Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:31:04 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero


Hi Joy! Thanks for helping break some new ground.

In article <92101.173009JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>, Joy Haftel
<JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu`> In article <1992Apr9.100543.1@mdcbbs.com>,
rivero@mdcbbs.com says:
>
>>In article <92099.162254JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>, Joy Haftel                   
`>><JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu
>>writes:
>>> In article <1992Apr7.100327.1@mdcbbs.com>, rivero@mdcbbs.com says:
>>>
>>> 1) No one owns the genetic information in the fetus except the fetus.
>>>    Unless you want to say that half your genetic material is in fact
>>>    the *property* of your mother and the *property* of your father and
>>>    therefore *you* are theirs to dispose of as they please at any time.
>
>>  Good! Valid observation. But the same logic holds true for the mother
>>as well. If the fetus owns it's genetic material, than the mother does
>>not. If the genes are not the property of the father they are not the
>>property of the mother.
>
> So good so far.


>
>>  If the fetus is the property of the parents to "dispose of" (as you
>>put it), then that decision belong to both parents, not just to one.
>
> Their child is not theirs to dispose of.  It can be taken away from
> them because of abuse, gross negligence, etc.

  But that's a decision imposed from outsode the parental partnership.
(That authority has been mightily abused of late, but that's another
thread entirely).


> The fetus therefore is
> in a unique position as a fetus:  its health but not its life is
> protected by law.  I find that amazing.

  Me too, but then laws are not founded on logic or science. If they were,
laws would not change, and most most lawmakers would be out of a job.


> But I digress.  The woman
> is given a "choice" because she and she alone has to be a life support
> system for the fetus for nine months.

  But, the man has to be life support apperatus for BOTH mother and child,
not only for that  9 months, but for 2 decades afterwards. The strain
of that task affects the man's body, as the male dies 5 years
sonner from the stress of all that added work.


> Such is the pro-choice position.
> If the fetus weren't in her body, she'd not have the sayso about it.
> (e.g. if there were technology to remove the fetus and bring it to
> term in an incubator, killing the fetus in order to remove it would
> no longer be necessary and therefore abortion would not kill).

  If that machine existed, I wouldn't have gotten married!  :)


>
>>> 2) "He should have some say as to whether the genetic material becomes
>>>    human."  Isn't it a bit late for that kind of decision?
>
>>  The decision to make a child was a priori, already made in the case of
>>sex for fun only. Like the idea that a woman must now say YEA explicitly to
>>sex , and the man not assume any permissions, the man must say YES
>>explicitly to being a father. The woman may not assume he wants to
>>be a father because he wants to share sexual pleasure with her!
>
> I could go hanggliding for recreation only.  I could still crash and
> break every bone in my body.
(God, I hope not!)
If I knew the risks (and signed a release
> form, which is where the analogy breaks down), I really can't do anything
> about it.

  But the woman CAN do something about it. If the man is not willing to help
support the child, she can abort it. It's not like she is being forced into
being a parent (unlike the man).

>>>  But, the issue remains, what was the reason the couple angaged in sex by
>>mutual consent, and was the objective a mutual one. If they both engage in
sex>>for the thrill of it all, without the intention of children, then that
intent>>should be binding on both, or options for response to the unplanned
>>pregnancy should rest with both.
>
> This sounds all well and good, until I think of it in practical terms.
> First, of course, it should be discussed and decided between the two.
> But say the two don't agree.  What then?

  If you mean they don't agree prior to engaging in sex, than either
one (or possibly both) of them are being very, very, foolish to proceed.


> There are two alternatives:
> either he wants it & she doesn't, or she wants it & he doesn't.  I can't
> think of any time I could be pregnant and consider having an abortion.



> (this I think is where this sort of argument breaks down.  There are many
> pro-choice women who wouldn't ever choose to have an abortion for moral
> or personal reasons; are they to be forced to have one because the man
> doesn't want a child?)

  Well, I respect your moral position, but since you support the
availability of abortion, then you have that option open to
you. Refusing to use that option is fine, but forcing the man to pay
for your decision is forcing your moral viewpoint on him.

> Therefore, if I were pregnant and my partner
> wanted me to get an abortion, I don't think I can quite do justice in
> words to the kind of blinding rage I would feel at him.

  I have been there, from the other direction. "blinding rage" describes it
EXACTLY!!!!!!!

>  I would not
> want that man to pay child support; I would not want that man to have
> anything to do with my child.  I would rather put down "father unknown"
> on the birth certificate.  That child is mine and mine alone.

  Then where did he get that NOSE?????   :)

  Not to hedge the issue, but in some states, putting "father unknown"
cuts you off from some of the entitlement programs.


>
> This is called a nasty situation breeding a nasty situation.  Is this
> the kind of thing you *want*?  To force an unwilling woman to have an
> abortion?


NOT AT ALL. If she is unwilling to have the child from an unplanned
pregnancy, then let her have the abortion. If she wants the child, let her
keepit.

>
> Yes, the reaction I outlined above is an emotional reaction.  Since when
> do people act on logic alone?
>

  We try our best.....................


>>> Toss this one over in your mind:  for women to have an equal weight,

> Being treated in many ways as property - Nope

  Men are treated as property to, when they get shipped off to die in wars
that women hardly ever see.

> Being first off a sinking ship - Yes



  "We aren't really sinking, Ensign. I just got sick of all those wmen and
children!"


> Not having to work outside the home - Questionable.  work's work. And
>                                       poor women have always worked.

  So did Amelia Earhardt, Gertrude Stein, Florence Nightengale, Mary
Shelly, and these women all did their "thing" in the 19th century.

  Poor men have always worked as well, often harder, since they are stronger,
and carry the burden for the majority of families.




> Not having to go to war - Questionable, women who were allowed to go
>                           to war weren't much better of, and women were
>                           far from exempt from bombings and blitzes and
>                           concentration camps.



  For every woman in the concentration camps, or under the bombs,
there was also a man (actually, more). Those specific problems are 
fairly recent in history. Prior to WW1, war remained a male affliction. 
You're really reaching with this one.



>
>>once conception occurs (which is why Arlington National Cemetary remains a
>>male only club).
>
> Do tell.  JFK is there.  Where's a woman president?

  There's an old story that tells of a retured man who, every day, prays
to God. "Please God. I've been a good man. Let me win the Lottery. I
promise I will do good deeds with the money". Every day for years on end he
makes the same prayer. Finally, ne day, as he starts to pray again, the sky
opens up and a voice booms down," Murry. Meet me half way on this. BUY a
damned lottery ticket!"

  Women have 51% of the vote. Vote one in already! There have been
many female heads of state throughout history, going back to Cleopatra,
Queen Zingua of Angola, several Queens of England, the Dowager Empresses of
China, and rulers of both India and Israel. All you're missing here is a 
candidate.

  The lack of a candidate here in the U.S. may be a reflection on the local
talent, not a world wide conspiracy. If Margeret Thatcher can do it, why not
you? Try running Hillary Clinton. I'll vote for her. But I am not going to
vote for her because she's a woman any more than I would vote against
her because she's a woman. 

>
> I do not consider women who want children socially inferior.  Where did
> you get that from?  I just don't see (for me and for many of my friends)
> it satisfactory to work a career-track job and raise a family.  I don't
> have it in me to do both.  And I think I'd find staying home and raising
> a family *much* more fulfilling, if I had a family to stay home and raise
> :-/.  I was talking about social perception of a stay home mother as
> "lazy" or "wasting her education" or "not making anything of her life."
> Don't tell me such attitudes aren't common.

  That's exactly my point. Those attitudes have been promulgated through
the feminist media, and I fee they are very destructive. far from offering
women a choice, it removes it, casting women who want to have a
family as "lazy" or "wasting her education" or "not making anything of her
life."  All that does is swap one set of artificial expectations for another.

>
> But this still doesn't address the increasingly common plight of a
> single mother who has children and has to work, and no husband to take
> part of the load.  Should she be deprived of employment too?  The way
> our system is set up, no wonder welfare looks attractive to some!

  Well, just to set the record streight, I view any man who walks
away from his kids as only slightly above mayonaisse on the evolutionary
ladder.

  The fact is that the greater majority of men stay with their familes, work
hard to provide the best possible home for them, and never beat them up.
Because they don't abuse their families, they get ignored.

  That being said, there is the other side of the coin in that there are
women who think welfare is very attractive and who deliberatly have kids to
get more entitlements. I used to manage apartments for my parents, and had
to deal with two "welfare-mothers" who cranked out a new kid every 9.5
months, regular as clockwork.


>
>>  Now then. the original concept was, why should women have sole control over
>>whether a child lives or dies. This breaks down to two facets. Should a man
>>be forced (in this day of available abortion) to pay for a child which was
>>never intended and which he does not want? Alternately, should a wife be able
>>to abort her husbands child at will if he wants it and married her to have a
>>family?
>


> As someone who considers herself both pro-choice and pro-life, I would
> try to err on the side of life.  I think abortion should remain legal
> to avert worse problems (coercion, abuse, etc).  I don't think women
> should be forced to abort or not to abort, and I do think that a promise
> from the father to raise the child might be a deciding factor for her to
> keep the baby.  But further than that, I have no answer.

Bummer. I was hoping you knew!  :)

But, at least you have a fair grasp of the questions, and that is a start.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|    Anyone who manages to get from birth to death without getting at    |
|   least one ugly scar just wasn't DOING anything!                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>