From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: CASUAL SEX
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:40:10 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1992Sep9.180010.18751@news.iastate.edu>, txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling) writes:
>->Maybe you shouldnt take sex so casually?
>Hate to break this to you but I'm not 'taking sex casualy' I am stating
>a far more realistic vew of things then you are. Most people, expesualy
>young people how ever have a tendincy to not think that far ahead. 

Realistic, Smealistic.  "People have irresponsible sex" is a statement
I would agree with.  I made a propsal on how to deal with UNreasonable 
expectations on the part of some men.  Make a counter proposal with
justifications.  If it includes banning abortion, show how you'd resolve
the problem of affecting thoses people who my proposal does NOT affect.

If people can think far enough ahead to not do it in the street, they
can think far enough ahead to plan for the consequences.  Not that it
currently happens, unfortunately.  But this can be improved by sex
EDUCATION (unfortunately that's something many of the anti-abortionists
reserve to the "family" and then conviently forget to do).  Look, sure
things tend to get out of hand in the heat of passion; but if your
beliefs are so different from the norm you should plan for this ahead
of time.  Even the youngest of kids understand the current norm:
sex *could* result in pregnancy (too many just think it is unlikely), 
the woman has final say over her body, sperm donors can be required to 
support the outcome of an act of sex.  They might not like them or
accept their probability, but most teenagers DO know these things.
If some macho male has a problem with one of these he should avoid
situations that might invoke them (ie stay away from "fast chicks" for
instance. (I know someone is going to flame me for that one -- sorry)).

>how much time did you spend going over the concequences whin you were 
>younger, say 16. 

About 10 minutes total; from then on it was pretty obvious with no
additional thought necessary. :-)  And boy it did I sure have a LONG
wait until these possibilites came into play (so to speak :-)

>      The truth is that there are times whin a person really
>isnt thinking about what can happen if. you really need to git back into
>the real world. 

Yup, shit happens.  In the heat of "play" 16 year olds occassionally
drive their cars into trees.  Do we outlaw cars, trees or 16 year olds?
Again its an issue of RESPONSIBILITY for ones actions, not abortion.

>              The biggist flaw with your preposal is that most people
>have a hard time finding a loyer they can aford when they *have* to have
>one, much less to put together a pre-sex contract. which I feal and uthers 
>would feal I'm sure apon hearing this that it really cheapens the whole
>expereance. To state that to people can not have a relation ship because
>they disagree about the abortion issue is crude and rather calouse.

I didn't say they had to absolutely agree on the morality of abortion.
Just on the consequences of having sex, and how they would DEAL with
all the possible outcomes.  Its just like any other social interaction:
there are standard expectations and conventions generally agreed upon.
If you expect something different you better state it up front.
Another analogy (I know you love them!  Remember analogies point out
resembalences (sp?) and are NOT equivalences).  Hypothetically:
I expect to have the right to punch out my "friends" every June 11th
(arbitrary date).  I meet you, we get along and I invite you to be my
friend.  Now there are two courses of action.
1) I can tell you about my expectations before June 11th and you can
  a) decide to continue to be my "friend" where we agree
    i) I don't get to punch you out
   ii) I DO get to fatten your lip
  b) we go different ways and at most stay "aquaintances" (sp?)
2) I can wait until June 11th and when we meet I punch out your lights
   which can result in:
  a) you continuing to be my "friend" and 
    i) ignoring it and implicitly agree to be subjected to it in the future
   ii) we agree that I won't ever do it again
  b) you file charges of assault against me.

If you/we go the 2b) route, is it justified?  Why?  Hint:  norms and
common expectations.

Now for the specious argument about having a hard time to find a "loyer"
(lover?):  I guess I'd have a hard time finding "friends" in the above
senario, but the burden still rests with me for prior notification.
And whats this "can afford" stuff.  Oh, sorry about that.  My mistake:
"loyer" == lawyer.  Take back the first part of this paragraph.  Yes,
I too feel lawyers (in general) are scum and too expensive and cheapen
the relationship with my "friends".  But if I really want to avoid
assault charges I too probably should get my pre-"friend" agreement in
writing.  Don't get too hung up on the legal aspect here; I really put
it in my proposal as a formality in case of future disagreements, so
they can be resolved in court.  If you both TRUELY agree then there
is no REAL need for a legal document.  Its only if there is a possibility
of one party changing their mind at a future date.  (For instance
case 1aii) above, where after I punch you out, you decide you didn't
care much for it and wish to press charges.  How legally binding such
agreements would be I don't know (boxing?)).  I'd expect that in general
the effect of even mentioning such a contract would tend to scare off
those who don't *truely* wish to be my "friend".  Thus significantly
reducing the future court load. And my possible "friends" :-(, but thats
MY problem since I have *odd* expectations.

>                                                              ... people
>who disagree about bigger issues form lasting loving relationships. Just
>how miny teenagers do you know who descuse much of any thing with there
>partner. In a mature relationship that will last you descuse a lot of things
>just in case. My love and I wint a lot farther then agreeing that abortion
>was out of the question, we went on to discuse how to raise children if
>I happened to get pregnite,who to tell first, not to use desposables, 
>and he was rather adement on the vertues of brest feeding. Unfortinitly
>now mater how considerit and upfrunt your realationship is there will 
>still be people having realationships for no uther reasion then that they
>are lownly. 

Ya, there are even Democrats that marry Repulicans (bigger issues).
People who have *sexual* relationships just because they are lonely are
acting IRresponsibly and are subject to reprercusions according to the
law.  The common law we're discussing has two parts:  women have final
say, men are responsible for child support.  Just like driving in a
reckless manner has consequences (possible ticket or plowing into a tree).
Teenagers that plow their car into a tree, killing a passenger are
generally prosecuted (held accountable) and are not let off just for
claiming "well, I didn't think ahead to the possible outcomes". You
are expected to go into some situations KNOWING and accepting the
responsibilities.

I said nothing about HAVING to break up your "loving" relationship if
you disagree, just that you MUST come to some resolution and it shouldn't
be cocerced out of one party post facto if its is in conflict with
accepted practice.  As for teenages not discussing things:  yes, it's
common, its irresponsible and its also a bad idea.  But does that give
one party the "right" to force another's actions OUTSIDE the law?

I still don't see your argument (maybe I'm stupid).  But YOU managed
to discuss it w/ your SO and came to an agreement so this wouldn't
affect you.  What is your interest here:  how others deal with these
issues or a underlying agenda of banning abortions (serious question)?
Let's turn it around a little.  You (sorry last time I
was under the impression you were male -- oops) get pregnant; your
SO changes his mind and decides he wants YOU to have an abortion and
you still object to the procedure. Could he force you to undergo one?
No.  Why?  (Think, please, how this relates to what's been stated
previously in this thread).  Remember by some peoples argument both
of you have an exacly 50% say -- your claiming abortion is murder would NOT
stand up in court as it disagrees with his claim that it isn't so those
two cancel as well.  The issue is how to resolve differences when
the parties can't resolve amongst themselves.  Banning abortion in
general for this reason of resolution does not wash.  It affects more 
than than the target population (couples that can't agree) and affects
those that do agree to an abortion.  This would be like outlawing all cars
because some 16 yr olds occassionally run them into trees.  To complete
the analogy I'll also ague against the 50/50 interest in the same vein.
Parents that hand the car keys to the teenager can make clear their
feelings on reckless driving; but they can only truely *prevent* it
by retaining the car keys (ie abstience).  Both parties take responsibility
for some part of any outcome but the teenage driver has the final say
in how the car gets driven and any repercussions are allocated according
to the commonly understood law/norms (parents pay legal judgements,
teenager faces pregnancy^H^H^H^H^H^Hprosecution).

Wow, I should'a been an English major -- just can't get enough of those
analogies.  Remember "A is to B like C is to D" does NOT imply B==D,
just for the logic-challenged out there.

>ELF-KIN

-robert
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity