From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 16:08:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.045457.14159@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Mar30.200846.15452@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <kteqemINN71u@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>
>>>	I have talked to women in the past, as well as some women at the rally,
>>>and asked if pro-choice is for women only?  They often don't understand,
>>>so I explain:
>>>	pro-choice is about having choice *after* conception.
>>>	Does this apply to men as well?
>>
>>No.  Why not?  Because the man's body isn't involved after conception.
>
>But his wallet typically *IS*. Why narrow the question to only biology? 
>Biology is not the only thing that's important here.

Scuse, please, but surely you don't mean to imply that *her* wallet isn't
involved?

It's really quite simple.  BOTH people have responsibility for things that
our society has determined BOTH people to have responsibility for -- for
example, cohabitation in common-law states, assets in community property
states, children in all states.

SINGLE persons have responsibility for single things that our society
has determined single people shall have responsibility for -- for example,
EACH person's own body.  EACH person's own actions.  EACH person's own
thoughts, etc.

>>Well, yes, to a point.  However, our society has decided, for arguable
>>reasons, that two parents are usually better than one, and have therefore
>>built up a construct to support that notion.  I.e., that both parents have
>>rights and responsibilities toward existing children.  
>
>That "construct" is a sham of course when the only "parental duties" required
>of the father consist of emptying his wallet frequently. 

I'd agree with you here, absolutely.  I think the implementation of child
support laws currently stinks big time.  However, we would differ on how
we propose changing that implementation (and/or the underlying laws).

>If he's so "uninvolved" at that point, what transpires between then and the
>point of childbirth which suddenly makes him so "involved" again that he can
>be hit up for child support??
>
>Seems you have a very conveeeenient and arbitrary notion of "involvement",
>Adrienne....

I don't think so.

Obviously.  (-:

I think it's pretty damned clear who does what when during a pregnancy, and
that the activities and responses throughout the pregnancy are not anywhere
NEAR 'equal'.  Therefore it is hardly likely that the rights and responsi-
bilities during pregnancy would be 'equal'.

What happens after birth to a man's wallet (and to a woman's) is a social
and legal construct by which our government tries to order human relations
IN PART so that the taxpayer isn't bound by individual choices and IN PART
so that the two persons traditionally involved in having kids have some
legal and social tie to those kids.  It certainly isn't a PERFECT system,
and I have my own gripes with it.  But I don't see that the issues our
government developed the body of family law to cover ARE covered by the
proposals put forth on the net so far.

You will note, of course, that not all pro-choice women on this net agree
with me, so take heart.  Maybe you can get there from here.  I'll remain
skeptical, thanks.

>But, statutes loudly declare the FINANCIAL LIABILITY for such "biological"
>scenarios, and statutes, unlike biology itself, are ARTIFICIAL, MAN-MADE
>CONSTRUCTS, which can be changed on a whim. Constructs which can be made a 
>HELL of lot fairer than presently, IMO.

Bingo.  Be my guest.  Present something to the net that enhances the lives
of all the parties:

1. the children
2. the women who want children
3. the women who don't want children
4. the men who want children
5. the men who don't want children
6. the taxpayers at large

Good luck.

Adrienne Regard