. Without the data from the amnio's, we might have made the wrong decision, and endangered her long-term health by forcing a premature birth. With the data, we were able to see that continuing was the safest course, and I carried to (term - 3) weeks. (The kid must have read the books saying the last three weeks were the riskiest :-) ) ~~~ jan@orc.olivetti.com or jan@oas.olivetti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We must worship Universal Consciousness as each of the 5 genders in turn if we wish to be fully open to Yr glory. -- St. Xyphlb of Alpha III
robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) (06/21/91)
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: -| In article <9106062203.1796@mydog.UUCP> 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. -gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: -| 1) If the claim comes from the child, then why the *mother* gives it -| up in a case of artificial insemination? -[ This argument seems to have wide popularity; Robert Coleman -also advanced it, or something like it. Is it the party line -now?] ??? Isn't the party line one of those 976 numbers? ;-) Nope. Hillel and I don't belong to the same party. We may agree on some things, but ultimately, it's my party and I'll cry if I want to. -The difference between artificial insemination and the usual -method seems so egregious as not to merit much comment. -Artificial insemination, as it is usually practiced, and the -laws surrounding it, cannot have a great deal of effect on -the usual methods of parenthood, and the laws surrounding them, -because the latter are a great deal older and more firmly -established. In general, you do not establish precedents -backwards, which is what this argument tries to do. I don't -know why the argument is seen as so clever as to merit mention -by at least two people; it seems fairly silly. Oh, nonsense. This is the silliest reason for ignoring the fact that the law talks out of both sides of it's face at the same time that I ever heard. There's no reason that a new law reflecting the current societal environment can't be used as a precedent to undo older laws that apply to societal situations that no longer exist. Heck, the Supreme Court does this all the time. A new situation comes up, they make a new precedent that invalidates all the old precedents. The argument only seems "clever", however, when other posters say such all-encompassing statements as "The financial claims against the father comes not from the mother but from the child". Clearly, this example shows that this line of thinking is hardly universal in law, which means we should give some serious thought to why we don't have a standard approach. If children have "rights" to financial support from their natural born parents, and no one can sign away those rights, then how do sperm banks exist? Answer: children do not necessarily have the right to financial support from their fathers. This opens the question as to exactly what circumstances do children have the right to expect financial support? IMO, when the father agrees, before the birth of the child to supply financial support. That is the magic difference in the sperm bank situation; the father supplies seed, but does not agree to supply support. I'm not sure why if the seed is imbedded in a more personal way that the father should be considered to consent in advance to financial support. I know why this *used* to be the case; neither partner had a choice after conception. -I suppose, in the throes of passion, a man could stop and have -the woman sign a paper waiving her right to sue for child -support, should she become pregnant. She would have to have -a lawyer along, of course, to check the document, and a -notary public. Is this a new form of sex? I know you've been on the net long enough to have encountered various rounds of suggestions of standard pre-coital agreements. This isn't a new idea for you. It also doesn't have to be any more inconvenient than, say, birth control. -| 4) If the child's good is a top priority then why not to force a -| woman who can't support a newborn to give it up to adoption. -| Why a situation of an unmarried mother and an angry father is -| better than an adoption by a pre-screened couple? -"Good" isn't the same as "right": I have a right to drink beer, -but it isn't necessarily good for me. No one said the situation -was "better for the child." The child's claim on its father -does not proceed from its good, but its right. Ah, the child's "right" to support from an indigent father and mother who simply cannot provide enough income, and where one parent will not provide his part of the emotional nurturing, precedes the child's "right" to be fed enough to grow up healthy in a loving fully nurturing environment. You have a peculiar "rights" hierarchy. -As to "destroying a man's life": very few men are forced to -engage in vaginal sex, and all of us know what the rules are. -Our society _could_ arrange things so that all men were -perfectly free of any responsibility for the results, but it -hasn't, because in general people want to affix responsibility -for important liabilities, like the support of children, onto -individuals. No; onto men. Society could easily affix responsibility onto the individual who created the child, but it doesn't. -As I have pointed out in previous incarnations of this -discussion, there are several alternatives. We could communize -child support. We could say that children have no rights to -support whatever. We could say that mothers, but not fathers, -had responsibility for children -- perhaps with some -compensation, as was the case with the Navahos, who allowed only -women to own land, because only women were responsible for -raising children (or so I have heard). As it happens, we have a -tradition and practice of individual parental responsibility -which the general public seem very enthusiastic about. -You can try to change this, but I think you've got a long way to -go, because just as a lot of men don't want to pay for the -possible results of their own sexual activities, so they don't -want to pay for the results of someone else's, either. Do they? -And you can't replace something with nothing. Little problem with wording. Most of the men posting here don't have any problem paying for the results of their sexual activities. Very few, if any, have said that they don't think they should be required to pay for an abortion, if that's what the woman wants. What men don't want to pay for is the choice of women to use the results of sexual activities to produce a child. I believe a family should consider whether they can afford to support a child before they have one. I believe that a mother who decides to create a child without a family should consider whether she can afford to support a child before she makes one. -uunet!infmx!robert@handies.UCAR.EDU (robert coleman): -| ... 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. ... -None of these are crimes, as far as I know. Some of them may be -torts. It is extremely difficult to get an emotional aspect into -court, however. Well, yes, that's my point. If the child had these "rights" by law, as you've suggested, these would all be crimes. The mother/divorced parents would be committing crimes against the child's rights. Most, if not all, of our "rights" are protected by law. Ask a man who's invaded a woman's right to privacy by peeking in her bedroom window. He is subject to criminal charges; he is probably also subject to a tort. -| 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. -On the contrary, both parents can be sued for failure to support, -whether they are married, divorced, or just hanging around. You're missing the point. If the child has these rights, it's the states responsibility to see those rights are defended. However, the state does not pursue cases where, for instance, the mother has decided not to name the father. Therefore, the state does not consider, in this instance, that the child has the "right" to be supported by the father. It instead considers that the mother has the right to decide for the child. -| 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? -The fact that the child does not exist at the time an abortion -decision must be made seems entirely irrelevant to the issue. No -issue of child support arises until the child is born. Fine. Edit out those offending phrases, and answer the question. -| In particular, why should the child's -|rights hinge on whether the Mother unilaterally *decides* to name the Father? -I believe that the child, or someone representing the child's -interests, might be able to sue the mother to compel her to -testify. This usually would not be done because there would not -be enough property at stake to make it worthwhile. Welfare -departments often try something like it, though. Something "like" it? Interesting. Do tell. Do you mean they attempt to find out on their own who the father might be? This could be costly in itself, for something where not enough property is at stake to make it worthwhile. If the child has "rights", it hardly matters what the property at stake is, does it? There are many "right" issues that are pursued without regard to property damage at all. The reason that this isn't pursued is that in this case, the court doesn't consider the child to have this right. If it did, it would be bound to pursue the matter, using whatever measures would be necessary to coerce the mother into naming the father. The fact is, the court doesn't care a bit unless the child ends up on the public dole, and then they only care in a half-hearted way; not enough to take action against the mother. That is not what I would call enforcement of "rights". -| 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. -I wasn't describing my feelings. I have been trying to describe -what I know of our laws and customs. I rather like the Navaho -system, myself. Oh, for pity's sake. You've gone to all this trouble to simply inform us about what the current situation is? We *know* what the current situation is. We're discussing why it isn't fair, and the possibility of changing it. When you have something to contribute to that discussion, feel free to leap in. In the meantime, feel assured that we know what kind of inconsistent excuses the court has used to enforce the unfair situation. -| 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. -The mother's right to abortion rests on her right to control her -body. The closest thing to a right of abortion in a male is the -male's right to not have vaginal intercourse against his will. -In other words, he has a right to control his body just as a -woman does. Since he does not carry the child, no amount of -control of his body can secure for him a right of abortion. Contrariwise, since he doesn't control her body, no amount of justification can make him responsible for what she does with it. The term "abortion" seems to confuse you in this context; feel free to call it something that makes more sense to you, such as "right of refusal to have a child". Hey, you come up with the term, as long as it allows you to debate the idea rather than get stuck in the terminology. I call it abortion because it gives the woman two things: the right to control her own body, and the right to control her own future after conception but before birth. The closest thing a man can get to the right of abortion is the ability to control his own future after conception but before birth. -If, given publicly known and generally agreed-upon laws, he -engages in vaginal intercourse with a fertile woman, he has signed -up for the risks involved, and I can't see what the complaint is. Once upon a time, there was a publicly know and generally agree-upon law that blacks rode in the back of the bus. If they tried to ride elsewhere, they got arrested. Do you see what their complaint was? -In all of the argument about what I said, I still haven't seen -anyone put herself or himself in the position of the dependent -child, or the taxpayer who may wind up paying for the child's -support when one or more of the parents cop out. That, as I -said, is where the issue is. The war of the sexes is mere -teenagery beside it. The plight of the child is sad. The two choices are nearly equally as bad; being raised without fatherly emotional support and financial support, or being raised simply without fatherly emotional support. The only thing different is the money. Of course, it would make things easier for the kid to have more money. Supposed, if the mother didn't know who the father was, that we simply set up a lottery among all men, and the one who "won" would have to support the child. That would certainly make the child's life easier. But it would be *stealing* from the stranger to do it. The only difference is that a single man can be identified as having something to do with the process somewhere. But his participation is so minimal as to be almost laughable. He didn't choose to make a child. He had nothing to do with the process of making a child. He couldn't make a child if he wanted to. Requiring money from him because he supplied some seed to mom, who then decided to use it, is stealing from him. Had dad agreed to raise the child, the dad would have a contractual agreement to support the child. Had dad created the child, he would have a responsibility for the results. Neither of these two things apply. The child has some reason to suppose that it will be supported. But it should expect that support to come from the one who created it, not from a near-complete stranger. As far as the taxes go, I'll take that risk. I think that that might be less of a problem than you think, when mothers begin to understand the enormity of the responsibility that the privilege of deciding whether to create a life entails. Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) (06/21/91)
farmerl@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (lisa ann farmer) writes: >But let me bring up one point why I see *at this point* that financial >support is important. A woman who is pregnant will have to take a >leave of absence from her job - many times this is not available to >her. Therefore she must quit. Now she must find another job, find >someone to take care of the infant while she is looking/interviewing, >maybe relocate if the area she is in has a horrible economy and once >she gets a job she will most likely be paid less than her male >counterparts. >Now she has to live - supporting herself and the child - she may not >have health insurance if she worked at a small company before and has >to pay off the hospital. Plus any doctor's visits. And she missed >maybe a month's pay or more having the child and finding a new job. >I'm not saying this is the way it should be but for many women this is >their situation. I think we need to start looking at this issue from >the perspective of the "common" worker who is making $20,000 or less >per year. This women cannot support herself and the child. If the >U.S had national health insurance, daycare available at employment, >and a women and men were paid equally and given the same amount of >chances for advancement, I would not advocate that the men pay child >support (or help with daycare or provide health insurance for the >child) unless they wanted. But this isn't the case I don't advocate >that women should have to support the child on her own. But she *chooses* to put herself in this situation! She doesn't have to face any of these consequences unless she *decides* she wants to have a child without a willing father. I think it's a woman's choice whether to have a child. I just can't see why the man, or the government, should have to support the child she *chooses* to create. Do you think a family should consider whether they can afford a child before they have one? Don't you think a mother should consider whether she can afford a child without a family, if she hasn't got a willing partner? Being able to make children doesn't grant the right to make children at will without having to face the economic consequences, any more than the ability to spend credit doesn't grant the right to avoid facing the economic consequences. You know what you're doing and have a pretty good idea of the consequences in advance. There's no reason why society should have to bear those consequences for women. If women want help, they can find a willing partner. If they want to do it own their own, then they should do it on their own. (Note: I support pre-coital contracts so that a woman who doesn't feel she has a choice can lock the man into having no choice as well. But for the common woman, who legally and morally has a choice, one of the things she should consider when weighing choices is whether she can afford to raise a child she created by herself.) >I think this society has responsibilty of keeping parents sane and >able to raise children. It is an incredibly stressful situation to >try to raise a child when the money isn't there. Many times that >stress gets taken out on children. I think that we need to look at >the overall effect not providing adequate daycare and insurance has on >the future of our society - I agree it should not rest on individuals >shoulders. I think society has a responsibility to make sex education available to all, to make birth control devices readily and cheaply available, to make abortions cheap and as painless as possible, and to socially encourage both parties to practice birth control so that a woman doesn't ever have to make the decision whether to face the financial consequences of having a child until she wants to make that decision. I don't think that society should have to support the decision of a woman who knows she can't support a child but creates one anyway. Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.