From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: The Value of a Man (repost)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 07:31:14 GMT

mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:

>In <+44tn#a@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook) writes:

Mikeey, I'm deleting some of your comments because this whole thing
is a parallel to making abortion illegal.  If abortion is legal, then
none of this applies.  (So call me hypothetical....that's what you
are....hypotheticalllllllllllll......er, sorry)

>>What is the value of a man?

>	Hmmm...  sounds interesting, this I have to hear. ;-)

I humbly hope it lived up to your expectations.

>>What is he worth to his children?  Because, after all, the ultimate
>>biological purpose of males is that of starting and supporting families.

> 	I guess the same can be applied to females. After all, the ultimate
>biological purpose of females is that of carrying and supporting families. :-(

Or so I have been told by many pro-"life"rs.

(A small digression here: some stupid tv commercial hyping a tv show
said "<some character> faces a woman's greatest heartache...."  "I'm
sorry, but you can't have children" and I'm sitting here thinking that
I can think of a LOT of things worse than not being able to have kids.
Just really irritated me....)

>are "currently allowed" to do so. While some guys are jerks and neglect their
>responsibilities, do the majority of them run away form their responsibilities?

Actually I read an article on child support about a month ago.  The
figures they gave for NY state were that 90% of non-custodial parents
had been late in support payments at some point, about 70% were 
currently behind in support payments, and about 20% had never made
a single court-mandated CS payment.  (This is from memory, I can
look these up if anyone's interested.)  The figures were the same
whether the NCP was male or female.  (I personally have a female
relative who is making CS payments to an ex-husband who has a LOT
more money than she does.)  If the NCP had moved, the CP had to
spend their own money to track them down (although I understand
that this is the situation in only a few states).

Clearly, the current child-support system is not working.

>	Sure... why not? I'm sure it won't cause me more than an arm
>and a leg unless they want both arms and legs. Seriously speaking,
>I don't think this is a reasonable analogy to pregnancy. :-<

It's pretty close.  There are lots and lots of things that can go
wrong in a pregnancy, and some of them could indeed result in the
loss of organs.  I myself broke a tooth due to calcium loss.  And
my pregnancy was considered at the extreme end of uncomplicated
(excpet for a fairly long labor - 2 1/2 days).

>	So... does this mean he doesn't need to work to support his
>family? 

That's up to him.  All I'm requiring is the physical risk.

>By the way, the risk would be a lot higher for organ donations compare
>to pregnancy. 

That can be controlled for.  We merely mandate that the risk be equal.

>(ant Bio-Majors out there please confirm this) I'm sure
>that there are many organs that people need in order to survive. Plus,
>most organ donations comes from deceased people unless you prefer we
>use live donors so the organ's "fresher". Please understand, your point
>is not as valid as it should be. Try a different analogy.

Please, understand that many women lose (the use of) organs during
pregnancy.  Kidney failure.  Gestational diabetes.  Stroke.  Ruptured
uterus.  All because of the fetus.  Is it really so incredible to
ask men to share some of the risk we face?

>	Like I said before, most organ transplant are more dangerous than
>pregnancy. Another point, how many people have "ear" transplants, or even
>"teeth" transplant? 

Perhaps if we had so many donors available, these things would be more
common.  My father-in-law lost an ear to cancer.  Don't you have a tooth
or two you'd like to replace?  I do.

>Do you personally feel that this is what a woman have
>to go through during a pregnancy? 

Yes, I do.  I have a child, remember?

>I certainly hope not. 

Perhaps some people will begin to realize that pregnancy entails more
risk than having a big belly for a few months.

>Putting this   
>restriction on men is not going to help women, it's just to punish men.

"Punish"?  Gee, that sounds familiar.  We've been contending for
years that many pro-"life"rs want to punish women.  Don't we deserve
equal time?

>	Ahhh... so you're saying after this a man is not required to have
>any obligations to his child. 

In the same way that a woman can give a child up for adoption.

>I thought you wanted to prevent men from 
>leaving their family without support. (financial) 

He's already done that.

>Didn't you say that the
>purpose of men is to "start" and "support families" Would giving him the
>okay to leave forfill his obligation to support his family? I dunno know?

They've already got the money.

>Do you want biological/financial/moral responsibilities for the male?
>Or do you want all three imposed on the male. Let me know, I'm curious. :-l

Well, I don't understand the distinction you're making.  Pro-"life"rs
appear to require only nine months of bodily servitude from the woman.
I'm proposing that that's all that we require of the man as well.  

>>To those who wish to outlaw abortion, consider this scenario.  For
>>this is the exact risk you say that a woman must take _every_single_
>>_time_she_has_sex_.  Married or unmarried, voluntary sex or rape,
>>she risks her life and her health every time that she is involved
>>in coitus.  It is instantly clear to anyone who sees her that she
>>has had sex and become pregnant, regardless of the circumstances 
>>involved.  We ask only the same of you.

>	I don't wish to "outlaw abortion" and I feel the majority of the
>population don't want to outlaw abortion. (both Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers)
>This doesn't mean I agree with you ideas here. I think your proposal does
>not benefit women or men, it just serves ae a form of punishment for men.

Many of us feel the same way about laws against abortion.

>I don't think pregnancy is a form of punishment for a woman, I see it as
>something special, something that men will never experience. It's something
>that we can never truly understand, the gift of bringing life to this world.

Let me say that this is NOT a flame.  But might I point out that in
the same sentence you say that a man cannot understand the pregnancy
experience, and yet you describe it as "special" and a "gift".  Many
men don't seem to understand that many women do NOT consider it special
OR a gift.  These are normal, caring women who feel that pregnancy is an
intrusion, a burden, or something equally bad.  This is a normal way to
feel.  An unwanted pregnancy is something that nearly every woman will
_fear_ at some point or another.  There are a number of things in my
life right now which would make another pregnancy disastrous for me.
I don't know what I'd DO if I discovered that I were pregnant, but I
can assure you most heartily that my first reaction would not be joy.

(In Sarah Weddington's (the lawyer who argued the case for Jane Roe)
speech, she said she spent several hours standing in front of a
mirror trying to decide how to describe to a 76-year-old Supreme
Court Justice how it felt to realize that your period was late.  In
the end, she decided that she just couldn't figure out how to get
the idea across, so she left it out of her argument. (-: )

>	What about research on female contraceptives? 

I wonder that myself.  Mostly, where's the research?  The funding
has dried up due to political pressure, and very little is being done.

>Do most men "lie" about having had a vasctomy? 

It's been known to happen.

>What about the fact that
>most pregnancies and STD occurs when the parties don't use birth control?

Do you have statistics on this?  The failure rate of some contraception
methods is pretty high.

>Would the Catholic Church allow the use of birth control? 

Interesting question.

>There are many
>points that I don't want to bring up. All I can say is that this is not the
>way. This will not solve the abortion problem, this will only cause more
>problems. Hope you can understand... IMHO of course!

Well, I think that my proposal is about on a level with making abortion
illegal.  Take that however you want.  :-)

>>So does anyone have any objections to this plan?  When can we get
>>started?
>	
>	I've stated my objections and reasons, please think about it. :->

Oh, ok, I guess I'll wait until NEXT week to start lobbying Congress.  :-)

>						Mikeey

                          -rocker