From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 8 Apr 92 10:45:05 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Apr7.203253.10194@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu> bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger) writes:
>In <702436086@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>>I'm for choice for men and choice for women, as part of the same package.
>>She should have the right for abortion regardless of his opinion, he
>>should have the right to say, in the early stages of the pregnancy, "I
>>don't want any rights and responsibilities toward the future child."

>>People like Beverly argue against that because they don't give
>>a damn about men.  They're pretty sure that men's responsibilities
>>should start five minutes *before* conception happened.

>	I'm laughing about the "People like Beverly" comment.
>	Not only is the implication beneath you, Hillel,
>	but it reminds me of my mother trying to let
>	me know she's serious by using my full name.

I saw more than one fight start because someone called Valerie
"Val" instead of using her full name, so I decided that it is
better be safe than sorry...

>	Honestly, I believe every unwanted pregnancy
>	(unwanted by EITHER partner) is an indication
>	of a very broken society. Mainly repressed and
>	materialistic and lacking the fundamentals.

Is there *any* society on Earth which is not "very broken" by the
above criteria?  (Yes, I prefer to live on Earth; Heaven can wait.)

>	I happen to care a great deal about men and women.
>	I have never "argued against men's rights to choose".

You said:

%	Maybe you could answer a couple questions for
%	me. If one aspect for the woman is whether
%	she wants a fetus to be in her body, then
%	what is the analogous choice for the potential
%	father?

Since *most* of the anti-choice-for-men feminists use the above
argument I thought that you were in the same camp.  Sorry for
the wrong assumption.

>	grabs. If you don't show more respect for the
>	rights that women have won, then how secure
>	do you expect your rights to be when you've won
>	them?

1) In what way I don't "show more respect for the rights women have won."

2) I don't think that if women will win more rights they suddenly
   start to support men's rights.  E.g in the early 70's women got 
   quite a few rights and extra rights, affirmative action and 
   abortion rights included.  In the same time the feminist 
   movement broke off from the anti-war movement.

>	a bait-and-switch. It's the kind of logic which is
>	used to justify AN ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THE RIGHTS
>	OF ONE PERSON, IN THE FIGHT TO SECURE ANOTHER'S.

Is not it what liberalism is really about?

>>"When I do it to you it's sexism,
>>when you do it to me it's feminism."

>	If it's sexism you do, and you admit it, 

It is not sexist by my standards.  

>	BUT, I never do feminism TO anyone but me. ;)

You can define an action by a noun.  E.g. we argue and I see it as a debate.

>Bev

Hillel                                            gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Because public silence to public bigotry condones it -- whether one
intends to or not."  --  Clay Bond