From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:32:55 GMT

In article <1jkid2INNf6l@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
>
>>I've said in the past that there is an inconsistancy between saying that he 
>>has no rights as far as the z/e/f is concerned and demanding he support the 
>>resulting child.  If support is demanded, then he must have some rights 
>>associated with the z/e/f, if he has no such rights, then support should 
>>not be mandated.
>
>I agree that the situation is not a good one.  However I find the 
>alternatives worse.  

How about if the authority were to exactly match the responsibility?
Ergo, for 100% responsibility, 100% authority, up to and including
requesting an abortion. For 0% responsibility, 0% authority.

It has already been pointed out that there are some joys of parenting
(often the only plusses) which are totally denied man in most cases.

>                  Either (1) men get control over prengnacy and abortion,
>thereby women lose bodily autonomy.  Or (2) children go unsupported by
>one or more of their parents, thereby either living in poverty or becoming
>a burden on society at large (or both).  

Once again, pregnancy is not a personal decision if it involves the
life of another adult for 18 years or so and the state. Given that it
-is- a system decision, unilateral decisions which are mandated by
a legal requirment to keep one party in the dark almost require the
scenario above.
 
>>One last note; this crappy propoganda you put forth about men bailing out
>>of responsibility at the first opportunity is bullshit.  Granted some men 
>>might (just as women do through abortion and adoption), but others, just 
>>like women, enjoy being parents.  This line of reasoning however does 
>>speak loudly of your opinion of men, as well as your belief that only 
>>women are capable of making reasoned, well thought out decisions regarding 
>>children.
>
>>P.S. For the tecno-nit-pickers, my last sentence is a supposition about 
>>Michals position.  She has never stated it explicitly, or this clearly IMO.
>
>It is an incorrect supposition.  I know well that many men enjoy being 
>parents and many more would cherish a greater role in their children's 
>lives.  (Not just NCPs either -- alot of CPs and married folks would 
>dearly love to have more time to spend with their children!) However 
>some men are more concerned with their pocketbooks than with their
>kids.  Alas this is also true of some women.

It is obvious that some women are unconcerned about mens wallets,
usually the same women are quite concerned about their own. 
 
>The law must be written to keep the scoundrels in line.  Scoundrels of
>*both* genders.

As long as the law defines scoundrels by sex, not bloody likely.

>-- 
>
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky soc.men:23091 alt.abortion.inequity:6657 alt.dads-rights:3454