Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: birth control failure?
Message-ID: <676071224@lime.cs.duke.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 91 22:40:56 GMT
References: <MUFFY.91May30141445@remarque.berkeley.edu> <675716623@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1991Jun3.225158.2825@milton.u.washington.edu>
Organization: The Piranha Club
Lines: 54
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: glacier.ics.uci.edu

In article <1991Jun3.225158.2825@milton.u.washington.edu> twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes:

>Hillel, I'd be most interested in reading your draft of a law
>that would "give a choice for men in a case of birth control failure."

When the woman discovers the pregnancy she will give the man two choices:

1) Signing an agreement to support the child.

2) Signing off all his rights and responsibilities toward the child.

A standard form, made by the state, will be used.

If he refuses to sign, or she can't locate him, she will contact a state
agency that will mail it to him, registered.  If he will not answer in a
week then an ad will be put in a daily newspaper.  If he will not answer
in another week, then he will have no rights or responsibilities toward
the child.

The expenses will be quite low because:

1) Most women will be able to locate the expected fathers.

2) There will be just standard paper work; no running around
   to look for people.

3) Most men will not want to see such publication about them and
   a daily newspaper, and therefore they will answer, fast.

Women will have an interest to start the process early so
a *low* risk abortion will be an option for her.

>I'm really tired of hearing you endlessly criticize others
>who are struggling in good faith with difficult issues and
>offering nothing but cheap sarcasm in response.

1) This offer was presented several times on the net,
   and it was *flamed* by feminists.

[This topic has NOT come up in soc.feminism before (the last round was
in soc.women, right about the time this group was formed, in early
1989.  Therefore, the complaint is not valid for this group, since it
is "closed off" by being moderated and non-crossposted.  This should
be kept in mind.  --CTM]

2) I define "good faith" by what people do/suggest/support,
   not by the "deep concern" they express.

>Barbara Hlavin			Mr Speaker, I smell a rat; I see him forming

Hillel                                                 gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Were we the ones who called the shots, there would
be no institutional discrimination against us."  --  Clay Bond