From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:23:02 GMT

In article <694@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <Bz87I5.JAK@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>#In article <480@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>#
>#I don't think that people should be able to change their minds on a
>#contractual issue without paying the price, no.  If you claim you're going
>#to do something in any other area of life, and get renumeration for it, you
>#cannot then say "oh I'm sorry, I don't really want to do that now" and walk
>#away.
>#
>#Yet in this area >women< can do exactly this.  Men, however, cannot, and in
>#fact aren't even allowed to make a decision in the first place!  The choice
>#rests entirely with the woman involved.
>
>Child support is not renumeration for childbirth.  

*EXACTLY!* That's why I have little patience with all of these specious 
"biology gives women more rights" and laughable "Value of a Man" arguments.
Pregnancy might be torture, but if a woman VOLUNTEERS for the torture, she
can hardly expect a man to compensate her (in the form of subsidizing her
support of the child) for that decision. That's just a play for sympathy.

>Perhaps this
>is why you have such a problem with it - you think that you're
>being forced to pay for a service that you didn't want.

No, not the service itself, Susie, but the end result of that service --
the child. Why should a man pay support for a child he didn't want, took all 
reasonable steps to avoid (abstinence is NOT reasonable, nor is risking the
possibility of all future progeny by a vasectomy), and where someone else had 
the Last Clear Chance to avoid the costs associated with having and raising a 
child? It violates basic principles of legal liability.

>Men can, in fact, walk away.  Many have.

Not legally, they haven't.

>##My problem with "male choice" is this - a woman who has an
>##abortion has made an irrevocable decision.  A man who renounces
>##his paternal rights and responsibilities has not.  Even if
>##he legally had no further rights, it would be hard to deny a
>##child's request to know his father if the father changed his
>##mind and wanted to know the child.  
>#
>#How does this differ from a woman giving up a child for adoption?  Again, a
>#changeable" decision.  Yet we allow this in our society.
>
>I haven't seen as many men whining about not having the right
>to give a child up for adoption as I have about not having the
>right to abort.  I have a lot more sympathy with the adoption
>argument.

Straw man. No-one in this exchange has advocated, as their first priority, 
giving men "the right to abort". Some have mentioned this as a last resort, 
however, due to the apparent intransigence of you child-support reactionaries.

>I'd point out, though, that adoption is not strictly analogous
>to what I have outlined above.  Women who place their children
>for adoption have a set time limit during which they can change
>thier minds.  Unless it is an open adoption, they don't know where
>their child is, nor who adopted him or her.  

So give him "a set time limit during which he can change his mind".
Is there a problem here? 

>##with time.  An unwanted pregnancy sometimes results in a
>##wanted child.  
>#
>#And, frequently, a walking wallet.
>
>I suppose that you had a point.  I'm sure that I'm probably not 
>interested in hearing it.

Translation: don't confuse me with the facts.

							- Kevin

UNRETRACTED LIE
---------------

"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
 himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
				    Susie Garvin
				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51738 alt.flame:16305