From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Male Choice Revisited (was Let's Play StipUlations)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:09:08 GMT

In article <1bk0euINN4lg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>

[Don]
>>You asked a question about how men's rights are restricted.
>
>Not really.  I did ask what you meant by your stipulations, but I also
>happen to think you have your bases of law confused, and that this partic-
>ular 'restriction' is a convenient but inaccurate argument.

So: you wanted more than a clarification, you wanted a debate.


>>The woman's unalterable obligation to support begins, 
>>at the earliest, after the last legal moment to abort.  
>>This is usually 6 or more months later than the moment 
>>the man's rights are restricted.
>
>Horseshit.  The man has *no* legal obligation until a child is born.

Colorful.

If the man has no legal obligations before birth, then those
obligations are created at some moment, presumably birth.  They 
are not ongoing obligations set in motion by the act of conception.

The obligation comes into existence solely through the woman's decision
to have the child.  Thus it must be her obligation.

If you had argued that a man has obligations all along, and
it would require an active move on the part of the woman to
terminate them -- and that merely continuing the pregnancy is not
such an "active" move -- then I could see a point.  But here, 
you want it both ways.


>>If the woman does not choose abortion, the man's obligation
>>cannot be terminated by her or by him, whereas she can "escape" 
>>her own obligations through adoption.
>
>Horseshit again.  If the child is adopted, BOTH the man's and the 
>woman's obligations are terminated.  So are both rights to the child.  
>If the child is not adopted, BOTH parents retain their rights and 
>obligations.

Can the man choose to give the child up for adoption?


>>Yes:  Male Choice.  Allow men to decide, before viability, that they
>>"want an abortion" -- which means, NOT that the woman must have an
>>abortion, BUT that the man no longer has any obligations to 
>>(or rights regarding) the child or woman.  Except arguably to share 
>>the cost of an abortion.
>
>Which merely undermines the whole of family law and western culture in
>one fell swoop.  I can understand your desire for such a thing, but I 
>really don't think it works within any currently imaginable legal or 
>social framework.  We already see thousands of children in poverty, and it
>is the social norm still for men to be the major $$ earners.  Your proposal
>would do nothing but exacerbate an already unteneble situation.

The same could be said about feminism and providing women the
right to work.


>To accomplish such would require a massive change in social norms,
>tax structure and private business.  With the legal situation following by
>about 20 years as it always does, which means there would be a dead center
>when everybody ws unhappy.  You might be able to pull it off in a country
>where it could be mandated from the top down, but with the costs to over
>2/3rds of the country so high, you won't find your idea implemented in a 
>populist state.

Oh -- if you want to discuss implementation, then I agree:  male choice
will/would be a very difficult thing to implement.  Men don't have
victim status, as women do.  Sympathy is given to women and children
first.  Tight budgets don't allow progressive social reforms.

Would you say we're in a "20 year" "unhappy" period right now,
and would it have anything to do with feminism and the change 
in the work force?


>>Second:  Allow men to have custody without court bias against them.
>>Such bias is an effective (and often explicitly legislated) restriction 
>>of their rights.
>
>Now, I'd go for this, wholeheartedly, except for one thing:  the "Second"
>on the beginning.  You want men to have the capability to completely
>deny their parenthood on the one hand, and completely seize it on the
>other?  Don't you think that's a somewhat conflicting political message?
>I seem implementation problems that makes congress look like the fast lane.

Again, political advantages are different from what is right.
Many feminists fight for precisely this "conflicting" position for women:

. the right to make a "responsible" choice and abort a fetus;

. the right to raise children and demand child support from men,
  time off from work, and health care and daycare from society.

Women have a privileged position: they can use the "equality"
argument to promote progressive issues, and the "traditionality"
argument to promote maternally-biased issues.  It works.

You're right; it wouldn't fly for men.  The default traditional
status for men is: insensitive, authoritative, absent worker/deadbeat.
Modern men are held to a higher standard with respect to family issues
than women.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion