From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice, How?
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:45:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Super G Burger"

<bob1.724701599@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>OK. We will inscribe male choice in law. Now, just how do we go
>about doing this?
>
>	Prior to all sexual encounters a legal form *must* be signed
>	by both parties.
>
>	If the woman changes her mind and proceeds with the prgnancy
>	she relieves the man of all responsibility.
>
>Hmm? Guess we will have to ensure that all singles bars have copies of
>these legal forms along with the bowl of condoms.

Why?  Other than your assertion here I don't see why we have to make these
forms available at singles bars.  I agree with the contract though.  I've
said it here many times myself:  Leave abortion completely legal and
require the woman provide a contract signed by the man stating he will
support any child resulting from his actions, IF she decides she wants his
support and he refuses.  What's the problem with this scenario?

>Now, as to the woman changing her mind, maybe she is just afraid of
>doctors and hospitals, and being pregnant seems the easy or do
>nothing way out.

She's kinda stupid then.  Do you really think women are this stupid?
"Gee, I'm really afraid of hospitals and doctors so I'll just stay
pregnant so I can 'enjoy' labor and delivery."

>Suppose she is incapable of supporting the child? Well, society will
>simply have to force adoption. But, as a reasonably humane society,
>we are unlikely to get such legislation. 

Gee, we were just hearing about how all pro-lifers love children and want
them to be happy, yet here you are ready to consign a child to being
raised by someone who can't afford a child, in the name of humanity.

>                                         Aw, just add her and the
>child to the AFDC rolls. Well, society (read taxpayers) aren't all
>that humane. So we will just have to get another payroll tax to
>cover the expected increase in spending.

Good reason to keep abortion free and legal, right?

>Or maybe the woman did have a change of heart and decided to be a
>mother? Hey, maybe she knew that all along - one woman once asked
>me to impregnante her because she wanted children but not a husband
>(she was probably legally blind, but that's another story). OK, as
>long as she is financially independent, not every employer is like
>Murphy Brown's.

Do we allow people to buy a car they can't afford?  Do we just hand over
the pink slip when they can't make payments?  Why would you defend the
right of someone to have something they can't afford?  To raise a child
they can't afford to raise?  Isn't the height of responsibility, that
pro-lifers keep griping about, taking full responsibility for your actions
and obligations?  If a woman decides to have a baby, but wants everyone
else to pay for it (taxes) why is this "responsible"?

>Gosh, this is beginning to be more complicated than I thought.

Very good.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion