Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero-c!nadel
From: jan@oas.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: birth control failure?
Keywords: feminism,men's rights,parenthood,choice,children
Message-ID: <49650@ricerca.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jun 91 19:15:31 GMT
References: <675716623@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1991Jun3.225158.2825@milton.u.washington.edu> <676071224@lime.cs.duke.edu>
Sender: news@oas.olivetti.com
Reply-To: jan@oas.olivetti.com
Followup-To: soc.feminism
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Lines: 62
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org



In article <676071224@lime.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>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.
[details deleted]


My objection to this proposal is partly emotional -- I'm tempted to say
that for a man to "abort", in addition to signing the paper, he should
donate 1-2 pints of blood, be given medication that will give him
severe cramps for a week, and take an injection giving a small chance of
infection (regardless of whether or not he is allergic to antibiotics), and
some pills that will give him mood swings.  Only if he is facing these 
consequences will he take the possibility of pregnancy as seriously as
a woman has to.  Without these additional consequences, there will be no
motive, under Hillel's proposal, for a man *not* to say "Come on, baby,
I love you forever, I'll take care of you" just to get laid.

Of course, being a mildly two-headed thinker, I can think of counters to
the above arguments.  As it is right now, there is an incentive for a
woman to lie, especially if she actually wants, consciously or unconsciously,
to be pregnant.  Also, a woman faces much greater dangers than the above
if she chooses to carry the pregnancy to term.

At the very least, there should be some way to make binding promises 
pre-coitally.  Hillel and I have argued in e-mail about what would be a
fair "default" in case of the absence of such a document, and failed to
agree.  I suspect, however, that we *do* agree that if it *is* in writing
it should be more enforceable.

It is true that right now, a mother cannot sign away a child's rights to
support from the father.  But, given the reality of artificial insemination,
we recognize the right of women to voluntary single-parenthood.  I would
like to see this extended to men and women who sign, ahead-of-time, that 
this is what they will do if they keep the baby.  

I would also like to see the default (without agreement) include at a minimum
that the father has the right of joint custody (with the usual support 
formula applicable, so if he makes less than the mom he would *receive* 
some support), and if the mother gives up the child for adoption, the 
father can have custody automatically (WITH SUPPORT from the mom and her 
visitation, unless they sign this away -- this would be analogous to what 
happens now if the woman keeps the child and stays off welfare.)

In short, I still don't like Hillel's proposal as-is, it creates too little
disincentive for men to have irresponsible sex, but I agree that there is
currently not enough disincentive for women.  Achieving a balance, given
that the woman's body is involved no matter what, will be difficult, but
the status quo is definitely not fair.

~~~ jan@orc.olivetti.com   or    jan@oas.olivetti.com  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We must worship Universal Consciousness as each of the 5 genders in turn
if we wish to be fully open to Yr glory.
						-- St. Xyphlb of Alpha III