Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Man's Responsibility
Message-ID: <MUFFY.91Jun13102345@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Date: 13 Jun 91 20:22:23 GMT
References: <1991Jun13.155237.12650@aero.org>
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Lines: 60
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: glacier.ics.uci.edu

In article <1991Jun13.155237.12650@aero.org> al885@cwns9.ins.cwru.edu (Gerard Pinzone a.k.a. Ataru Moroboshi) writes:

   |   Gordon persists in avoiding
   |   this point, but he tries to give moral and legal arguments why a
   |   break in condom (or a woman's lie about birth control) should
   |   destroy a man's life.
   |
   |It's not the break in the condom, it's the man's own stupidity.  If he's
   |so worried, let him get a vasectomy.  If he's willing to take the risk
   |of condoms, read CR to find out which ones are less likely to break.
   |Why should a woman have to go through one of two dangerous procedures
   |(abortion and pregnancy) because of a *man's* lie or a "break in
   |condom"?  *Everyone* involved needs to be responsible.

   Well, using your own logic....why couldn't the woman get a tubal
   ligation?

Because the woman *wants* a child.  Since she does, it would be silly
for her to have an operation preventing her from having one, eh?  This
whole discussion has been based on "men's right to an abortion" (hey,
it's fine with me if they want to get vacuumed or scraped out), which
apparently means that men should have the right to reject all
responsibility if a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep the child.
So, it is the *man* who does not want children, and it is therefore up
to him to prevent them.  After all, he might sleep with *anyone*, so
*one* woman having an operation won't do him much good.

   It was her own stupidity that she got pregnant in the first place.

Not at all.  If she wants a child, it is hardly stupid for her to be
pregnant.

   To
   use such unreliable methods such as condoms (accidents happen) and
   vasectomy (which has NUMEROUS cases of failure to protect)

Humm...well, if that's true, maybe men who want sex but not children
should just have their testicles removed altogether?  I understand that
that is 100% effective.  After all, tubal ligations are not 100%
effective either (hysterectomies are, though) - plus, if the men who
don't want children want to sleep with more than one woman, it can be
*so* time-consuming to make each woman go have an operation before sex.
Also, as I recall, when I had (minor) abdominal surgery, I had to stay
in bed for a week afterward, so there'd also be all the missed work and
such.  Kind of a pain, and I don't think most women would want to go
through that just so they could have sex with a man who didn't want
children.

   instead of a more practical and safe form of BC, surely would shift
   the responsibility to the woman. Like you said....*everyone* involved
   needs to be responsible.

But, again, it would be silly to shift the responsibility to only one
person, especially when it's the other person that is the one who
doesn't want children.  I know it's a little difficult to grasp (in this
society, anyway) that the person who doesn't want children (if there is
only one) should do something about it, but it seems like the natural
conclusion to me.

Muffy