From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Summary: Bravo!
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 06:31:08 GMT
X-Disclaimer:  Material posted in this article is the sole responsibility of
                the poster and does not represent MCSNet or the system owners.

In article <2304@unet.UUCP> linda@wendy.net.com (Linda Hill) writes:
>
>As a feminist who believes in equal social, political and economic *rights*
>(someone in a previous post appears to be confusing rights with status), I've
>always felt that I was responsible for my body.  I know *I* don't want to get
>pregnant, therefore *I* take the necessary precautions for preventing an
>unwanted pregnancy.  I doubt I would ever leave this up to the man outside of
>a longterm relationship/marriage (I'm assuming a greater amount of trust and
>responsibility to each other exists in those instances - pardon my idealism).

And I, as a man, take all reasonable precautions up to but NOT including
mutilation of my body in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies as well --
specifically, I have always (and still continue to) insist on using a condom
whenever I have sexual intercourse.

It is only reasonable that I do so >unless< I intend to procreate.  I have
done this since I was a teenager (this goes back before the AIDS issue came
to the forefront).  The disease-prevention efficiency of condoms is, in my
opinion, a (very important) side benefit.

>Should an accidental pregnancy occur, *I* would then decide what to do about
>it.  I am pro-choice and would likely choose an abortion.  I realize that's
>unfair to the man who may actually want the child formed of his union with me,
>but it's my body and I refuse to be a baby factory for someone else.  

Not at all really; if the pregnancy was unwanted, I would assume that this
was an agreement reached by you and the man involved prior to having shared
sex.  Therefore, the man and you have both made your intentions known.
Sounds quite reasonable to me.

> On the
>off chance that I decided I wanted to carry the pregnancy to term and keep the
>baby, I would never expect an unwilling father-to-be to participate in any
>way past conception.  If it's my decision alone to have the child, then I
>accept full responsibility for it.  If I were able to carry the child to term
>with the intent of giving it up for adoption (which would be very difficult
>since I can't imagine going through a pregnancy and then giving the baby away),
>and I knew the father wanted to raise the child himself, I would do everything
>in my power to see that he had custody at birth.  That would be his choice and
>I would not be financially responsible for it.

Again, a very reasonable position to take.  However, were you to be on
welfare, the state would insist, under power of subpoena, that you name 
the father -- who they would then go after for child support -- or lose your
welfare elegibility.  If you had no other means of support your choices
would be (1) stick to your principles and starve, or (2) turn in the
unwilling father.

>My husband thinks this attitude is appalling (especially coming from an avowed
>feminist) because it places no responsibility whatsoever on the man.  The man
>is free to hop in and out of the sack willy nilly without a care in the world.
>I think that this is pretty much the way of the wild and that the human species
>will never be so evolved that the majority of males can intelligently control
>their sex drives.  Therefore it is up to the female of the species, as it has
>always been in nature, to control with whom and when she mates.  I guess it
>boils down to my feeling that men are and always have been sexually
>irresponsible, so it's up to women to protect themselves.  I realize this will
>only work in an idyllic world where all women are educated and receptive to
>birth control, but it is how _I_ feel and it has worked for me.

I don't know about sexual irresponsibility; I think that is too strong a
word for it.  The point here being not one of responsibility or lack thereof
(although I admit that many men >are< irresponsible in their sexual
behavior -- so are many women) but rather than the best laid plans of mice, 
men and women do fail from time to time.  Technology so far has only 
perfected two reasonably sure methods of birth control -- and both are 
irreversible (sterilization of man or woman, respectively).  Therefore, 
they are unacceptable to the majority of people, as few can say they never 
want children.  Further, it is entirely possible for a man to be "duped"
into believing that a woman is on the Pill or other birth-control 
method -- and then finding out later that she was not.  

>I have had this tried on me by a former SO -- only my insistance on the 
use of condoms EVERY time kept me from being trapped as an unwilling parent!<

I have also had condoms fail during "normal" sexual activities.  It does 
happen.  Were a pregnancy to have resulted from the failure I would have 
probably become an unwilling father.

>I do find it ironic that on this newsgroup it is men gnashing their teeth
>about women who won't go and get abortions so that they won't be stuck with
>paying child support, while at the same time there is a powerful contingent of
>men in this country who are ready to take that option away from women like me.

Here you and I differ.  I find the pro-life stance a predictable reaction 
by men to the dilution or outright infringement on their rights in this 
matter.  Short of having the ability to "walk away" from a pregnancy, much 
as a woman can currently do, a man's only point of equality in this 
circumstance is to remove the woman's right to choose as well.  Since our
government refuses to grant a man the same political rights in a pregnancy
as a woman currently has, and women in general refuse to insist on those
rights for men (along with men) it is reasonable to expect that men will
then take the opposing point of view in order to restore what they feel is
equality under the law and social codes of our time.

>I think that if I *had* to have the baby (i.e., a safe, legal, affordable
>abortion was not available), then I would feel very differently about the whole
>issue.  In that case I probably would want to hold the father more accountable
>because I had no choice but to have the baby.  

You bet!  This, again, is a reasonable position to take.

>So are these, to us, archaic child support laws based on pre-legalized abortion
>days?  If so, I would want to make absolutely sure that legalized abortion is
>here to stay before legislating the child support laws out of existence.

No, these laws are a PRODUCT of the feminist movement.  Common law long held
that a "bastard" child (one born out of wedlock) was owed support by nobody!
It is only relatively recently that child-support "guidelines" and legal
force has been used to compel couples who split up to end up as
"kids-go-with-mom-and-dad-pays-the-bills".  Many of these laws were lobbied
for by the very same feminist groups who want the right to choose.

I suspect that a large number of men who oppose abortion would find that
your position on this, if adopted and codified into law, would cause them to 
have no reason to support the prevention of a woman's right to choose.

I happen to be Pro-Choice in my mind -- however, I am also pro-equal-rights,
and these are currently in conflict.  By expressing my pro-choice intentions
in my speech or voting habits I perpetuate an unfair child support system
designed and implemented in many cases by feminists who are nothing more
than "women first" groups.  Have women been "screwed" by a male-dominated
legal system over the years?  Yes.  Does justice come in the form of
screwing men now?  No.  Justice comes in the form of equality.

Were women to take up the banner of >equality< they would find my support 
for their right to choose (within the first three months at least) undying 
and extremely vocal.  

I have no idea how many other men would take this position, but I suspect 
it is a fairly large number -- especially if it was explained to them in
this way.  The right to choose must become codified in law as a right for
>both< sexes -- not just women.  

Now this is a freedom-of-choice law (or even constitutional ammendment) I 
would heavily support.

>I'm not saying this is for everyone.
>
>linda@net.com

'Tis unfortunate that you are married.... ;-)

--
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
From: kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:17:23 GMT
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Organization: Milky Way Galaxy