From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:53:38 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1e8urpINNkjl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.183247.11298@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
>>AR>>>>>(don and me)  (AR>>> = Adrienne    AR>> = Don)
>>
>>AR>>>Uh huh.  And 'male choice' will exacerbate this problem rather than
>>AR>>>helping it.  Those men who ARE single parents will be even less accomodated
>>AR>>>by our social systems, because they "chose" their single parenthood.
>>AR>>>And they would, through the same argument of choice you mention, NOT
>>AR>>>be entitled to any support from the absent mother.
>>
>>AR>>Please explain.  In particular, please address whether our social systems
>>AR>>accomodate single fathers as they do single mothers, and why the
>>AR>>"argument of choice" implies that a mother would not have to pay.
>>
>>AR>First, you have male parents NOW who are unfairly treated by the courts
>>AR>who do not recognise their equity in parenthood.  And then you are going
>>AR>to determine that some portion of male parents (and ONLY male parents) can
>>AR>say, "See ya!" unilaterally.                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>>This is extremely disingenuous, Adrienne.  You make it seem as though people
>>who are Pro-Male Choice, are against women's rights, or at least only in favour
>
>I don't see it that way.  Maybe you can make it clearer for me.  What *I* see
>is that young-men-who-are-concerned-about-being-'caught'-by-some-unscrupulous-
>woman-who-lied-about-birth-control-(but-who-didn't-bother-to-use-birth-
>control-methods-themselves) want a legislated "out" of their predicament.
>The predicament at hand doesn't (supposedly) address any other cases but
>when a man had casual sex and doesn't want to be hit for $$ later.  It would
>*NOT* affect men who intended to have children (and later changed their
>minds), men who intended to have children (and are fighting with their ex)
>or anybody else.  But, since the premise of the predicament itself looks
>kind of nasty and self serving, it gets cloaked in all kinds of feel-good
>language that seems to me to have MAJOR ramifications upon males everywhere,
>and the highly vaunted 'family values' the republicans so admire.
>
>(Of course, it is also true that most of the folks who have argued in favor
>of pro-male choice have had less than positive things to say about
>women's struggle to gain economic equality in this country, but, hey,
>*I* wouldn't want to be disingenuous, now, would I?)
>
>
>>Believe me, the reason why men are asking for the right to
>>abdicate parenthood during pregnancy (and only during pregnancy), is because
>>*women already have this right*!
>
>Yah know, Will, you may believe this, but I don't.  We've just seen Steve
>Kellmeyer and Don Beaver come out of the closet on this issue:  they don't
>want women to have the right to abort.  THAT's what they are after, and too
>hell with the reason you mention, above.
>
>Now, I wouldn't want to tar you with their brush.  Maybe you are sincere in
>your efforts and they are just dishonest folk, whatdoIknow?  How 'bout you
>present an argument for male choice that makes sense, is inforceable, addresses
>a legitimate problem, and does so in a manner that functions with our 
>society, and the net can evaluate your proposal on it's own merits?
>
>>Try asking LeVar Burton, Frank Serpico, and others who are first hand proof of
>>what kind of a problem forced fatherhood really is.
>
>Try asking all the men who have lost their parental access to children if
>they are interested in proposal that would FURTHER WEAKEN it, and see what
>they have to say.  You'd rip the rights away from one group to satisfy another
>group.  That doesn't look like a good solution to me.
>
>>WHAT!  You might "respect" (Oh No!  YOU SAID IT!) his right to have an opinion,
>>yet you just called him "dim"?  (among other things)
>
>Hey, I can respect his right to have an opinion, and to express an opinion. 
>It doesn't necessarily follow that I think his opinion is well considered,
>accurate, useful, or anything else.  Don has said things on this net that 
>I think are pretty dim.  And he's not the only one.  So?
>
>And, no, I don't get upset about 'anything a pro-male-choicer' has to say,
>because, as I've noted, I have a certain amount of sympathy for folks in
>that position.  I also happen to have a certain amount of sympathy for folks
>who have, through inequality within the court system, LOST access to the
>children they WANT to retain their access to.  So, sympathies asside, I   
>happen to see the 'cures' proposed by some folks as being worse than the
>disease, and I say so.  
>
>You don't like plain talk, talk to someone else.
>
>Adrienne Regard

Ok, how about this as a proposal? (for the second time)

Seems to me that we have, as a people in America, reached a crossroads:

	On the one hand there are people who wish to remove a woman's right
	to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.  They are gaining
	ground.

	On the other hand there are people who believe that a man is a
	walking wallet when there are children concerned and the couple
	which produced those kids aren't married at the current moment.

	I posit that both of these situations are undesirable for the people
	concerned.

	I further posit that it is >impossible<, or nearly so, for either
	group of people to make a significant difference on their own.

However, we don't have to act alone.

I propose we act together.  I propose that both women AND men do something
historic -- act together as a group to secure reproductive and parental
rights for both genders.

What I envision is a law which provides all of the following:

1)	Provides a declaration of a woman's right to choose up to the 12th
	week of pregnancy whether or not to have an abortion -- as a federal
	law.  Not on privacy grounds -- but on ownership of one's body.

1.5)	Provides a declaration that in the event that a woman does not want
	to keep a child, but also does not wish to abort for any reason, may
	place said child up for adoption at birth.  The male parent shall 
	have the right of first refusal to adopt a child produced in this 
	circumstance.

2)	Provides a declaration that >men< have the right, up to the 12th
	week of pregnancy of a women that they are the father, to state 
	whether or not they want the rights and responsibilities of the
	foetus in-utereo.  Include a provision that should the pregnancy be
	concealed from the man, that he has 30 days from the date of
	discovery to declare his intentions.

	Rights (1) and (2) are to apply >regardless< of the marital status
	of the parties.  (Should married parties disagree on these points 
	there may not be a marriage shortly thereafter)

3)	Provides a declaration that in custody cases, and in the event of
	a split of a present-case family unit, that both parties will be
	presumed to be equally capable of parenting, and that the split
	shall be 50-50 with regards to custody.  Further, the default 
	support award shall be >zero< (since both parents have the 
	responsibility half the time, they both inherently bear half the
	costs).  In particular, repeal the "tender years" doctrine at
	the federal level and require proof by preponderance of the
	evidence that a parent is >unsuitable< -- not "less suitable" --
	before the default custody split of 50-50 is modified.

	Further, should one parent choose to move away from the original area
	where the divorce took place, the parent which decides to move shall 
	bear the cost(s) of transporting the child(ren) involved to comply
	with the custody decision.  In no case shall this movement be
	grounds for modification of custody.

4)	Provide a declaration that any allegation of abuse made by one
	parent or another which is proven false and baseless shall be:
	1)	A class X felony (similar to dealing narcotics)
	2)	Immediately cause the accusing person to be ineligible to
		receive further custody of children in said dispute.

5)	Provide that interference with custody arrangements of any kind 
	by a parent is grounds for immediate loss of custody of the child(ren)
	affected, and is additionally a federal felony.  This is intended to 
	prevent situations where parents "impound" their children against a 
	court order or in the hopes of "swinging" a custody dispute.


This package of legislation would provide the following:

1)	It would >guarantee< the right of a woman to choose whether or not
	to carry a pregnancy to term - - that is, codify at a federal level
	the freedom of reproduction that women want.

2)	It would >guarantee< the right of a man to choose whether or not to
	become a father, while insuring that the woman (who is the ultimate
	authority on the final disposition of the fetus) has enough
	information to know whether or not she can expect a full 1/2
	contribution in the raising and parenting of that child BEFORE it
	becomes her (or their) ward.

3)	It would provide that should a child be wanted by EITHER of its
	parents that it would have a home with said parent(s) in preference
	to adoptive placement with any other person.

4)	It would provide that any parent who makes a false accusation of
	child abuse will be punished for the extreme psychological damage 
	done to that child and its relationship with the innocent parent(s).

5)	It would provide children with the right to be parented by >both<
	parents, and properly punish unlawful interferance with child
	custody.

6)	It would remove the presumption that women are the "better" parent;
	that women are automatically entitled to preferrential treatment in
	terms of support awards and custody, and that men should be treated
	as "walking wallets".


I expect to get flamed to hell for this suggestion.  Nonetheless, I believe
that a >balanced< approach such as this, which can be supported by both men
and women, is the only way both men and women will manage to guarantee their
reproductive freedom >and< their rights and responsibilities with regards to
minor children.

Further, I will go so far as to suggest that there is a simpler solution to
the problem of "fair" reproductive freedom that is now present in law:
	Remove a woman's right to choose whether or not to become a parent
	after a pregnancy occurs.

I think it is obvious to both men and women that this is a less desirable
alternative than the proposal above.  Nonetheless, I believe it is a
defensible position for men should women decide not to permit equality,
within the limits of biology, in this process.

Anyone want to join in on this one and see if we can get some legislative
action on this proposal at a federal level?

--
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