From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Forced Fatherhood Executive Summary
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:20:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.101100.4532@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <16650015@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com>, larryf@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Larry Ferreira) writes:
>> In alt.dads-rights, bglazier@buffalo.asd.sgi.com (Bill Glazier) writes:
>> 
>>>  In article <16650014@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com>, larryf@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Larry |> 
>> 
>> 
>>>  >If a man has been deceived into thinking birth control is being
>>>  |> used, when in fact it is not, and this is a willful act, why do you insist
>>>  |> on making the man pay for the consequences?  By doing that you take away
>>>  |> the responsibility on the part of the female for the consequence on her
>>>  |> part.
>> 
>>>  You must also believe that a man should have the right to NOT support a child
>>>  he fathered, if he chooses not to be a Father.  If so, what about the case
>> 
>> Your assumption is incorrect.  What I am supporting is equal responsibility.

At this point, a woman has little responsibility because she always
has the last choice: abortion or adoption.  This is hardly equal.
The man is responsible for the results of her choice, however heavy
those results may be.


>> We're not talking about forced sex, rape, etc.  What we are talking about
>> are men who have made it clear that they do not want to become a parent,
>
>So, do something about it.  Get a vasectomy!
>
>> where the woman allows herself to conceive because she does want to be
>> a parent. 
>
>This rates right up there with the remark, 'getting herself pregnant'!

This sort of action rates right up there with fraud and deception.
It is, in fact, fraud and deception.  


>> Then goes to court in order to make the man support something
>> he never wanted.  That's like saying because I looked at a new car in a
>> show room, I now must take it and make payments on it.  Sounds pretty
>> stupid to me!  (I don't me to be degrading with my example of equating
>> cars to people.  But the analogy make about as much sense to me as making
>> someone pay to support a child that he clearly never wanted.)
>> 
>
>All you did was LOOK at the woman?  Wow, immaculate conception!  I thought
>that only happened once, 2000 years ago!

Massachusetts has a "lemon law" that gives you rights to change your
mind even after you have *bought* the car.  They apply when the dealer
intentionally (through fraud and deception) or unintentionally 
("accidentally" might be appropriate) sells you a bad car.


>Yep, you got the right idea.  Wait until you are married or else take measures
>to make sure you don't conceive a child.  The thing you are ignoring is that
>the State considers a consenting adult who causes conception of a child to
>have knowingly participated in an activity that is a risky one.  

Actually, if the State can be said to consider anything, it considers
a consenting adult woman who causes conception of a child to have every
right to stop the pregnancy.

>In other
>words, if you take a gun and shoot it into a crowd, and kill someone, you
>can't whine that you thought no one would get hurt.  

Now this sounds much more like what society and the "State" think
of a man's participation in sex.  With the help of the Pill, feminists
fought against applying this attitude to women, and the State reflects 
that fight.  It does not reflect a change in attitudes toward men, however.

Second, the probability of shooting into a crowd and thereby 
injuring someone is vastly greater than having protected sex 
and thereby conceiving.  Third, why should only women be able 
to shoot without responsibility?


>The main natural
>consequence of having sex with someone is conception of a child.  Anyone who
>thinks that isn't going to happen if all possible protection is omitted is
>stupid.  The State is then required to provide for that child.  If there
>are responsible adults are available to pay for expenses, then the rest of
>the community is not going to have to pay.  

This makes a good argument for forced abortion -- especially in the case
of poor, single mothers.  I would consider that a pretty hard-line stance.
[understatement symbol]

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2401 soc.men:17036 misc.legal:17815