From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Summary: No problem here -- you won't like the results though
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:08:55 GMT
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL

In article <1992Nov15.171529.5616@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>So, there was no prior consent to sex?  The man was raped?  The law looks
>upon consenual sex as being the consent to being a parent.  Sigh, we've
>talked about this before in this group.  I'm the mother (and foster mother)
>of a housefull of boys.  I tell my boys that if they get a girl pregnant
>then they are responsible for the child that ensues.  They are told that the
>only safe sex is no sex.  There's always a chance of error in the contrecetives
>and they must take this risk into consideration.  If they don't realize that
>pregnancy happens then they are being stupid.  

I suppose then that you won't mind if all of us men who see it as terribly
unequal that women can choose AFTER sex whether or not to have a child,
while we cannot, make damn sure you LOSE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

That makes the law gender-blind.  If men can't choose, then neither should
women.

Support reproductive rights for all, or none.  But don't be a hypocrite and
try to play the "I'm a woman and its my body" game and then turn around and
say that a man's choice ends when he pulls down his zipper.

If you do take that point of view, you might find that men believe that YOUR
right to choose as a woman ought to end when you pull down YOUR zipper, and
attempt to codify that into law.  In fact, many are doing just that right now.

That position has a lot of support with the Religious Right -- and a nice
chunk of the male population who feels that its about damn time we got some
equality out of our legal system >just might< give them the voice, votes and
money needed to make certain that a "right to life" bill becomes a
Constitutional Ammendment.

By the way, in case anyone missed my last post on this subject, I support
the right to choose -- for BOTH sexes -- within the limits of biology -- and
would prefer things that way.  

But I'm not beyond acting in my best interest on this one and working to make 
the law equal by whatever means I have to if women decide not to cooperate 
in this effort.  Feminist groups have been doing the "women first" thing for 
20 years; its about time that men found the gumption to get the best equality 
they can by whatever means are necessary.

Women, either you are with men on reproductive freedom for BOTH sexes, or
you might just find yourself on the short end of the reproductive stick --
where men are right now.

Note well that men have NOTHING to lose from taking the devil's advocate
position on this, and everything to gain.  Currently a man has NO reproductive
rights beyond when the zipper falls.  A woman does -- two different ways.  

This is unequal, wrong, and has nothing to do with "privacy".  It has
everything to do with making men a walking wallet.  It is time that this 
is stopped - permanently.

See my previous post on this subject for a law which BOTH men and women can
support to give BOTH sexes reproductive choice and fair representation in
court when marriages with children break up.  

Women - you're on notice.  You want equality?  Fine.  You can have it one
of two ways.  One of them gives BOTH sexes -- by granting the right to
choose to men as you currently have.  The other reaches equality by REMOVING
a woman's right to choose beyond when the zipper falls.

Which do you prefer?

I await your answer.

--
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