From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:10:44 GMT

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>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!

>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.

Well I'm not Sue, but I feel like answering anyway.  Yes, I think both men and
women should have the option of not being a parent.  Once they actually *are*
parents, the only alternative is adoption or single custody (without child-
support, which may not fly).  Before they are parents, the mother has every
right to decide to have an abortion, or to decide to have the child.  The
father can not control that.  What he *should* be able to do is to say:  "Look
I am not ready to be a father and I don't want a child now.  I would like you
to have an abortion and here is the money for it."  If she choses to have the
abortion, he has gotten what he wanted (or rather didn't get what he didn't
want).  If she choses to have the child then he should not be held at all
responsible past the one-time payment (which of course had to be sufficient for
a reasonable abortion procedure).

On the other hand, if he *wants* the child but she wants to have an abortion
then he could try a similar deal, but would have to offer the cost of the
actual childbirth and lost salary from a continued pregnancy--or some such like	
that--AND must be prepared to take sole responsibility for the child after it
is born (if that is what she decides).  If she choses to have an abortion, then
she pays for it.  If she choses to have the child and give him sole custody
then he has to pay for her time and medical bills.  If she decides she wants
to keep the child, then they can work out equal custody or whatever else.  This
way he doesn't pay for an abortion he's against, and she doesn't pay for a
pregnancy or child she doesn't want.

(If they both decide an abortion would be best they could split the cost or
work it out.  If they both decide to keep the child they can work out custody
in some manner.)

Granted, this still seems a little imbalanced.  In the first case, he can get
out of a lifetime of child support with one payment; but the ultimate choice
is hers.  In the second case, he has to pay quite a bit more to keep the child
than she would to have an abortion; but that is the cost of changing her
decision.  Both partners are equally responsible for a pregnancy.  However,
the woman has the greater burden, physically from carrying the child, or
emotionally from an abortion or an unwanted child.  Thus she must have the
ultimate decision.  If she makes a decision that he does not agree with, he
can not be held responsible for the long-term consequences (only for the short-
term, which was brought about when he got her pregnant).

>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 do.  I think the current (or slightly past?) child custody / child
support system is very messed up.  It is too dependant on how the lawyers can
make their client (and the other one) look in an encounter with a judge who
doesn't know anything else about them.  (Good lawyers are too expensive, too.)
The mother usually gets custody (which isn't unreasonable, in itself) and the
father has to pay money because he doesn't get to spend all the time with them?

>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.

[this bandwagon == pro-life  ???]

On the other hand, it is unreasonable for you to expect to get out of all of
*your* responsibilities, but still force her to go through an entire pregnancy.
(ie adoption, if abortion were not allowed)  How can anyone who wants the
right to get out of such responsibilities be against allowing it for others?
As for the adoption "option", there is still the massive investment by the
mother that is not matched by the father.  Even money can not make up for
the investment of your body for several months.  Perhaps that is part of what
makes children so special to (some/many/most?) women, you can't buy them . . .
and they are so damn hard to make!   ;)

>--
>Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion