From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 02:42:29 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1gts5fINNmpj@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.235628.4398@nsc.nsc.com> jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe) writes:
>>In article <1gql3fINN4o9@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>
>>>After all, it couldn't be true, could it, that keeping abortion legal
>>>means FEWER men are 'stuck' with the bills, could it?
>>
>>Pretty cynical, Adrienne.  I don't recall reading anybody on this group
>>who made the point that they'd like someone to abort just so they then
>>wouldn't have to pay any bills. 
>
>You're kidding!  Then you haven't been reading much, have you?
>
>Or is it rather the case that the man who doesn't want to get 'stuck' with
>the bill (that was not my choice of terms -- I borrowed it from the male-
>choicers, bub) STILL wants the woman to bear a child so it can grow up in
>poverty, since he has his "choice" not to support it?
>
>Which is it, Jerry?

Oh, c'mon Adrienne....

None of us are suggesting that women be >forced< to give birth now, are we?

No, I think not.

So now, the person who wants to preserve "choice" also wants to stick
someone else with the bill.

WITH CHOICE COMES RESPONSIBILITY.  

If women want the choice to abort or not, then the following must be true:

1)	There isn't a BABY there at conception, there is a fetus (otherwise
	the mother is guilty of MURDER and should be locked up for same, and
	abortion should be illegal all of the time with no exceptions)

	Therefore, men do not have a part in creating BABIES, they have a
	part in creating FETI.

2)	The woman chooses whether that FETUS, which has no right to survival,
	is to become a BABY.

3)	Since a woman is the one who chooses whether or not the FETUS
	becomes a BABY, and that choice is made unilaterally, and in fact
	the man involved has >NO SAY< in the decision, it then follows that
	the person responsible for creating that BABY should get to care for
	and pay for same.

What is wrong with THAT as a default?

Now, if a particular man and woman want to change that by mutual assent,
there is no problem at all.  I don't think any of the men's rights people
are interested in preventing men from becoming parents.  

>I've been reading a whole bunch of articles about men who want a choice
>not to be a parent.  There are three ways to accomplish that: 1. don't
>make love to women.  That doesn't seem to be popular, and I can understand
>why.  (2.) when you find your partner is pregnant, beg, plead, and hope
>she will get an abortion.  Offer to pay for it.  This is the option the
>goons of male-choice seem to think is a logical point of blackmail.  (3.)
>Get out of paying for the existing child.  This is the legal change male-
>choicers would like to see happen.  With the resulting fall out:  (a) either
>a child is born and it doesn't receive financial support from him or (b)
>a child is not born.
>
>You contend that people haven't supported position 3b.  Well, I've seen it,
>but you probably don't read every article here that I do.  But even so, 
>you are then contending that people support 3a, which in all practicality,
>and observing the situation in the United States, seems to me to be almost
>worse than 3b.

Boy, now that seems to be a logical leap of faith.

So let's see if we can run down these choices for the genders again:

Male:
	No options.  He can beg, plead, or hope that his partner will abort,
	or place the child for adoption.  However, he gets to pay 50% of the
	cost of her choice, and in fact, more like 80% of the >actual< cost
	(or more) of raising a child.

Female:
	All the options.  She can choose to abort, or have the kid.  She can
	do so knowing that someone else (namely the man above) will get the
	majority of the bill.  She can also be nearly guaranteed of primary
	custody of the child, and therefore be in a position to cut the man
	out of kid's life entirely should she desire.  

Sounds like real equality to me.  Then again, feminists always seem to get
this one odd.

Let's apply this to another situation -- work:

1)	Women:	
	Should have no options.  Should be relegated to secretaries; they
	don't need any money, as men get to pay for all the kids anyway.
	Should be walking wombs, and treated as such in the workplace.
	Can't be trusted to hold a job as they might have kids at any
	moment.  Have PMS monthly; can't let 'em near customers.

2)	Men:	
	Should have all the options and position.  Always promote men in
	front of women.  Always give 'em the power, money, offices and real
	jobs.  They need it to pay for those damn kids their women keep
	having over their objections.

Now women screamed bloody murder over the above work situation.  They also
got quotas imposed on the workforce, and press discrimination suits all the
time -- with good results.

I suggest that it is in the best interest of men to work for quotas in
family policy and family law.  That is, until men have 49% (their population
representation) of the custody AND child support dollars, they should
receive preferential treatment in the court system, since the current system
is obviously biased.  

Men should, therefore, sue the courts AND the women involved in the decision
process until they reach equality.  

After all, if equality is the name of the game, once a child exists then the
biological differences aren't present any more are they?

>Oh, it's not a mystery.  We all understand that you figure equal 'choice'
>WRT pocketbooks is valid, even though there is no equitability WRT biology.
>Trust me, we (meaning women in general) can't quite understand how men
>fail to understand the biological DIFFERENCES that confer different biological
>CHOICES upon the two parties involved.  True, not all men fail to understand
>this difference, but some of you are really thickheaded.  

Yes, we understand that as men.  However, with choice comes responsibility.
Or does it?  Or is the real agenda to get someone else to pay for your
choices?

I think I understand quite well.


>Some of us (meaning women in general) are also quite puzzled that you can't
>seem to understand that the responsibility is conferred upon the parentS
>by social expecations once a child EXISTS.  And that the responsibility is
>due to the CHILD, not to the mother.  But, I suppose the myth of the nasty
>scheming woman screwing some fellow to a financial post has more rhetorical
>value.

Ah, you know, its interesting however when one considers just who MADE that
child.  You see, under "feminist pro-choice" doctrine, the man did not have
anything to do with making a child.  For if a child existed at that point, 
then abortion should not be permitted.  

Therefore, who made that child?  The WOMAN did -- unilaterally.  Since the
man had no input into that decision process, just how do you arrive at the
conclusion that he should pay for the majority of the cost?

>father's rights.  There are plenty of men on this planet who would prefer
>to strengthen their bonds to their children, not weaken them.

And there are plenty of men who cannot due to vindictive mothers who have
nothing to lose by making false allegations of abuse and punitive
child-support demands.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51721 talk.politics.misc:63889 talk.religion.misc:23617