Organization: None.  Terminally sloppy.
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 17:30:09 EDT
From: Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?

In article <1992Apr9.100543.1@mdcbbs.com>, rivero@mdcbbs.com says:

>In article <92099.162254JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>, Joy Haftel                     >
><JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu
>writes:
>> In article <1992Apr7.100327.1@mdcbbs.com>, rivero@mdcbbs.com says:
>>
>> 1) No one owns the genetic information in the fetus except the fetus.
>>    Unless you want to say that half your genetic material is in fact
>>    the *property* of your mother and the *property* of your father and
>>    therefore *you* are theirs to dispose of as they please at any time.

>  Good! Valid observation. But the same logic holds true for the mother
>as well. If the fetus owns it's genetic material, than the mother does
>not. If the genes are not the property of the father they are not the
>property of the mother.

So good so far.

>  If the fetus is the property of the parents to "dispose of" (as you
>put it), then that decision belong to both parents, not just to one.

Their child is not theirs to dispose of.  It can be taken away from
them because of abuse, gross negligence, etc.  The fetus therefore is
in a unique position as a fetus:  its health but not its life is
protected by law.  I find that amazing.  But I digress.  The woman
is given a "choice" because she and she alone has to be a life support
system for the fetus for nine months.  Such is the pro-choice position.
If the fetus weren't in her body, she'd not have the sayso about it.
(e.g. if there were technology to remove the fetus and bring it to
term in an incubator, killing the fetus in order to remove it would
no longer be necessary and therefore abortion would not kill).

>> 2) "He should have some say as to whether the genetic material becomes
>>    human."  Isn't it a bit late for that kind of decision?

>  The decision to make a child was a priori, already made in the case of
>sex for fun only. Like the idea that a woman must now say YEA explicitly to
>sex , and the man not assume any permissions, the man must say YES
>explicitly to being a father. The woman may not assume he wants to
>be a father because he wants to share sexual pleasure with her!

I could go hanggliding for recreation only.  I could still crash and
break every bone in my body.  If I knew the risks (and signed a release
form, which is where the analogy breaks down), I really can't do anything
about it.

>  But, the issue remains, what was the reason the couple angaged in sex by
>mutual consent, and was the objective a mutual one. If they both engage in sex
>for the thrill of it all, without the intention of children, then that intent
>should be binding on both, or options for response to the unplanned
>pregnancy should rest with both.

This sounds all well and good, until I think of it in practical terms.
First, of course, it should be discussed and decided between the two.
But say the two don't agree.  What then?  There are two alternatives:
either he wants it & she doesn't, or she wants it & he doesn't.  I can't
think of any time I could be pregnant and consider having an abortion.
(this I think is where this sort of argument breaks down.  There are many
pro-choice women who wouldn't ever choose to have an abortion for moral
or personal reasons; are they to be forced to have one because the man
doesn't want a child?)  Therefore, if I were pregnant and my partner
wanted me to get an abortion, I don't think I can quite do justice in
words to the kind of blinding rage I would feel at him.  I would not
want that man to pay child support; I would not want that man to have
anything to do with my child.  I would rather put down "father unknown"
on the birth certificate.  That child is mine and mine alone.

This is called a nasty situation breeding a nasty situation.  Is this
the kind of thing you *want*?  To force an unwilling woman to have an
abortion?

Yes, the reaction I outlined above is an emotional reaction.  Since when
do people act on logic alone?

>> Toss this one over in your mind:  for women to have an equal weight,
>> status, and opportunity in the world as men, they cannot have children.

>  How do you get this? Women have always enjoyed special protection and
>priviledge because they DO have children. Men are biologically disposable

Special protection and privilege...let's see:
(up until recently)
High chance of dying in childbirth - Nope
Having no control over how many children and when - Nope
Being treated in many ways as property - Nope
Being first off a sinking ship - Yes
Not having to work outside the home - Questionable.  work's work. And
                                      poor women have always worked.
Not having to go to war - Questionable, women who were allowed to go
                          to war weren't much better of, and women were
                          far from exempt from bombings and blitzes and
                          concentration camps.

>once conception occurs (which is why Arlington National Cemetary remains a
>male only club).

Do tell.  JFK is there.  Where's a woman president?

>  I think the problem here is that you have a rather arbitrary definition
>of what constitutes "equality", defined (I am assuming here) in terms of
>life outside the home. There is another viewpoint. The statement you make

I didn't say "equality."  I said "equal weight, status, and opportunity
in the (outside) world as men".

>above attempts to cast women who WANT children as somehow socially inferior,
>and that is not a judgement you are in a position to make. You are making
>a sweeping generalization based solely on pregnancy. Many very succesful
>women, including heads of coporations, still have children, and have husbands
>who think helping with the kids is a very neat idea. What could possibly be
>wrong with that, that you assign a socially inferior position to such women.

I do not consider women who want children socially inferior.  Where did
you get that from?  I just don't see (for me and for many of my friends)
it satisfactory to work a career-track job and raise a family.  I don't
have it in me to do both.  And I think I'd find staying home and raising
a family *much* more fulfilling, if I had a family to stay home and raise
:-/.  I was talking about social perception of a stay home mother as
"lazy" or "wasting her education" or "not making anything of her life."
Don't tell me such attitudes aren't common.

As for the women who have careers and have househusbands, I salute them.
They are obviously strong people who are able to break free from trad-
itional roles and still cover all the bases.

But this still doesn't address the increasingly common plight of a
single mother who has children and has to work, and no husband to take
part of the load.  Should she be deprived of employment too?  The way
our system is set up, no wonder welfare looks attractive to some!

>  However, we seem to have wandered from the idea of decision regarding birth o
>t
>an automatic condemnation of pregagncy. I don't care if you, personally, don't
>want to get pregnant; the world is over populated.

I don't think it was anyone's intention to condemn pregnancy.  My point
was that it is incredibly difficult for one person to balance the
pregnancy/child and career without doing thing which go against my
grain like allowing my children to be raised by strangers (day care).

>  Now then. the original concept was, why should women have sole control over
>whether a child lives or dies. This breaks down to two facets. Should a man
>be forced (in this day of available abortion) to pay for a child which was
>never intended and which he does not want? Alternately, should a wife be able
>to abort her husbands child at will if he wants it and married her to have a
>family?

As someone who considers herself both pro-choice and pro-life, I would
try to err on the side of life.  I think abortion should remain legal
to avert worse problems (coercion, abuse, etc).  I don't think women
should be forced to abort or not to abort, and I do think that a promise
from the father to raise the child might be a deciding factor for her to
keep the baby.  But further than that, I have no answer.

>  You know, if you start treating mothers as people to be respected, maybe
>companies will start respecting them. If you keep displaying an attitude
>that pregnant women are inferior, it maybe encourages companies to
>treat them as inferior, because they think they can get away with it.

That is not what I meant.  I was echoing the attitude of many companies
and even the attitude of another poster who also followed up my article.
I think we actually agree on this point far more than you imagine.
My beef is not with motherhood, but with corporate America--in many
ways parallel to and just as disgusting as medieval feudalism.

>> So any program that wants true equality for men and women will have to
>> take women's unique ablility to bear children into account.

>  AGREED!

> I don't
>> have the answers but I am thinking about possible solutions.

>  Very liberal and cooperative day-care. Flex time. Integrate the work
>experience with the family life as opposed to erecting barriers (and
>resentment) between the two. Change in attitude regarding the valuation
>of mothers (as in, those that don't want to have children have to stop
>looking down on those that do).

Good ideas.  More thoughts:  making more positions telecommuting pos-
itions, and freelance work from the home.


Joy Haftel               "A thing of beauty is a joy for ever."
JKH107@PSUVM                        --Keats
Newsgroups: soc.men