Date: 18 Dec 92 01:28:22 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:

>>he doesn't create a
>>baby.  He creates a foetus.  The foetus cannot exist on it's own, nor can
>>the man, if given the foetus, create anything from it.  He, very literally,
>>cannot create a baby.
>>The woman creates the baby.  She has the choice, and she is, in 
>>fact, the only person who *can* create a baby.
>>The choice and ability to create a baby is entirely hers.  

>You seem to be claiming that the man has nothing to do with creating
>a baby.  Thus, it's not his child.  He has no responsibility and no
>rights.

>I suspect that the majority of men (and women too!) would disagree 
>with your assessment.

	Yes, I suspect so...what's your point?

	Am I only supposed to put forward ideas that most people already agree
with?  Is that your criterion for forwarding your ideas?

	Are ideas that most people don't agree with (such as, say, that women
can "do" equal work, as understood in, say the 30's) not to be mentioned or
considered?  

	Are we not to question social constructs based on "old" reality when
new technology changes that reality?

	Is our culture's "solution" to child-rearing the only "correct"
solution?

	Do the ethical implications of the biological advantages of being 
women over being men in the modern world scare you?

	Just what is your point?

	Oh, that's enough playing. ;-)  "Property", "rights", and
"responsibilities" are social constructs, not biological ones.  The fact 
that making a child is a two step process now where it was a one step one 
before means we, as a society, need to rethink what it means to create a 
child, and what it means to both biological parents.  Our old system was based
on the existence of a patriarchal system, where men made the money, women
raised the children, and sex was the only possible deciding point as to 
whether a child would be created.

	The patriarchal system is disappearing, or at least being seriously
diluted; technology has changed so that it is now possible to decide, 
entirely separately from sex, whether a child will be created or not.

	We now have the ability to become parents by *choice*, rather than
as a side-affect of a biological urge.  We appear to be deciding that women
should have exclusive control of the choice, based on the facts that 1) 
Their bodies are *directly* involved, and 2) no other human beings body is
involved, since a foetus is not a person.  The implication of this exclusive
choice is exclusive responsibility...and exclusive privileges.  Yes, it's
a scary, new idea; but anything else, without *mutual* agreement, is a *crime*.
Anything else is forcing someone else to subsidize a woman's decision; 
other words for that are "theft" or "indenturement".

	All privileges, all responsibility.  This is the basis that biology, 
ethics and our desire to put a woman's bodily autonomy ahead of any other 
rights of anyone else conspires to create.  Yes, it's scary, but changing this
basis requires throwing away one of the above three components...and all too
many people, it seems, are willing to throw away the ethics part.

	This does *not* mean, as I think you were implying, that I think we 
have to settle for this basis.  It means that this is the baseline, from 
which we can negotiate.  Men want some privileges; women want less
responsibility than the three cornerstones imply.  We should be able to 
come to a mutual agreement that makes us all sorta happy, whether that be 
by pre-coital contracts, a new set of legal guidelines, government subsidies,
etc.

	But any attempt to coerce responsibilities or privileges from one
gender unilaterally is exactly that: coercion, abuse of power.  The three
cornerstones set up a basis; instead of trying to abuse folks, lets try to
come up with some reasonable, fair alternatives, wherein we can raise some
children into situation where everyone involved in their lives wanted to 
be involved in the first place, and willingly accepted the responsibilities
that come with the involvement.

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism