Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 7 Apr 92 10:03:27 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: kohlhase

In article <1992Apr6.211244.9936@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu>, bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger) writes:
> In <1992Apr06.160847.22990@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr3.045457.14159@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> 
>>>But his wallet typically *IS*. Why narrow the question to only biology? 
>>>Biology is not the only thing that's important here.
> 
> 	Oh, biology. I tried that. I didn't like it.
> 
> 	Geez. We're not philosophizing  about
> 	"the study of life". 
> 
> 	It's called "My Body". Yeah, say that.
> 	See how it feels.
> 
> 	Not the same as "my wallet", imnsho.
> 
> 	But, you may be different. Maybe you really
> 	were born with your wallet intricately
> 	interwoven into your abdomen. I suppose
> 	it's possible.
> 
> 	Bev

  Well, this has to rank as one of the shallower attitudes displayed towards
men. On one hand, women want total control over the decision making process
because it is their body, but want men to be financially obligated to 
support whatever decision they, the females, make. Men shouldn't mind
such enforcements, as walets are not as important as bodies, but wallets are
impritant ENOUGH for manadatory support laws to be needed. 

  Okay, let's take a look at the two issues, bodies and wallets. I'm going to
play Devil's advocate here with some alternate ways of lookiing at the issues.
I am going to deliberatly stir up the fire a bit, and see what glows!
I don't necessarily believe in all the following, but I feel the need to open
up the dicsussion; to break it loose into some new thought, or else
this thread will start reading like the Monty Python Argument Sketch! (No, it
won't. Yes, it WILL!)

  First off, while the process of gestation and birth takes place within the
woman's body, the fact remains that the fetus is NOT the woman's body, it 
is it's own body. Half it's genetic information comes from the father
and he owns those genes just as much as the mother owns the other half. 
Let's face it, the fetus is not subservient to the will of the mother.
The fetus has it's own ideas about what it wants to do
(especially when it gets that foot up under the ribs, right) and is trying it's
damndest to leave as soon as possible! But, it is trapprd in the current
situation by biological reality as much as is the mother and all the
rhetoric will not change that. The kid is stuck for 9 months.

 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
other words, if she carries to term a child he does not want, then the mother
has hijacked his genetic information for a purpose he did not agree to.

  He may be aware of a congenital defect that runs in his family that 
would cripple an unplanned child. Should he not then exert some control in 
such a situation?

  The bottom line is that it takes both male and female to make a child. 
Men require women and women require men; speculations to the contrary are still
science fiction and will remain unavailable to the general population of the
species for quite some time to come. Those women who claim that moncellular
reproduction will free them from men forget that such cloning halts the 
evolutionary process, stagnating the species (it also automatically reinforces
ressessive genes increasing the possability of birth defects in the cloned
offspring).

  For the general population, it remains a fact of life that a woman cannot
have a child without the assistance and cooperation of a man. If a woman
can have a choice as to whether her genes survive or not, then so should a man.

  Now then, the wallet.  I happen to believe that a man should do the best he
can to provide the best home for his wife and children. This is also dictated
by biology. A woman, during the last trimester and immediatly after birth, is
not in a good position to be filling her own wallet (so to speak). The flip
side of that is that if a woman obtains and uses a man's genetic material
through fraudelent means (i.e. he has not agreed a priori to a pregnancy)
then she should evaluate his lack of financial support as yet another factor
in making her own decision. If she still wants to have the child, more power
to her. But coercion of the man to pay for a child he never wanted amounts
to "taxation" without represntation, and Americans have a long history of
fighting revolutions over such abuses!

  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).

  The second lesson is that attempts to dictate morality through legislation
backfire far more often than they succeed. The anger and resentment that
results can seriously destabilize a society. But, various special interest
groups will still ask the legislature to stand in loco parentis, to coerce
a subgroup (j this cas, men) to a behavior which favors the sponsors
(in this case, the pro-women-only-choice supporters). If what they seek was
really fair and equitable, they would not need to resort to legal force.
Both sides would see the logic and sense and participate. 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|   Maybe the problem would be solved if women stop sleeping with men    |
|   who don't want children, and start hanging out with those of us who  |
|   do!  Everybody would save a lot of lawyer fees that way.     :)      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.men