Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: birth control failure? Keywords: feminism,men's rights,parenthood,choice,children Message-ID: Date: 6 Jun 91 19:57:04 GMT References: <675716623@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1991Jun3.225158.2825@milton.u.washington.edu> <676071224@lime.cs.duke.edu> <49650@ricerca.UUCP> Organization: Informix Software, Inc. Lines: 106 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: glacier.ics.uci.edu jan@oas.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel) writes: >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. [Deleted: a very nice discussion on the pros and cons of Hillel's proposal, with the above point and these others: : The way things are now, the woman has an incentive to lie. : The woman faces more danger from carrying to term than from abortion. : She and Hillel probably agree that a pre-coital contract should be binding, but it's difficult to determine a fair default. : Arguments about child's rights to two parents don't jibe with the institution of artificial insemination. : Joint custody should be part of the default, with a non-gender-biased resolution of child support. : Her main objection to Hillel's proposal is that it doesn't provide enough disincentive for men to have irresponsible sex. ------- Nice article. There is no way to make the opportunities/disadvantages *equal*. It just can't be done. The man can't be made to face the physical disadvantages of either abortion or child-carrying/birth, but neither can he have a baby on his own. These have to be considered to balance each other out. Considering how much fun I'm having raising a child, I think the ability to choose whether or not to have a child without having to have a willing partner is a big plus; obviously, all the physical aspects are a big minus (except for some women, who seem to enjoy being pregnant). But you're right, it needs to be balanced a little better, to give men an incentive to have responsible sex. I think the incentive should be where it always has been: in the wallet. If the woman chooses to have an abortion, the man should pay for it. If the woman chooses to carry the child to term, he should pay a share of the associated costs, and I think it should be a large share, say 3/4. I would say all the costs, but that would be more open to exploitation by a woman who knows she wants to have a child, and just wants to get someone else to pay for it. A slight variation: he should be required to pay 50%, and the cost of a professional birthing partner, if he is unprepared to be a birthing partner (or a non-professional [read: family or friend] who is willing to be a partner, would be paid as if they were a professional). If there are costs associated with giving up a child for adoption (assuming neither partner wants to keep the child, but the woman does carry the child to term) then he should be required to pay 50% of those costs. Understand that I know this does not really balance things. Comparing money with physical suffering is like comparing money with time given; all things considered, it's easier to give money. However, I honestly think this is the best balance that can be achieved, and it takes into account both the fact the the woman must face the physical consequences, and that she also has a physical opportunity the man can never have: the possibility to have a child without a willing partner. Incentives are there for *both* partners to have responsible sex. One problem I see is that rich men will have little incentive; perhaps some sort of sliding pay scale, based on income and how many times he finds himself in this situation? This might leave a rich men a little more susceptible to exploitation if he is irresponsible, but, on the other hand, the exploitation would mean a lot less to him, as it would be a much smaller part of his income. This still bears thinking about. Any ideas? Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.