From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited (was Let's Play StipUlations)
Date: 16 Oct 1992 08:48:39 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

(don and me)
>
>So: you wanted more than a clarification, you wanted a debate.

(hmmm.  Newsgroups:  talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity.  Yep, I can see
'em.  I wonder what reading software Don is using?)

>>Horseshit.  The man has *no* legal obligation until a child is born.
>Colorful.
(thanks.  You get points for that around here.)
>If the man has no legal obligations before birth, then those
>obligations are created at some moment, presumably birth.  They 
>are not ongoing obligations set in motion by the act of conception.
>The obligation comes into existence solely through the woman's decision
>to have the child.  Thus it must be her obligation.

I don't think 'solely' flies in this context.  She didn't decide to have
a baby, dream the sperm up in the middle of the night, and spirit it from
him.  And it's that reality upon which the western social constructs of
parent_s_ is based.  Sorry.

>such an "active" move -- then I could see a point.  But here, 
>you want it both ways.

No.  Only if you twist it by using such foolishness as 'solely'.

>>Horseshit again.  If the child is adopted, BOTH the man's and the 
>>woman's obligations are terminated.  So are both rights to the child.  
>>If the child is not adopted, BOTH parents retain their rights and 
>>obligations.
>Can the man choose to give the child up for adoption?

Can either parent give the child up for adoption unilaterally?  Not in law.
Practice, however, is very muddy because of the identification problems
on the male side.

>>Which merely undermines the whole of family law and western culture in
>>one fell swoop.  I can understand your desire for such a thing, but I 
>>really don't think it works within any currently imaginable legal or 
>>social framework.  We already see thousands of children in poverty, and it
>>is the social norm still for men to be the major $$ earners.  Your proposal
>>would do nothing but exacerbate an already unteneble situation.
>The same could be said about feminism and providing women the
>right to work.

Well, it *could*, but the order of magnitude is much smaller.

>Oh -- if you want to discuss implementation, then I agree:  male choice
>will/would be a very difficult thing to implement.  Men don't have
>victim status, as women do.  Sympathy is given to women and children
>first.  Tight budgets don't allow progressive social reforms.

Let me ask you this then:  why do you argue for a change you agree won't
be implemented?  I'm curious why people do this because I really don't under
stand it.  My pragmatic side would rebel against such a use of time and 
energy.

>Would you say we're in a "20 year" "unhappy" period right now,
>and would it have anything to do with feminism and the change 
>in the work force?

Yeah.  Absolutely.  I tend to think of the female baby boomers as the
lost generation, myself.  Women who have paid the price and not reaped
the benefits.  However, it had sufficient energy behind it to become a
partial reality so far.  I don't think male choice does, or will.

>You're right; it wouldn't fly for men.  The default traditional
>status for men is: insensitive, authoritative, absent worker/deadbeat.

Wouldn't your energy be better spent toward altering *this* perception
than toward arguing a no-win proposition?

>Modern men are held to a higher standard with respect to family issues
>than women.

Uh, let me be sure I understand you:  The insensitive, authoritative,
absent worker/deadbeat is held to a higher standard with respect to
family issues that women?  Can you explain this to me?

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion