From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Male Choice, How? 
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:31:45 GMT

In <BzLC7y.39q@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>In article <1992Dec19.080107.14639@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <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.
>>
>>I'm unaware that "condom bowls" are a statutory requirement now. Of course,
>>if individual establishments WISH to offer their patrons these forms, I see
>>no reason to forbid them from doing so...

>Naw, there's a better solution.

>Change the default to "no responsibility" for men -- as it is with women
>today (they have two choices which relieve them of it). 

She has 'no responsibility' only if she choses to abort. And that is not
quite like simply getting your teeth cleaned, from what I hear.

>Now, if a woman WANTS to have a child with a man, THEN there should be a
>legal form signed and filed.

>That way there is an >affirmation< of support.  

Yeah, its called a marriage license, etc. (not that it always guarantees
the support by either parent).


>I think the best way to do this is to require >both< parties to sign the
>same form.  That way the man knows at the time its signed that the woman
>won't abort the fetus, and the woman knows the man can't legally run off.

>That is, there is mutual assent.  

Well, but see above. All jokes about marriage licenses apart, the only
guarantee is the maturity and honour of both parents. Admittedly, getting
married does make for liability in case of desertion, but so does simply
being one of the genetic parents. As a wise man once said, business deals
are sealed with a handshake among honorable people, contracts are just
a record.

>I like it.  

Why not, its been around for years.

>>less resources there are available to support the average child. If you
>>really cared about children, I'd expect you to support changes which maximize
>>the chance that any given child is wanted and voluntarily supported by BOTH 
>>of its natural parents.

>Which I believe this change would do.  Only a foolish woman would have a
>child which she could not afford if she could not bill the man for half the
>cost -- and men would have no reason to "run off" on their kids, as they
>wouldn't be responsible for them unless they wanted them in the first place.

Hey! Lets look at this from a practical aspect. I've seen numbers here of
a father with a good job paying $1000 a month. Now, if the mother stays
home with the child, that's not quite 'living it up' in my experience. If
she works, day care is pretty pricey and I assume some of that $1000 is
intended to be invested toward further education. As was suggested earlier,
there should be accounting by the CP.


>I fully support holding people to their agreements in this area; the key is
>consent.

<sigh> well again, see above re contracts.

>--
>Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
>Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
>Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions

REB
Usual disclaimers

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52807 talk.religion.misc:24515 alt.atheism:24246