From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 9 Sep 92 05:38:50 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#In a case of pregnancy the woman would (if she wants) notify the man
#about it.  Then he will have a week to decide if he wants rights
#and responsibilities (as one package) toward the future child.  
#If he answers yes, then the situation is similar to the situation 
#today; if he answer no then he would have no rights or 
#responsibilities toward the future child. [Hillel]

%the man should *always* be told and make this choice).  The interesting
%thing about this is that I have never seen this proposal before, [Muffy]

$I posted it in soc.men, soc.women, soc.singles and even soc.feminism
$before the moderators decided that it had nothing to do with feminism...

In article <MUFFY.92Sep8203640@remarque.berkeley.edu> 
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>Well, I'm sure that's true, but that does not mean that I have seen it.
>I often do not read your posts.  

I wonder what caused you to support Gordon in the debate about
choice for men last year when you did not even know what was
the proposal he argued against...  

$I'm for education, but I'm against forced education.

>Well, we already have *lots* of forced education 
>(12 years of it here in the US).  

And how well does the forced education work, in your opinion?

$E.g. I don't
$like the idea of women using abortion as a birth control method, but 
$I'm against any restriction on abortion rights, even if she has never 
$used birth control and she had 15 abortions before.

>Who would you like to pay for this?  

I don't see why I should pay for it.

>Seems to me it would be cheaper
>(and much better for her health, particularly given the risk of AIDS, as
>well as the risks of abortions) to teach people to *prevent* pregnancies
>than to pay to end them.

Teach yes, force no.

>As I said above, since it is *already* forcing education on both, it
>might as well force something useful.  However, I would be perfectly
>happy if parents would educate their own children.  Doesn't seem to be
>too likely, though.

When a welfare mother tells a 16 years girl that if she'll have a 
baby then the welfare to the family will increase then it is 
education, even if you don't like it.

>>"Or do you think that children should just starve, rather than 
>>impinging on the man's right to have a good time?" -- Muffy Barkocy 

>Well, do you?  If so, then being the terribly fair person that you are,
>I'm sure that you think that, simiarly, the woman can just abandon the
>child, since she just wanted to "have a good time."  

That's fine with me if she does it *for good* when the child is born,
and let an adoption agency find a better home for the newborn.  As
you know pretty well, women have such legal option today.

>Then what happens to the children?  

If you want to finance irresponsible girls, who multiply before they
know how to add, feel free to do just that with your very own money.
If you want to prevent children from starving because their mothers
are so irresponsible then be ready for forced adoption and/or forced
changes in the mothers life style and choices in exchange for welfare.

>What if *your* parents had felt this way?

What if most of the money of your parents was robbed to finance 
irresponsible girls who keep having kids that they can't support?

>Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

Hillel                                              gazit@cs.duke.edu

"I'll take the GOPs over the liberals who would try to tell me how
I may and may not live anyday."  --  Clay Bond
Newsgroups: alt.feminism