From: linda@wendy.net.com (Linda Hill)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: children as appendage
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:14:50 GMT
Followup-To: alt.child-support
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies

In article <1992Aug20.165324.16448@samba.oit.unc.edu> Mic.Oettinger@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>
[stuff deleted]
>You are asking women to possibly do something that is against their
>morality or values or beliefs or religion or whatever else. You cannot
>even ask a woman to make that decision, because it is something many many
>women could never fathom. Killing a child or giving it up for adoption is
>one of the most difficult and painful things a woman can do.

Ah, but if this is the case then what responsible thinking woman would even
be having sex outside of marriage/commitment in the first place?  Obviously if
she knows the man doesn't want to be a father and she feels the way you do,
she shouldn't be having intercourse.

Here is something I posted to soc.women only (on 8/19?), not realizing that
most of the traffic for this thread was being generated by people in the
other groups (my apologies to those in soc.women who've already seen it):

I recently rejoined this group and have held off posting before catching up
with this thread, so apologies for coming in on it late.  I would just like
to put forth my philosophy as an antidote to the perception that women are
only interested in reaming men and are encouraged to do so by the legislature
and/or judicial system in this country.

As a feminist who believes in equal social, political and economic *rights*
(someone in a previous post appears to be confusing rights with status), I've
always felt that I was responsible for my body.  I know *I* don't want to get
pregnant, therefore *I* take the necessary precautions for preventing an
unwanted pregnancy.  I doubt I would ever leave this up to the man outside of
a longterm relationship/marriage (I'm assuming a greater amount of trust and
responsibility to each other exists in those instances - pardon my idealism).

Should an accidental pregnancy occur, *I* would then decide what to do about
it.  I am pro-choice and would likely choose an abortion.  I realize that's
unfair to the man who may actually want the child formed of his union with me,
but it's my body and I refuse to be a baby factory for someone else.  On the
off chance that I decided I wanted to carry the pregnancy to term and keep the
baby, I would never expect an unwilling father-to-be to participate in any
way past conception.  If it's my decision alone to have the child, then I
accept full responsibility for it.  If I were able to carry the child to term
with the intent of giving it up for adoption (which would be very difficult
since I can't imagine going through a pregnancy and then giving the baby away),
and I knew the father wanted to raise the child himself, I would do everything
in my power to see that he had custody at birth.  That would be his choice and
I would not be financially responsible for it.

It isn't fair, but I always assumed that since the woman is the one who ends
up pregnant, then she has the more vested interest in thinking ahead of time
of ways to prevent it, and to handle it once it happens to her, than the man.
The man was always a secondary figure in my imagined scenarios.  I always
hoped that he would be willing to split the cost of the abortion, but I never
*expected* him to.  Carrying to term and keeping the baby, it would be nice if
he took an interest (assuming I liked him well enough!), but I would never
*expect* him to.  It was always, my body, therefore my responsibility for
any sexual roulette I wanted to play.

My husband thinks this attitude is appalling (especially coming from an avowed
feminist) because it places no responsibility whatsoever on the man.  The man
is free to hop in and out of the sack willy nilly without a care in the world.
I think that this is pretty much the way of the wild and that the human species
will never be so evolved that the majority of males can intelligently control
their sex drives.  Therefore it is up to the female of the species, as it has
always been in nature, to control with whom and when she mates.  I guess it
boils down to my feeling that men are and always have been sexually
irresponsible, so it's up to women to protect themselves.  I realize this will
only work in an idyllic world where all women are educated and receptive to
birth control, but it is how _I_ feel and it has worked for me.

[K'Char has already pointed out my sexist assumption that men are driven by
their penises, but most of what I read and the way I hear men speak about
women makes me believe this is true _in general_.  I'm believe that the sex
act is physical for _most_ men and emotional for _most_ women.]

I do find it ironic that on this newsgroup it is men gnashing their teeth
about women who won't go and get abortions so that they won't be stuck with
paying child support, while at the same time there is a powerful contingent of
men in this country who are ready to take that option away from women like me.
I think that if I *had* to have the baby (i.e., a safe, legal, affordable
abortion was not available), then I would feel very differently about the whole
issue.  In that case I probably would want to hold the father more accountable
because I had no choice but to have the baby.  And I don't feel you can
glibly retort, "then give it up for adoption".  It isn't right to give a
woman no choice but to carry a baby and then expect her to easily hand it off
to total strangers, or even 100% to the father if he is interested.  I can't
say I would be emotionally prepared to do that if it came right down to it.

So are these, to us, archaic child support laws based on pre-legalized abortion
days?  If so, I would want to make absolutely sure that legalized abortion is
here to stay before legislating the child support laws out of existence.

And in Article 40156 of soc.women jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe) says:

>any person who chooses to bring
>a child into the world ought to *fully* consider the ramifications of
>that decision.  And if there's serious doubt about your own ability to
>support that child adequately, and you don't have the other parent's
>agreement in advance to support that child, then you'd better think
>twice.

>What should you say to a child you chose to bring into the world on
>your own, but can't support, and depend on forcing someone else
>who didn't agree to bring the child into the world, to support?

*Exactly*.

linda@net.com