From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:14:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr16.161441.28735
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <703376617@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>#My idea is to have choice for men if and only if abortion
>#is legal in the state where the future mother lives.
>#
>In article <1992Apr15.192600.6590@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu 
>(susan larsen) writes:
>
>>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?
>
Ah, you misunderstood.  In my original posting, I stated to 
the effect that as there are women who would use their 
bodies to extort money from men, there are also men who 
would gladly take any opportunity to walk away from a 
pregnant woman.  Your proposals address a subset of women 
lacking responsibility and/or ethics in reproduction, my 
addendum would address a subset of men who behave in an 
analogous fashion

>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.

But this goes back to my original contention that your proposal, 
as stated is flawed because it would serve to put the onus of 
birth control on the woman.  As you stated, the woman would 
be expected to establish the guidelines for having sex.  Is it 
not well-established the damage done to society when a greater 
level of expectation and/or responsibility becomes gender-linked?
My addendum would return a burden of responsibility to men for 
birth control that yours would remove.

>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)?  

But, the discussion revolves around those women who chose 
to give birth in an attempt to collect child support.  The 
woman's ability to have an abortion is the lynchpin of your 
entire proposal.  It would strike me that women who feel 
there is a financial gain in bearing children are, in 
fact, self-limiting their future child bearing potential.
Let's face it, if you met a woman with three children 
bearing three different last names and on your first date 
she explained the accounting procedures she uses to keep 
track of the dads' payment records, would you not feel that 
this woman has successfully stigmatized herself?

>>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).

What we are discussing here is a situation in which the man and 
woman cannot come to agreement on the disposition of a pregnancy 
occurring outside of the wedded state, stalemated by the 
woman's insistence on giving birth ***and*** pursuing a child 
support order.  These are a lot of variables.  We are not discussing 
three random birth control failures.  It is analagous to drunk 
driving laws featuring a three strikes-your out.  That given 
drunk has probably evaded capture numerous times before the law 
caught up with him  and revoked his license.  Do note, 
any pregnancy situation that involves a personal agreement 
between the man and woman would never send the man to the court-
house to file for an exemption.

>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"?

This is very interesting, because the whims of society are 
pointing in this very direction.  Roll backs of abortion rights, 
roll backs of maternity leaves, cuts in welfare linked with 
family size, etc. all actions of this nature featuring the 
justification that it his "her" personal pregnancy and 
the consequences of her personal decision should not be borne 
by the group.  But, I digress :-)

I do not feel 100% comfortable with advocating enforced 
male sterilization.  However, were I to amend my suggestion 
to eliminate this requirement, then it would be to limit 
exemptions to three.  So, you could argue that the given 
Romeo's life is destroyed because he was forced to pay for 
his ***fourth*** child.  

By giving an unscrupulous, unprincipled individual carte-
blanche to act irresponsibily and present him with an 
unlimited potential to dodge the consequences of his 
actions, you are leaving him the ability to "destroy" many 
lives, those of women and his children.  Again, I can see 
forgiving errors, up to a point.  When exactly would Romeo 
have to account for ***his*** own behavior under your 
unamended proposal?

>>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 :-)

Oh, sperm limits, as opposed to term limits (ouch (-: ). 

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu