From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:54:33 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Apr16.161441.28735@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

>Ah, you misunderstood.  In my original posting, I stated to 
>the effect that as there are women who would use their 
>bodies to extort money from men, there are also men who 
>would gladly take any opportunity to walk away from a 
>pregnant woman.  

And what is so morally *wrong* about that if he does it in 
week three of the pregnancy?  (This is not a rhetoric question,
and I had appreciate if you will spell it out for me.)

>Your proposals address a subset of women 
>lacking responsibility and/or ethics in reproduction, my 
>addendum would address a subset of men who behave in an 
>analogous fashion

Is it really analogous?  Is a woman who decides to have a baby
and sue the man, even though he told her in conception minus five
minutes that he does not want any rights and/or responsibilities
toward the future baby, is the moral equivalent of a man who for
what ever reason did not use a condom?  Don't you distinguish
between a calculated and cold "let's take him to the cleaners"
and playing unsafe for one night?

>But this goes back to my original contention that your proposal, 
>as stated is flawed because it would serve to put the onus of 
>birth control on the woman.  As you stated, the woman would 
>be expected to establish the guidelines for having sex.  Is it 
>not well-established the damage done to society when a greater 
>level of expectation and/or responsibility becomes gender-linked?

But there is no equivalent level of decision making.  E.g. a married
woman can change her mind in week 12 and abort a planned pregnancy
without even telling her husband.  That's the law and I support it.

The damage is, in *my* opinion, when you separate decision making
and the payment for the decision made.  I want to keep the choice
about abortion in women's hand and I think that responsibility is
part of the package.  If you want equal responsibility then the
honest thing to do is to share part of the decision making power.

Do you want to do that?  

First you tell us that:
>Is it not well-established the damage done to society when a greater 
>level of expectation and/or responsibility becomes gender-linked?

When I ask if, in the name of that equality, you want similar criteria
for "choice for men" and "choice for women" you say:
>But, the discussion revolves around those women who chose 
>to give birth in an attempt to collect child support.  

Why don't you try to give the *same* criteria in the name of equality and
equal responsibility?  (I suspect that you don't want to have such
criteria used on you, but you have no objection to have them used on me.)

>Let's face it, if you met a woman with three children 
>bearing three different last names and on your first date 
>she explained the accounting procedures she uses to keep 
>track of the dads' payment records, would you not feel that 
>this woman has successfully stigmatized herself?

Assuming of course that you know all that.

Some people have "one night stands," and, horrors of all horrors, some
women even like it.  They may not know too much about the sexual partner,
but they still have, and should have, the choice of abortion if things
go wrong.  Why, in the name of equality, don't you want to give a similar
choice to a man who sleeps with a woman as you described above?

>>The effectively of condoms is about 85% (which means that a couple
>>who uses condom regularly has a probability of 15% of an unplanned
>>pregnancy.)  A simple calculation shows that after 20 years of
>>sexual activity men who don't want children may file
>>their third request (15%*20 = 300% = 3).  That's before we even
>>enter the possibility of dependent probability of failures (e.g.
>>some sperm may be more potent than other).

>What we are discussing here is a situation in which the man and 
>woman cannot come to agreement on the disposition of a pregnancy 
>occurring outside of the wedded state, stalemated by the 
>woman's insistence on giving birth ***and*** pursuing a child 
>support order.  These are a lot of variables.  We are not discussing 
>three random birth control failures.  It is analagous to drunk 
>driving laws featuring a three strikes-your out.  

In drunk driving there is a third party (the police) which makes
the enforcement and we assume that they don't single you out
for some personal reasons.  (If they do then it is illegal.)

In your system, people who may have a good reason to "get him,"
may be involved.  The idea that the law can fine tune such a 
system with, as you said, so many variables, has no real base
in reality, in my opinion.

>>Do you use the same arguments for women who have had more than
>>two abortions?  Do you think that it is OK to tell a woman "you
>>did not use birth control so I don't care if your life will be
>>destroyed by this pregnancy"?

>This is very interesting, because the whims of society are 
>pointing in this very direction.  

Do you like the taste of the medicine?  Do you think that I like it?

>Roll backs of abortion rights, 

I'm against that.

>roll backs of maternity leaves, 

If the reason is medical then there are medical leaves.  If the
reasons is parenting then the maternity leaves are still much
better than the paternity leaves.

>cuts in welfare linked with family size, etc. 

The proposals is to stop giving more money to women who have more
children while on welfare.  Do you think that women on welfare
should have as many kids as they like and society should pay
for them?  (This is not a rhetoric question.)

>I do not feel 100% comfortable with advocating enforced 
>male sterilization.  However, were I to amend my suggestion 
>to eliminate this requirement, then it would be to limit 
>exemptions to three.  So, you could argue that the given 
>Romeo's life is destroyed because he was forced to pay for 
>his ***fourth*** child.  

Would like a proposal that women will pay 25% of their income
for the next 18 years after their fourth abortion?  Can't you
see that enforcing your morals on other people may lead to
other people enforcing their morals on you?  

>By giving an unscrupulous, unprincipled individual carte-
>blanche to act irresponsibily and present him with an 
>unlimited potential to dodge the consequences of his 
>actions, you are leaving him the ability to "destroy" many 
>lives, those of women and his children.  

I assume that the woman who did not use a birth control method
with 99% success rate, (pill, norplant, the new IUD, etc.),
decided not to have an abortion and not to give the child up
to adoption has *much* more responsibility than the man who
has only one birth control method of 85% success rate.

You want your choice, and you should get it, but will you ever
be willing to take the *full* responsibility for your choice?

>Again, I can see 
>forgiving errors, up to a point.  When exactly would Romeo 
>have to account for ***his*** own behavior under your 
>unamended proposal?

The woman who made all the mistake mentioned above has much more
responsibility.  Now she has a child she wants, and the support she
wants.  Do you have *any* moral problem with that?

>Sue Larsen

Hillel                                     gazit@cs.duke.edu

"In my own personal experience I've had better luck with people than with
latex devices,"   --  Dana Bergen