Restating the Problem, Without Insults
Rosa Williams
laughed at AOL rather than WebTV. Not much has changed, really; 80% of the
postings are still insult-flinging back and forth. This can be amusing to
watch, but by and large the witticisms aren't that clever. So why not throw
my two cents back into the discussion with a guaranteed insult-free post?
(This is presuming no one sees the words "men" and "women" as insults, but I
think I'm on decently safe ground here. I also hasten to assure all AOLers
and WebTVers that no personal affront was intended.)
Well now. The question that currently seems to be drawing the most debate is
the degree of responsibility for a pregnancy and subsequent offspring, as
divided between the genetic parents of said offspring. I'm hardly going to
attempt to present a solution to the horrendously complex set of issues
involved; I merely want to restate the problem coherently, with a few
opinions thrown in.
Let us, then, take up the problem from the beginning: sex. If no one had
sex, we wouldn't have any of these problems - or any problems, for that
matter. The whole thing begins when a man and a woman have sex together. In
most cases (I presume) this sex is voluntary on the part of both parties.
Both parties know that sex entails certain possibilities: (a) venerial
disease, (b) pregnancy, (c) a whoppin' good time. It is unfortunate but
true that many ignore (a) and (b) in their concentration on (c). However,
if both partners are willing and of sound mind, they know the risks of
ignoring (a) and (b) and bear equal responsibility for the consequences. If
it's (b) for baby, at this juncture they would bear equal responsibility to
deal with the resulting pregnancy. That includes an equal share of the
woman's medical bills, which were incurred by this joint act. The man
cannot, of course, share in the medical *risks*... the woman's got to live
with that part on her own. Many men, knowing this, put in extra effort to
see to their female partner's health and comfort, and bless 'em for it.
In a world where there was no abortion, the next nine months would merely be
a waiting period while the fetus develops. At the end of this, barring
unavoidable medical complications, a baby would result. We would then
presume both parents to have equal responsibility for its care and support.
How they would divide that care and support is up to them - whether it's the
woman who gives the care and the man the support, whether the roles are
reversed, whether each gives 50/50... that's up to them. In cases of
argument, the courts might have to settle for the child's best welfare.
This is the case even when the parents separate; both still owe some
proportion of care and support to the child. Both in turn are owed the
chance to give it, unless they forfeit that right voluntarily or by
ill-treatment of the child - though in either case they still have the
responsibility.
(Note: I happen to count myself both a feminist and a men's rights
supporter. As a result of *both*, I think it's hideously unfair when courts,
ab inito, decide that the mother's care is best for a child simply because
she's female. They attach some mystical (and mythical) "nurturing" ability
to the mother, apparently God-given to the entire gender. I've seen enough
poor motherhood to count that as a myth. There are good mothers, good
fathers, bad mothers, and bad fathers; gender is a lousy predictor of
parental ability. Sez me.)
Enter that nasty, tricksome question of abortion. If abortion is
available, some cry, women have an unfair advantage. They can take back that
moment of inattention, say "no, I don't want a child after all", and thus
abrogate their future part (and the father's part) in the care of what would
have become a child. How does this affect the question of mutual
responsibilities?
Some say, once a woman decides to bear a child rather than abort it, it
becomes *her* child. She and her male partner may choose to mutually
*assume* responsibility for the baby, in which case both are obligated as
above. But since *she* made the choice, her male partner should have the
chance to opt out - providing no support, and having no rights in the child
either. (Note: a logical consequence of this argument is that the woman
would have the right to deny parentage to the father even if he *wanted* the
responsibility. I think most of us would find that unacceptable.)
Others say that the choice of having abortion available changes none of the
responsibility. That, having taken the initial action (sex!) that resulted
in the pregnancy, knowing that (even if birth control were used) pregnancy
was a possibility, the man still bears his half of the responsibility for
the fetus. If the fetus is carried to term, he has a responsibility for the
child, even if the mother could have induced an artificial miscarraige had
she chosen.
There is the problem, restated in broad terms.
What do I think? Well. First, I'd like to point out that abortion is not a
simple affair. There are medical risks to it, as there are to pregnancy.
The woman is already shouldering an unfair portion of the burden, even if
the man paid all the financial costs... her body, health and life are on the
line. Given that fact, it hardly seems unreasonable to ask the man to put
his wallet on the line, should she choose not to undergo the abortion
procedure.
Second, as pointed out above, it took a woman and a man to get the ball
rolling. (No innuendo intended.) The woman's the only one who has the
choice of pushing it off-course once it gets going, and that entails
physical risk and emotional turmoil. Do we then say the man has every right
to turn to her and say, "well, it's your problem now" and walk off? I
personally think that *that* would be grossly unfair.
Third, where does that leave the man who *wants* a part in the child he
helped engender? If birth is the woman's sole responsibility, how will he
argue that he should have a say in the child's future? That doesn't seem
fair to all those unwed or separated fathers out there. A man's child isn't
his *only if* the woman deigns to give him a part... therefore, however, the
responsibility isn't his *only if* he chooses to take it.
Suppose a man and a woman mix their genetic material in a test tube and have
the resulting blastula or whatever 'tis implanted in the woman's womb. They
agree that she shall have the sole say in whether to go ahead with the
procedure - she can back out anytime. At the end of this, she produces a
healthy baby. There is much rejoicing. And then the man says, "I want no
part of it. I have no responsibility. You could have backed out at any
time." Does that sound fair *at all*? And wherein lies the moral difference
between this mixing in test tubes, and a mixing in fallopian tubes, when
both, it is well known, may result in a fetus? It's only a matter of the
relative probabilities. If both knew the risks and went ahead, then both
bear the responsibility if the dice come down "baby needs a new pair of
shoes."
No dice,
--April
Rosa Williams
Kenneth S. wrote in message <37f2b0f2...@news.erols.com>...
> The long message below finally reaches a bottom line: Rosa
>Williams personally likes the status quo in regard to post-conception
>reproductive choice -- i.e. that women have it, but men don't. She
>thinks the status quo is "fair." She thinks it's OK that a man should
>be forced to pay 18+ years of "child support" to a woman who made a
>unilateral choice to let a pregnancy proceed to childbirth.
Here now, kindly don't take it upon yourself to state my opinions for me.
I'm more than capable of stating 'em for myself. There's a great deal about
the status quo that I don't like. I am, however, a great believer in
responsibility - that is, the responsibility of woman and men for the
children that they create, accidentally or on purpose. The woman has two
opportunities to stop a pregnancy while the man has one; that point, taken
alone, might well make the situation seem unfair. But then, the woman's
health is at stake, not the man's; that point, I suspect, tends to balance
out the seeming disparity here.
I note that as I understand the process, the man is not paying "child
support" to the woman. The man is paying child support to the child he
helped create; the woman is generally seen as the trustee for the child in
such cases (whether this money actually goes to the child in practice is
another debate).
Nonetheless, I'm open to changing my mind on this issue, as I should hope to
be on any issue - should sufficient evidence be presented to convince me.
I've set forth my arguments, and in my last post countered those I'd seen on
the newsgroup so far; to change my mind on this subject, I'd need a bit more
than, "if she could stop it but didn't, it's all hers henceforward." That's
a bit simplistic for such a complex issue, I feel.
> Well, (to adapt one of the old feminist slogans) if women ever
>had to pay men 18+ years of "child support," then universal
>reproductive choice would be a sacrament. If -- and it is a big "if"
>-- post-conception reproductive choice is a constitutional right for
>women, then it should also be such for men.
Er, a man should have the right to tell a woman to get an operation she
doesn't want; or else she has to accept sole responsibility for any children
she may bear? This seems... rather unfair to me, yes. That "and it is a
big if" makes me wonder whether this isn't a backwards way of saying that
abortion should be outlawed, so that men can't claim that women had the
choice? If women would be giving up abortions to "trap" men into supporting
their pregnancies, seems to me that both men and women lose out.
Incidentally, surprising though it may seem, child support does go both
ways. There are women paying child support out there - sometimes even
court-ordered. It's simply that the unfairness of the "nurturing" myth
assigns women the role of caregivers, men the role of supporters from afar -
and thus, all too frequently, go the courts.
> But, there again, there's little point in arguments --
>long-winded or not -- in favor of, or against, the status quo. It
>exists for the crudest of political reasons: the disparity in
>political power between men and women when the interests of the two
>sexes are in conflict. As Warren Farrell says, in the battle of the
>sexes, only one side showed up.
I apologize for being long-winded. It's a combination love of the language
and a desire to set everything out in detail, the better not to be
misunderstood. If, however, there's no point in arguements, then whyever do
we argue? I think there *is* a point; in discussion and debate, we may yet
reach a level of understanding that allows us to move to fairer laws for
*everyone*.
It's odd that you should mention "the disparity of political power."
Indeed, I pointed out one instance (primary custody) where women are given
an advantage due to social stereotypes, but as a female physicist, let me
assure you there are plenty of others where the prevailing winds of politics
blow women backwards towards the Middle Ages. One keeps going regardless,
and hopes progress will be made.
If only one side showed up in the battle of the sexes, how can there be a
victory? Who would they have to defeat? Seems t'me all they could do is
shout "We won!" and go home. If there's a fight going on, there's got to be
two sides to it.
> When the disparity between the sexes in political power
>disappears, the situation will change. So long as the present
>disparity continues, the situation will continue.
I suspect that were this detailed, we'd have a definite disagreement as to
which direction the disparity points. Fer instance, I still think it's
significant that a substantial majority of lawmakers, law-enforcers, judges,
and so forth are men... if you tell me that all these men are biased in
favor of woman I'll just have to demand evidence, because it seems contrary
to common sense as *I* define it.
> Logic or principle
>have nothing to do with what happens.
Whoa, there. Logic and principle are, I agree, too often absent from
lawmakers' decisions; but it's logic and principle that makes many of us
brave the wilds of Internet flammage in order to try to reach an
understanding that will approach greater levels of fairness for all.
For instance! If birth control were more widely available, effective, and
*used*, none of these thorny questions about children unwanted by one parent
or the other would even arise. (And many fewer abortions, too!) Therefore,
can we not agree that birth control should be a high priority for both men
and women - even encouraged on the national level? After all, some forms of
it even help guard against sexually transmitted diseases! Perhaps we could
wrap up the problem by taking a step back and attacking the matter before it
ever came to a pregnancy.
Something to consider, perhaps?
The ever-considerate, ever-argumentative, and terribly long-winded,
--April
Gerry Harbison
[big snip]
>
> Some say, once a woman decides to bear a child rather than abort it, it
> becomes *her* child. She and her male partner may choose to mutually
> *assume* responsibility for the baby, in which case both are obligated as
> above. But since *she* made the choice, her male partner should have the
> chance to opt out - providing no support, and having no rights in the child
> either. (Note: a logical consequence of this argument is that the woman
> would have the right to deny parentage to the father even if he *wanted* the
> responsibility. I think most of us would find that unacceptable.)
But in fact the woman does have the de facto and sometimes de jure right
to deny parentage to the father. Under the uniform adoption act, for
example, the man has thirty days after birth to claim parentage, and
then the woman can put the child up for adoption without his consent.
Some states, such as this one, give him only five days. A recent case
involved a woman who told the father she was going to get an abortion,
moved away to college, had the kid, gave it up for adoption, and even
though the father had never been informed he'd had a child, the Supreme
Court ruled he couldn't challenge the adoption.
A woman who doesn't want a father to know he's had a kid never need tell
him she's pregnant, or she can tell him she's pregnant by another man.
What you say you'd find unacceptable, therefore, is the status quo, and
without putting fairly stringent restrictions on the behavior of
pregnant women, will inevitably be the status quo.
> Others say that the choice of having abortion available changes none of the
> responsibility. That, having taken the initial action (sex!) that resulted
> in the pregnancy, knowing that (even if birth control were used) pregnancy
> was a possibility, the man still bears his half of the responsibility for
> the fetus. If the fetus is carried to term, he has a responsibility for the
> child, even if the mother could have induced an artificial miscarraige had
> she chosen.
>
> There is the problem, restated in broad terms.
>
> What do I think? Well. First, I'd like to point out that abortion is not a
> simple affair. There are medical risks to it, as there are to pregnancy.
> The woman is already shouldering an unfair portion of the burden, even if
> the man paid all the financial costs... her body, health and life are on the
> line. Given that fact, it hardly seems unreasonable to ask the man to put
> his wallet on the line, should she choose not to undergo the abortion
> procedure.
The risks of early abortion are minimal; it's one of the safest
procedures available. Most pro-C4M types have no problem with the man
sharing the medical costs. And we're talking a few hundred dollars here.
The cost of 18 years of child support could well be $10K or more a year
for 18 years. That's the equivalent of around $100K cold hard cash at
the time of birth. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the incremental risk
of assuming that burden of debt, simply in terms of additional
occupational hazards, are on average higher than the risk of abortion.
>
> Second, as pointed out above, it took a woman and a man to get the ball
> rolling. (No innuendo intended.) The woman's the only one who has the
> choice of pushing it off-course once it gets going, and that entails
> physical risk and emotional turmoil. Do we then say the man has every right
> to turn to her and say, "well, it's your problem now" and walk off? I
> personally think that *that* would be grossly unfair.
Again, the physical risk of early abortion is minimal; and without
wishing to seem callous, the emotional turmoil probably doesn't compare
with the impact of 18 years of child support.
>
> Third, where does that leave the man who *wants* a part in the child he
> helped engender? If birth is the woman's sole responsibility, how will he
> argue that he should have a say in the child's future? That doesn't seem
> fair to all those unwed or separated fathers out there. A man's child isn't
> his *only if* the woman deigns to give him a part... therefore, however, the
> responsibility isn't his *only if* he chooses to take it.
I've already disputed this point. If a woman wants to deny him any
parental rights, she will likely be able to do so.
>
> Suppose a man and a woman mix their genetic material in a test tube and have
> the resulting blastula or whatever 'tis implanted in the woman's womb. They
> agree that she shall have the sole say in whether to go ahead with the
> procedure - she can back out anytime. At the end of this, she produces a
> healthy baby. There is much rejoicing. And then the man says, "I want no
> part of it. I have no responsibility. You could have backed out at any
> time." Does that sound fair *at all*? And wherein lies the moral difference
> between this mixing in test tubes, and a mixing in fallopian tubes, when
> both, it is well known, may result in a fetus? It's only a matter of the
> relative probabilities. If both knew the risks and went ahead, then both
> bear the responsibility if the dice come down "baby needs a new pair of
> shoes."
Interesting. In fact,there have been cases where couples have stored
frozen embryos, separated, and then the woman has insisted on her right
to implant the embryo even though the man doesn't want to be a father.
There all the arguments about risk are null and void, yet he's still
forced to be a father.
Rosa Williams
Edmund Esterbauer wrote in message <37F2C4DA...@northnet.com.au>...
>Until there is a presumption of joint custody it is fraud to expect
payments off
>fathers.
Thus far, this is a reasonable stance to take, although no supporting logic,
evidence, or arguments are given.
>But the stalinist feminazi that control the Family Courts (Courts of
Lesbos) have
>no interest in children but are merely about patricide and laziness.
This, however, states... absolutely nothing. It may gratify those who
agree, it may infuriate those who disagree, but it will convince no one of
anything, except perhaps those it convinces that the poster cannot conduct a
mature, rational, reasoned argument. I'm sure the poster is in fact an
intellegent human being, and quite capable of constructing a convincing
argument using proper adjective-noun agreement. Why, then, this descent into
language that, if anything, gives the feminist quarter more ammunition to
make their points? It doesn't make sense to me.
At any rate, this is a barren line, leading nowhere. I only reply in order
to make the point that this is what I hope to *avoid* in favor of posts more
like that of Kenneth S., who wrote a thoughtful response that disagrees
without crudely insulting. As a result, future posts along these lines will
receive no response; if the posters choose to declare victory, I wish them
joy of the empty walls they declare it to.
Searching for a killfile,
--April
Shawn Larsen
Gerry Harbison wrote:
> Rosa Williams wrote:
>
> The risks of early abortion are minimal; it's one of the safest
> procedures available. Most pro-C4M types have no problem with the man
> sharing the medical costs. And we're talking a few hundred dollars here.
>
> The cost of 18 years of child support could well be $10K or more a year
> for 18 years. That's the equivalent of around $100K cold hard cash at
> the time of birth. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the incremental risk
> of assuming that burden of debt, simply in terms of additional
> occupational hazards, are on average higher than the risk of abortion.
Indeed. The risks associated with the additional burden of debt
from child support payments is about 10 times greater than the
risks from child birth, and about 100 times greater than the
risks from early abortion.
Few people realize how dangerous workplace labor is for men,
and it's that labor that is required to pay child support. The death
risk associated with a man's labor is about 10 times greater than
than the death risk associated with child birth (assuming a man
works for 30 years, and a woman has 2 children).
There was a recent case from Alaska where a court required
that child support payments be based on the salary a father made
as a lumberjack (high paid, extremely high risk), even though the
father wanted to accept a less risky but lower paying job. Assuming
that the fatality rate of lumberjacks is 10 times that of the average
man, the court basically told this man he had to perform work that
was 100 times more dangerous than childbirth.
So much for the right to do what he wants with his body.
analog
Rosa Williams wrote:
...
> ... I am, however, a great believer in responsibility - that is, the
> accidentally or on purpose.
First off, my comments regarding c4m only apply to situations where no pre-
existing social framework for rearing children is in place (you know, like
common law marriage, traditional marriage, or other formal contract).
C4m fully recognizes that the man and woman share equal responsibility for
co-creation of conception, and that conception is a potential human being.
That is why with c4m a man who would opt out has a duty to repair the harm
he co-caused through unwanted conception by informing the woman of his
intentions and sharing in the costs of dealing with the pregnancy in a
reasonable way. To that end the man has the threefold duty to the woman
as follows:
The woman has the right to know that: 1) if she chooses abortion, it will
be readily available to her; 2) if she chooses adoption, she will be
unencumbered by claims from the man; 3) if she chooses parenthood, she will
be facing it alone.
Note that if the man is informed of the pregnancy and does not make his
intentions to opt out clear to the woman, then he is effectively denying her
the reasonable means to avoid single parenthood (since she justifiably would
assume he is committed to sharing the burdens and benefits of their probable
future child). C4m would give the woman every consideration short of forcing
others to unwillingly financially support her purposeful choice to bear, keep
and raise her child in the face of other reasonable alternatives.
If the woman freely declines offers for funded abortion or adoption (in order
to mitigate further "damage" stemming from the conception) it's likely that
she doesn't consider conception as "damage" at all, but rather an as a
beneficial opportunity to bear, keep and raise a child and have her free
choice subsidized. That the state currently supports such women in this
scam degrades responsible, independent adult women.
> The woman has two opportunities to stop a pregnancy while the man has one;
> that point, taken alone, might well make the situation seem unfair. But
> then, the woman's health is at stake, not the man's; that point, I suspect,
> tends to balance out the seeming disparity here.
Actually although both the man and woman may take action limited to a short
time period in order to prevent pregnancy, only the woman has the ongoing
(day after day after day ... after day - you get the idea) opportunity to
stop a pregnancy.
As to the woman's health risks, bear in mind that an abortion performed early
and responsibly is more than ten times safer than continuing the pregnancy,
not to mention less of a lasting burden on the woman's body and time. That
gestation and abortion are the only two options a newly pregnant woman has is
not the fault of the man and is no reason to "punish" him by sexistly denying
him the equivalent post conception opportunities to avoid the burdens of
parenthood enjoyed by the woman. All the man can reasonably do is express
his wish to the woman that the woman make the choice much less likely to be
burdensome. However, he can only make his wishes known - what she chooses is
completely up to her, which I support.
...
> Er, a man should have the right to tell a woman to get an operation she
> doesn't want; or else she has to accept sole responsibility for any
> children she may bear? This seems... rather unfair to me, yes.
Cry about it all you want, but babies just don't pop whole formed out of the
ends of men's penises. Just because a woman has no duty to abort should in
no way absolve her from full responsibility for a child care burden that she
alone creates out of an accidental conception stemming from an act clearly
intended for recreation not procreation.
And make no mistake about it, if a newly pregnant woman acts against the
clear wishes to avoid parenthood expressed by her cogenetor by willfully
avoiding the legal, fully available, over ten fold safer opportunity for
abortion by choosing to gestate a baby into existence and further choosing
to keep that baby, then she acts completely alone in incurring any burdens
of parenthood.
It is this wholly selfish act of the woman, without regard to her cogenetor's
wishes or the effect on the innocent third party of the baby whom she
knowingly gestates into fatherlessness and poverty that unilaterally creates
the parenthood burden that she then whines about. Such a woman is no
innocent victim. She is a perpetrator of a selfish act upon society, an
unwilling man and a truly innocent child.
That said, certainly not every unmarried woman who brings a child into this
world is a selfish pig. Some have no choice and others who do, become
single mothers responsibly.
I agree completely that a woman should never be bound to undergo abortion,
but where safe and legal, abortion is a reasonable response to unwanted
pregnancy in an overpopulated world. If you feel otherwise (do you?)
campaign to ban elective abortion.
Remember, per c4m, if the woman can show that abortion was not reasonably
available to her, then birth is becomes a direct consequence of sex, hence
both should share the liability (and benefits) of the resulting child.
Thanks for your attention. -- analog
--
to reply to email remove | | from |ana...@ieee.org|
Kenneth S.
Williams personally likes the status quo in regard to post-conception
reproductive choice -- i.e. that women have it, but men don't. She
thinks the status quo is "fair." She thinks it's OK that a man should
be forced to pay 18+ years of "child support" to a woman who made a
unilateral choice to let a pregnancy proceed to childbirth.
Well, (to adapt one of the old feminist slogans) if women ever
had to pay men 18+ years of "child support," then universal
reproductive choice would be a sacrament. If -- and it is a big "if"
-- post-conception reproductive choice is a constitutional right for
women, then it should also be such for men.
But, there again, there's little point in arguments --
long-winded or not -- in favor of, or against, the status quo. It
exists for the crudest of political reasons: the disparity in
political power between men and women when the interests of the two
sexes are in conflict. As Warren Farrell says, in the battle of the
sexes, only one side showed up.
When the disparity between the sexes in political power
disappears, the situation will change. So long as the present
disparity continues, the situation will continue. Logic or principle
have nothing to do with what happens.
Edmund Esterbauer
fathers.
no interest in children but are merely about patricide and laziness.
Ray Fischer
>Well now. The question that currently seems to be drawing the most debate is
>the degree of responsibility for a pregnancy and subsequent offspring, as
>divided between the genetic parents of said offspring. I'm hardly going to
>attempt to present a solution to the horrendously complex set of issues
>involved; I merely want to restate the problem coherently, with a few
>opinions thrown in.
Okay.
>Let us, then, take up the problem from the beginning: sex. If no one had
>sex, we wouldn't have any of these problems - or any problems, for that
>matter. The whole thing begins when a man and a woman have sex together. In
>most cases (I presume) this sex is voluntary on the part of both parties.
>Both parties know that sex entails certain possibilities: (a) venerial
>disease, (b) pregnancy, (c) a whoppin' good time.
And a couple others as well.
> It is unfortunate but
>true that many ignore (a) and (b) in their concentration on (c). However,
>if both partners are willing and of sound mind, they know the risks of
>ignoring (a) and (b) and bear equal responsibility for the consequences.
The question is: Exactly what are the consequences of _sex_.
> If
>it's (b) for baby, at this juncture they would bear equal responsibility to
>deal with the resulting pregnancy.
Deal with the resulting _pregnancy_.
> That includes an equal share of the
>woman's medical bills, which were incurred by this joint act.
Agreed.
> The man
>cannot, of course, share in the medical *risks*... the woman's got to live
>with that part on her own. Many men, knowing this, put in extra effort to
>see to their female partner's health and comfort, and bless 'em for it.
Men have different risks not shared by women.
>In a world where there was no abortion, the next nine months would merely be
>a waiting period while the fetus develops. At the end of this, barring
>unavoidable medical complications, a baby would result. We would then
>presume both parents to have equal responsibility for its care and support.
Equal choices make for equal responsibilities.
>How they would divide that care and support is up to them - whether it's the
>woman who gives the care and the man the support, whether the roles are
>reversed, whether each gives 50/50... that's up to them. In cases of
>argument, the courts might have to settle for the child's best welfare.
>This is the case even when the parents separate; both still owe some
>proportion of care and support to the child. Both in turn are owed the
>chance to give it, unless they forfeit that right voluntarily or by
>ill-treatment of the child - though in either case they still have the
>responsibility.
>
[...]
>Enter that nasty, tricksome question of abortion. If abortion is
>available, some cry, women have an unfair advantage. They can take back that
>moment of inattention, say "no, I don't want a child after all", and thus
>abrogate their future part (and the father's part) in the care of what would
>have become a child. How does this affect the question of mutual
>responsibilities?
>
>Some say, once a woman decides to bear a child rather than abort it, it
>becomes *her* child. She and her male partner may choose to mutually
>*assume* responsibility for the baby, in which case both are obligated as
>above. But since *she* made the choice, her male partner should have the
>chance to opt out - providing no support, and having no rights in the child
>either.
A right to opt out similar to the one the woman enjoys.
> (Note: a logical consequence of this argument is that the woman
>would have the right to deny parentage to the father even if he *wanted* the
>responsibility. I think most of us would find that unacceptable.)
Doesn't follow. I right to refuse responsibility is not the same as a
right to deny rights.
>Others say that the choice of having abortion available changes none of the
>responsibility. That, having taken the initial action (sex!) that resulted
>in the pregnancy, knowing that (even if birth control were used) pregnancy
>was a possibility, the man still bears his half of the responsibility for
>the fetus. If the fetus is carried to term, he has a responsibility for the
>child, even if the mother could have induced an artificial miscarraige had
>she chosen.
>
>There is the problem, restated in broad terms.
Not too badly.
>What do I think? Well. First, I'd like to point out that abortion is not a
>simple affair.
So what? You already dealt with that by suggesting that he help pay
her medical expenses.
> There are medical risks to it, as there are to pregnancy.
And the risks associated with abortion are much less than they are for
childbirth.
>The woman is already shouldering an unfair portion of the burden,
"Unfair"? According to whom?
> even if
>the man paid all the financial costs... her body, health and life are on the
>line.
That may be, but it is an unalterable consequence of being female.
> Given that fact, it hardly seems unreasonable to ask the man to put
>his wallet on the line, should she choose not to undergo the abortion
>procedure.
Easy to say, given that it's not _you_ being forced to pay the
consequences for someone else's choice. It's also deeply sexist
to suggest that women should have the right to force men to pay them
just because they're women.
>Second, as pointed out above, it took a woman and a man to get the ball
>rolling. (No innuendo intended.) The woman's the only one who has the
>choice of pushing it off-course once it gets going, and that entails
>physical risk and emotional turmoil.
So?
> Do we then say the man has every right
>to turn to her and say, "well, it's your problem now" and walk off?
Why not? Don't _women_ have that very same right? And even if a man
left a woman, she has the right to give the child up for adoption.
> I
>personally think that *that* would be grossly unfair.
LOL! Unfair to allow men to do so, but fair for women to do so.
>Third, where does that leave the man who *wants* a part in the child he
>helped engender?
The same place they already are: SOL. Men cannot force women to make
children for them.
> If birth is the woman's sole responsibility, how will he
>argue that he should have a say in the child's future?
They will get married first.
> That doesn't seem
>fair to all those unwed or separated fathers out there.
Oh well.
> A man's child isn't
>his *only if* the woman deigns to give him a part... therefore, however, the
>responsibility isn't his *only if* he chooses to take it.
But it's a woman's responsibility only if she chooses it.
>Suppose a man and a woman mix their genetic material in a test tube and have
>the resulting blastula or whatever 'tis implanted in the woman's womb. They
>agree that she shall have the sole say in whether to go ahead with the
>procedure - she can back out anytime. At the end of this, she produces a
>healthy baby. There is much rejoicing. And then the man says, "I want no
>part of it. I have no responsibility. You could have backed out at any
>time." Does that sound fair *at all*?
Yes. "Get it in writing" is good advice.
> And wherein lies the moral difference
>between this mixing in test tubes, and a mixing in fallopian tubes, when
>both, it is well known, may result in a fetus? It's only a matter of the
>relative probabilities. If both knew the risks and went ahead, then both
>bear the responsibility if the dice come down "baby needs a new pair of
>shoes."
That is a corrupt argument. It can be used to justify anything.
Here's another version: If she knew the risks of dating then she
should bear part of the responsibility for being raped.
--
Ray Fischer You should never have your best trousers on when you turn
r...@netcom.com out to fight for freedom and truth. -- Ibsen
Ray Fischer
>Here now, kindly don't take it upon yourself to state my opinions for me.
>I'm more than capable of stating 'em for myself. There's a great deal about
>the status quo that I don't like. I am, however, a great believer in
>responsibility - that is, the responsibility of woman and men for the
>children that they create, accidentally or on purpose. The woman has two
>opportunities to stop a pregnancy while the man has one; that point, taken
>alone, might well make the situation seem unfair. But then, the woman's
>health is at stake, not the man's; that point, I suspect, tends to balance
>out the seeming disparity here.
In other words, women _deserve_ extra rights for being women?
Are you _really_ making such an obviosly sexist argument?
>I note that as I understand the process, the man is not paying "child
>support" to the woman. The man is paying child support to the child he
>helped create; the woman is generally seen as the trustee for the child in
>such cases (whether this money actually goes to the child in practice is
>another debate).
The man pays the _woman_. SHE gets the money and SHE spends the money
as she wishes.
[...]
>Er, a man should have the right to tell a woman to get an operation she
>doesn't want; or else she has to accept sole responsibility for any children
>she may bear?
No. A man should have the right to refuse fatherhood.
[...]
>Incidentally, surprising though it may seem, child support does go both
>ways. There are women paying child support out there - sometimes even
>court-ordered.
A few. Interestingly, they don't seem to be as conscientous about
it as are men.
Edmund Esterbauer
Rosa Williams wrote:
> Edmund Esterbauer wrote in message <37F2C4DA...@northnet.com.au>...
> >Until there is a presumption of joint custody it is fraud to expect
> payments off
> >fathers.
>
> Thus far, this is a reasonable stance to take, although no supporting logic,
> evidence, or arguments are given.
>
> >But the stalinist feminazi that control the Family Courts (Courts of
> Lesbos) have
> >no interest in children but are merely about patricide and laziness.
>
> This, however, states... absolutely nothing. It may gratify those who
> agree, it may infuriate those who disagree, but it will convince no one of
> anything, except perhaps those it convinces that the poster cannot conduct a
> mature, rational, reasoned argument.
Rubbish!
The facts are that fathers support children who have been kidnapped. Meanwhile
the woman sits at home watching TV while the kids are at school. She is the one
who has abrogated her prime responsibility to her child. The child has an equal
right to be with its father. The woman has an obligation to work to support
equally that child.
Your arguments are the callous ones.
> I'm sure the poster is in fact an
> intellegent human being, and quite capable of constructing a convincing
> argument using proper adjective-noun agreement.
Now is this a rational argument?
> Why, then, this descent into
> language that, if anything, gives the feminist quarter more ammunition to
> make their points?
Stalinist feminazi is the appropriate term for these parasites of laziness and
patricide.
> It doesn't make sense to me.
Then it wouldn't because you are not being pursued for your last cent by hooded
sf scum from the CSA.
>
>
> At any rate, this is a barren line, leading nowhere.
For you, children are chattel and their emotional well-being is of no
consequence.
> I only reply in order
> to make the point that this is what I hope to *avoid* in favor of posts more
> like that of Kenneth S., who wrote a thoughtful response that disagrees
> without crudely insulting.
Truth is a matter that requires direct statements.
The abuse of the basic human rights of fathers and their children is a disgrace
and is part of the sf agenda. This sf agenda has nothing to do with the
well-being of children.
> As a result, future posts along these lines will
> receive no response; if the posters choose to declare victory, I wish them
> joy of the empty walls they declare it to.
And your inability to appreciate the difficulty experienced by fathers and their
children is because you are about patricide and laziness.
You are about the use of children as chattel.
You are about the abuse of basic civilised standards of governance.
Tami
Rosa Williams <jwa...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7sujjj$hrq$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
> Here now, kindly don't take it upon yourself to state my opinions for me.
> I'm more than capable of stating 'em for myself. There's a great deal
about
> the status quo that I don't like. I am, however, a great believer in
> responsibility - that is, the responsibility of woman and men for the
> children that they create, accidentally or on purpose. The woman has two
> opportunities to stop a pregnancy while the man has one; that point, taken
> alone, might well make the situation seem unfair. But then, the woman's
> health is at stake, not the man's; that point, I suspect, tends to
balance
> out the seeming disparity here.
My post will center around this justification (I've snipped the rest of the
post). The feminist movement for years now has used the platform of "My
Body, My Right" to justify the need for everything from abortion, to medical
research, to stiffer penalties against domestic violence. What many
feminists forget is the part that comes after My Body My Right, that part is
responsibility for ones own body. The fact that women face a potential
risk to their health through pregnancy goes right along with their body,
their right, their responsibility. Women using this risk as a reason to
receive financial or other forms of support from a man who does not want a
child is laughable at best, and downright deceitful at it's worst.
As a woman, I take care of MY body. I do not expect my husband (nor any
other man I've had a relationship) with to take on this responsibility.
That most definitely includes pregnancy. If I do not protect myself from an
unwanted pregnancy, that is MY fault. Again, my body, my right, my
responsibility. If I make the decision to have sex with a man knowing I do
not want a child or that he does not a child, it's my fault for failing to
protect myself if a pregnancy occurs. Any woman who knows the man she is
having sex with does not want children and fails to protect herself should
be responsible for her own body and any pregnancy that is the result of her
failure to protect herself.
This is the problem as I see it. Women in general want equality with men,
we want it in employment, education, marriage, divorce and sex. The same
women who want this equality fail to realize it comes with a price and a
responsibility, and that price is pregnancy if we fail to protect ourselves
and the responsibility for our own bodies if it does happen. Since birth
control is more effective for men (I do not consider a vasectomy temporary
birth control since it is not 100% reversible) women have the best
opportunity to protect our own bodies.
I also see any woman who has a child from a man who clearly makes his
feeling known that he does not want a child to be committing a form of child
abuse. Study after study show that children in single family homes are more
at risk for problems later on in life. Compound that with the knowledge the
child would have of their "father" not wanting them, the mother fighting for
monies to pay for them from the father, and the inevitable hard feelings
that are shown to the child. All of this could be prevented if women
remembered My Body, My Right, My Responsibility.
Vince
well argued, except for a couple of points:
<<snip>>
>Some say, once a woman decides to bear a child rather than abort it, it
>becomes *her* child. She and her male partner may choose to mutually
>*assume* responsibility for the baby, in which case both are obligated as
>above. But since *she* made the choice, her male partner should have the
>chance to opt out - providing no support, and having no rights in the child
>either. (Note: a logical consequence of this argument is that the woman
>would have the right to deny parentage to the father even if he *wanted* the
>responsibility. I think most of us would find that unacceptable.)
get pregnant, you have the right to deny me that parentage. You can
1. Choose to deliver the baby and ALLOW me to be involved
2. Choose to deliver the baby and NOT ALLOW me to be involved at all
3. Choose to deliver the baby and make/allow (depending on the people
involved) me (to) pay CS.
4. a combination of 1 or 2 and 3
5. Choose to deliver the baby and put it up for adoption (or raised by
family)
6. Choose to "abort"
The only (legal) option the man has is to choose whether or not to be
involved in the child's/your life if you ALLOW him that option.
<<snip>>
>There is the problem, restated in broad terms.
>
>What do I think? Well. First, I'd like to point out that abortion is not a
>simple affair. There are medical risks to it, as there are to pregnancy.
>The woman is already shouldering an unfair portion of the burden, even if
>the man paid all the financial costs... her body, health and life are on the
>line. Given that fact, it hardly seems unreasonable to ask the man to put
>his wallet on the line, should she choose not to undergo the abortion
>procedure.
Not to mention moral/ethical.
> And wherein lies the moral difference
>between this mixing in test tubes, and a mixing in fallopian tubes, when
>both, it is well known, may result in a fetus? It's only a matter of the
>relative probabilities. If both knew the risks and went ahead, then both
>bear the responsibility if the dice come down "baby needs a new pair of
>shoes."
There is a LARGE difference here in that the INTENT was clearly not to
have a 'whopping good time', but to create a baby. This is very big
different.
>No dice,
>--April
>
>
btw: my personal view:
1. abortion is morally wrong, as I believe that the only morally safe
assumption is that human life begins at conception. {just my opinion,
anyone who wants to can continue to be wrong (-:
2. As such, both the man and woman, if they decide to have a 'whopping
good time' get to 'pay their money and take their chances.' Babies
happen. Reminds me of the old Barretta theme song.
3. However, as long as abortion is a legal option available to the
woman, that the man has NO say in, there is a solid arguement for the
C4M side. To quote your post:
>But since *she* made the choice, her male partner should have the
>chance to opt out - providing no support, and having no rights in the child
>either.
-VJS
posting from soc.men
reading in soc.men
Pat Winstanley
> Well, (to adapt one of the old feminist slogans) if women ever
>had to pay men 18+ years of "child support," then universal
>reproductive choice would be a sacrament.
Since women do have to pay (via men or directly) to support their
children for 18 years, your analogy doesn't hold.
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
>Rosa Williams <jwa...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Here now, kindly don't take it upon yourself to state my opinions for me.
>>I'm more than capable of stating 'em for myself. There's a great deal about
>>the status quo that I don't like. I am, however, a great believer in
>>responsibility - that is, the responsibility of woman and men for the
>>children that they create, accidentally or on purpose. The woman has two
>>opportunities to stop a pregnancy while the man has one; that point, taken
>>alone, might well make the situation seem unfair. But then, the woman's
>>health is at stake, not the man's; that point, I suspect, tends to balance
>>out the seeming disparity here.
>
>In other words, women _deserve_ extra rights for being women?
No more or less so than men deserve extra rights for being men.
IOW neither *deserve* rights just because they happen to have been
boirn the sex they are. However, real life ohysical/practical
considerations in issues where which sex you are matters, mean that
sometimes men will have rights/opportunities that women don't, and
vice versa... for those issues.
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<shawn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Few people realize how dangerous workplace labor is for men,
>and it's that labor that is required to pay child support.
Few people realise how dangerous the same workplace labour is for
women and it's that labour that is reuired to provide support for
children.
>The death
>risk associated with a man's labor is about 10 times greater than
>than the death risk associated with child birth (assuming a man
>works for 30 years, and a woman has 2 children).
Don't forget women face the same workplace risks right alongside the
men they work with... *as well as* the risks from pregnancy, birth
etc. which the men don't face.
Pat Winstanley
Paul Cantrell
What a long way around the hog lot to say absolutely nothing we did not
already know.
Simply put, if a man and a woman have sex they are both responsible for
the outcome, whatever it may be.
There, one sentence, now go for a long jog on a short jetty.
Rosa Williams wrote:
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH....
Tom Campbell
I must disagree with you on a point that I think is crucial to your
conclusion.
Pregnancy and abortion may be inconvenient and uncomfortable for some
women to endure, but it is not dangerous, at least for most of them.
You seem to imply that for most women the choice of abortion stems from
health concerns or even a desire not to have to suffer through a
pregnancy. I disagree.
I believe that most abortions are chosen by women because they do not
wish to assume the responsibility of parenthood at that particular
point in their lives. They may not want their education or careers
disrupted, or they may not want to have impingement on their social
freedom. None of these reasons has to do with avoiding medical risks.
The debate that you refer to is whether or not the biologic father of
the child should have the same choice. He may never had intended the
consensual sex act to result in a child; indeed, present law requires
that child support be paid by underage boys who were raped by adult
women, or by males whose semen was used to impregnate a woman without
either the man's knowledge or consent.
Our current standard of what paternity means dates from the days when
the mores of society were different, and acceptance of recreational sex
did not exist. Sex was supposed to be reserved for marriage. If you
were a male and fathered a child you were expected to support it; if
you were a woman and became pregnant with a child you were expected to
deliver it. Half of that equation changed when abortion on demand
became available. A woman could decline the obligation of becoming a
mother by aborting. For the father, though, the obligation remains
unchanged.
It has never really worked well to link biologic paternity and social
fathering. It should be no surprise to us that men who never wanted or
intended to become fathers are bad fathers.
Consider the choices available to the two genders after casual sex
results in pregnancy: the woman gets to consider the effect of having
the child on her life and her plans, and she gets to decide if she
really wants to assume the financial and emotional responsibility of
parenthood. She can decide that she doesn't want to quit school, or
that she doesn't want to commit a large chunk of her income to the care
of the child. She can abort her future parental obligation by choosing
to abort her pregnancy.
For the man, that same choice does not now exist.
Tom Campbell
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pat Winstanley
wrote:
>Bullshit....women face risks in the workplace at a rate of 8 times
>LESS than the average man....so carry your lies elsewhere.
>
The man doing job A faces exactly the same risks as the woman doing
job A next to him.
*Some* men choose to take high risk (high reward) jobs... their
choice. Some women do also - their choice also.
>Also...why dont you respond to the message in thread from Tami.
>She states her opinion and the way it should be quite well.
>
>But I noted....of the ones posting here. You didnt respond to
>her....AFRAID??
>
What am I supposed to be afraid of?
Respond to what message?
Was it addressed to me or something I had said? If so, I missed it.
Pat Winstanley
Gerry Harbison
Shawn Larsen wrote:
> Gerry Harbison wrote:
> > Rosa Williams wrote:
> > The risks of early abortion are minimal; it's one of the safest
> > procedures available. Most pro-C4M types have no problem with the man
> > sharing the medical costs. And we're talking a few hundred dollars here.
> > The cost of 18 years of child support could well be $10K or more a year
> > for 18 years. That's the equivalent of around $100K cold hard cash at
> > the time of birth. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the incremental risk
> > of assuming that burden of debt, simply in terms of additional
> > occupational hazards, are on average higher than the risk of abortion.
> Indeed. The risks associated with the additional burden of debt
> from child support payments is about 10 times greater than the
> risks from child birth, and about 100 times greater than the
> risks from early abortion.
Interesting numbers. I'd love to se the reference, if you have them.
There's another effect. There is a good relationship between life
expectancy and annual income. $10K in child support corresponds to about
a $15K a year decrease in annual income before tax. That probably
decreases the life expectancy by a significnat fraction of a year; but
let's be conservative, and say 0.1 year. Abortion also decreases life
expectancy, but going purely on death rates, if there are around 10
deaths per million artificial abortions, and each death decreases its
victims life by 50 years, then the average decrease in life expectancy
die to abortion fatalities 0.0005 years.
> Few people realize how dangerous workplace labor is for men,
> and it's that labor that is required to pay child support. The death
> risk associated with a man's labor is about 10 times greater than
> than the death risk associated with child birth (assuming a man
> works for 30 years, and a woman has 2 children).
> There was a recent case from Alaska where a court required
> that child support payments be based on the salary a father made
> as a lumberjack (high paid, extremely high risk), even though the
> father wanted to accept a less risky but lower paying job. Assuming
> that the fatality rate of lumberjacks is 10 times that of the average
> man, the court basically told this man he had to perform work that
> was 100 times more dangerous than childbirth.
> So much for the right to do what he wants with his body.
Amen.
Bob Baker
>
>Rosa Williams wrote:
> ...
>> ... I am, however, a great believer in responsibility - that is, the
>> responsibility of woman and men for the children that they create,
>> accidentally or on purpose.
>
>First off, my comments regarding c4m only apply to situations where no pre-
>existing social framework for rearing children is in place (you know, like
>common law marriage, traditional marriage, or other formal contract).
That (imo) is the only place where c4m should be an option.
>C4m fully recognizes that the man and woman share equal responsibility for
>co-creation of conception, and that conception is a potential human being.
>That is why with c4m a man who would opt out has a duty to repair the harm
>he co-caused through unwanted conception by informing the woman of his
>intentions and sharing in the costs of dealing with the pregnancy in a
>reasonable way. To that end the man has the threefold duty to the woman
>as follows:
>
>The woman has the right to know that: 1) if she chooses abortion, it will
>be readily available to her; 2) if she chooses adoption, she will be
>unencumbered by claims from the man; 3) if she chooses parenthood, she will
>be facing it alone.
good so far.
>Note that if the man is informed of the pregnancy and does not make his
>intentions to opt out clear to the woman, then he is effectively denying her
>the reasonable means to avoid single parenthood (since she justifiably would
>assume he is committed to sharing the burdens and benefits of their probable
>future child). C4m would give the woman every consideration short of forcing
>others to unwillingly financially support her purposeful choice to bear, keep
>and raise her child in the face of other reasonable alternatives.
Here is the problem though. This choice (or statement of intentions)
should be made pre-intercourse rather than post-conception.
>If the woman freely declines offers for funded abortion or adoption (in order
>to mitigate further "damage" stemming from the conception) it's likely that
>she doesn't consider conception as "damage" at all, but rather an as a
>beneficial opportunity to bear, keep and raise a child and have her free
>choice subsidized. That the state currently supports such women in this
>scam degrades responsible, independent adult women.
A pre-intercourse agreement would alleviate this.
>> The woman has two opportunities to stop a pregnancy while the man has one;
>> that point, taken alone, might well make the situation seem unfair. But
>> then, the woman's health is at stake, not the man's; that point, I suspect,
>> tends to balance out the seeming disparity here.
>
>Actually although both the man and woman may take action limited to a short
>time period in order to prevent pregnancy, only the woman has the ongoing
>(day after day after day ... after day - you get the idea) opportunity to
>stop a pregnancy.
True, but stopping the pregancy may not be a choice for her (for whatever
reason) and pre-intercourse agreements would make her choice irrelevant to
the man.
>As to the woman's health risks, bear in mind that an abortion performed early
>and responsibly is more than ten times safer than continuing the pregnancy,
>not to mention less of a lasting burden on the woman's body and time. That
>gestation and abortion are the only two options a newly pregnant woman has is
>not the fault of the man and is no reason to "punish" him by sexistly denying
>him the equivalent post conception opportunities to avoid the burdens of
>parenthood enjoyed by the woman. All the man can reasonably do is express
>his wish to the woman that the woman make the choice much less likely to be
>burdensome. However, he can only make his wishes known - what she chooses is
>completely up to her, which I support.
agreed. But the c4m choice needs to be made up-front to prevent
misunderstanding and provide both parties with the opportunity to provide
informed consent, otherwise there is potential for abuse by the man. The
old 'I love you and will always be here for you line ....' which may cause
her to make a bad choice. If the responsibility choice is made
pre-intercourse, then she knows what he *means* regardless of what he
*says*.
>> Er, a man should have the right to tell a woman to get an operation she
>> doesn't want; or else she has to accept sole responsibility for any
>> children she may bear? This seems... rather unfair to me, yes.
>
>Cry about it all you want, but babies just don't pop whole formed out of the
>ends of men's penises. Just because a woman has no duty to abort should in
>no way absolve her from full responsibility for a child care burden that she
>alone creates out of an accidental conception stemming from an act clearly
>intended for recreation not procreation.
agreed, but the choice should be made pre-intercourse.
>And make no mistake about it, if a newly pregnant woman acts against the
>clear wishes to avoid parenthood expressed by her cogenetor by willfully
>avoiding the legal, fully available, over ten fold safer opportunity for
>abortion by choosing to gestate a baby into existence and further choosing
>to keep that baby, then she acts completely alone in incurring any burdens
>of parenthood.
Just because a choice is legal doesn't mean that it is moral or ethical.
>It is this wholly selfish act of the woman, without regard to her cogenetor's
>wishes or the effect on the innocent third party of the baby whom she
>knowingly gestates into fatherlessness and poverty that unilaterally creates
>the parenthood burden that she then whines about. Such a woman is no
>innocent victim. She is a perpetrator of a selfish act upon society, an
>unwilling man and a truly innocent child.
I disagree with this because again, you equate a legal choice with a moral
one. Also, it does not take into account any 'deception' that may have
been used by the man in his seduction technique (not saying all men do
this, but I know that some do).
>That said, certainly not every unmarried woman who brings a child into this
>world is a selfish pig. Some have no choice and others who do, become
>single mothers responsibly.
I'm glad you clarified this.
>I agree completely that a woman should never be bound to undergo abortion,
>but where safe and legal, abortion is a reasonable response to unwanted
>pregnancy in an overpopulated world. If you feel otherwise (do you?)
>campaign to ban elective abortion.
I disagree on both counts because again, a legal choice is not necessarily
an acceptable moral choice. I am pro-choice but anti-abortion. I agree
that it is the woman's choice, but I would prefer that the abortion not
occur.
>Remember, per c4m, if the woman can show that abortion was not reasonably
>available to her, then birth is becomes a direct consequence of sex, hence
>both should share the liability (and benefits) of the resulting child.
In a pre-intercourse agreement, both parties would be aware of *all* the
risks, including the ones above, prior to engaging in activities that
could result in preganancy.
>Thanks for your attention. -- analog
You're welcome.
B. Baker
..We've taken care of everything,
the words you read--the songs you sing,
the pictures that give pleasure to your eye ...
Look around this world we've made,
equality our stock and trade,
You never have to wonder how or why ...
2112
Gerry Harbison
Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 21:00:27 -0700, Shawn Larsen
> <shawn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Few people realize how dangerous workplace labor is for men,
> >and it's that labor that is required to pay child support.
>
> Few people realise how dangerous the same workplace labour is for
> women and it's that labour that is reuired to provide support for
> children.
>
This discussion was started in an intelligent and positive way by Rosa.
and I see no particular reason to participate in this sort of tit for
tat stuff, which has being going on for 10 years in these groups and get
nowhere.
The point was made that abortion, as a risky procedure, and therefore
does not contsitute a completely consequence-free option for the woman.
She can therefore reasonably elect not to undergo the abortion, and
expect the man to share the consequences. The rebuttal is that her
electing not to abort is in fact riskier to the man's health th abortion
is to hers. The risks to her own health from a decision she and only she
is free to make are completely irrelevant to this issue.
If you can't keep up with the grown-up's discussion, Pat, please be a
good child and be quiet.
> >The death
> >risk associated with a man's labor is about 10 times greater than
> >than the death risk associated with child birth (assuming a man
> >works for 30 years, and a woman has 2 children).
>
> Don't forget women face the same workplace risks right alongside the
> men they work with... *as well as* the risks from pregnancy, birth
> etc. which the men don't face.
>
Yadda yadda yadda. We have it worse than you. It's been pointed out over
and over and over again that the risks from pregnancy are minimal, but
that won't prevent Pat from repeating them again and again.
Bob Baker
>Rosa Williams wrote:
>
>[big snip]
>
>>
>> Some say, once a woman decides to bear a child rather than abort it, it
>> becomes *her* child. She and her male partner may choose to mutually
>> *assume* responsibility for the baby, in which case both are obligated as
>> above. But since *she* made the choice, her male partner should have the
>> chance to opt out - providing no support, and having no rights in the child
>> either. (Note: a logical consequence of this argument is that the woman
>> would have the right to deny parentage to the father even if he *wanted* the
>> responsibility. I think most of us would find that unacceptable.)
>
>But in fact the woman does have the de facto and sometimes de jure right
>to deny parentage to the father. Under the uniform adoption act, for
>example, the man has thirty days after birth to claim parentage, and
>then the woman can put the child up for adoption without his consent.
These laws are wrong, he should have the same length of time to establish
paternity as she does.
>Some states, such as this one, give him only five days. A recent case
>involved a woman who told the father she was going to get an abortion,
>moved away to college, had the kid, gave it up for adoption, and even
>though the father had never been informed he'd had a child, the Supreme
>Court ruled he couldn't challenge the adoption.
Was this the good old US Supreme Court or a State Supreme Court?
<snip>
>Interesting. In fact,there have been cases where couples have stored
>frozen embryos, separated, and then the woman has insisted on her right
>to implant the embryo even though the man doesn't want to be a father.
>There all the arguments about risk are null and void, yet he's still
>forced to be a father.
Yes, at least one court has stated that human life begins at conception if
that's what the mother wants.
B. Baker
..We've taken care of everything,
the words you read--the songs you sing,
the pictures that give pleasure to your eye ...
Look around this world we've made,
equality our stock and trade,
You never have to wonder how or why ...
2112
Scott A.Renner
A digression from the main point of your article, with which I agree:
> [Tom Campbell]:
> ...It has never really worked well to link biologic paternity and social
> fathering. It should be no surprise to us that men who never wanted or
> intended to become fathers are bad fathers.
I don't buy your first sentence. I would say that the link between
biologic paternity and social fathering is the foundation of civilization.
There are societies where this link is absent. They are either primitive
tribes where running water might as well be magic, or they are welfare
ghettos propped up by subsidies from the functional part of civilization.
So, I would say that this link has worked very well indeed. Not perfectly,
of course. Certainly, some men who did not intend to be fathers have been
bad fathers. Many others stepped up to the job and did it well. On the
whole, I believe the social norm that "men must take care of their
children" has done much more good than harm.
All this is probably just a quibble, and I don't suppose you disagree. But
if you do, then I'd really like to know what definitions of "work" and
"well" you are using.
- --
Scott A. Renner <s...@nym.alias.net> | If you cannot answer a man's
My organization doesn't want their name | argument, do not panic.
on my articles, disclaimer or no. The | You can always call him names.
mail alias is to hide them, not me. | -- Oscar Wilde
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBN/OcZYVBFApc9BZNAQFwHgH9Ef32oc50W3JRX3p00rBLZCQ/HCvsT7mr
GcDae9WmjEfemJrl313gmyw0pAUwzVKbmITY0AGaaRsokK9XoYoH3w==
=3wYf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Scott A.Renner
>>>>> At 20:54 9/29, "Rosa Williams" <jwa...@mindspring.com> said:
>
> Suppose a man and a woman mix their genetic material in a test tube and
> have the resulting blastula or whatever 'tis implanted in the woman's
> womb. They agree that she shall have the sole say in whether to go ahead
> with the procedure - she can back out anytime. At the end of this, she
> produces a healthy baby. There is much rejoicing. And then the man says,
> "I want no part of it. I have no responsibility. You could have backed
> out at any time." Does that sound fair *at all*?
Did anyone else notice the key sentence?
They agree that she shall have the sole say in whether to go ahead with
the procedure -- she can back out anytime.
This sounds like he said "you can make a child, and that's fine with me, or
you can abort the child, and that's fine with me too." If he actually
makes such an agreement, hold him to it. However, if you replace that with
the following:
The only agreement is to put the [whatever] in her womb. There is no
agreed intent to create a child, and she has complete control over
whether a child will in fact be created.
then it's all different. Now it's her body, her choice, her
responsibility.
Here's the question: Do you really believe that every act of intercourse
entails the first agreement? Why?
The second agreement is compatible with political equality between men and
women; the first is not. If you do not desire such equality -- if you
think that women need the extra protection that the first agreement gives
- -- that's OK too. (But then we might usefully examine *other* areas where
women need "extra" protection. Perhaps, for their own good, we should
exclude them from certain jobs :-)
If you don't like either choice, there is a third option. You can oppose
the abortion license, which created this problem in the first place.
- --
Scott A. Renner <s...@nym.alias.net> | If you cannot answer a man's
My organization doesn't want their name | argument, do not panic.
on my articles, disclaimer or no. The | You can always call him names.
mail alias is to hide them, not me. | -- Oscar Wilde
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBN/Oca4VBFApc9BZNAQHEsAH/cvDCRNrXDAaXNt9TRs0zzSYqjO6mlHKN
qsjAEGcNIhAQpcs/XTO1ibmqZiGsZ91FLFIRIMfBV0hwdY04vx+M/w==
=/YM6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rich
_mrx wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:09:46 GMT, pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk
> (Pat Winstanley) wrote:
[]
> >The man doing job A faces exactly the same risks as the woman doing
> >job A next to him.
>
> Only in those jobs that there are women next to him.
You two are excluding women in the military right?
Rich
Pat Winstanley
<ge...@setanta.unl.edu> wrote:
>There's another effect. There is a good relationship between life
>expectancy and annual income. $10K in child support corresponds to about
>a $15K a year decrease in annual income before tax. That probably
>decreases the life expectancy by a significnat fraction of a year; but
>let's be conservative, and say 0.1 year.
And since this applies to both men *and* women...
Pat Winstanley
alic...@my-deja.com
pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 21:00:27 -0700, Shawn Larsen
> <shawn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Few people realize how dangerous workplace labor is for men,
> >and it's that labor that is required to pay child support.
>
> Few people realise how dangerous the same workplace labour is for
> women and it's that labour that is reuired to provide support for
> children.
> >The death
> >risk associated with a man's labor is about 10 times greater than
> >than the death risk associated with child birth (assuming a man
> >works for 30 years, and a woman has 2 children).
> Don't forget women face the same workplace risks right alongside the
> men they work with... *as well as* the risks from pregnancy, birth
> etc. which the men don't face.
>
> Pat Winstanley
This is completely incorrect. I have posted the exact numbers several
times previously but the number of men who die in the workplace
is around 5600 while the number of women who die is about 500, which
in no way is "the same workplace risks."
You may as well say that men face the same breast cancer risks as women.
O'Reilly Enright
alic...@my-deja.com
You are missing a very important point. We are not really arguing
control over our own bodies but the ability to exert control over
another's, and as far as I know only women have that right.
A woman may get an abortion because she is responsible for her body and
nobody else's. The problem is that if she decides not to abort she now
has the ability to exert control over the body of another.
> Pat Winstanley
Rich
Pat Winstanley wrote:
[]
> Since there is NO risk to the man's health from her being pregnant,
> what is the problem?
There may be no risk from the pregnancy, but there are often risks
from the law, relatives, etc...
> Since therte is NO risk to the man's health after the pregnancy ends
> that she does not also risk, what is the problem?
Are you insane? 18 years of slavery (not parenting) to pay for her
parental choices involves real risks.
> Pat Winstanley
Rich
Pat Winstanley
Nope... at least I'm not.... since the criteria was they are doing the
same job etc.... and I'm quite sure that *most* of the jobs in the
military performed by men and women side by side entail them both
doing the *same* job. If they *aren't* doing the same job then they
aren't doing the same job... either could be skiving off or leaving
the 'dirty work' to the other, or whatever.
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:09:46 GMT, pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk
>(Pat Winstanley) wrote:
>
>>On 30 Sep 1999 07:15:07 -0500, _mrx <_m...@bhilharmonicblues.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 05:51:35 GMT, pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk
>>>(Pat Winstanley) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 21:00:27 -0700, Shawn Larsen
>>>><shawn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Few people realize how dangerous workplace labor is for men,
>>>>>and it's that labor that is required to pay child support.
>>>>
>>>>Few people realise how dangerous the same workplace labour is for
>>>>women and it's that labour that is reuired to provide support for
>>>>children.
>>>>
>>>>>The death
>>>>>risk associated with a man's labor is about 10 times greater than
>>>>>than the death risk associated with child birth (assuming a man
>>>>>works for 30 years, and a woman has 2 children).
>>>>
>>>>Don't forget women face the same workplace risks right alongside the
>>>>men they work with... *as well as* the risks from pregnancy, birth
>>>>etc. which the men don't face.
>>>
>>>Bullshit....women face risks in the workplace at a rate of 8 times
>>>LESS than the average man....so carry your lies elsewhere.
>>>
>>
>>The man doing job A faces exactly the same risks as the woman doing
>>job A next to him.
>
>Only in those jobs that there are women next to him.
>
Which is most jobs.
>>
>>*Some* men choose to take high risk (high reward) jobs... their
>>choice. Some women do also - their choice also.
>
>Few women take the higher risk jobs. Cowards I guess.
Or less feeling of need to pretend they are heroes.
> And many
>high risk jobs hardly entail (high reward). One job...truck
>driving-- comes to mind....and there are many others.
>
There are LOADS of women driving trucks.
>>
>>>Also...why dont you respond to the message in thread from Tami.
>>>She states her opinion and the way it should be quite well.
>>>
>>>But I noted....of the ones posting here. You didnt respond to
>>>her....AFRAID??
>>>
>>
>>What am I supposed to be afraid of?
>>
>>Respond to what message?
>
>Welll...since you like to be obtuse...I will quote it below.
>
>>Was it addressed to me or something I had said? If so, I missed it.
>
>No...it was just part of this same thread...but I will be nice and
>include it below and also in a seperate thread JUST for you.
>headers included...so you cant claim it was made up.
>
Why would I suggest it was made up?
What do you want me to say? I partially agree and partially disagree
with her opinion. A lot depends upon the circumstances.
What do you want? Why would I particularly need/want to respond to it?
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<ge...@setanta.unl.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 21:00:27 -0700, Shawn Larsen
>> <shawn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Few people realize how dangerous workplace labor is for men,
>> >and it's that labor that is required to pay child support.
>>
>> Few people realise how dangerous the same workplace labour is for
>> women and it's that labour that is reuired to provide support for
>> children.
>>
>
>This discussion was started in an intelligent and positive way by Rosa.
>and I see no particular reason to participate in this sort of tit for
>tat stuff, which has being going on for 10 years in these groups and get
>nowhere.
>
>The point was made that abortion, as a risky procedure, and therefore
>does not contsitute a completely consequence-free option for the woman.
>She can therefore reasonably elect not to undergo the abortion, and
>expect the man to share the consequences. The rebuttal is that her
>electing not to abort is in fact riskier to the man's health th abortion
>is to hers. The risks to her own health from a decision she and only she
>is free to make are completely irrelevant to this issue.
Since there is NO risk to the man's health from her being pregnant,
what is the problem?
Since therte is NO risk to the man's health after the pregnancy ends
that she does not also risk, what is the problem?
Pat Winstanley
Rich
Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:03:04 GMT, Rich <pay...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >_mrx wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:09:46 GMT, pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk
> >> (Pat Winstanley) wrote:
> >
> >[]
> >
> >> >The man doing job A faces exactly the same risks as the woman doing
> >> >job A next to him.
> >>
> >> Only in those jobs that there are women next to him.
> >
> >You two are excluding women in the military right?
>
> Nope... at least I'm not.... since the criteria was they are doing the
> same job etc.... and I'm quite sure that *most* of the jobs in the
> military performed by men and women side by side entail them both
> doing the *same* job.
Since women meet lesser physical standards (and technical standards),
how can they be doing the same job? They can get pregnant to get out
of a battle zone and they can disobey orders and then claim SH to
place the superior in trouble today. They are absolutely not doing
the sam job and they are not doing it under the same circumstances.
> If they *aren't* doing the same job then they
> aren't doing the same job... either could be skiving off or leaving
> the 'dirty work' to the other, or whatever.
We'd have one more F-14 if women were not passed on just because
they are women Pat. And I saw stuff like this all through the
military.
> Pat Winstanley
Rich
Tom Campbell
Before sex became a casual thing, people thought a lot about who they
were going to have sex with. After all, for most, this was the person
to whom they would be married for the rest of their lives. They made a
decision about each other before any biology took place. I think that
for women, one of the things that was important was an assessment of
how good a father the potential sex partner was to be. Of course, this
wasn't perfect, and there were bad marriages and bad parents. But for
most, and especially for most of the children that resulted, this way
worked well.
For goood or for ill our society has changed. Now people have sex with
mulitple partners without any thought about that partner's potential as
a lifelong mate in marriage or as a parent to one's children. Usually
sex happens without consequence. But occasionally pregnancy results.
It is that instance to which I referred when I said that linking
fatherhood (which is about one's commitment to one's children and their
mother) to paternity didn't work well. It takes much more for a man to
be a father in that sense of the word than a penis and testicles. It
takes maturity, readiness, trust, love, caring, understanding,
patience. Fatherhood is something that should be reserved only for
those men who are willing to accept it. I think that with the ready
availability of abortion, women now see motherhood that way, especially
when pregnancy happens without having been planned. A pregnant woman
knows that she has a choice. She may feel that at that particular
point in her life she is not ready to accept the responsibilities of
motherhood, and that to do so wouldn't be good for the child that might
result from her pregnancy. And if she feels that way but is opposed to
abortion, she has the choice of giving up the child for adoption.
But what about the potential male parent? What if feels that he isn't
quite ready to be a father, not yet secure enough or mature enough to
accept the responsibilities of fatherhood? He has no choice. Some of
those responsibilities, the financial ones, are imposed upon him,
whether he is ready to accept them or not. Is it any surprise that he
feels cheated and stolen from, and that he feels little or no
responsibility for a child he never wanted to have? Why not allow him
a choice? Why not make becoming a father a positive choice that a man
can make when he is ready?
Tom Campbell
> > Suppose a man and a woman mix their genetic material in a test tube
and
> > have the resulting blastula or whatever 'tis implanted in the
woman's
> > womb. They agree that she shall have the sole say in whether to go
ahead
> > with the procedure - she can back out anytime. At the end of this,
she
> > produces a healthy baby. There is much rejoicing. And then the man
says,
> > "I want no part of it. I have no responsibility. You could have
backed
> > out at any time." Does that sound fair *at all*?
>
> Did anyone else notice the key sentence?
I noticed something different. In this example the man and the woman
agree to mix their sperm and egg with the intent of creating a child.
That, of course, is not the reason that most people have sex. Most
people have sex with the intent of having fun, but definitely NOT for
creating a child.
This is an important distinction. What is one's intent? If both the
woman and the man intend to have a child, why would either want to back
out? But if their intent is to have fun but NOT to have a child, why
shouldn't either be allowed to back out of the responsibilities of
becoming a parent after the pregnancy has occured?
After the pregnancy occurs the female can say, "I did not intend to
become a parent when I had sex, and I will now exercise my choice not
to". And she can. But after the pregnancy occurs the male can only
say "I did not intend to become a parent when I had sex, but I have no
choice to exercise." And he doesn't.
Tom Campbell
Ray Fischer
> _mrx <_m...@bhilharmonicblues.com>
>> pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk
>>>On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 21:00:27 -0700, Shawn Larsen
>>>>The death
>>>>risk associated with a man's labor is about 10 times greater than
>>>>than the death risk associated with child birth (assuming a man
>>>>works for 30 years, and a woman has 2 children).
>>>
>>>Don't forget women face the same workplace risks right alongside the
>>>men they work with... *as well as* the risks from pregnancy, birth
>>>etc. which the men don't face.
>>
>>Bullshit....women face risks in the workplace at a rate of 8 times
>>LESS than the average man....so carry your lies elsewhere.
>
>The man doing job A faces exactly the same risks as the woman doing
>job A next to him.
The pattiland switcheroo. Knowing that men, far more than women, do
dangerous and hazardous jobs, she changes the subject and says that
men and women doing the same job face the same risks.
>*Some* men choose to take high risk (high reward) jobs... their
>choice. Some women do also - their choice also.
Sure it's their choice. Starve or work. And no, the most dangerous
jobs (logging, carpentry, construction, mining) don't pay particularly
well.
--
Ray Fischer You should never have your best trousers on when you turn
r...@netcom.com out to fight for freedom and truth. -- Ibsen
James Buster
Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Few people realise how dangerous the same workplace labour is for
>women and it's that labour that is reuired to provide support for
>children.
Uh-huh. In the US more than 95% of workplace deaths occur to men,
as well as the vast majority of all workplace injuries..
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.
James Buster
Gerry Harbison <ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu> wrote:
>The point was made that abortion, as a risky procedure, and therefore
>does not contsitute a completely consequence-free option for the woman.
Nothing is ever completely consequence-free. Calling an abortion
"risky" is a gross misuse of the term, and people who argue that
women's reproductive choices are not really choices unless they
are consequence-free should be called what they are: selfish brats.
Pat Winstanley
>In article <37facdab...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> On 30 Sep 1999 03:10:51 GMT, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> >In other words, women _deserve_ extra rights for being women?
>>
>> No more or less so than men deserve extra rights for being men.
>>
>> IOW neither *deserve* rights just because they happen to have been
>> boirn the sex they are. However, real life ohysical/practical
>> considerations in issues where which sex you are matters, mean that
>> sometimes men will have rights/opportunities that women don't, and
>> vice versa... for those issues.
>
>You are missing a very important point. We are not really arguing
>control over our own bodies but the ability to exert control over
>another's, and as far as I know only women have that right.
Women have no more right to control the body of another person than
men do.
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
wrote:
>
>
>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
>[]
>
>> Since there is NO risk to the man's health from her being pregnant,
>> what is the problem?
>
>There may be no risk from the pregnancy, but there are often risks
>from the law, relatives, etc...
Which is nothing to do with the pregnancy.
>
>> Since therte is NO risk to the man's health after the pregnancy ends
>> that she does not also risk, what is the problem?
>
>Are you insane? 18 years of slavery (not parenting) to pay for her
>parental choices involves real risks.
Since she *also* has the same number of years of what you call
slavery, and has to cope with the same risks, I can't see that there
is any difference in that respect between what a man must do and what
a woman must do, or the physical risks they incur in doing so..
Pat Winstanley
Rich
Pat Winstanley wrote:
> Women have no more right to control the body of another person than
> men do.
They have the power to do so and they use it with no twinge of
conscious, as you demonstrate time and time again.
> Pat Winstanley
Rich
Rich
Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:51:27 GMT, Rich <rpa...@home.something.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Pat Winstanley wrote:
> >
> >[]
> >
> >> Since there is NO risk to the man's health from her being pregnant,
> >> what is the problem?
> >
> >There may be no risk from the pregnancy, but there are often risks
> >from the law, relatives, etc...
>
> Which is nothing to do with the pregnancy.
How do you figure? Men have been locked up when their wives get
pregnant because it is legally statutory rape. It has everything
to do with the pregnancy and nothing else.
> >> Since therte is NO risk to the man's health after the pregnancy ends
> >> that she does not also risk, what is the problem?
> >
> >Are you insane? 18 years of slavery (not parenting) to pay for her
> >parental choices involves real risks.
>
> Since she *also* has the same number of years of what you call
> slavery,
She is experiencing the natural consequences of choices she
freely made, she has not one word of complaint. She also gets
100% of the rights, 100% of the benefits, and 100% of the
tax benefits even if the pregnancy resulted from rape or
statutory rape, committed by the mother.
> Pat Winstanley
Rich
Henry Neeman
>... I'd like to point out that abortion is not a simple affair.
>There are medical risks to it, as there are to pregnancy. The
>woman is already shouldering an unfair portion of the burden,
>even if the man paid all the financial costs... her body, health
>and life are on the line. Given that fact, it hardly seems
>unreasonable to ask the man to put his wallet on the line,
>should she choose not to undergo the abortion procedure. ...
Without getting into the question of who should bear the
responsibility in these cases, let me point out that "put[ting]
his wallet on the line" is not without medical risks itself.
Men are substantially more likely to be injured or killed on the
job than women, and a man with child support payments has an
incremental work burden that may very well raise either the number
of hours he spends on the job or the riskiness (and therefore the
pay rate) of the work.
According to the "Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, Table
4. Fatal occupational injuries and employment by selected worker
characteristics, 1998
http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t04.htm
there were 5544 male and 482 female occupational deaths in 1998,
a death rate of 7.7 per 100,000 male workers and 0.79 per
100,000 female workers.
According to the "Report of Final Mortality Statistics, 1995"
(Monthly Vital Statistics Report, vol 45 no 11 supplement 2,
June 12 1997), "Table 31. Number of maternal deaths and maternal
mortality rates for selected causes, by race: United States,
1995," there were 277 maternity-related deaths in 1995, including
deaths from legal and illegal abortion, for a rate of 7.1 per
100,000 live births.
Thus, the probability that a woman would die from the risks of
a single pregnancy are about the same as the difference between
a man's and a woman's chance of dying on the job each year.
Of course, a woman gives birth (or doesn't) to a particular
baby just once. But if the man is assessed child support, his
risk is repeated for 18 years.
I realize that death rates over multiple years are tricky, and that
death is not the only risk incurred by either the man or the woman.
So the rest of this should be considered a back-of-the-envelope
estimate. Let's take a look at risks of death over that 18 year
period.
Risk of Death | Man | Woman |
--------------+---------+---------+
Maternity | 0 | 7.1 |
Occupational | 7.7*18 | 0.79*18 |
Total | 139 | 21 |
Now of course, much of both the man's and the woman's chance of
occupational death would be incurred anyway. But the man's total
risk of death over that 18 years is about 6.5 times the woman's.
It's not unreasonable to suppose that the man's *incremental*
risk from responsibility for child support is more than 15% of
his total risk over that period -- that is, more than the ratio
of her total risk to his.
Again, I'm not addressing the question of whether the man should
be responsible; I'm just pointing out that the man incurs a real,
substantial *medical* risk in taking on child support.
---
Henry Neeman (hne...@ou.edu)
Disclaimer: I speak for myself and no one else. So there.
El Coyote
>On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:02:11 GMT, nim...@erols.com (Kenneth S.) wrote:
>
>> Well, (to adapt one of the old feminist slogans) if women ever
>>had to pay men 18+ years of "child support," then universal
>>reproductive choice would be a sacrament.
>
>Since women do have to pay (via men or directly) to support their
>children for 18 years, your analogy doesn't hold.
Since women are actively sought after and encouraged to give up their
newborns for adoption your above statement is a lie and the analogy
holds.
Sky King
rpa...@home.something.com says...
symptoms that his pregnant wife is having. So actually
he suffers emotionally. Nice try Pat.
--
Like the Brave said when asked, "Why is your Squaw walking?"
"She got no horse" the Brave responded.
Rosa Williams
Well now, look what you've gone and done. You've gone and presented
logical points in a thoughtful manner, and caused me to rethink my
position from the ground up. Analog, Tami and Tom Campbell, in
particular, brought up material that I hadn't considered, in such a
way as to allow me to consider it rationally without being distracted
by insults or pejorative uses of the non-pejorative term "feminist." Thank
you. Thanks are also extended to
Kenneth S. and Gerry Harbison for equally valuable points; as well as
many others who contributed to the "Without Insult" part. (Neither
thanks nor attention will be given individually to those whose posts
were so laden with insult and ad hominem attacks that I could scarcely
plumb through them for points to reply to.)
Thusly, I grant that:
*If* we're discussing the case where a man and women had sex for
recreational purposes without an agreement that children should
result; both were willing and capable of rational decision; and a
pregnancy resulted,
*If* the woman takes the responsibility to inform the man of her
pregnancy, and the two do not make any sort of agreement as to
sharing its future custody and care (I lay on the man the
responsibility to clearly inform the woman that he chooses to
have no part in the care of any children that result),
*If* abortion is legal, safe and accessible, as it has been argued that
the c4m procedure is,
*If* both share equally in her medical bills to end the pregnancy or
carry it to term (as either choice results from the conception, a
mutual responsibility)
*Then* it seems to be the ethical thing to absolve the man of the
responsibility for future child care it the woman decides unilaterally
to complete the pregnancy.
I know that's a lot of caveats, here, but it's a tangled and thorny
issue and deserves to have all the bases covered.
That said, I'd like to refute certain arguments that come up.
Said: The woman's health risks are a consequence of her biology and thus
not the man's responsibility. They need not be taken into consideration.
Demanding that they be so taken is sexist.
Replied: I object, personally, to this summation.
Said/implied: The man is asked to support the child completely. He may,
in fact, assume greater risks than the woman through his labor.
Replied: Actually, the woman is providing her labor (let's not forget that
hidden cost) and, usually, a fair chunk of money herself. Most single
mothers work at least one job; the case of a woman living a life of
ease and luxury while the man sweats to support her and the child... is,
I think, a rare one.
As far as the "greater risks" go, I think that's pushing the point farther
than it will safely bear. Women and men both work to support their children,
in the vast majority of these single-parent cases; both have all the
employment hazards that result. Men who take high-risk jobs can hardly
blame it on the need to pay child support; I suspect that such cases are
very few and far between.
Said: In actual practice, the woman can (and sometimes does) deny the
man any fatherly rights in the child; therefore arguments that the
"sole responsibility" gives her "sole right" are already met by the
fact that this is the status quo.
Replied: In actual practice, the single mother usually provides 100% of
the care and support for a child; despite all the child-support grants,
such cases are in the minority! Using the "in actual practice" argument
would, I suspect, destroy a lot of the theoretical arguments posted on
these groups. We are, in a sense, trying to decide what *should* be, and
what *is* is the problem we're trying to address.
That said, I hold that if it is indeed ruled that carrying a pregnancy
to term makes the child the woman's sole responsibility, she then has the
sole right in its care, whether that be adoption, her own care, or what
have you. If the father, when informed of the pregnancy, chooses to take
responsibility, he then is owed joint rights in the decision. That is, if
men want the right to decide whether their child should be adopted or no,
they must assume the responsibility of paying child care costs. If it is
decided that a woman's choice of abortion makes her responsible for the
child's support, then she also has the sole right/responsibility of
determining whether adoption is a valid option for said support.
Given the case postulated above, when an unexpected pregnancy occurs and the
father *wants* the child, he must then defer to the right and responsibility
we have granted women here. Obviously, if the woman chooses abortion, he
cannot stop her. If the woman chooses single motherhood, without his
participation - even if he offers child support - he still has no moral
argument. She is not *obligated* to grant it him, if he is not *obligated*
to support the child. This is the societal share we have assigned both
partners. I find it a bit dismaying that a majority of men might choose
to give up the *right* to automatic-joint-custody in order not to have
the *responsibility* to automatic-child-support, but that's just me.
Now, inside the framework of existing commitment, with the implied
assumption of child care (e.g. marriage) I'd still obligate the man to
child support and give him the automatic right of joint custody.
Said: In my arguments I treat the child as chattel.
Replied: If I gave that impression, I apologize. I don't even see my
dog as chattel. I see the pregnancy/fetus as an as-yet-unrealized bit
of potential, still part of the mother's body and thus subject to her
decisions about her own body's care. If she chooses to *realize* the
potential of the fetus by giving birth, what results is a child. At that
point the child becomes another participant in this little drama, although
I ask no responsibilities of the child in his or her own care. That would
be a bit much, don'tcha think? The woman's right to put him or her up for
adoption stems from the fact that it has been determined (by the man's lack
of obligation for child support) that by her decision to give birth, she
has assumed sole responsibility for the child's care. If she decides that's
best served by an adoption, that's her choice to make on the child's behalf.
If she fails to live up to that responsibility, the courts step in and
take the child away; but the father's already abrogated any responsibility,
and thus any right, in making these decisions.
Said: I presume that many woman make the abortion decision due to health
risks rather than lifestyle choices.
Replied: You'd be surprised. It's already been said here, at some length,
that pregnancy's a risky business, possibly more so than early abortion.
While many - even the larger proportion - of women may make the choice
due to lifestyle issues, I think those with health issues make up sufficient
numbers to be considered here.
And finally (you're glad, aren't you) I conclude that if we put some of
this in the larger framework, many of these theoretical issues fade in their
applicability. With more and better and more-used birth control, fewer
unwanted pregnancies become an issue - let us push for birth control, and
help out both sides. With society at large taking a greater proportion of
the responsibility, as with government-sponsored health insurance to
children, the costs of child support go down and make the financial burden
less. (Yes, Tami, I agree that it's a bit irresponsible to bring a child
into the world without a support framework - society, extended family, or
willing father - in place. I just think there are more support frameworks
than a willing father available to *some* women.) Rather than treating
the child as the parents' chattel, problem, or what have you, I'd much
rather see him or her treated as the future of society, to be cared for
by biological or adoptive family, community, and national-level society
at large. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
Doubting that anyone read this far,
--April
Rosa Williams
me. In fact, I disagree with it. (I simply doubt that anyone who didn't
bother with birth control will have the presence of mind to do anything
involving a "pre-intercourse agreement".)
The misquoted,
--April
Kavking wrote in message <19990930212427...@ng-bj1.aol.com>...
>Rosa Williams wrote:
>
>>
>>True, but stopping the pregancy may not be a choice for her (for whatever
>>reason) and pre-intercourse agreements would make her choice irrelevant to
>>the man.
>
>All right.
>Somebody else thinks that this is a practical, safe alternative to rushing
>willy-nilly into bed.
>K
Rosa Williams
Rich wrote in message <37F408E6...@home.something.com>...
>
>
>Rosa Williams wrote:
>
>[]
>
>> Replied: Actually, the woman is providing her labor
>
>breeding? Many people have labor-intensive hobbies,
>so what?
>
Er, actually I meant labor as in work. As in,
feeding the baby, diapering the baby, washing the
baby, taking the baby to the doctor, watching over the
baby.... day-care, night-care, and all that baby care.
>> (let's not forget that hidden cost)
>
>What hidden cost?
Aforementioned care and feeding of a child from
babyhood to age 18. That's work, dude.
>> and, usually, a fair chunk of money herself.
>
>Not for the child though, this is money she will have to spend to
>support herself anyway.
Um, cost for mother + child does not equal cost for mother.
Of course, if you're still laboring (sorry, couldn't resist) under
the impression that I'm talking about her period of pregnancy,
this is comprehensible. The costs I refer to are her share of
the child-rearing later.
>> Most single mothers work at least one job;
>
>That is, of the few that work, most work part-time jobs (35 HRS a week).
OK, now we hit the point. Anyone got some numbers we can throw at
this thing? How many single mothers work? For how many hours per
week? (Um, most fulltimers do 40/week. 35/week is still 7/day, a rather
respectable chunk of time).
>> the case of a woman living a life of
>> ease and luxury while the man sweats to support her and the child... is,
>> I think, a rare one.
>
>The cases of men reduced to homelessness by CS that did not leave them
>enough to survive is not, no matter what the status of the mother.
Cites! Cites! Give me a case of a man so reduced.
Calling for the evidence,
--April
Shawn Larsen
Pat Winstanley wrote:
> Since there is NO risk to the man's health from her being pregnant,
> what is the problem?
This isn't true. There is a risk to his mental and emotional health,
knowing that he may be a father. In the United States, the risk to
a pregnant woman's mental and emotional is deemed so important,
that she is allowed to have a hole drilled in the skull of a viable
fetus/child and have it's brains sucked out. Shouldn't a mans
mental and emotional health be considered just as important.
> Since therte is NO risk to the man's health after the pregnancy ends
> that she does not also risk, what is the problem?
This isn't true. His risks are over 10 times greater than hers (at least
in the United States). Nonetheless, she was the one who elected to
accept these risks, as opposed to having a less risky abortion.
Shawn Larsen
Gerry Harbison wrote:
> Shawn Larsen wrote:
>
> > Indeed. The risks associated with the additional burden of debt
> > from child support payments is about 10 times greater than the
> > risks from child birth, and about 100 times greater than the
> > risks from early abortion.
>
> Interesting numbers. I'd love to se the reference, if you have them.
I did a much more formal analysis a couple of years ago (including
references). It's at work, so much of this is by memory.
The death rate from early abortion is about 1 in 150,000 (10/1500000)
and the death rate from child birth is about 1 in 18,000 (250/4500000).
This makes child birth 8.5 more risky than early abortion. I believe the
death rate for abortion is over estimated (fewer than 10 deaths per year),
so child birth is about 10 times more risky than early abortion.
Eighteen to twenty-one years of child support is equivalent to about
6 years of full-time labor. This assumes a pretax child support
obligation of 25% for one child, and a moderate tax rate.
The yearly death rate for men in the work force is about 1 in 10,000
(7000/70000?). Hence, the labor related death rate for 18-21 years
of child support (equivalent to 6 years of full-time work) is about
1 in 1500 (6*1/10000). This is about 10 times greater than the
death rate associated with child birth.
Summarizing, the death rates for early abortion, child birth, and
child support required labor are 1 in 150,000, 1 in 18,000, and
1 in 1,500, respectively. In other words, the labor required to
pay 18-21 years of child support is about 10 times more risky
than child birth, and about 100 times more risky than early
abortion.
BTW, lets not forget the "mental and emotional risks" on a
man who doesn't want to be a father. After all, the mental
and emotional risks on a pregnant woman are considered so
important that she is allowed to have a hole drilled in the skull
of a viable fetus/child and have the brains sucked out.
Ted W.
"Kenneth S." wrote:
> The long message below finally reaches a bottom line: Rosa
> Williams personally likes the status quo in regard to post-conception
> reproductive choice -- i.e. that women have it, but men don't. She
> thinks the status quo is "fair." She thinks it's OK that a man should
> be forced to pay 18+ years of "child support" to a woman who made a
> unilateral choice to let a pregnancy proceed to childbirth.
> Well, (to adapt one of the old feminist slogans) if women ever
> had to pay men 18+ years of "child support," then universal
> reproductive choice would be a sacrament. If -- and it is a big "if"
> -- post-conception reproductive choice is a constitutional right for
> women, then it should also be such for men.
Feminists haven't always been this selfish. Back during the times
of the Serpico case, the feminist position supported equality for
men. It is in the most recent two decades that feminism has adopted
advocacy of superior rights for women.
Rich
Rosa Williams wrote:
[]
> Replied: Actually, the woman is providing her labor
Labor? Are you implying that she should be paid for
breeding? Many people have labor-intensive hobbies,
so what?
> (let's not forget that hidden cost)
What hidden cost?
> and, usually, a fair chunk of money herself.
Not for the child though, this is money she will have to spend to
support herself anyway.
> Most single mothers work at least one job;
That is, of the few that work, most work part-time jobs (35 HRS a week).
> the case of a woman living a life of
> ease and luxury while the man sweats to support her and the child... is,
> I think, a rare one.
The cases of men reduced to homelessness by CS that did not leave them
enough to survive is not, no matter what the status of the mother.
> Doubting that anyone read this far,
> --April
Rich
Kavking
>
>True, but stopping the pregancy may not be a choice for her (for whatever
>reason) and pre-intercourse agreements would make her choice irrelevant to
>the man.
All right.
Somebody else thinks that this is a practical, safe alternative to rushing
willy-nilly into bed.
K
.........we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of
smart..............
(remove Q's, before replying)
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not even sure about the universe."
--Albert Einstein
Ray Fischer
>Thusly, I grant that:
>
>*If* we're discussing the case where a man and women had sex for
>recreational purposes without an agreement that children should
>result; both were willing and capable of rational decision; and a
>pregnancy resulted,
>
>*If* the woman takes the responsibility to inform the man of her
>pregnancy, and the two do not make any sort of agreement as to
>sharing its future custody and care (I lay on the man the
>responsibility to clearly inform the woman that he chooses to
>have no part in the care of any children that result),
>
>*If* abortion is legal, safe and accessible, as it has been argued that
>the c4m procedure is,
>
>*If* both share equally in her medical bills to end the pregnancy or
>carry it to term (as either choice results from the conception, a
>mutual responsibility)
>
>*Then* it seems to be the ethical thing to absolve the man of the
>responsibility for future child care it the woman decides unilaterally
>to complete the pregnancy.
Good. This is very much what I proposed over a year ago, although in
different form.
>I know that's a lot of caveats, here, but it's a tangled and thorny
>issue and deserves to have all the bases covered.
The conditions are fair. I proposed allowing the man a week from time
of notification to refuse paternity. If the woman is prompt in
notifying him, then she has ample time to consider her options. And
since there are legal issues involved, the notification should be a
legal notification.
>That said, I'd like to refute certain arguments that come up.
>
>Said: The woman's health risks are a consequence of her biology and thus
>not the man's responsibility. They need not be taken into consideration.
>Demanding that they be so taken is sexist.
>
>Replied: I object, personally, to this summation.
Why? Men die on average some five years sooner than women. Does that
entitle men to special consideration? How many _other_ sex-based
differences shall we attempt to compenstate for?
>Said/implied: The man is asked to support the child completely. He may,
>in fact, assume greater risks than the woman through his labor.
>
>Replied: Actually, the woman is providing her labor (let's not forget that
>hidden cost) and, usually, a fair chunk of money herself. Most single
>mothers work at least one job; the case of a woman living a life of
>ease and luxury while the man sweats to support her and the child... is,
>I think, a rare one.
Despite the risks, women still live longer, and regardless of who
works more, their obligation is _still_ the result of her choices.
[...]
>That said, I hold that if it is indeed ruled that carrying a pregnancy
>to term makes the child the woman's sole responsibility, she then has the
>sole right in its care, whether that be adoption, her own care, or what
>have you.
Of course. Unless, of course, she and he made some other agreement
such as marriage.
> If the father, when informed of the pregnancy, chooses to take
>responsibility, he then is owed joint rights in the decision. That is, if
>men want the right to decide whether their child should be adopted or no,
>they must assume the responsibility of paying child care costs. If it is
>decided that a woman's choice of abortion makes her responsible for the
>child's support, then she also has the sole right/responsibility of
>determining whether adoption is a valid option for said support.
Agreed.
>Given the case postulated above, when an unexpected pregnancy occurs and the
>father *wants* the child, he must then defer to the right and responsibility
>we have granted women here. Obviously, if the woman chooses abortion, he
>cannot stop her. If the woman chooses single motherhood, without his
>participation - even if he offers child support - he still has no moral
>argument. She is not *obligated* to grant it him, if he is not *obligated*
>to support the child.
You make the mistake in assuming that because he has the right to
refuse his rights that she has the right to deny his rights. Such
a situation is unacceptable.
> This is the societal share we have assigned both
>partners. I find it a bit dismaying that a majority of men might choose
>to give up the *right* to automatic-joint-custody in order not to have
>the *responsibility* to automatic-child-support, but that's just me.
But you don't know that that would be the case. Quite a few men want
children. Personally, I think that if one wants children, getting
married first is a Really Good Idea.
>Now, inside the framework of existing commitment, with the implied
>assumption of child care (e.g. marriage) I'd still obligate the man to
>child support and give him the automatic right of joint custody.
Yup.
[...]
>Said: I presume that many woman make the abortion decision due to health
>risks rather than lifestyle choices.
>
>Replied: You'd be surprised. It's already been said here, at some length,
>that pregnancy's a risky business, possibly more so than early abortion.
Estimate childbirth ten times more likely to kill a woman than
abortion overall, and maybe 100 times more likely to kill than an
early abortion.
>While many - even the larger proportion - of women may make the choice
>due to lifestyle issues, I think those with health issues make up sufficient
>numbers to be considered here.
Personally, I don't find the reasons at all relevant.
[...]
>Doubting that anyone read this far,
>--April
Surprise!
Mark Jebens
1999 16:36:06 GMT:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 11:43:07 -0500, Gerry Harbison
> <ge...@setanta.unl.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Pat Winstanley wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 21:00:27 -0700, Shawn Larsen
> >> <shawn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Few people realize how dangerous workplace labor is for men,
> >> >and it's that labor that is required to pay child support.
> >>
> >> Few people realise how dangerous the same workplace labour is for
> >> women and it's that labour that is reuired to provide support for
> >> children.
> >>
> >
> >This discussion was started in an intelligent and positive way by Rosa.
> >and I see no particular reason to participate in this sort of tit for
> >tat stuff, which has being going on for 10 years in these groups and get
> >nowhere.
> >
> >The point was made that abortion, as a risky procedure, and therefore
> >does not contsitute a completely consequence-free option for the woman.
> >She can therefore reasonably elect not to undergo the abortion, and
> >expect the man to share the consequences. The rebuttal is that her
> >electing not to abort is in fact riskier to the man's health th abortion
> >is to hers. The risks to her own health from a decision she and only she
> >is free to make are completely irrelevant to this issue.
> Since there is NO risk to the man's health from her being pregnant,
> what is the problem?
> Since therte is NO risk to the man's health after the pregnancy ends
> that she does not also risk, what is the problem?
Whoosh!!
That sound that you hear is a very simple point that just whizzed
over Pat's head.
--
Mark Jebens
Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)
Mark Jebens
> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 11:36:13 -0500, Gerry Harbison
> <ge...@setanta.unl.edu> wrote:
> >There's another effect. There is a good relationship between life
> >expectancy and annual income. $10K in child support corresponds to about
> >a $15K a year decrease in annual income before tax. That probably
> >decreases the life expectancy by a significnat fraction of a year; but
> >let's be conservative, and say 0.1 year.
> And since this applies to both men *and* women...
Please provide your cite that it does apply to both.
Char
his posts are ignored by CPs and NCPs alike on this board. People
get tired of seeing the same words repeated time and time again.
And no matter how often he is told this, he still doesn't see it.
Rosa Williams wrote:
>
> Edmund Esterbauer wrote in message <37F2C4DA...@northnet.com.au>...
> >Until there is a presumption of joint custody it is fraud to expect
> payments off
> >fathers.
>
> Thus far, this is a reasonable stance to take, although no supporting logic,
> evidence, or arguments are given.
>
> >But the stalinist feminazi that control the Family Courts (Courts of
> Lesbos) have
> >no interest in children but are merely about patricide and laziness.
>
> This, however, states... absolutely nothing. It may gratify those who
> agree, it may infuriate those who disagree, but it will convince no one of
> anything, except perhaps those it convinces that the poster cannot conduct a
> mature, rational, reasoned argument. I'm sure the poster is in fact an
> intellegent human being, and quite capable of constructing a convincing
> argument using proper adjective-noun agreement. Why, then, this descent into
> language that, if anything, gives the feminist quarter more ammunition to
> make their points? It doesn't make sense to me.
>
> At any rate, this is a barren line, leading nowhere. I only reply in order
> to make the point that this is what I hope to *avoid* in favor of posts more
> like that of Kenneth S., who wrote a thoughtful response that disagrees
> without crudely insulting. As a result, future posts along these lines will
> receive no response; if the posters choose to declare victory, I wish them
> joy of the empty walls they declare it to.
>
> Searching for a killfile,
> --April
--
Char McCarty
General Manager
http://www.techtrek.com
The original Char. Accept no Char-latans.
***********************************************************
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/5946/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Venue/9362/index.html
http://millennium.fortunecity.com/sweetvalley/133/
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BPQ552
http://www.tradehall.com/ Member #10446188
http://www.travelzoo.com/
***********************************************************
Char
thing...
Rosa Williams wrote:
>
> Kenneth S. wrote in message <37f2b0f2...@news.erols.com>...
> > The long message below finally reaches a bottom line: Rosa
> >Williams personally likes the status quo in regard to post-conception
> >reproductive choice -- i.e. that women have it, but men don't. She
> >thinks the status quo is "fair." She thinks it's OK that a man should
> >be forced to pay 18+ years of "child support" to a woman who made a
> >unilateral choice to let a pregnancy proceed to childbirth.
>
> Here now, kindly don't take it upon yourself to state my opinions for me.
> I'm more than capable of stating 'em for myself. There's a great deal about
> the status quo that I don't like. I am, however, a great believer in
> responsibility - that is, the responsibility of woman and men for the
> children that they create, accidentally or on purpose. The woman has two
> opportunities to stop a pregnancy while the man has one; that point, taken
> alone, might well make the situation seem unfair. But then, the woman's
> health is at stake, not the man's; that point, I suspect, tends to balance
> out the seeming disparity here.
I too am a great believer in responsibility. But responsibility
is a two-way street. Like you, I don't believe the man should
have any right to walk away from what they willingly did that
created the situation in which a child could result. But I don't
agree that the woman should either, on the basis that she simply
"wants" to. Now if her health really is at stake, that should be
something the doctor's can determine before performing a medical
procedure. But if she just doesn't want to deal with a child,
shouldn't she have thought of that beforehand as well?
>
> I note that as I understand the process, the man is not paying "child
> support" to the woman. The man is paying child support to the child he
> helped create; the woman is generally seen as the trustee for the child in
> such cases (whether this money actually goes to the child in practice is
> another debate).
>
> Nonetheless, I'm open to changing my mind on this issue, as I should hope to
> be on any issue - should sufficient evidence be presented to convince me.
> I've set forth my arguments, and in my last post countered those I'd seen on
> the newsgroup so far; to change my mind on this subject, I'd need a bit more
> than, "if she could stop it but didn't, it's all hers henceforward." That's
> a bit simplistic for such a complex issue, I feel.
>
> > Well, (to adapt one of the old feminist slogans) if women ever
> >had to pay men 18+ years of "child support," then universal
> >reproductive choice would be a sacrament. If -- and it is a big "if"
> >-- post-conception reproductive choice is a constitutional right for
> >women, then it should also be such for men.
>
> Er, a man should have the right to tell a woman to get an operation she
> doesn't want; or else she has to accept sole responsibility for any children
> she may bear? This seems... rather unfair to me, yes. That "and it is a
> big if" makes me wonder whether this isn't a backwards way of saying that
> abortion should be outlawed, so that men can't claim that women had the
> choice? If women would be giving up abortions to "trap" men into supporting
> their pregnancies, seems to me that both men and women lose out.
>
> Incidentally, surprising though it may seem, child support does go both
> ways. There are women paying child support out there - sometimes even
> court-ordered. It's simply that the unfairness of the "nurturing" myth
> assigns women the role of caregivers, men the role of supporters from afar -
> and thus, all too frequently, go the courts.
>
> > But, there again, there's little point in arguments --
> >long-winded or not -- in favor of, or against, the status quo. It
> >exists for the crudest of political reasons: the disparity in
> >political power between men and women when the interests of the two
> >sexes are in conflict. As Warren Farrell says, in the battle of the
> >sexes, only one side showed up.
>
> I apologize for being long-winded. It's a combination love of the language
> and a desire to set everything out in detail, the better not to be
> misunderstood. If, however, there's no point in arguements, then whyever do
> we argue? I think there *is* a point; in discussion and debate, we may yet
> reach a level of understanding that allows us to move to fairer laws for
> *everyone*.
>
> It's odd that you should mention "the disparity of political power."
> Indeed, I pointed out one instance (primary custody) where women are given
> an advantage due to social stereotypes, but as a female physicist, let me
> assure you there are plenty of others where the prevailing winds of politics
> blow women backwards towards the Middle Ages. One keeps going regardless,
> and hopes progress will be made.
>
> If only one side showed up in the battle of the sexes, how can there be a
> victory? Who would they have to defeat? Seems t'me all they could do is
> shout "We won!" and go home. If there's a fight going on, there's got to be
> two sides to it.
>
> > When the disparity between the sexes in political power
> >disappears, the situation will change. So long as the present
> >disparity continues, the situation will continue.
>
> I suspect that were this detailed, we'd have a definite disagreement as to
> which direction the disparity points. Fer instance, I still think it's
> significant that a substantial majority of lawmakers, law-enforcers, judges,
> and so forth are men... if you tell me that all these men are biased in
> favor of woman I'll just have to demand evidence, because it seems contrary
> to common sense as *I* define it.
>
> > Logic or principle
> >have nothing to do with what happens.
>
> Whoa, there. Logic and principle are, I agree, too often absent from
> lawmakers' decisions; but it's logic and principle that makes many of us
> brave the wilds of Internet flammage in order to try to reach an
> understanding that will approach greater levels of fairness for all.
>
> For instance! If birth control were more widely available, effective, and
> *used*, none of these thorny questions about children unwanted by one parent
> or the other would even arise. (And many fewer abortions, too!) Therefore,
> can we not agree that birth control should be a high priority for both men
> and women - even encouraged on the national level? After all, some forms of
> it even help guard against sexually transmitted diseases! Perhaps we could
> wrap up the problem by taking a step back and attacking the matter before it
> ever came to a pregnancy.
>
> Something to consider, perhaps?
>
> The ever-considerate, ever-argumentative, and terribly long-winded,
Char
week equate to part time? That is generally a full time position.
I spent 5 years in a 35 hour per week salaried job. That doesn't
mean I worked 35 hours per week. From 7 am to 7 pm, which is what
I generally worked, it came to just a "hair" over 35. But I was
still only paid for 35. That's what "salary" is all about.
Rosa Williams wrote:
>
> OK, now we hit the point. Anyone got some numbers we can throw at
> this thing? How many single mothers work? For how many hours per
> week? (Um, most fulltimers do 40/week. 35/week is still 7/day, a rather
> respectable chunk of time).
alic...@my-deja.com
> Women have no more right to control the body of another person than
> men do.
After conception a woman controls a man's body. If the man and woman
engage in the activity consensually, if the woman commits fraud,
if the woman actually rapes the male and sometimes even if the
child is not actually the man's in question the woman is granted legal
control over the male's body. He is now obligated to work for her for
18 years and turn over the result of that labor to her (aka slavery).
If you actually think that they both have the same amount of control
please provide an example of how a man is given control over a woman's
body after engaging in a consensual activity. Please provide an
example of how a man can gain control of a woman's body as a result of
a man committing a fraud on that woman. Please explain how a man can
gain legal control of a woman's body after the man rapes her.
> Pat Winstanley
O'Reilly Enright
If the liberals are teaching any civics lesson, it is that power is what
matters, including the power to force people to keep their thoughts to
themselves, if those thoughts do not conform to the liberal vision.
-Thomas Sowell
rpayner
"Ted W." wrote:
>
> "Kenneth S." wrote:
>
> > The long message below finally reaches a bottom line: Rosa
> > Williams personally likes the status quo in regard to post-conception
> > reproductive choice -- i.e. that women have it, but men don't. She
> > thinks the status quo is "fair." She thinks it's OK that a man should
> > be forced to pay 18+ years of "child support" to a woman who made a
> > unilateral choice to let a pregnancy proceed to childbirth.
>
> > Well, (to adapt one of the old feminist slogans) if women ever
> > had to pay men 18+ years of "child support," then universal
> > reproductive choice would be a sacrament. If -- and it is a big "if"
> > -- post-conception reproductive choice is a constitutional right for
> > women, then it should also be such for men.
>
> Feminists haven't always been this selfish. Back during the times
> of the Serpico case, the feminist position supported equality for
> men. It is in the most recent two decades that feminism has adopted
> advocacy of superior rights for women.
I disagree, it's the same women in power and I don't think that their
advocacy of hate for men has ever changed. Some of the old leaders have
dropped out of the movement and none protest the modern feminist sexism
and it's goals and ideals.
Gloria Steinem stated it clearly long ago when she said "feminism has to
hurt men" and feminism has always tried to do exactly that.
Rich
Kenneth S.
wrote:
>
>
>"Kenneth S." wrote:
>
>> The long message below finally reaches a bottom line: Rosa
>> Williams personally likes the status quo in regard to post-conception
>> reproductive choice -- i.e. that women have it, but men don't. She
>> thinks the status quo is "fair." She thinks it's OK that a man should
>> be forced to pay 18+ years of "child support" to a woman who made a
>> unilateral choice to let a pregnancy proceed to childbirth.
>
>> Well, (to adapt one of the old feminist slogans) if women ever
>> had to pay men 18+ years of "child support," then universal
>> reproductive choice would be a sacrament. If -- and it is a big "if"
>> -- post-conception reproductive choice is a constitutional right for
>> women, then it should also be such for men.
>
>Feminists haven't always been this selfish. Back during the times
>of the Serpico case, the feminist position supported equality for
>men. It is in the most recent two decades that feminism has adopted
>advocacy of superior rights for women.
>
Yes, that's my perception also. I think the reasons for the
change probably are to be found in two things:
(1) nearly all of the reasonable feminist goals have been reached, the
moderates have dropped out of the movement, and those remaining are
the extremists, whose entire lives and incomes are linked to the war
against men; and
(2) increasingly, feminist organizations (notably the National
Organization for Women) have been taken over by lesbians, who have no
interest in family issues or in maintaining workable relationships
with heterosexual men.
In_Nomine
complains about being forced into parenthood, he is always rebutted with "he
has the choice not to have sex." yet this same logical line of thinking
somehow does not apply to the womens case. why is that? why is it assumed
that a man's decision to have sex is a de facto admission of parental
responsibility, when a woman decision to have sex is just a decision to have
sex?
In_Nomine
There are two types of fools in the world...
The first says, "This is old, therefore it is good"
The second says, "This is new, therefore it is better."
"One who fires a bullet into the air can never be sure of where it may
land."
Sky King wrote in message ...
>In article <37F3E8B0...@home.something.com>,
>rpa...@home.something.com says...
>>
>>
>> Pat Winstanley wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:51:27 GMT, Rich <rpa...@home.something.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Pat Winstanley wrote:
>> > >
>> > >[]
>> > >
>> > >> Since there is NO risk to the man's health from her being pregnant,
>> > >> what is the problem?
>> > >
>> > >There may be no risk from the pregnancy, but there are often risks
>> > >from the law, relatives, etc...
>> >
>> > Which is nothing to do with the pregnancy.
>>
>> How do you figure? Men have been locked up when their wives get
>> pregnant because it is legally statutory rape. It has everything
>> to do with the pregnancy and nothing else.
>>
>> > >> Since therte is NO risk to the man's health after the pregnancy ends
>> > >> that she does not also risk, what is the problem?
>> > >
Ted W.
rpayner wrote:
> "Ted W." wrote:
> > Feminists haven't always been this selfish. Back during the times
> > of the Serpico case, the feminist position supported equality for
> > men. It is in the most recent two decades that feminism has adopted
> > advocacy of superior rights for women.
> I disagree, it's the same women in power and I don't think that their
> advocacy of hate for men has ever changed. Some of the old leaders have
> dropped out of the movement and none protest the modern feminist sexism
> and it's goals and ideals.
> Gloria Steinem stated it clearly long ago when she said "feminism has to
> hurt men" and feminism has always tried to do exactly that.
My reference to the Serpico case was specific. The former
director of NOW is Karen DeCrow, and she remains a supporter of
male choice.
NOW has changed since her time.
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/11.14.96/cover/dads-9646.html
One of Serpico's lawyers at the time was Karen DeCrow, a
former director of the National Organization for Women. At the
time, DeCrow told the court that "autonomous women making
independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to
finance their choice." DeCrow still feels this way. A leading if
iconoclastic feminist, she is a whole-hearted supporter of Choice
for Men. "Because of Roe vs. Wade, women have the right to
choose to be parents. Men, too, should have that right."
Kavking
>Minor point, but important to me: I didn't write what is here attributed to
>me. In fact, I disagree with it. (I simply doubt that anyone who didn't
>bother with birth control will have the presence of mind to do anything
>involving a "pre-intercourse agreement".)
>
>The misquoted,
>--April
>
My apologies.
But I don't see what birth control has to do with "pre-intercourse agreements"
Birth control is not 100% effective, even people who have had vasectomy or
tubal ligation still have a chance of conceiving.
People who do use birth control should still know that pregnancy could result,
and it is better to know what they intend to do about it before the pregnancy
happens.
rpayner
Kavking wrote:
[]
> My apologies.
> But I don't see what birth control has to do with "pre-intercourse agreements"
> Birth control is not 100% effective, even people who have had vasectomy or
> tubal ligation still have a chance of conceiving.
> People who do use birth control should still know that pregnancy could result,
> and it is better to know what they intend to do about it before the pregnancy
> happens.
But you *cannot* know, nothing the woman says is binding in any
way, she can lie, commit contraceptive fraud, change her mind,
there is no point in talking to a woman about this as her word
is worth absolutely nothing.
> K
Rich
ANDRAS
bitstream which decodes to...
Oh, I guess her word worth as much as William Jefferson Clinton's word.
Andras
----
"Truth does not penetrate the preoccupied mind" - Ch. Darwin
Tom Campbell
to be able to discuss this topic without insults. Why, not once has
the size or presence of my genitals been mentioned, nor have you
speculated on the species of my father.
This is a tough issue. Because only women can become pregnant, there
is no way that we can make things truly "equal". The laws and
standards that we have today were developed years ago when society was
different, and I think it not unreasonable to ask if they are
appropriate in today's world of multiple partner recreational sex.
In most of the debate the welfare of children isn't mentioned. Now,
this should be everyone's concern, because someday the people who are
making the cars and raising the food and flying the planes and doing
the surgeries will be today's children grown up. All of us have an
interest in their welfare, whether we know it or not. A system that
provides for these children by extracting money from unlucky adult
males doesn't seem to me to be a reliable way to provide for them. We
ought to be able to do better.
I have no problem with the caveats you list, except that I think it not
unreasonable to ask the male parent to cover all of the abortion costs,
if that is what the woman chooses to do. After all, she has the
additional burden of having to go through the abortion. And when a man
and a woman are married, it should be clear that marriage implies an
intent to have children with two parents (unless, of course, one of
them really isn't the parent, but that's a side issue). For a man,
once he's signed on to parenthood there should be no signing off.
I look forward to reading your posts in the future.
Tom Campbell
Autumn
In regards to one woman and one man voluntarily deciding to having
sex, both began on EQUAL footing in regards to the consequences. The
man has as much power, as much control and as much say so, as the
woman does to avoid these unwanted consequences. BOTH have the CHOICE
of:
1. Not having sex. Therefore no unwanted consequences.
2. "BOTH" have the ABILITY to take individual responsibility for
prevention of any unwanted consequences of the sex act.
3. "EACH" has the CHOICE of ensuring to "their individual
satisfaction" that the other has taken the appropriate precautions
before placing themselves at risk.
4. EACH have the choice if they feel the other will not or has not
taken individual responsiblity, of saying, NO WAY. I don't have
UNPROTECTED sex.
5. BOTH must realize if #2 and #3 are followed, there still is a very
slight chance of an unwanted consequence. And both must accept
responsiblity if such happens.
Sex is a MUTUAL, and at the same time an INDIVIDUAL choice. MEN and
WOMEN both have responsibilities to ensure that this choice is as safe
and consequence free as possible. Yet, if both choose to continue,
even knowing the risk, both are equally responsible for the outcome.
One can rant and rave, over and over about the choices a woman has
AFTER. But the fact remains, BOTH had the CHOICE in creating such a
situation BEFORE.
In the area of PREVENTION, Men and Women are EQUAL. If you don't want
the consequences, take the steps to prevent them. If you choose to
take the risk, accept the consequences and the responsiblity of those
consequences.
Again, INDIVIDUAL responsibility. It works for men and women both.
And while the sex act is mutual, the choice to participate is
individual.
April, sorry I attached this only to your post, it is intended as a
reply to yours and to others who have replied to your original post.
Autumn
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:54:11 -0400, "Rosa Williams"
<jwa...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Alt.feminism's old-timers may remember me from way back in the days when we
>laughed at AOL rather than WebTV. Not much has changed, really; 80% of the
>postings are still insult-flinging back and forth. This can be amusing to
>watch, but by and large the witticisms aren't that clever. So why not throw
>my two cents back into the discussion with a guaranteed insult-free post?
>(This is presuming no one sees the words "men" and "women" as insults, but I
>think I'm on decently safe ground here. I also hasten to assure all AOLers
>and WebTVers that no personal affront was intended.)
>
>Well now. The question that currently seems to be drawing the most debate is
>the degree of responsibility for a pregnancy and subsequent offspring, as
>divided between the genetic parents of said offspring. I'm hardly going to
>attempt to present a solution to the horrendously complex set of issues
>involved; I merely want to restate the problem coherently, with a few
>opinions thrown in.
>
>Let us, then, take up the problem from the beginning: sex. If no one had
>sex, we wouldn't have any of these problems - or any problems, for that
>matter. The whole thing begins when a man and a woman have sex together. In
>most cases (I presume) this sex is voluntary on the part of both parties.
>Both parties know that sex entails certain possibilities: (a) venerial
>disease, (b) pregnancy, (c) a whoppin' good time. It is unfortunate but
>true that many ignore (a) and (b) in their concentration on (c). However,
>if both partners are willing and of sound mind, they know the risks of
>ignoring (a) and (b) and bear equal responsibility for the consequences. If
>it's (b) for baby, at this juncture they would bear equal responsibility to
>deal with the resulting pregnancy. That includes an equal share of the
>woman's medical bills, which were incurred by this joint act. The man
>cannot, of course, share in the medical *risks*... the woman's got to live
>with that part on her own. Many men, knowing this, put in extra effort to
>see to their female partner's health and comfort, and bless 'em for it.
>
>In a world where there was no abortion, the next nine months would merely be
>a waiting period while the fetus develops. At the end of this, barring
>unavoidable medical complications, a baby would result. We would then
>presume both parents to have equal responsibility for its care and support.
>How they would divide that care and support is up to them - whether it's the
>woman who gives the care and the man the support, whether the roles are
>reversed, whether each gives 50/50... that's up to them. In cases of
>argument, the courts might have to settle for the child's best welfare.
>This is the case even when the parents separate; both still owe some
>proportion of care and support to the child. Both in turn are owed the
>chance to give it, unless they forfeit that right voluntarily or by
>ill-treatment of the child - though in either case they still have the
>responsibility.
>
>(Note: I happen to count myself both a feminist and a men's rights
>supporter. As a result of *both*, I think it's hideously unfair when courts,
>ab inito, decide that the mother's care is best for a child simply because
>she's female. They attach some mystical (and mythical) "nurturing" ability
>to the mother, apparently God-given to the entire gender. I've seen enough
>poor motherhood to count that as a myth. There are good mothers, good
>fathers, bad mothers, and bad fathers; gender is a lousy predictor of
>parental ability. Sez me.)
>
>Enter that nasty, tricksome question of abortion. If abortion is
>available, some cry, women have an unfair advantage. They can take back that
>moment of inattention, say "no, I don't want a child after all", and thus
>abrogate their future part (and the father's part) in the care of what would
>have become a child. How does this affect the question of mutual
>responsibilities?
>
>Some say, once a woman decides to bear a child rather than abort it, it
>becomes *her* child. She and her male partner may choose to mutually
>*assume* responsibility for the baby, in which case both are obligated as
>above. But since *she* made the choice, her male partner should have the
>chance to opt out - providing no support, and having no rights in the child
>either. (Note: a logical consequence of this argument is that the woman
>would have the right to deny parentage to the father even if he *wanted* the
>responsibility. I think most of us would find that unacceptable.)
>
>Others say that the choice of having abortion available changes none of the
>responsibility. That, having taken the initial action (sex!) that resulted
>in the pregnancy, knowing that (even if birth control were used) pregnancy
>was a possibility, the man still bears his half of the responsibility for
>the fetus. If the fetus is carried to term, he has a responsibility for the
>child, even if the mother could have induced an artificial miscarraige had
>she chosen.
>
>There is the problem, restated in broad terms.
>
>What do I think? Well. First, I'd like to point out that abortion is not a
>simple affair. There are medical risks to it, as there are to pregnancy.
>The woman is already shouldering an unfair portion of the burden, even if
>the man paid all the financial costs... her body, health and life are on the
>line. Given that fact, it hardly seems unreasonable to ask the man to put
>his wallet on the line, should she choose not to undergo the abortion
>procedure.
>
>Second, as pointed out above, it took a woman and a man to get the ball
>rolling. (No innuendo intended.) The woman's the only one who has the
>choice of pushing it off-course once it gets going, and that entails
>physical risk and emotional turmoil. Do we then say the man has every right
>to turn to her and say, "well, it's your problem now" and walk off? I
>personally think that *that* would be grossly unfair.
>
>Third, where does that leave the man who *wants* a part in the child he
>helped engender? If birth is the woman's sole responsibility, how will he
>argue that he should have a say in the child's future? That doesn't seem
>fair to all those unwed or separated fathers out there. A man's child isn't
>his *only if* the woman deigns to give him a part... therefore, however, the
>responsibility isn't his *only if* he chooses to take it.
>
>Suppose a man and a woman mix their genetic material in a test tube and have
>the resulting blastula or whatever 'tis implanted in the woman's womb. They
>agree that she shall have the sole say in whether to go ahead with the
>procedure - she can back out anytime. At the end of this, she produces a
>healthy baby. There is much rejoicing. And then the man says, "I want no
>part of it. I have no responsibility. You could have backed out at any
>time." Does that sound fair *at all*? And wherein lies the moral difference
>between this mixing in test tubes, and a mixing in fallopian tubes, when
>both, it is well known, may result in a fetus? It's only a matter of the
>relative probabilities. If both knew the risks and went ahead, then both
>bear the responsibility if the dice come down "baby needs a new pair of
>shoes."
>
>No dice,
>--April
>
>
>
Jamesetta Davis
<In_N...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> One thing that I notice consistently in these arguments, is that when a man
> complains about being forced into parenthood, he is always rebutted with "he
> has the choice not to have sex." yet this same logical line of thinking
> somehow does not apply to the womens case. why is that? why is it assumed
> that a man's decision to have sex is a de facto admission of parental
> responsibility, when a woman decision to have sex is just a decision to have
> sex?
I have wondered this exact same thing, and have never gotten a straight
answer. I guess it is because men are men, and women are unaccountable.
Tom Campbell
this discussion, because the issue that is being discussed is what
happens after sex results in an unwanted pregnancy, not before. You
are heading in the direction of an argument that could be used to deny
women abortion rights, since the woman could be held to the same level
of responsibility for her actions as her male partner, i.e., the
responsibility of providing for a child she may not desire to have.
Autumn
wrote:
>No disagreement with what you say, but your point isn't relevant to
>this discussion, because the issue that is being discussed is what
>happens after sex results in an unwanted pregnancy, not before.
Let's see....This was the initial question:
>The question that currently seems to be drawing the most debate is
>the degree of responsibility for a pregnancy and subsequent offspring, as
>divided between the genetic parents of said offspring.
The degree of responsibility FOR a pregnancy AND ........ after, as
you see above.
My point is, the time to think about WHO is responsible is BEFORE not
AFTER. At that time (before) "Both" have EQUAL responsibilitity
and ability to prevent the pregnancy (after). As such both are
equally responsible for the pregnancy and all it entails.
>You
>are heading in the direction of an argument that could be used to deny
>women abortion rights, since the woman could be held to the same level
>of responsibility for her actions as her male partner, i.e., the
>responsibility of providing for a child she may not desire to have.
Yes, a women should be held to the same level of responsibility for
her actions as her male partner. However, responding to the remainder
of this statement get's into abortion issues pros/cons/rights/wrongs,
etc which are not part of the original post, and therefore, not
relevant to this post. So to avoid a change of topic, I will stop
here.
Autumn
>
>Tom Campbell
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Tom Campbell
> >No disagreement with what you say, but your point isn't relevant to
> >this discussion, because the issue that is being discussed is what
> >happens after sex results in an unwanted pregnancy, not before.
>
> Let's see....This was the initial question:
>
> >the degree of responsibility for a pregnancy and subsequent
offspring, as
> >divided between the genetic parents of said offspring.
Seems to me the question is what to do about pregnancy and the
potential offspring. That is an issue about a situation that happens
after sex, not before (or not even during).
> The degree of responsibility FOR a pregnancy AND ........ after, as
> you see above.
>
> My point is, the time to think about WHO is responsible is BEFORE not
> AFTER. At that time (before) "Both" have EQUAL responsibilitity
> and ability to prevent the pregnancy (after). As such both are
> equally responsible for the pregnancy and all it entails.
>
> >You
> >are heading in the direction of an argument that could be used to
deny
> >women abortion rights, since the woman could be held to the same
level
> >of responsibility for her actions as her male partner, i.e., the
> >responsibility of providing for a child she may not desire to have.
>
> Yes, a women should be held to the same level of responsibility for
> her actions as her male partner.
What does this mean? That she too should be forced to provide support
for a child that she doesn't want? You'd have to limit her right to
abortion on demand, and allow abortions only to protect the health of
the mother. Abortions done for those reasons are a small fractions of
the abortions that are done.
> However, responding to the remainder
> of this statement get's into abortion issues pros/cons/rights/wrongs,
> etc which are not part of the original post, and therefore, not
> relevant to this post. So to avoid a change of topic, I will stop
> here.
You've missed the point entirely if you think that abortion rights
aren't relevant to this discussion. If it weren't for the right of
C4W, there'd be no argument in favor of C4M.
May I offer an analogy? A man and a woman are in an airplane. Both
decide that it would be fun to jump out. Two people, same plane, same
altitude, same thrill. So they jump. The woman, though, has a
parachute, and the man does not. She can decide to open it, or not.
Now, back up on the plane, are they both in an equal situation? The
man is a fool to jump; for the woman, it's just a bit of fun.
The point is that a woman can have an abortion solely for the purpose
of avoiding a future financial and social responsibility. That is
exactly what the father may want to avoid. For each, the result they
want, and their rationale for wanting it, may be exactly the same; it
is only the mechanics of executing their choices that are different.
The woman achieves her choice through abortion. The man...well, at
present, he has no way to achieve his choice, because he has none that
is equivalent to hers.
rpayner
Bob Baker wrote:
>
> In article <37F4D254...@home.com>, rpayner <rpa...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Kavking wrote:
> >
> >[]
> >
> >> My apologies.
> >> But I don't see what birth control has to do with "pre-intercourse
> > agreements"
> >> Birth control is not 100% effective, even people who have had vasectomy or
> >> tubal ligation still have a chance of conceiving.
> >> People who do use birth control should still know that pregnancy could
> > result,
> >> and it is better to know what they intend to do about it before the pregnancy
> >> happens.
> >
> >But you *cannot* know, nothing the woman says is binding in any
> >way, she can lie, commit contraceptive fraud, change her mind,
> >there is no point in talking to a woman about this as her word
> >is worth absolutely nothing.
>
> Then laws should change to make women responsible in the events of fraud
> and deception.
Bob, she can commit rape and still collect CS. There is no sexual
crime a women cannot commit and profit from.
So it's really stupid to say that the man has done something wrong,
he can do no right and she can do no wrong.
> B. Baker
Rich
craz...@my-deja.com
aborsionest air gonna like that
Bob Baker
>
>
>Kavking wrote:
>
>[]
>
>> My apologies.
>> But I don't see what birth control has to do with "pre-intercourse
> agreements"
>> Birth control is not 100% effective, even people who have had vasectomy or
>> tubal ligation still have a chance of conceiving.
>> People who do use birth control should still know that pregnancy could
> result,
>> and it is better to know what they intend to do about it before the pregnancy
>> happens.
>
>But you *cannot* know, nothing the woman says is binding in any
>way, she can lie, commit contraceptive fraud, change her mind,
>there is no point in talking to a woman about this as her word
>is worth absolutely nothing.
Then laws should change to make women responsible in the events of fraud
and deception.
B. Baker
..We've taken care of everything,
the words you read--the songs you sing,
the pictures that give pleasure to your eye ...
Look around this world we've made,
equality our stock and trade,
You never have to wonder how or why ...
2112
Gerry Harbison
Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> Since therte is NO risk to the man's health after the pregnancy ends
> that she does not also risk, what is the problem?
The fact that she also risks it is irrelevant. Her risk could be avoided
by her. If you decide to chop your own finger off, that does not
entitle you to chop off mine.
Bob Baker
>
>
>Bob Baker wrote:
>>
>> In article <37F4D254...@home.com>, rpayner <rpa...@home.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Kavking wrote:
>> >
>> >[]
>> >
>> >> My apologies.
>> >> But I don't see what birth control has to do with "pre-intercourse
>> > agreements"
>> >> Birth control is not 100% effective, even people who have had vasectomy or
>> >> tubal ligation still have a chance of conceiving.
>> >> People who do use birth control should still know that pregnancy could
>> > result,
>> >> and it is better to know what they intend to do about it before the
> pregnancy
>> >> happens.
>> >
>> >But you *cannot* know, nothing the woman says is binding in any
>> >way, she can lie, commit contraceptive fraud, change her mind,
>> >there is no point in talking to a woman about this as her word
>> >is worth absolutely nothing.
>>
>> Then laws should change to make women responsible in the events of fraud
>> and deception.
>
>crime a women cannot commit and profit from.
I know, I read the cases at www.supportguidelines.com ... it's a very sad
state of affairs. The problem is that even if the laws changed, the SC
would probably throw the new ones out :(
>
>So it's really stupid to say that the man has done something wrong,
>he can do no right and she can do no wrong.
Not always but often.
B. Baker
(.sig removed)
Autumn
wrote:
>
>> >No disagreement with what you say, but your point isn't relevant to
>> >this discussion, because the issue that is being discussed is what
>> >happens after sex results in an unwanted pregnancy, not before.
>>
>> Let's see....This was the initial question:
>>
>> >The question that currently seems to be drawing the most debate is
>> >the degree of responsibility for a pregnancy and subsequent
>offspring, as
>> >divided between the genetic parents of said offspring.
>
>Seems to me the question is what to do about pregnancy and the
>potential offspring. That is an issue about a situation that happens
>after sex, not before (or not even during).
I read the issue differently. Responsibility for the situation as a
whole. Not saying you're wrong, or I. I guess only April can answer
that since she posted the question.
>
>> The degree of responsibility FOR a pregnancy AND ........ after, as
>> you see above.
>>
>> My point is, the time to think about WHO is responsible is BEFORE not
>> AFTER. At that time (before) "Both" have EQUAL responsibilitity
>> and ability to prevent the pregnancy (after). As such both are
>> equally responsible for the pregnancy and all it entails.
>>
>> >You
>> >are heading in the direction of an argument that could be used to
>deny
>> >women abortion rights, since the woman could be held to the same
>level
>> >of responsibility for her actions as her male partner, i.e., the
>> >responsibility of providing for a child she may not desire to have.
>>
>> Yes, a women should be held to the same level of responsibility for
>> her actions as her male partner.
>
>What does this mean? That she too should be forced to provide support
>for a child that she doesn't want?
Yes.
>You'd have to limit her right to
>abortion on demand, and allow abortions only to protect the health of
>the mother.
Even though I'm pro choice, I do believe the father has rights too.
And the standards should be equal for both mother's and father's. If
the father wanted the child, that she wanted to abort, I think the
abortion should be deemed illegal (or undoable or whatever). And
yes, she should pay support, and yes, he should have custody of the
child.
>Abortions done for those reasons are a small fractions of
>the abortions that are done.
>
You don't know that any more than I do. However, in guessing, I'm
with you.
>> However, responding to the remainder
>> of this statement get's into abortion issues pros/cons/rights/wrongs,
>> etc which are not part of the original post, and therefore, not
>> relevant to this post. So to avoid a change of topic, I will stop
>> here.
>
>You've missed the point entirely if you think that abortion rights
>aren't relevant to this discussion. If it weren't for the right of
>C4W, there'd be no argument in favor of C4M.
I'm sorry, I'm uninformed as to what C4W is and what it stands for.
I'm not begging off, but would appreciate more info on this perhaps
with references to unbiased literature I can read concerning this. I
do not like to submit opinions on something of which I know nothing
about. Ignorance is not always bliss.
>
>May I offer an analogy? A man and a woman are in an airplane. Both
>decide that it would be fun to jump out. Two people, same plane, same
>altitude, same thrill. So they jump. The woman, though, has a
>parachute, and the man does not. She can decide to open it, or not.
>Now, back up on the plane, are they both in an equal situation? The
>man is a fool to jump; for the woman, it's just a bit of fun.
Damn, can't even use the comparing apples and oranges bit here.
Well, maybe a bit, the end result here is death. The end result of
the other is not. But for all intents and purposes, yes, I do
understand your analogy. Again though, back to my original post on
this, NEITHER party, be it male or be it female, should be entering
this arena uninformed, or unarmed. Be it sex and the possiblity of
pregnancy or be it skydiving and the possiblity of death.
>
>The point is that a woman can have an abortion solely for the purpose
>of avoiding a future financial and social responsibility.
I'd bet almost anything, that this is rarely the case. I will not
deny that it happens often enough to cause suspect though.
>That is
>exactly what the father may want to avoid. For each, the result they
>want, and their rationale for wanting it, may be exactly the same; it
>is only the mechanics of executing their choices that are different.
>The woman achieves her choice through abortion.
Many time because of the choice of the man. NOW not everytime, but I
can only base it on personal experiences.
The man...well, at
>present, he has no way to achieve his choice, because he has none that
>is equivalent to hers.
Again, he has a choice to have sex responsiblity, or to not have sex.
That choice exists no matter the ill's of women. Same in reverse
applies also.
>
>Tom Campbell
Stewart/sna
squi...@echelon.alias.net (GoodbyeEarl) wrote:
>The problem is that there are too many bastard men in this newsgroup.
>Let's discuss houw to get rid of them.
It's always the same newsgroups with you. Why don't you try adding
something interesting, like japan.binaries.pictures.erotica.loose-socks or
alt.stupid.idiots
Sincerely
Stewart
--
The Metaphor Man *and* The Great Defender of the Self
metaphor...@usaor.net or anon...@anon.twwells.com
(remove the SPAMBLOCK)
Please send me an e-mail copy of your posted response.
ANDRAS
s5.eth.pgh.pa.stargate.net>, metaphor...@usaor.net broadcasted a
bitstream which decodes to...
>
> >The problem is that there are too many bastard men in this newsgroup.
> >Let's discuss houw to get rid of them.
>
>
> It's always the same newsgroups with you. Why don't you try adding
> something interesting, like japan.binaries.pictures.erotica.loose-socks or
> alt.stupid.idiots
Hey, don't knock japan.binaries.pictures.erotica.loose-socks before you
try it! :-)
Mark Jebens
-0000:
> Shawn Larsen <shawn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:37F42E04...@earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > Pat Winstanley wrote:
> >
> > > Since there is NO risk to the man's health from her being pregnant,
> > > what is the problem?
> >
> > This isn't true. There is a risk to his mental and emotional health,
> > knowing that he may be a father. In the United States, the risk to
> > a pregnant woman's mental and emotional is deemed so important,
> > that she is allowed to have a hole drilled in the skull of a viable
> > fetus/child and have it's brains sucked out.
> WHAT??? WHERE did you come up with THIS one???
For some reason, I doubt that Shawn came up with the
concept of partial birth abortion.
> Shouldn't a mans
> > mental and emotional health be considered just as important.
> >
> > > Since therte is NO risk to the man's health after the pregnancy ends
> > > that she does not also risk, what is the problem?
> >
> > This isn't true. His risks are over 10 times greater than hers (at least
> > in the United States). Nonetheless, she was the one who elected to
> > accept these risks, as opposed to having a less risky abortion.
--
Mark Jebens
Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)
El Coyote
Snipping the verbosity...
> analog <|ana...@ieee.org|> wrote:
...
>>First off, my comments regarding c4m only apply to situations where no pre-
>>existing social framework for rearing children is in place (you know, like
>>common law marriage, traditional marriage, or other formal contract).
>
>That (imo) is the only place where c4m should be an option.
...
>Here is the problem though. This choice (statement of intentions)
>should be made pre-intercourse rather than post-conception.
....
I would think that having sex in " situations where no pre-existing
social framework for rearing children is in place (you know, like
common law marriage, traditional marriage, or other formal contract)"
should be a sufficient "statement of intentions."
Tami
Tom Campbell <camp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7t2rtn$8ul$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
man should have the right to sign off his parental responsibilities. Take
the case of a woman who has an affair, becomes pregnant from it yet tells
the husband HE is the father. In those cases I think either the father
should have the right to terminate all his parental responsibilities once he
proves through DNA testing the child is not his, or he should automatically
be given full custody of the child. Personally, I do not like the idea of
people who think marriage is so frivolous that having an affair is
acceptable raising children.
Before anyone screams about the man being able to terminate his rights as
punishment to the child, if that was to happen, nothing is stopping the
women from naming the REAL father and collecting child support from him.
analog
El Coyote, Bob Baker, analog wrote:
...
>>> First off, my comments regarding c4m only apply to situations where no pre-
>>> existing social framework for rearing children is in place (you know, like
>>> common law marriage, traditional marriage, or other formal contract).
>>
>> That (imo) is the only place where c4m should be an option.
> ...
>
>> Here is the problem though. This choice (statement of intentions)
>> should be made pre-intercourse rather than post-conception.
> ....
>
> I would think that having sex in " situations where no pre-existing
> social framework for rearing children is in place (you know, like
> common law marriage, traditional marriage, or other formal contract)"
> should be a sufficient "statement of intentions."
Ya think? ;^D
Thank you. -- analog
--
to reply to email remove | | from |ana...@ieee.org|
Pete
GoodbyeEarl wrote in message
<250b7d92e863bf8f...@anonymous.poster>...
>The problem is that there are too many bastard men in this newsgroup.
>Let's discuss houw to get rid of them.
>
>
Bastard men?
Is it *my* fault my parents didn't get married before they had me?
Pete
Tom Campbell
If you believe that abortion should be available to women only for
health reasons, and if that were the system we had, then I would also
oppose C4M. In other words, I believe that after pregnancy has
occured, we should either allow both parents to opt out of parental
responsibility (for her, through abortion or adoption, for him, through
adoption only), or we should allow neither that choice. By the way,
C4M is a man giving up his parental rights and responsibilities in
exactly the same was as he would do in a more traditional adoption,
only that he gives up his rights to the mother. She could do the same
and give up her rights and responsibilities to him, and if both wanted
to opt out, a third party adoption could occur.
I know a lot about abortions that are done for medical reasons. They
are extremely few. Women who have the type of health problems that
make pregnancy dangerous seldom get pregnant accidentally. When they
do get pregnant it is usually on purpose and with a strong desire to
have a child despite the risks. These are brave women who risk their
lives to procreate. The public hears little about them, but I see them
from time to time, and they inspire me to think that there is hope for
humanity afterall.
But back to my point about the reason women get abortion. Remember
Monica Lewinski? After her fling with Clinton she became pregnant by a
boyfriend and had an abortion. What reason do you think she had?
I'll offer you another example to make my point, one that I've posted
before. A 20 year old male college student goes out with a 20 year old
female college student. Both are midway throught their studies, and
both intend to go to medical school to become physicians. They have
sex; the condom breaks; she becomes pregnant. Sex was consentual,
or, to make my point stronger, let's say that sex was her idea, and
that she planned to have sex with him before their date. It was her
condom. Neither wants to marry.
Got the scenario? Okay. Now look at the options available to these
two. For her: She can get an abortion and continue her studies
uninterupted. She can continue her pregnancy, not tell the father of
the child, give it up for adoption, and then continue her studies. Or
she can have the child and keep it, deciding that she will abandon her
studies and give up on her dream to be a doctor so that she can support
and raise her child (along with help from the father).
And the choices for him? There are no choices for him. What happens
to him depends on what she decides. If she decides not to raise a
child, he is "off the hook", so to speak. But if she decides to have,
keep and raise the child, he can be forced to quit school and get a job
to pay child support. In other words, the woman has the power to
determine the future for both of them.
It will take some pretty good arguments to convince me that this
situation is one of equal choice for men and for women.
Bob Baker
Well, I beg to differ a little. As long as some women have the choice for
abortion 'after' the conception occurs, there should be some mechanism in
place for the man to 'opt out' prior to the activity without having to
choose abstinance ... If she can lower her risks by using abortion as a BC
method, then he should have a similar (though not absolutely identical)
process.
Paul R
The Jack Nicholson character in "As Good as it Gets," explaining his
success in depicting women characters.
Paul R
Jamesetta Davis <jameset...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<011019991238072565%jameset...@hotmail.com>...
ANDRAS
pe...@NOSPAMpetestewart.force9.net broadcasted a bitstream which decodes
to...
>
I would venture that an illegitimate (primary meaning of bastard) child
is someone who can't claim a father. Any child which is born out of
wedlock but has a father named on the birth certificate (especially with
the consent of the father) can't be called a bastard. Apart from that,
how many women are bastards?
Mark Jebens
-0000:
> Mark Jebens <Xmje...@primenet.com> wrote in message
> news:7t3tof$le6$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com...
> > "Amy Lynn" <Pug_...@email.msn.com> wrote on Fri, 1 Oct 1999 07:40:01
> > -0000:
> >
> > > Shawn Larsen <shawn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:37F42E04...@earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Pat Winstanley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Since there is NO risk to the man's health from her being pregnant,
> > > > > what is the problem?
> > > >
> > > > This isn't true. There is a risk to his mental and emotional health,
> > > > knowing that he may be a father. In the United States, the risk to
> > > > a pregnant woman's mental and emotional is deemed so important,
> > > > that she is allowed to have a hole drilled in the skull of a viable
> > > > fetus/child and have it's brains sucked out.
> >
> > > WHAT??? WHERE did you come up with THIS one???
> >
> > For some reason, I doubt that Shawn came up with the
> > concept of partial birth abortion.
> drilling a hole in the skull of the child?
How else are they able to get the vacuum into the skull
to be able to suck the brain's of the partially born child out?
M is for Malapert
>One thing that I notice consistently in these arguments, is that when a man
>complains about being forced into parenthood, he is always rebutted with "he
>has the choice not to have sex."
Or to use effective contraception, or to have sex that can't be
traced, or to have sex with infertile women, or to have sex with
men...or any number of things.
>yet this same logical line of thinking
>somehow does not apply to the womens case.
If women do not wish to risk pregnancy, they should use effective
contraception, or have sex with infertile men, or have sex with
women...or any number of things.
However, women do have the fortunate biological attribute of being
able to terminate a pregnancy before a child exists, so they have a
postconceptional opportunity not to be forced into parenthood, which
men do not enjoy.
Men would be wise to take this into account when making their plans.
>why is that? why is it assumed
>that a man's decision to have sex is a de facto admission of parental
>responsibility, when a woman decision to have sex is just a decision to have
>sex?
Because women's biology allows them to abort pregnancies before
children exist, and men's doesn't. However, notice that parental
responsibilities are assigned by society, not by biology. Currently,
we've decided to hold biological parents responsible for their
children, unless other arrangements are made before pregnancy or after
birth occurs.
Kenneth S.
principles of the feminist movement, which was the main instigator of
current law on abortion, used to be that biology WASN'T destiny. Now,
as a strategy to deny men equality with women, Minxs has to fall back
on the biology-based argument that only women get pregnant.
However, it has always been perfectly clear that this argument
is NOT about which sex gets pregnant. What's the point of debating
that issue? It's perfectly clear what the situation is. I have yet
to see anyone arguing that men get pregnant. I don't think we need
spend any time on this issue.
No, the argument is about post-conception reproductive choice.
Indeed, defenders of the status quo on abortion -- nearly all female
-- have been very insistent that the issue is NOT about abortion, but
about choice. There is, of course, no reason why men cannot have
post-conception reproductive choice. That is not a matter of biology.
It's a matter of what the law says. It would be perfectly possible
for the law to say that men, like women, can have post-conception
reproductive choice, by being able to repudiate their paternal rights
and responsibilities.
If post-conception reproductive choice is a constitutional
right for women, then it should also be a right for men. The current
situation has nothing to do with logic or principle. It simply
reflects the crude political reality that, in matters where the
interests of the two sexes are opposed, there is no special interest
group representing men.
On Sun, 03 Oct 1999 01:43:08 GMT, mi...@sonic.net (M is for Malapert)
wrote:
Ray Fischer
>If women do not wish to risk pregnancy, they should use effective
>contraception, or have sex with infertile men, or have sex with
>women...or any number of things.
>
>However, women do have the fortunate biological attribute of being
>able to terminate a pregnancy before a child exists, so they have a
>postconceptional opportunity not to be forced into parenthood, which
>men do not enjoy.
But men have NO biological requirement that they be forced into
parenthood whatever. They don't even need an abortion. A man can
walk away before there is even a pregnancy.
Which is irrelevant anyway, since abortion, as forced parenthood, are
purely LEGAL artifacts. A change in the laws could make one ilegal
and the other legal without any need to refer to biological
incidentals.
>Men would be wise to take this into account when making their plans.
Because women refuse to?
--
Ray Fischer You should never have your best trousers on when you turn
r...@netcom.com out to fight for freedom and truth. -- Ibsen
Ray Fischer
>> drilling a hole in the skull of the child?
>
>How else are they able to get the vacuum into the skull
>to be able to suck the brain's of the partially born child out?
In an IDE abortion, misnamed "partial birth abortion", there is no
birth, no drilling. Maybe not even any brains. Most of what's been
written about the procedure is sleazy propaganda.
========================================================================
Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion
Presented at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar,
September 13, 1992
(BY MARTIN HASKELL, M.D.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The surgical method described in this paper differs from classic D&E in
that it does not rely upon dismemberment to remove the fetus. Nor are
inductions or infusions used to expel the intact fetus.
Rather, the surgeon grasps and removes a nearly intact fetus through an
adequately dilated cervix. The author has coined the term Dilation and
Extraction or D&X to distinguish it from dismemberment-type D&E's.
This procedure can be performed in a properly equipped physician's
office under local anesthesia. It can be used successfully in patients
20-26 weeks in pregnancy.
The author has performed over 700 of these procedures with a low rate of
complications.
Background D&E evolved as an alternative to induction or instillation
methods for second trimester abortion in the mid 1970's. This happened
in part because of lack of hospital facilities allowing second trimester
abortions in some geographic areas, in part because surgeons needed a
`right now' solution to complete
suction abortions inadvertently started in the second trimester and in
part to provide a means of early second trimester abortion to avoid
necessary delays for instillation methods. 1
The North Carolina Conference in 1978 established D&E as the preferred
method for early second trimester abortions in the U.S. 2 , 3 , 4
Footnotes at end of article.
Classic D&E is accomplished by dismembering the fetus inside the uterus
with instruments and removing the pieces through an adequately dilated
cervix. 5
However, most surgeons find dismemberment at twenty weeks and beyond to
be difficult due to the toughness of fetal tissues at this stage of
development.
Consequently, most late second trimester abortions are performed by an
induction method. 6 , 7 , 8
Two techniques of late second trimester D&E's have been described at
previous NAF meetings. The first relies on sterile urea intra-amniotic
infusion to cause fetal demise and lysis (or softening) of fetal tissues
prior to surgery. 9
The second technique is to rupture the membranes 24 hours prior to
surgery and cut the umbilical cord. Fetal death and ensuing autolysis
soften the tissues. There are attendant risks of infection with this
method.
In summary, approaches to late second trimester D&E's rely upon some
means to induce early fetal demise to soften the fetal tissues making
dismemberment easier.
Patient Selection the author routinely performs this procedure on all
patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP with certain exceptions. The author
performs the procedure on selected patients 25 through 26 weeks LMP.
The author refers for induction patients falling into the following
categories: previous C-section over 22 weeks; obese patients (more than
20 pounds over large frame ideal weight); twin pregnancy over 21 weeks;
patients 26 weeks and over.
Description of Dilation and Extraction Method
Dilation and extraction takes over three days. In a nutshell, D&X can be
described as follows: dilation; more dilation; real-time ultrasound
visualization; version (as needed); intact extraction; fetal skull
decompression; removal; clean-up; recovery.
Day 1--Dilation
The patient is evaluated with an ultrasound, hemoglobin and Rh. Hadlock
scales are used to interpret all ultrasound measurements.
In the operating room, the cervix is prepped, anesthetized and dilated
to 9-11 mm. Five, six or seven large Dilapan hydroscopic dilators are
placed in the cervix. The patient goes home or to a motel overnight.
Day 2--Dilation
The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's
Dilapan are removed. The cervix is scrubbed and anesthetized. Between 15
and 25 Dilapan are placed in the cervical canal. The patient returns
home or to a motel overnight.
Day 3--The Operation
The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's
Dilapan are removed. The surgical assistant administers 10 IU Pitocin
intramuscularly. The cervix is scrubbed, anesthetized and grasped with a
tenaculum. The membranes are ruptured, if they are not already.
The surgical assistant places an ultrasound probe on the patient's
abdomen and scans the fetus, locating the lower extremities. This scan
provides the surgeon information about the orientation of the fetus and
approximate location of the lower extremities. The transducer is then
held in position over the lower extremities.
The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep, such as a Bierer or
Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the
uterus. Based upon his knowledge of fetal orientation, he moves the tip
of the instrument carefully towards the fetal lower extremities. When
the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to
open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity.
The surgeon then applies firm traction to the instrument causing a
version of the fetus (if necessary) and pulls the extremity into the
vagina.
By observing the movement of the lower extremity and version of the
fetus on the ultrasound screen, the surgeon is assured that his
instrument has not inappropriately grasped a maternal structure.
With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to
deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and
the upper extremities.
The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there is not
enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum or
spine up.
At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left
had along the back of the fetus and `hooks' the shoulders of the fetus
with the index and ring fingers (palm down). Next he slides the tip of
the middle finger along the spine towards the skull while applying
traction to the shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts
and pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way.
While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction
to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a
pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully
advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle
finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of
his middle finger.
Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and safe
elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the
base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the
skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.
The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into
this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in
place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the
patient.
The surgeon finally removes the placenta with forceps and scrapes the
uterine walls with a large Evans and a 14 mm suction curette. The
procedure ends.
Recovery
Patients are observed a minimum of 2 hours following surgery. A pad
check and vital signs are performed every 30 minutes. Patients with
minimal bleeding after 30 minutes are encouraged to walk about the
building or outside between checks.
Intravenous fluids, pitocin and antibiotics are available for the
exceptional times they are needed.
Anesthesia Lidocaine 1% with epinephrine administered intra-cervically
is the standard anesthesia. Nitrous-oxide/oxygen analgesic is
administered nasally as an adjunct. For the Dilapan insert and Dilapan
change, 12cc's is used in 3 equidistant locations around the cervix. For
the surgery, 24cc's is used at 6 equidistant spots.
Carbocaine 1% is substituted for lidocaine for patients who expressed
lidocaine sensitivity.
Medications
All patients not allergic to tetracycline analogues receive doxycycline
200 mgm by mouth daily for 3 days beginning Day 1.
Patients with any history of gonorrhea, chlamydia or pelvic inflammatory
disease receive additional doxycycline, 100 mgm by mouth twice daily for
six additional days.
Patients allergic to tetracyclines are not given prophylactic
antibiotics.
Ergotrate 0.2 mgm by mouth four times daily for three days is dispensed
to each patient.
Pitocin 10 IU intramuscularly is administered upon removal of the
Dilapan on Day 3.
Rhogam intramuscularly is provided to all Rh negative patients on Day 3.
Ibuprofen orally is provided liberally at a rate of 100 mgm per hour
>from Day 1 onward.
Patients with severe cramps with Dilapan dilation are provided Phenergan
25 mgm suppositories rectally every 4 hours as needed.
Rare patients require Synalogos DC in order to sleep during Dilapan
dilation.
Patients with a hemoglobin less than 10 g/dl prior to surgery receive
packed red blood cell transfusions.
Follow Up
All patients are given a 24 hour physician's number to call in case of a
problem or concern.
At least three attempts to contact each patient by phone one week after
surgery are made by the office staff.
All patients are asked to return for check-up three weeks following
their surgery.
Third Trimester
The author is aware of one other surgeon who uses a conceptually similar
technique. He adds additional changes of Dilapan and/or lamineria in the
48 hour dilation period. Coupled with other refinements and a slower
operating time, he performs these procedures up to 32 weeks or more. 10
Summary
In conclusion, Dilation and Extraction is an alternative method for
achieving late second trimester abortions to 26 weeks. It can be used in
the third trimester.
Among its advantages are that it is a quick, surgical outpatient method
that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia
Among its disadvantages are that it requires a high degree of surgical
skill, and may not be appropriate for a few patients.
Footnotes
1 Cates, W. Jr., Schulz, K.F., Grimes D.A., et al: The Effects of Delay
and Method of Choice on the Risk of Abortion Morbidity, Family Planning
Perspectives, 9:266, 1977.
2 Borell, U., Emberey, M.P., Bygdeman, M., et al: Midtrimester Abortion
by Dilation and Evacuation (Letter), American Journal of Obstetrics and
Gynecology, 131:232, 1978.
3 Centers for Disease Control: Abortion Surveillance 1978, p. 30,
November, 1980.
4 Grimes, D.A., Cates, W. Jr. (Berger, G.S., et al, ed): Dilation and
Evacuation, Second Trimester Abortion--Perspectives After a Decade of
Experience, Boston, John Wright--PSG, 1981, p. 132.
5 Ibid, p. 121-128.
6 Ibid, p. 121.
7 Kerenyi, T.D. (Bergen, G.S., et al, ed): Hypertonic Saline Instillation,
Second Trimester Abortion--Perspectives After a Decade of Experience,
Boston, John Wright--PSG, 1981, p. 79.
8 Hanson, M.S. (Zatuchni, G. I., et al, ed): Midtrimester Abortion:
Dilation and Extraction Preceded by Laminaria, Pregnancy Termination
Procedures, Safety and New Developments, Hagerstown, Harper and Row,
1979, p. 192.
9 Hern, W.M., Abortion Practice, Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott, 1990, p.
127, 144-6.
Pat Winstanley
> No, the argument is about post-conception reproductive choice.
>Indeed, defenders of the status quo on abortion -- nearly all female
>-- have been very insistent that the issue is NOT about abortion, but
>about choice. There is, of course, no reason why men cannot have
>post-conception reproductive choice.
They already have it... get an abortion anytime you like, Kenneth...
Since that ( a choice between continuing and terminating a pregnancy
*in their own body*) is the *only* post-conception reproductive choice
a woman has, and since you have that choice too, what is the problem?
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
>I don't know what it's so hard, and yet here we have women demanding
>that men be forced to pay for women's irresponsible choices.
I have yet to see any woman here demanding men pay for women's
irresponsible choices.
What we do see is men being expected to pay their share for the
results of THEIR irresponsible choices. The women are already paying
their SHARE... whether they made responsible or irresponsible choices.
Why should they have to shoulder the man's share too?
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
>In article <37F9B64F...@mailexcite.com>,
> coke_po...@mailexcite.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > Because both are accountable.
>> >
>> > Of course this is incorrect. The men is *HELD* accountable
>> > the woman is not. The woman is accountable only to herself and the
>> > choices that she makes, but the man is held accountable to the
>> > woman.
>
>> He is accountable to himself, for participating in the act that
>> brought forth a child. And he is accountable to that child.
>> She is the same.
>
>Wrong. She is accountable to *HERSELF* not the child. He is
>accountable to her desires.
Actually both are held accountable to the child*** and neither are
held accountable to the other parent.
*** In practice both are held accountable to society acting on behalf
of the minor child.
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
wrote:
>One thing that I notice consistently in these arguments, is that when a man
>complains about being forced into parenthood, he is always rebutted with "he
>has the choice not to have sex." yet this same logical line of thinking
>somehow does not apply to the womens case. why is that? why is it assumed
>that a man's decision to have sex is a de facto admission of parental
>responsibility, when a woman decision to have sex is just a decision to have
>sex?
No. Both took the risk that their combined activities might lead to
them becoming parents. What makes you think that only applies to one
of them?
Pat Winstanley