From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 02:57:25 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1992Dec19.105022.6279@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <BzErHD.3xA@ddsw1.mcs.com>, karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec13.095755.6204@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec12.222611.95075@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>>> In <1992Dec12.040358.6377@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>>>>
>> Why is that surprising?
>> 
>> As long as women insist on having all the reproductive rights, and sticking
>> men with all the bills, you should expect that a goodly number of men will
>> take the other side of this issue out of self-defense!
>
>Then IF they don't want to be 'stuck with the bills', by supporting anti-
>abortion protest, they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
>This makes no sense at all.  BTW, the male leaders I see in my area are 
>either older men (over 50) or younger MARRIED men with families.  NOT
>divorced men.  
>How on earth does supporting anti-abortion help men who don't want to
>be stuck paying child support?  This is not logical.

Sure it is.

If you are currently the underdog you can achieve equality two ways:

1)	Gain rights for yourself.
2)	Take them from the advantaged group until you are equal.

Why is it ok for people to impose hiring quotas and such on business, which
takes away the right of an employer to hire the most qualified person (since
he or she now has to take gender into account first) yet it is not in the
family law area?

The feminists think that it is ok to take rights from qualified men (the
right to that job that they happen to be best qualified for out of the 
applicant pool) and give it to a woman in the name of "affirmative action"
-- yet the same principle applied to abortion rights is wrong?

Hmmm.... I think I DO understand the feminist agenda.  

>> Sue, do you support the right of men to choose whether or not to become a
>> parent with all the obligations that are entailed?  Women currently have
>> this right, and they also have the right to impose their choice on men.
>
>I'm ambivelent on this issue.  I worry about all the kids who will not 
>have fathers.....  I distinctly remember all the lies that people tell
>each other to get the other into bed..... "I'll marry you if you get
>pregnant.... Yes, I'll respect you in the morning..... I'll love you
>forever..... I'm on the pill....."  Until someone figures out a way to
>prevent this, I don't know what is the best way.  Maybe Pre-Sex agreements?

The problem is the presumptions the feminists like, to wit:

1)	A woman having unprotected sex does not necessarily desire children,
	nor is she willing to pay for them.  This is obviously true since
	she can abort a fetus at any time, or can place a child for adoption.

2)	A man, on the other hand, who has unprotected sex DOES desire
	children, since he cannot do anything about the situation once he
	takes his penis out of his pants.

This is sexist in the extreme and is WRONG.  Either both sexes should be
held to the same standard or NEITHER of them should be.  If both are then
abortion ought to be outlawed -- the last clear chance to avoid a "baby" is
then the coital act.

Since a woman has to go through pregnancy she has a strong incentive to take
affirmative steps to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.  Since she can choose
whether or not to produce a BABY she should get the primary responsibility
for that baby -- including financial.

I am willing to be reasonable and say that a man needs to declare his
intentions.  I believe that the use of a condom is sufficient statement of
intent to not be a parent -- it is visible, impossible to conceal from the
partner (unless she is unconscious!) and a clear declaration of intention.

Further, I want to change the >default assumption< to be that of 
non-acceptance of parental responsibility, which is the state of 
things for women today.

I believe that any man who takes contraceptive steps should be completely
indemnified by the woman against any child support obligation, INCLUDING
that resulting from contraceptive failure.   If the woman wants better
insurance she can also take contraceptive steps.  Norplant is now available
and has a lower chance of failure than >sterilization<.  There is simply NO
excuse for an unwanted pregnancy at this point.

THIS is equality in the bedroom.

If men cannot have equality in choice, I believe that they should be willing 
to have equality of >non-choice<.

>> Do you support the right of men to have >equal< custody of their children
>> when marriages dissolve, without the punitive child-support?  (ie: equal
>> custody, and no child support payments since the kids spend half the time
>> with each parent -- and therefore receive half their support >directly< from
>> each rather than through transfer payments.)
>
>YES!  I am strongly for this.  Unfortunately, since I do volunteer work with
>troubled teens, I see just the opposite, i.e., people who say, 'my kid is
>too much trouble.  Here, take him/her, I don't want him/her anymore.'

Yes, and both men and women do this.  So what's the point there?

>> If you can answer "yes" to both of the above, then help us get the same
>> rights you currently enjoy.  With these reforms the reason for many men to
>> be on this bandwagon will disappear.
>
>But what on earth does support for anti-abortion have to do with either of
>these?  Men who want reproductive rights should be supporting abortion on
>demand.  If they don't then they are just fighting themselves, not women.
>Because if abortion is totally outlawed, then you can BET the number of
>men required to pay support will increase dramaticly.

Yes, but at least women will have to support those kids too, >whether they
like it or not<.  

This is the entire point.  Men currently have no choice.  Women have two
choices.  Therefore, you can either gain equality of choice, or equality of
non-choice.

--
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

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh