From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:07:43 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Immoral Minority

In article <1992Dec17.210620.8318@netcom.com> aldridge@netcom.com 
(Jacquelyn Aldridge) writes:

>David's complaint is that he doesn't want to have children and he is
>concerned about what happens if he gets a woman pregnant. 

>	There are no guarantees in birth control but he can darn well act
>in ways that are close to guaranteeing that he won't engender a child. Men
>who are very sure they don't want children don't take chances. 

>	Women's freedom is bought at a price. The back up to birth control
>is abortion or birth. 

The life risk of giving birth is 1/10,000.  Abortion is at least 10 times
safer (depends on th method; e.g. vacuum methods are safer).  These risks 
for *women* worth 1/4 of a man's salary for 18 years.  E.g. if a man make 
$20,000 then birth control failure should cost him $5,000 * 18= $90,000.

I'm really impressed that you value women's lives so much, but I wonder if
you value men's lives so much.  E.g. men who were drafted to fight the
Vientnam war had a risk (at least) 100 higher than women who gives birth.
Do you think that each one of them should get $9,000,000 as compenssation?

Just wondering...

>	I've read a lot on abortion, RU-486 vs standard methods. It is

There is a fair chance that Clinton will lift the ban over RU-486.

If that will happen, will you support men's choice, or will you just say:
"shut up and pay, that is the feminist justice."

>	So, give it a break. The guy wants a contract that states that he
>has a choice over what a women does if she gets pregnant. 

No, he wants a contract that says that she has the choice, but he does
not have to finance the result of *her* choice not to have an abortion.

You prefer to keep the choice, and tax him without ever thinking what
is the most likely result of taxation with represetation.

>Why should he
>have the right. He can control his own destiny, he doesn't have to engage
>in sexual practices that will get a woman pregnant. He can restrict his
>choice of women to those who can't have children or those highly motivated
>not to have children. 

If a woman will have to get a permissioon from her sexual partner to have
an abortion, will you just say:

#She can control her own destiny, she doesn't have to engage
#in sexual practices that will get her pregnant. She can restrict her
#choice of men to those who can't have children or those highly motivated
#not to have children. 

Why is it so easy for you to understand why women don't want to have their
lives destroyed because of an unwanted pregnancy, but you just can't
develop the any empthy toward men?  Have you taken so many classes
from women's studies?

>It's just that it's easier to try to get contractual or lawful
>control of women. So that's his brief. 

Are you willing to give up your control over men in a case of unwanted
pregnancy?  Do you hold yourself to the same high moral standrs that
you demand from him?

Hillel                                       gazit@cs.duke.edu

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