From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:23:39 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#My idea is to have choice for men if and only if abortion
#is legal in the state where the future mother lives.
#
#The idea is that if it is *her* choice not to have an abortion 
#then she should be the one who pays for that choice (or gives
#the newborn up to adoption).
#
#Fair enough?

In article <1992Apr15.192600.6590@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu 
(susan larsen) writes:

>To answer your question, no, not quite fair enough.

You remind me the guy who almost destroy a kingdom in his attempt to
force the king to make justice with respect to his two horses and
a gutless aristocrat, but go on...

>However, the plan would remove from men, generally, any 
>need to use birth control, because mistakes could so 
>readily be avoided by signing off.  

1) Why are you so sure that men are so irresponsible?

2) There is nothing wrong if the woman says "no glove, no love."
   And unlike women's birth control methods, it is *easy* to
   check if there is a condom.

3) Similar arguments have been used against "abortion on the demand."
   The argument is that "abortion on demand" causes women to use 
   abortion as a birth control.  (A common practice in Russia, BTW.)

4) Do you suggest a similar system for women (only two abortions
   will be allowed in their lives)?  

>So I would suggest amending your original suggestion by 
>adding a "three strikes, you're out" clause.  A man would 
>be required to file his support exemptions with the courthouse.
>On the third request, the man would have to show medical 
>proof that he has obtained a vasectomy, thereby obviating 
>the need for any further support exemptions. No vasectomy, 
>no third exemption will be granted.

The effectively of condoms is about 85% (which means that a couple
who uses condom regularly has a probability of 15% of 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).

>I believe honest mistakes can be made once.  Maybe twice.  

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"?

>The third occasion would say to me that this given man is 
>irresponsible and incapable and/or unwilling to support any 
>of his progeny.   Therefore, a physical commitment to 
>birth control on the part of this given man should be required.

I hate the idea of giving the state the power to say "show
responsibility or be sterilized."  Only after it will be used on
Congress persons I'll be willing to even consider that...  1/2 :-)

>Sue Larsen

Hillel                                                 gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Were we the ones who called the shots, there would
be no institutional discrimination against us."  --  Clay Bond