From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Boy, are we ever hearing a lot about "Consequences," a men-only concept
Date: 3 Jan 93 21:54:20
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: Will Steeves's message of Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:29:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.011450.16862@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes...
>>In article <1992Dec18.041148.14307@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larr
>> Margolis) writes:
>>>In <1992Dec17.211922.15114@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> conditt@tsd.arlut.utexa
>>.edu (Paul Conditt) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Believe it or not, we *all* have the right to choose what happens to our
>>>>bodies.  The thing that we don't seem to be willing to accept is *when*
>>>>that choice occurs.  The choice occurs *before* you have sex, not during
>>>>and certainly not after.

>>>Yup.  And if you chose to not reproduce, by using birth control, then you
>>>*have* made your choice.

>>No, you have not "chosen to not reproduce" when you have sex using birth
>>control.  You have simply chosen to take a "1/5/10/etc percent *chance*
>>of reproducing" (the actual percentage depends on the type of birth
>>control chosen and how well you use it).  If you gamble and lose, then
>>you have to deal with the consequences.>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>I'll bet the back forty that you wouldn't be saying *that* if abortion
>was still illegal, Muffy.

Actually, I would.  What do I win?  I believe that people always have to
be responsible for their actions, regardless of what means they have for
dealing with the consequences of their actions.

>This isn't to say that women don't have to face *any* consequences, but
>having the ability to take a short, one-time, $300-500 trip to a clinic to
>dispose of one's parental responsibilities before the fact (Heck, everyone's
>telling *us* about *our* "parental responsibilities," so why can't *I* use
>the same words as being applicable to women?) hardly compares to an 18-24
>year "consequence" of $250,000 or more!

Oh, so what you're saying is that if a woman *has* a child, she actually
has no further financial or other responsibility for it?  She doesn't
have to spend any time with it, spend any money on it?  It just becomes
solely the father's responsiblity?  That's not the society *I* live in.
The "consequences" for the mother and father should be the *same* if the
child is born.  They both have to raise it and support it.

I'd also go for the "consequences" being the *same* if there is an
abortion - how about if men go through a couple hours of serious pain
and pay out a couple hundred dollars for the privilege.  And then a
bunch of them can get serious infections, and some can even die.  Most
of them can go through some emotional trauma too.  *Then* the
consequences will "compare."

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn