Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!aero-c!nadel
From: rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: birth control failure?
Message-ID: <1991Jun6.114941.1@dev8a.mdcbbs.com>
Date: 6 Jun 91 11:49:41 GMT
References: <675716623@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1991Jun3.225158.2825@milton.u.washington.edu> <676071224@lime.cs.duke.edu> <49650@ricerca.UUCP>
Sender: news@aero.org
Followup-To: soc.feminism
Organization: McDonnell Douglas M&E, Cypress CA
Lines: 47
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org



In article <49650@ricerca.UUCP>, jan@oas.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel) writes:
>
> 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.

  Both you and Hillel continue to promote a narrow image of men as being
motivated by nothing more than their genitals. How would you feel if
I portrayed all women as "lying about birth control to trap a man
with a pragnancy". We both know that there are INDIVIDUAL women who
do this, but that does not justify saying that this is true of all women.
Likewise, this image that ALL men simply want sex, and then expect the
woman to handle the results is unfair to those men who desire a
family.

>
> 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.

  In Calufornia (where you live) a verbal contract is equally enforcible
under the law.

>
> 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.
>

  What happens when a woman uses the promise of children to induce a
man to marry her, then gets pregnant? Doesn't the father have rights
if he wants the child (and married the woman in order to secure the
support of that child)? Neither of your proposale even address that
issue. Until that issue is addressed, there are no "equal rights"
to be found here.


==========================================================================
\\\\    Michael Rivero      | "I drank WHAT!" | "I favor population      |
\ (.    rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs | Socrates  -------------------  control, as |
   )>   DISCLAIMER:::       |-----------|Anyone who does  | long as it's |
  ==    "Hey man, I wasn't  |Looking4luv|not get 8 hugs a | with someone |
---/    even here then!"    |Settle4sex!|day is in trouble| else's kids!"|
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------+++++++++++++++