Organization: Dewey Decimal
Date: Wednesday, 8 Apr 1992 16:22:54 EDT
From: Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
 <1992Mar30.200846.15452@sdd.hp.com>
 <1992Apr6.211244.9936@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu> <1992Apr7.100327.1@mdcbbs.com>

In article <1992Apr7.100327.1@mdcbbs.com>, rivero@mdcbbs.com says:

> Let's say that the man, in fact, owns half of that genetic information.
>Maybe he should some say as to whether he wants that genetic information
>to become a human. Unless he has indicated a desire for  child, the mother is,
>in effect, using his genes for a purpose other than which he specified. In

1) No one owns the genetic information in the fetus except the fetus.
   Unless you want to say that half your genetic material is in fact
   the *property* of your mother and the *property* of your father and
   therefore *you* are theirs to dispose of as they please at any time.

2) "He should have some say as to whether the genetic material becomes
   human."  Isn't it a bit late for that kind of decision?  Unless the
   man has been raped, it's not as if he didn't eject the genetic
   material in a place where it could act on its own accord (fertilize
   the egg).  There is a great illusion of control there:  by mani-
   pulating time and contraceptive devices, many people feel as if
   they should be guaranteed that a pregnancy will not result from
   an act of sex.  I believe that is an illusion (also a human tragedy).

>  There are two lessons from history which apply here. The concepts of equal
>rights and majority rule are mutually exclusive. As soon as a political
>majority gets together, they take something away from men. In this case,
>freedom of choice has been taken from men. Men cannot decide whether they can
>have a child or not. It's up to the woman, who can change her mind at will
>(but the man must pay in either case).

Toss this one over in your mind:  for women to have an equal weight,
status, and opportunity in the world as men, they cannot have children.
I think that is the bottom line.  I would be neither emotionally or
physically capable of working at a high-responsibility, high-hours job
if I were pregnant or if I were having a child, and I believe I am
a fairly strong person.  I would lose precious time due to any pregnancy
complications I might have, labor, recuperation, and who is going to
take care of the newborn if I go right back to work?  I would just love
to raise my children myself.  Career-wise that spells tragedy--I can't
climb up the "corporate ladder" again after taking off 20 years of work.
My mother found that when she went back to work--before she was married,
she had a master's degree and taught at a college.  Now she is working
as a secretary, and bored out of her skull--but she can only work a job
like that because she is still caring for my younger siblings.

This is a *big* problem, and also shows when women are being hired; if
they think you are just going to get married, have a baby, and suck
the company for maternity leave, you have less of a chance of being
hired.

So any program that wants true equality for men and women will have to
take women's unique ablility to bear children into account.  I don't
have the answers but I am thinking about possible solutions.


Joy Haftel               "Joy and woe are woven fine,
JKH107@PSUVM              A clothing for the soul divine."
                                  --Blake