From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: The EVIL Conspiracy behind this "Men's Choice" thing...
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:07:18 GMT

jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (jim mcnicholas) writes:

>rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:

>> First of all, the man DID have a choice. He could have not had sex.
>> He could have properly used a condom and spermacide. Key word here is  
>> PROPERLY. This would reduce the chances of pregnancy to about once
>> in a couple of hundred years.
> 
>I shall respond in a non-flammable way!! First you are correct the man 
>and woman BOTH had a choice before the conception, she could have used
>norplants or taken her pill, or have insisted upon spermicide and condoms.
>Proper use is only assured by both parties being vigilant during use!!
>After conception both parties should have the choice to give up the child!
>This is a choice that is as hard for a man as it is for a woman! I can't
>imagine the trauma of giving up a child that is mine, but I should have 
>the choice!!  Equality means equal choices, before during and after 
>conception

Unfortunately, this issue may never be settled, or maybe I should say
ISSUES will never be settled.  I also see this thread start up about
every 6 months and all I ever see is, unfortunately, no end to the
whole irony.

First of all, I see the real problem as being that there are two 
people who contribute to the baby-making process.  One person supplies
the egg, the other the sperm.  Now, if the court system wasn't set up
so that the male contributing partner basically has his hands tied up,
things *might* be more on an equal playing field.  As it is, if a woman
chooses to have an abortion, she can.  If the male *wishes* her to have
an abortion, and unless my memory serves me wrong, he has *NO* say in
telling her to abort and she can go to term, have the baby, and he's
strapped with support payments no matter what.  So, it's back, once
again, to the courts.

I myself don't believe that I have any right in regulating what a 
woman does or does not do to her body.  On the other hand, with the
present court system setup, if a woman I impregnated decided to have
a baby rather than abort (if this scenario were real and I chose for
her to abort), then the legal system would shackle me into paying for
my donation of sperm.  Now, let's say the legal system was changed so
that a man had an equal say in what to do.  This might be a true
situation:  A woman becomes pregnant and the father decides he wants
nothing to do with the child and doesn't want the child.  He would
sign a paper stating this, it would be approved by the courts, and the
woman would bear sole responsibility for having the child, regardless
of whether or not she *thought* she was on birth control of some sort
(I'm ruling out the cases of women duping men into getting them
pregnant).  I think that if the legal system were changed in this way,
men would then have the upper hand in that they could write off any
unwanted pregnancy with the mere stroke of a pen, whereas a woman would
either have to wing it alone, or with the help of public assistance
programs (then we ALL pay), or would have to go through the physical
and emotional pain of an abortion.

So what's really fair?  I don't necessarily believe the present
legal system practice as fair, yet I don't know what the hell the real
answer is.  And honestly, is there an end-all answer?

allen
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism