From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Value of a Man (repost)
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:21:30 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <+44tn#a@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook) writes:


>What is the value of a man?

	Hmmm...  sounds interesting, this I have to hear. ;-)

>What is he worth to his children?  Because, after all, the ultimate
>biological purpose of males is that of starting and supporting families.

 	I guess the same can be applied to females. After all, the ultimate
biological purpose of females is that of carrying and supporting families. :-(

>Unfortunately, men are currently allowed to walk away from that
>responsbility scott-free.  If he runs away and can't be found, he
>is released from responsibility.  If he finds that he would rather
>not work than pay child support, he walks away from his responsibility.
>I propose that we change this sad situation, and force men to take
>responsibility for their actions.

	And women are not required to keep the baby. If she decides that she
wants to be free the baby, she can have an abortion or give up the baby for
adoption. Of course the majority of the women would not prefer so, but they
are "currently allowed" to do so. While some guys are jerks and neglect their
responsibilities, do the majority of them run away form their responsibilities?


>Therefore, I propose the following.  If a man has sex and makes a
>woman pregnant (whether or not he consented to the pregnancy or
>even if he was raped), he is immediately apprehended and taken to
>a local hospital, where he receives a visible tag.  This tag is
>attached somewhere on his body, such as a hand or the ear, that
>is difficult or impossible to hide.

	Are you proposing that women are not allowed to have abortions? :-(
Does this mean that the man is obligated to support the woman even if she
doe not want to keep the child? Even if this is the case, why?  :-l    

 
>The tag reads "Opted to the organ bank".  The tag means that, for
>the duration of the pregnancy, his body is on permanent 
>call for anyone who may need a part of his body to survive.  At
>any time, day or night, his tag may be activated.  Once this
>happens, he has 24 hours (maybe less) to report to the closest
>hospital and donate whatever organ may be required of him.  If
>he will not or can not report within that time, the tag begins
>to release a metabolic poison that will eventually kill him
>without, of course, damaging any of his organs in the process.

	Sure... why not? I'm sure it won't cause me more than an arm
and a leg unless they want both arms and legs. Seriously speaking,
I don't think this is a reasonable analogy to pregnancy. :-<

>But of course, this is not a situation of giving without
>receiving.  Any time that the man is called upon to donate an
>organ, a fee will be paid to the woman carrying his child, with
>a portion of that fee being put into trust for his unborn child.
>He can go into the operating room happy that, no matter what the
>outcome is, he is fulfilling his biological destiny by helping
>to support his family.

	So... does this mean he doesn't need to work to support his
family? Does that mean he can just sit around and wait for this
"emergency call" so he can pay off the medical costs of the pregnancy?
Or... do you want to enforce both biological and financial holds on the  
male during the duration of this time? If it's equality that you want,
this is not the way. If it's revenge, then you're on the right track.

>Of course, there's a risk that he will be called upon to donate
>his heart, or a portion of his brain, or some other reasonably
>vital organ.  But really, the risk is too small to worry about.
>When you consider the difficulties of tissue-matching with such
>organs, and the number of people that can even afford to receive
>a heart or lung transplant, the chances are vanishingly small 
>that any given man will die from this system.  Now, it's 
>undeniable that _some_ men will die.  But men have always risked
>death in support of their families, whether from the tusks of
>mastadons or falling from a construction site in a 30-story
>building.  He will undoubtably be happy to make the sacrifice,
>knowing that it will help bring a new life into the world.

	Do we restrict abortions for the sake of mother's health? No!
By the way, the risk would be a lot higher for organ donations compare
to pregnancy. (ant Bio-Majors out there please confirm this) I'm sure
that there are many organs that people need in order to survive. Plus,
most organ donations comes from deceased people unless you prefer we
use live donors so the organ's "fresher". Please understand, your point
is not as valid as it should be. Try a different analogy.

>And most men will escape with only minor damage.  How much could
>one suffer from the loss of an ear or a few teeth (for after all
>some men will have to volunteer a few minor organs to meet their
>responsibilities), knowing that those organs had been sacrificed
>in order to make another person whole?  Even if the man was 
>originally against it, he would have to be a heartless monster
>to remain angry after seeing the people he's helped.
	
	Like I said before, most organ transplant are more dangerous than
pregnancy. Another point, how many people have "ear" transplants, or even
"teeth" transplant? Do you personally feel that this is what a woman have
to go through during a pregnancy? I certainly hope not. Putting this   
restriction on men is not going to help women, it's just to punish men.

>And once the baby is born, his obligation is discharged.  He will
>only face further responsibility if he chooses to.  If he wishes,
>he can walk away from the child with no further contact.  He has
>fulfilled his moral responsibility by offering the use of his body,
>and no further action is required of him.

	Ahhh... so you're saying after this a man is not required to have
any obligations to his child. I thought you wanted to prevent men from 
leaving their family without support. (financial) Didn't you say that the
purpose of men is to "start" and "support families" Would giving him the
okay to leave forfill his obligation to support his family? I dunno know?
Do you want biological/financial/moral responsibilities for the male?
Or do you want all three imposed on the male. Let me know, I'm curious. :-l

>To those who wish to outlaw abortion, consider this scenario.  For
>this is the exact risk you say that a woman must take _every_single_
>_time_she_has_sex_.  Married or unmarried, voluntary sex or rape,
>she risks her life and her health every time that she is involved
>in coitus.  It is instantly clear to anyone who sees her that she
>has had sex and become pregnant, regardless of the circumstances 
>involved.  We ask only the same of you.

	I don't wish to "outlaw abortion" and I feel the majority of the
population don't want to outlaw abortion. (both Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers)
This doesn't mean I agree with you ideas here. I think your proposal does
not benefit women or men, it just serves ae a form of punishment for men.
I don't think pregnancy is a form of punishment for a woman, I see it as
something special, something that men will never experience. It's something
that we can never truly understand, the gift of bringing life to this world.

>And consider the advantages!  Research on male contraceptives 
>would go into OVERDRIVE!  Men would no longer lie about having had
>a vasectomy!  Condom sales would SOAR!  Disease rates would plummet!
>EVERYONE WOULD BE MUCH MORE RESPONSIBLE!!!  And isn't that what you
>_really_want_?

	What about research on female contraceptives? Do most men "lie"   
about having had a vasctomy? (I don't know about this one) Condom sales
is soaring right now, well at least at this campus. What about the fact that
most pregnancies and STD occurs when the parties don't use birth control?
Would the Catholic Church allow the use of birth control? There are many
points that I don't want to bring up. All I can say is that this is not the
way. This will not solve the abortion problem, this will only cause more
problems. Hope you can understand... IMHO of course!


>So does anyone have any objections to this plan?  When can we get
>started?
	
	I've stated my objections and reasons, please think about it. :->

						Mikeey
				    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
				      (Pro-Choice/ANTI-ABORTION)

PS I like the caps in "ROCKER" better. ;-)


>                          -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion