From: lstewart@watserv1.waterloo.edu (L. Stewart -- IS      Office 1058)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:24:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.211244.9936@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu> bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger) writes:
>In <1992Apr06.160847.22990@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>
>>In article <1992Apr3.045457.14159@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>>But his wallet typically *IS*. Why narrow the question to only biology? 
>>>Biology is not the only thing that's important here.
>
>	Oh, biology. I tried that. I didn't like it.
>
>	Geez. We're not philosophizing  about
>	"the study of life". 
>
>	It's called "My Body". Yeah, say that.
>	See how it feels.
>
>	Not the same as "my wallet", imnsho.
>
>	But, you may be different. Maybe you really
>	were born with your wallet intricately
>	interwoven into your abdomen. I suppose
>	it's possible.
>
>	Bev
>-- 
>-	-	-	-	-	-	-
>Just read his lips:
>Now, he wants us to believe in the "tooth fairy".
>-	-	-	-	-	-	-
It occurs to me that while poor Kevin must enjoy the taste of
his own footwear it is really not fair to taunt him Bev.

There can be no denying that the physical symptoms of pregnancy
are manifest entirely by the woman. Hence, "Your body."

Now assuming some hapless woman is fool enough to co-mingle
with Kevin and he lasts long enough to effect penetration,
there is the potential for conception to take place.

Now given that this occurs, the woman has the right
(at least for the moment in most of N. America) to choose
to either carry the pregnancy to term or to seek an
abortion during the first trimester.

So while Kevin is attempting to manipulate his shoes in a
pleasing and suitable manner he is left with a momentary
afterglow from a momentary event. But he may also be left
with a tremendous responsibility. He may have mixed with a
woman who decides to bring his spawn to life. He is then liable
to bear the economic burden for his child whether or not
he wants him/her or not.

Is it truly unreasonable to ask that in the spirit of
autonomy that men and women each be given the right to 
make choices about matters that will surely have an
enormous impact on the rest of their lives?

Many men, myself included, feel that there is a great deal
more at stake than money. I love children and prefer their 
friendship to that of adults. Children are the humans I
cherish most. I am not presently able, emotionally, 
economically or circumstantially to care for a child.

Supposing this were a situation that I was in I would be
facing a crippling dillemma. If the child were born I
would feel compelled not only to fork over cash but to take
a much larger role in that child's development. What rights
have I here, if the woman decides she is the sole parent?
What rights have I to potential custody of the child?

Money is only so much paper, ink and tin. It is symbollic
and important but it is no more than that. I can part with      
money and feel no remorse. (I could do with more of the stuff 
but I don't crave it) I don't think I could part with a child
and not be devastated. 

There is no shortage of suffering in the world. Humans have 
taken extraordinary measures to codify and institutionalize
the means of suffering. We pay the arbitors of suffering 
great sums to meddle with our lives and we're not likely
to get rid of lawyers in the near future. However it seems
that in the panic of lobbying about any issue of choice we
may need to make provisions for us men for a change.

In my not so humble or even cogent opinion the patriarchy
(I don't think that's the right word but...) is a blind        
drooling idiot monster that feeds on greed and avarice.
Presently it has a disproportionate number of men on staff.
But it is willing to feed on anyone's entrails regardless of 
what's between their legs. 

Ah but I ramble... let me ask then do men have pre-natal 
rights? No.

Do men have or should they have post-natal rights?
Does the man have a right to a child's custody in a situation
where he is the father of record but only aquainted with the
mother?            
Does a man have the right to refuse responsibility for a
child when the woman decides to continue the pregnancy and
he would rather she didn't?

Xref: sparky soc.men:8503 soc.women:9019