Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 9 Apr 92 10:05:43 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

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:
> 


  CONTINUING IN THE SPIRIT OF OPENING UP THE DEBATE............



>> Let's say that the man, in fact, owns half of that genetic information.
>>Maybe he should some say as to whether he wants that genetic information
>>to become a human. Unless he has indicated a desire for  child, the mother is,
>>in effect, using his genes for a purpose other than which he specified. In
> 
> 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.

  If the fetus is rhe property of the parents to "dispose of" (as you
put it), then that decision belong to both parents, not just to one.


> 
> 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!


> Unless the
>    man has been raped, it's not as if he didn't eject the genetic
>    material in a place where it could act on its own accord (fertilize
>    the egg).  There is a great illusion of control there:  by mani-
>    pulating time and contraceptive devices, many people feel as if
>    they should be guaranteed that a pregnancy will not result from
>    an act of sex.  I believe that is an illusion (also a human tragedy).

  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.


> 
>>  There are two lessons from history which apply here. The concepts of equal
>>rights and majority rule are mutually exclusive. As soon as a political
>>majority gets together, they take something away from someone else. In this case,
>>freedom of choice has been taken from men. Men cannot decide whether they can
>>have a child or not. It's up to the woman, who can change her mind at will
>>(but the man must pay in either case).
> 
> Toss this one over in your mind:  for women to have an equal weight,
> status, and opportunity in the world as men, they cannot have children.

  How do you get this? Women have always enjoyed special protection and
priviledge because they DO have children. Men are biologically disposable
once conception occurs (which is why Arlington National Cemetary remains a
male only club). 

  I think the problem here is that you have a rather arbitrary definition
of what constitutes "equality", defined (I am assuming here) in terms of
life outside the home. There is another viewpoint. The statement you make 
above attempts to cast women who WANT children as somehow socially inferior,
and that is not a judgement you are in a position to make. You are making
a sweeping generalization based solely on pregnancy. Many very succesful
women, including heads of coporations, still have children, and have husbands
who think helping with the kids is a very neat idea. What could possibly be
wrong with that, that you assign a socially inferior position to such women.

> I think that is the bottom line.  I would be neither emotionally or
> physically capable of working at a high-responsibility, high-hours job
> if I were pregnant or if I were having a child, and I believe I am
> a fairly strong person. 

  But the fact is that whether you can or canot does not affect those women who
suceed at both. One of my very best friends in the film business is a higly
respected feature film producer. She makes a 7 figure income and has had 2 kids
that she loves and adores. She is a very strong person. 

  However, we seem to have wandered from the idea of decision regarding birth to
an automatic condemnation of pregagncy. I don't care if you, personally, don't
want to get pregnant; the world is over populated. I don't intend to
dissuade a woman from a career if that's what she wants; to do so would
be disrespectful. The solution is obvious. I want a family, and as of right now,
only date women who already have a child or two. I have a clear path
to what I wish from life, without imposing on the rights of women who want
something different.

  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?



> 
> This is a *big* problem, and also shows when women are being hired; if
> they think you are just going to get married, have a baby, and suck
> the company for maternity leave, you have less of a chance of being
> hired.

  That's not always true. If you have the talents and skills that a
company needs, you get hired, pregnant or no. I recall working for an
animation house where many of the painters and arists were pregnant.
Not only did the company not hassle them, these expectatant mothers were
absolutly fawned over. The health maintainence company that shares this
building has a similar enlightened attitude, and having lots of toddlers
around actually makes the place more cheerful and pleasant to be in.

  You know, if you start treating mothers as people to be respected, maybe
companies will start respecting them. If you keep displaying an attitude
that pregnant women are inferior, it maybe encourages companies to 
treat them as inferior, because they think they can get away with it.


> 
> So any program that wants true equality for men and women will have to
> take women's unique ablility to bear children into account. 

  AGREED! 


 I don't
> have the answers but I am thinking about possible solutions.

  Very liberal and cooperative day-care. Flex time. Integrate the work
experience with the family life as opposed to erecting barriers (and
resentment) between the two. Change in attitude regarding the valuation
of mothers (as in, those that don't want to have children have to stop
looking down on those that do). 

  


 
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|            SUPPORT A DRUG FREE AMERICA. ARREST THE CIA!                |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>