From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:32:56 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr15.190209.5648@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>In article <703350773@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>>My idea is to have choice for men if and only if abortion
>>is legal in the state where the future mother lives.

>>The idea is that if it is *her* choice not to have an abortion 
>>then she should be the one who pays for that choice (or gives
>>the newborn up to adoption).

>>Fair enough?

>To answer your question, no, not quite fair enough.

I agree.  I think at least that it is reasonable for him to help pay for the
abortion if he, too, does not want the child.

>In principle, your suggestion of allowing a man an 
>opportunity to exempt himself from rights/responsibilities 
>to future children would serve to protect men who 
>make innocent mistakes from falling under the financial 
>control of evil mothers to be.  There is certainly merit 
>in this.

>However, the plan would remove from men, generally, any 
>need to use birth control, because mistakes could so 
>readily be avoided by signing off.  For every evil, 
>scheming woman, there is a reckless, feckless lothario 
>that would have no qualms about impregnating numerous 
>women and walking away, leaving progeny for the state 
>to contend with.

Okay, I'll buy this.

>So I would suggest amending your original suggestion by 
>adding a "three strikes, you're out" clause.  A man would 
>be required to file his support exemptions with the courthouse.
>On the third request, the man would have to show medical 
>proof that he has obtained a vasectomy, thereby obviating 
>the need for any further support exemptions. No vasectomy, 
>no third exemption will be granted.

>I believe honest mistakes can be made once.  Maybe twice.  

I won't buy this, though.  Your last line above sounds to me like you are
assuming that the woman, as well, is not using birth control.  If this is
the case, then I believe that even if the man uses birth control (which at
the moment is limited to condoms, yes?) then "honest mistakes" can happen
about one time in ten (or whatever the rather high failure rate for
condoms is).

And then there's the question of whether or not the woman bears any
responsibility for knowingly having sex with a man without him using any
birth control.  (Assuming no duplicity of some sort on his part.)  Certainly
if I had sex with a woman and SHE didn't use any birth control (especially
as female birth control seems more reliable than male birth control), I would
feel 1) stupid and 2) partly responsible if she got pregnant, whether or
not I used a condom.

And just to really spice up the pot, how about applying the same requirement
you state above to women?  If they get pregnant a third time, it's time
for sterilization, or else no abortion or exemption?  (No, I don't care
for THIS idea either.)

>The third occasion would say to me that this given man is 
>irresponsible and incapable and/or unwilling to support any 
>of his progeny.

Except, of course, for condom failures, duplicity on the part of the woman,
failure on the part of the woman to use birth control, etc...

>		  Therefore, a physical commitment to 
>birth control on the part of this given man should be required.

Women too!

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

"Of course this is true for more general values of 5."