Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!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: Man's Responsibility Message-ID: Date: 24 Jun 91 16:58:03 GMT References: <1991Jun13.155237.12650@aero.org> <1991Jun14.131823.10859@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <78595@brunix.UUCP> <1991Jun21.094212.15031@cs.warwick.ac.uk> Organization: Informix Software, Inc. Lines: 72 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu ben@cs.warwick.ac.UK (Ben Dessau) writes: >uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) writes: >> And then you blow it. Why? If the woman has the choice >>whether to create a child from some fuzzy raw material, why shouldn't >>she be responsible for that choice? >> Not even women? Abortions can and have been used as a method >>of birth control, you know, a method of having purely recreation >>sexual intercourse without assuming the responsibility for the >>consequences. Or did you really men "No men" when you said "Nobody"? > You make it sound as if the woman's choice was as simple as >deciding what to have for lunch. Deciding to have an abortion is very >traumatic, (especially with LIFE-ers calling you a murderer). Giving >up a baby for adoption is very traumatic. A lot of women don't want to >work full time (so that they can support the baby to a reasonable >standard) and have their baby in a chreche/childminder etc. > In your scheme the man has the choice of: >A financial burden vs no financial burden. > The woman has the choice of: >Financial burden vs Major trauma. >Not a fair choice. You're right. It's not fair. It's biology. Biology means that men cannot ultimately decide, after conception, that a child will be created from some of his genetic material. Biology means that men cannot ultimately decide, after conception, that a child *will not* be created from some of his genetic material. Biology means that men cannot have a child without a willing female partner. And biology means that one of the choices women face in the case of pregnancy is Major trauma. We can't fix any of these things, and every one of them is unfair. Notice, though, that both sides have advantages over the other, as well as disadvantages. I should also point out that for some women, abortion is not a major trauma. And for some men, the choice between financial burden or no isn't as easy as you make it sound. You'd probably be surprised to learn that I'd find having to make that choice very traumatic. I'll bet you would too. My scheme is nowhere as simple as you describe it, however. Since I support the idea of pre-coital contract, what I support is making the decision in advance of the situation rather than during the situation, and knowing what your partner's decision is. Is it unreasonable to cause two people to consider the consequences of their actions before they take those actions? And even that can't be made fair, because the woman can choose to renege on part of her decision if she finds herself in the situation. If the man doesn't believe in abortion, and she agrees to have a child to be supported by both in the event of accidental conception, she can change her mind and have an abortion, and there's nothing he can do about it. And if she decides to have a baby when she's agreed not to, there's nothing he can do about it again. If, however, the man decides he does want to father his child, but has given up paternal rights/responsibilites, he cannot alter his choice. If he decides he doesn't want to pay support after he's agreed to, he cannot renege. There is no way to make the situation fair. The current situation is not fair either. What I'd like is some way to make the situation as fair as possible, and I think this idea takes us several steps closer. Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.