Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    > It seems almost universal, among the stories preseneted, that thought
    > they felt that the decision was correct at the time that it was made
    > that they questioned it later.

    My sweetie and I had to worry about this relatively early in our
    relationship (years ago). We talked about it and agreed that an abortion
    was the right thing to do. Recently (in the last few weeks) we talked
    about it again, and we both still feel it was the right thing to do.

    > In all cases it had an effect on the relationship between them and the
    > woman; it some cases the men attribute it to be the cause of an eventual
    > break-up,

    Not us, we're married now...

    > in others they say that the experience strengthened the relatonship

    I think that's true in our case. I know that holding her hand while she
    had the abortion was a very potent experience.

    Any other men who've gone through with this, or are facing it who would like
    a supportive, non-judgemental person to talk to, feel free to give me a call
    or send mail.

    	-- Charles

When my ex had hers without consulting me first the relationship was over
for me and only lasted another 6 months before we split. The reason as
feel it was that I simply could never trust her again.

-j

    re .2
           
    I'm a little cloudy and curious on why you felt mistrustful afterward.
    
    Were you upset because she did not consult you on having the abortion,
    or because you didn't know at *all* she was pregnant in the first
    place, or felt that you were left out of this important decision
    and hence, might be left out in other important decisions to come
    down the road?
    
    

re-.1 All of the above.


1. We were trying to make a baby.(unannounced to anyone)
2. She got pregnant.(told to friends and mother)
3. dident tell me.
4. on the advice of her mother had an abortion.
5. Diden't tell me.
6. I wanted to play and she diden't too sore....
7. diden't tell me why
8. next day same thing.
9. she tells me finaly with the sorry excuse that her mother wasen't ready
to be a grandmother and she honored her desires by aborting.

My problem with all of the above comes from several things...
1. She never told me.
2. she marriied me not her mother.
3. I was not consulted at any point.
4. I believe if I had not pushed the issue that I would never had known.
5. all of the above was done with her knowing how much I wanted children
(still do).
Most of all I felt like I had really been put in my place in that her mothers 
desires *were* more important than mine a situation I felt I could never
be successful in and wasen't.

-j still single,childless and no leads.

    RE: Gort
    Egggsacally!
    
    I am pro choice WITH A CATCH.....
    You *should* have more rights (ha, what a laugh) than her mother.
    

    I am pro-choise.
    I believe that if the woman does not want to carry a baby to term
    that she should have an exclusive on her decison.  If the partner
    does not agree let him find a surogate carrier or figure out a 
    way to carry it himself.
    
    jim.

    
    re: .6
    
    But Jim, if the decision to become pregnant was mutually agreed
    to, shouldn't the decision to abort also be mutually agreed to.
    
    'I changed my mind' isn't the type of excuse serious relationships
    are built on.
    
    Roger

    I would call myself "pro-choice" in the most general sense;
    I believe that we should all have the opportunity to make
    our own sexual and reproductive choices.  On the specific
    issue of abortion, however, I don't think I can side with
    either of the camps that label themselves "pro-life" OR
    "pro-choice".  Both sides are talking completely past each
    other in the public debate.  The rhetoric of the pro-choice
    side pretty much ignores the question of whether abortion
    is the taking of a human life, whereas the pro-life side
    pretty much ignores the issue of how an unwanted child can
    devastate the lives of the child's parents, family, and
    friends.  The extent to which both sides talk past each
    other makes the whole debate look like a lite beer commercial...
    
    My own view on abortion is that at this point it is basically
    a necessary evil.  Even if we completely leave aside the question 
    of whether or not abortion is murder, the fact remains that it 
    is an invasive surgical procedure that no woman would exactly be 
    eager to undergo.  It costs money, uses up medical resources that 
    could be used elsewhere, and is not without its risks to the patient.
    Therefore, it is in everybody's best interests to try to limit its 
    use as much as possible.  However, I also believe that legal 
    sanction is not the way to limit it; as long as there are unwanted
    pregnancies, there is going to be a demand for abortion.  If this
    demand cannot be filled legally and safely, then it will be filled
    illegally and unsafely.
    
    How to limit unwanted pregnancy then?  Through pragmatic, factual
    sex education and increased research into contraceptive technology.
    Of these two, sex education is at once the more important and the
    less attainable... you pretty much can't put together a sex education
    program in this country without SOMEONE wanting to impose their own
    moral agenda on it... and I'm not sure what to do about this.  On
    the latter front I'm not too hopeful either; the liability crisis
    has pretty much ground U.S. contraceptive research to a standstill,
    and foreign technologies (e.g. cervical cap, RU-486) have a nearly
    impossible time jumping through the FDA hoops...
    
    On the most personal level, my wife and I have talked about the
    childraising issue; basically, we feel that neither of us are
    parent material and therefore we choose to remain childless.
    We decided that if an accidental pregnancy would happen then she
    would get an abortion, with my full support.  Needless to say,
    of course, we do everything we can to make sure it never gets
    to this point (I'm even looking into getting a vasectomy... but
    that's another note 8-) )
    
    Just my $0.02...
    
    --jim
    

    I am against abortion.  The problem with the whole thing is
    that a man has absolutely no say in either direction.  If
    the man wants to take the responsibility and doesn't want to
    see his child butchered, he has no say.  On the other hand
    if there is an accidental pregnancy (or she was lying about
    her taking precautions) and she wants to have the baby, the
    the man is stuck with 18 years of child support ( ie, woman 
    gets pregnent to trap rich or famous male, ie. Steve Garvy).
    
    Yes a woman does have a choice with what happens with her
    body, but she makes that decision, risk, and responsibility,
    when she gets into bed. Yes there is the case of rape and incest.  
    That one is tougher and I have mixed fealings about that, but
    it IS a separate issue.
    
    fred();

    re. -.9
    
    Immaculate conception???
    

    re. .10
    
    So the woman is the only one that has no responsibility or
    a choice???
    
    fred();

    re: .9
    
    And what about the child that pays dearly for being unwanted?
    
    Just because we've saved a fetus does not neccesarily mean we've
    saved a life.
    
    Forcing someone to be a parent does not force love.
    
    
    	-janine

    Fred, (.9 and .11) --
    
    No, the woman isn't the only one.  Go back to your basic biology course
    in high school.  In the human species it takes two to tango -- a man
    and a woman.  If you're one of the participants (EITHER one of the
    participants), you have a responsibility for the outcome.  Now, I don't
    go so far as to say that having a responsibility for the outcome
    translates into also sharing in the decision as to what to do about the
    outcome.  When the man can bear the fetus from conception to birth,
    then I'll agree he has some right to determine what to do about the
    outcome.
    
    In a much less sarcastic vein, Fred, let me say it sounds like perhaps
    you have some personal experience here and feel like you've been
    victimized.  I can sympathize with your anguish, but I can't agree that
    the man is an innocent victim in the circumstances we're discussing.
    
    Karen

 The fact of the matter, here, is that men and women are not equal, and 
never will be, from a biological point of view. There will never be a "fair"
way to apportion responsibility and choice when it comes to pregnancy.

 It is patently unfair for a woman to entrap a man into the responsibility of
providing for their child by getting pregnant for the sole purpose of gaining
notoriety, an increased standard of living, etc.

 It is patently unfair for a man to have sex with whatever woman he can cajole
into the sack and ignore birth control and feel he is not responsible for the
outsome.

 There is no possible way for complete equality to occur here. With only
two people doing the voting, there can be no way to break a tie without having
one person's "vote" be more equal than the other.

 This is an incontrovertible fact of life. Someone will always get the short
end of the stick when there is contention.

 The closest thing to "fairness" is that when a woman gets pregnant, she has
the choice to carry or abort. However, she also has the responsibility to
take care of the child. If the father does not want the child, he should be
able to pay the woman $360 (the cost of an abortion), and sign away his rights
as a parent, and be done with it. His obligation is fulfilled; he has given 
the woman the option of terminating the pregnancy- what she does at that point
is her concern. If the father wants the child and she does not, she has to
pay for the abortion- but he can't stop her from getting one. No- this system is
NOT fair. But it's as close to fair as you'll ever see while there are
biological gender differences.

 The Doctah

    re .13
    	I consider this a cop-out for irresponsibility.
    
    re .14
    	The mother bears the child for 9 months.  The father
    	bears the child for the next 18+ years.  If both are
    	responsible for the outcome, then both should have
    	a decision in that outcome.  Yes the male takes 
    	responsibility when he gets into bed, but so does the
    	female,  and all too often its the unborn child that
    	pays the ultimate price for both parents irresponsibility.
    
    fred();

    .16 -
    > The mother bears the child for 9 months.  The father bears the child
    > for the next 18+ years.
    
    In what sense do you mean "the father bears the child for the next 18+
    years"?
    
    I would agree if the father is solely responsible for the physical,
    mental, emotional, social, and financial aspects of child rearing.  
    This is a rare exception to the rule.  (It does happen; I'll grant 
    you that.)
    
    In the past the father was seen by the courts as being the sole
    financial provider for the child.  But even such a financial burden
    doesn't equate to "bearing the child for the next 18+ years."  There are
    too many other responsibilities as well.  Responsibilities that, though
    they are not rewarded with a paycheck, are of major importance to the
    child's welfare.
    
    Today I'd guess that it's the exception for the father to bear 100% of
    the financial responsibility of the child, at least in the U.S.  (I 
    don't have any figures to back this up, except that I seem to recall 
    reading recently that in excess of 50% of the women in the U.S. now 
    work outside the home.)  Presumably if the mother is earning money, a 
    portion of that money is being used to "bear the child."
    
    So, Fred, in what sense did you mean "the father bears the child for
    the next 18+ years" that wouldn't also apply to the mother?
    
    Karen

    18+ years is the length of time the father is obligated to
    pay support for the child.  Yes, there are a lot of fathers
    that dodge this responsibility, but it is getting harder
    and harder.  I for one do not support in any way those who
    do not take responsibility for their children,  but the
    woman has the choice and the only choice about what the
    father is obligated to.  The father gets the obligation
    or has to watch his child butchered depending on the
    choice the woman makes.  There have been many cases where
    the father has been willing and able to take sole responsibility
    of the child and has had no recorse to save his child.
    
    re the doctah
    I also do not buy the "life isn't fair" argument.
    
    fred();

The replies about who pays for child support are getting off of the topic that
this note was started with.  I created this note so that men could discuss their
feelings on dealing with abortion (as was done in .2 and .4), not to discuss
the "goodness/badness" of abortion and who gets to decide.

Though the article did deal with who made the decision, it was really about the
what happened after the decision was made.

There was one case detailed where the man made the decision (the woman said
"you decide"), and that seemed to be one of the relationships that was most
adversely effected by the decision.  The ones that were least adversely effected
were the ones in which the partners came to an agreement on it.

Rich

    re. .4 (Jerry (?) Gortmaker)
    
    Thanks for making the clearer.  I agree with you.  I'd have felt
    more than slighted myself.  
    
    Goodness/badness aside, this note is enlightening.  Seems like all
    I get to hear about abortion is how the women feel (which I already
    know for the most part, being a woman myself).  
    
    ---kim

    Lest anyone think I put myself on a pedestal, what I meant by the
    phrase "...which I already know for the most part, being a women
    myself" did not imply that my beliefs are shared be the rest of
    my gender as a whole.  However, in the Great Debate on Abortion,
    the man's point of view is often overlooked/glossed over.
    
    ---kim again

    In the last ten years, several of my very close friends have been in
    the position of an unwanted pregnancy.  The two cases where my feelings
    were affected the most both involved women who were pregnant by
    somebody else, but who were very emotionally close to me.  In one case,
    my friend had already decided upon an abortion and asked me to drive
    her to and from the clinic the day of the procedure (her boyfriend
    would have, but he was 2000 miles away for the summer.)  In the other
    case, when I was told that she was pregnant, I didn't know her
    intentions.  In both cases, I discussed as calmly as possible the range
    of relevant options, and what factual information I had to share, to
    the extent that discussion was welcomed.  It required a non-
    confrontational approach; I didn't feel like I had a right to force
    either of my friends to listen to me for their own good; rather, *if*
    they were interested, I was concerned about them and wanted to share
    knowledge.  The facts I knew about abortion were much more complete 
    the second time, because the first time it was brought home to me just 
    how much I didn't know about procedural methods and attendant risks.
    
    Personally, I have concerns about *all* surgical procdures; there can 
    be complications from general anesthesia (like the people who never wake 
    up again), complications from allergic reactions to local anesthesia, 
    complications from abnormally heavy bleeding, tissue damage, scarring,
    infections, etc.  I tried to discuss those things rationally.  I tried
    to make sure that everything important was discussed; emotional issues
    were mentioned to make sure that my friend had evaluated her own mental
    state.  I didn't feel it was my concern to advise her on moral
    considerations; if she had them, they were hers.  I just wanted to
    make sure that if she had moral qualms, that she wasn't hiding from
    them.  Its an extremely personal decision.  I raised nutritional
    issues; I wanted to make sure she had been properly advised on
    post-operative care.  And I strongly advised her to get company
    to lean on, if possible (it turned out not to be possible.)
    
    So, I haven't been directly involved in an abortion decision as the
    impregnator; yet I have been in the position of supporting two people
    in a very difficult time in their lives.  It is not a position I ever
    wish upon anyone.  Yet...how much WORSE the situations would have
    been, were abortions illegal.  I would have been compelled to discuss
    with my friends the additional risks, and they'd have been much higher;
    not only criminal penalties, but the surgical risks would be *much*
    higher, including a much higher risk of death.  Having been this close 
    to it, and having evaluated with my friends their situations, as best 
    as I am able...I am adamantly and stridently pro-choice.
    
    DougO

    Every man who is against abortion should never, ever have sex without a
    condom no matter what the woman says.  I haven't found that to always
    be the case, however.

A request from a moderator - as we've seen before, debates on abortion can
become quite heated.  I would ask, as Rich did when starting this note, that
the focus be on men's reactions to the decision of their partner to have
(or not to have) an abortion.  I do not want to see notes here that try
to argue a pro/con position on abortion itself.  A discussion of 
"men's rights" regarding abortion is perhaps germane, though I think we've
discussed that previously.

I will be watching this note carefully, and will try not to let it get
out of hand.

Thanks for your cooperation. 

			Steve

>                    <<< Note 415.23 by GEMVAX::CICCOLINI >>>
>                     -< Do you practice what you preach? >-
>
>    Every man who is against abortion should never, ever have sex without a
>    condom no matter what the woman says.  I haven't found that to always
>    be the case, however.


	 I know, Sandy, it's hard to believe.....but I agree with you
	 100%.

	 kath

    
    
    I think that most men have as hard a time dealing with an abortion
    as does the pregnant woman.  When we became pregnant, we both agreed
    to have an abortion.  Even though I was the one who was actually having
    the procedure done to me, I think he had a harder time coming to
    terms with what was actually happening.  This man was the type of
    guy who would hop into bed with anyone.  At the time of our pregnancy
    he had a 6 month old daughter by a woman who lied to him about being
    on the pill.  Mind you that is not an excuse for his lack of birth
    control.
    
    When we got pregnant I was on the pill and taking tetracyline which
    unknown to me reduced the effectiveness of the pill.  It came as
    quite a shock to both of us especially since I was faithfully taking
    precautions.  First he was angry at the fact that I was pregnant.
    I am not sure if this is a typical reaction with men, but it really
    hurt.  He even went so far as asking if it was his kid which was 
    a real kick in the face cause we were living together at the time
    and I had been and still am faithful to him.  
    
    When he finally calmed down enough to discuss this rationally he
    told me that he would like me to get an abortion, but that the
    decision was entirely up to me.  He said that either way he would
    support whatever decision I made.  This helped to finally hear his
    support.
    
    I had the procedure done and he waited out in the waiting room during
    both the procedure and the recovery period.  In this respect I feel
    that at least I was being taken care of by people who understood and
    empathized with my decision.  He however was left to wonder what 
    was happening.  No one went out to tell him that I was ok.  No one 
    was there to talk to him about his feelings.  He needed to be reassured
    just as much as I did.  
    
    Unfortunately it took him quite a longer amount of time to finally 
    accept what we had done and to be at peace with it.  I on the other
    hand didn't take as long, and I honestly beleive this was due to the
    support and encouragement I received from the people in my life.
    He kept it a secret with his support systems and I let it be known
    to gain from the strength of the support sytem (family and friends).
    
    I honestly beleive that the medical community ingores the fathers
    involved.  Maybe this is due to the general lack of male participation
    in the abortion.  The only reason I say this is because of the number
    of women having the procedures there were only 2 males (presumably
    the fathers) present.  If abortion is the choice that is made, the
    fathers must be a part of it.  They must be able to participate to
    whatever degree they choose to do so.  And they must be given the
    emotional support that the women receive to help them come to terms
    with the decision they helped make and/or support.
    
    As far as the effect on the relationship, we are still together after
    four years and still going strong.  However, I do know of a couple of
    guys who went through this and are no longer involved with the women
    involved.  So I guess it is up to the people involved and whether
    they choose to work on it together or apart.
    
    Michele

    Speaking for the case of unwanted children or children brought into
    the world in very unfortunate circumstances:
    
    Has anyone ever been in a situation where he/she witnessed child
    abuse?  I have its not pretty and its very difficult to do anything
    about it,  Its a heart wrenching experience.  I've seen it many
    times and each tears me apart.  Cases are reported to social services
    but in most there is little or nothing that can be done without
    concrete proof and the system is becoming inundated with reports
    most fall through the cracks, case in point - Hannif Sutton age
    3 murdered in Lowell.  Why let such things happen if there is a
    way to end it.  
    
    Speaking for woman:
    
    How many woman have died going for abortions on the back streets?
    This alone is a good reason to have abortions as a reasonable
    alternative to pregnancy.
    How many woman have suffered emotional and physical abuse for getting 
    pregnancy?  I dont know how many woman have been beaten up for an
    accidental pregnancy, but it seems to me that if an abortion avoids
    it then its worth having.
    
    Why because her man demands it should a woman bear an unwanted
    preganancy?
    I think a woman should have exclusive rights to what she wished
    to do with her body.
    If it were made possible how man men out there would carry a pregnancy
    to term?   
    
    Speaking from accountability and resposibility:
    
    Lets get real here, not everyone we meet is willing to be accountable
    for their actions and comming from "it takes two to tango" or "
    they should know better" does not stop it from happening.  I've
    met men and woman on both sides of the fence that were responsible
    and irresponsible about their actions.  I must say that being
    rightous and comming from connotations does not help.
    
    Load on the social system and funded abortions:
    
    If and unwanted pregnancy is terminated now for only the medical
    costs how many dollars are saved from cases in social sevices and
    from welfare roles.  (dont mean to be cold but it could be a fact).
    
    jm

    re: .27
    
>    Speaking for the case of unwanted children or children brought into
>    the world in very unfortunate circumstances:
    
>    Has anyone ever been in a situation where he/she witnessed child
>    abuse? .... 
>    Why let such things happen if there is a
>    way to end it.  
    
    From 1967 until 1988 I (and my ex-wife) was a foster parent.  Many of
    the children I cared for in my home (there were over 160 of them) came
    to us from abusive situations/homes.  I agree it is a terrible tragedy. 
    But, I vehemently disagree that 'just being born' is the cause of it. 
    Saying that these abuses could be avoided if only the child had been
    aborted is ludicrous.  Children are abused because PEOPLE (PARENTS)
    abuse them, not because they wer "born".
    
    
>   Speaking for woman:
>    
>    How many woman have died going for abortions on the back streets?
>    This alone is a good reason to have abortions as a reasonable
>    alternative to pregnancy.
>    How many woman have suffered emotional and physical abuse for getting 
    ...
    
    This is a rationalization.  Most abortions are for reasons of
    expediency only.  It is "inconvenient" for the mother to bear the
    child.
    
    I understand this note's intent is to discuss a MAN's reaction to
    abortion, but I cannot ignore such a blatently shallow, selfish
    arguement for abortion to pass.  All the "as for's" in this referenced
    note are pure rationalization for the sake of expediency. 
    Unacceptable.
    
    I'll let a skeleton out of my personal closet:
    
    In 1967 I was dating a young woman in California.  She became pregnant. 
    It was her decision to have an abortion.  I abhored the notion, and was
    devastated by it.  I felt then, as I feel now, that abortion is wrong. 
    She gave me no choice, yet asked me to pay for it.  I refused.  
    
    Our relationship, which until then was splendid, came to a total end. 
    I felt betrayed, hurt and a tremendous sense of loss.  
    
    Neither of us WANTED a child.  Neither of us was prepared, at that
    time, to HAVE a child.  But, you don't always GET what you want, and
    you should always accept responsibility for your actions.  I WAS
    prepared to do what ever was necessary to raise that child, as I have
    raised my own and so many others since.  But, that baby never knew me,
    or anything about life.  It is this worlds, loss.
    
    Tony

    re-1
    
    Tony,
    
    "You don't always get what you want, and you should always accept
    responsibility for your actions."
    
    So am I correct in assuming that you would define "accepting
    responsibility" in this case as continuing the pregnancy
    and rasing the child?  
    
    Your ex accepted responsibility for her actions by having the abortion.
    
    You could have walked away and that would be avoiding responsibility.
    She could have continued with the pregnancy and that to her would
    have been avoiding responsibility.  She made a responsible decision
    concerning her pregnancy.  If she had continued the pregnancy and
    gave birth, then the responsibilities would have changed.  
    There are two distinct things to be responsible for with a pregnancy.
    The first responsibility is towards the pregnancy iteslf.  Pregnant
    woman who choose to carry to term have a responsibility to maintian
    proper health to ensure the health of the fetous for example.
    Once the child is born, the responsibility switches to the child.
    
    Each of you had a different way to accept responsibility.  I get the
    feeling, however, that you feel that by having the abortion she was
    not accepting her responsibility.  Is this how you felt?  Would you
    explain why you felt like this?
    
    BTW I admire your attitude on child abuse.  It is a parent problem,
    not a children problem.  Wanted children are also abused.  I see no
    connection between abortion and child abuse.
    
    Michele

    Am I imagining things, or has this topic derailed off the track?
    
    I am a relatively new reader in this conference.  In general, this
    conference, I thought, could give me more insight into myself, as a
    man, and about the male perspective in our culture.  In this topic, I
    thought I could learn something about how men feel about abortion. 
    
    But it seems to have evolved into the classic abortion debate, much 
    of it female vs. male.   I already know too well how women feel about
    abortion.  In fact, as a culture, we are pretty much saturated with 
    the female perspective -- how women FEEL about nearly every social 
    subject imaginable.  (Not that all women agree on everything.)
    Is it OK to return to the original intent of this topic?
    
    Regards,
    Paul

When I see notes from men that say things like "A man doesn't have a
say in the whether his baby gets aborted" and "it took two to create
the baby, so why shouldn't the man have a say about abortion?" I
shudder.  The implication of ownership and control over both the baby
and mother is terrifying to me.  To me, it makes the woman out to be
some type of container that holds "his baby."  I think it is very
telling that a lot of men say "his baby" and not "their baby." 

I think that it is very hard for many men to accept the idea of
completely surrendering control from the moment of conception to the
second trimester (or whatever the point is that abortion becomes
illegal). They have control before the baby gets conceived and they
have control after the baby is born; a lot of men just refuse to let
go for that X month period. Why?  Why is it so threatening to let
women have complete control for an X-month period of time, especially
when the decision is about something so intimately a part of and
connected to her body? 

If someone can logically get the idea of "it takes two people to make 
a baby," I don't understand why it is so hard to get the concept of 
"it takes only one to carry a baby."  

As usual, feel free to disagree.


							--Ger

    The fact that this article in .0 is such an oddity in the
    first place only adds evidence to the fact that if you are
    the father:  Mens  fealings   on  abortion  just  don't  matter.
    
    fred();

>I think it is very
>telling that a lot of men say "his baby" and not "their baby."
    
    It is an exact parallel to the woman who speaks about "his baby" when
    it's time for him to support it.
    
>They have control before the baby gets conceived and they
>have control after the baby is born; a lot of men just refuse to let
>go for that X month period.
    
    I don't know how you can say a man has control after the baby is born.
    Frequently he has NO control, just an obligation to funnel money to the
    mother with no recourse if she chooses not to spend it on the baby.
    
>Why is it so threatening to let
>women have complete control for an X-month period of time, especially
>when the decision is about something so intimately a part of and
>connected to her body? 
 
    You enter into a situation where two people each have an equal amount
    of control over outcome X. After outcome X occurs, you no longer have
    ANY control whatsoever, but the other person has ALL of the control.
    Not only that, but they can also control a part of YOUR life for the
    next 18.75 years. I don't see why you feel that it is not natural that
    men might want some control over their destiny after outcome X occurs.
                   
    If the responsibilities and control were equal, there would be no
    contention, no problem. They aren't. The women are at a huge advantage
    in terms of control AND responsibility.
    
    The Doctah

re: .34

>>I think it is very
>>telling that a lot of men say "his baby" and not "their baby."
>    
>    It is an exact parallel to the woman who speaks about "his baby" when
>    it's time for him to support it.

I think this is a good point.  In that, it shows that some people think
of a child as "my" baby, others think of it as "his/her" baby, and still
others think of it as "our" baby.  And for specific people these ideas
may change based on whether the motivation is based on parental, political, 
economic, or selfish reasons.  Personally, given that both contribute 
genetic material, I would say, strictly speaking, the "our" fits best.

But also, the whole issue of "baby ownership" implied by these possesive
pronouns, is upsetting to me.  The baby isn't "owned" by anyone but the
baby.  The idea of "owning" a child contributes to the objectivication (if
there is such a word, hope my meaning is clear) of children in our society
(similar to the sexual objectivication of women or success objectivication 
of men).

What these people really own, of course, is responsibility for the child,
and to some degree, they hold the right to make decisions for the child
until the child is old enough to do so alone.

To continue this reasoning, noone "owns" an adult woman but herself.  As
a man I can understand the frustration many men feel over this.  Since it
is her body that, through evolution, has obtained almost exclusive rights
over the creation of a child, many men feel powerless.  But imagine how
a woman must feel at the idea that she does not have the right to choose
what to do with her own body.

The men who feel undoly straped by the economic burden a child places on
them, should be able to understand this best, I think.  Because the physical
burden a women must face is similarly out of her control (if abortion is
not an option).  Also, people seem to be ignoring the fact that women are
economicly burdened by the birth of a child as well.  Also, given that women
are less likely to be able to obtain a job that will pay as well as a man's
(this is changing, thankfully), this burden seems to me to be *actually*
greater than that the man faces.

Legally, I would push for the soverignity of each woman to decide what she
is to do with her own body.  This is the only way I feel comfortable that
we are protecting women from often economically and physically stronger
men.  However, I would also personally urge any woman facing such a decision
to talk about it with the male involved.  He may have a lot to offer, both
in support and reason.  

Legally, however, I believe we *must* trust the intelligence of women to be 
able to judge for themselves if this would be the case for the man they are 
involved with.  If she believes that he might abuse her if he found out she 
was pregnant, I would hope that she would hide that fact from him.

Finally, I really feel for men who want a child but are unable to find a
women to create one with.  Nonetheless, I don't believe we should force a
woman to continue a pregnancy because he wants her to, whatever her motivation
was to begin with.  I can understand that it is difficult for many men
to deal with, and I'm all for giving these men support (through therapy
for example), but the right of a each individual over their body should
remain our highest priority.

    Re .16.... right on Fred if .14 insists that the man take
    responsibility for his part in her pregnancy which is of course fair
    then he should also get a say in the ultimate fate of the fetus..
    no say (.14) give me a break... if were going to be responsible
    as we should be then we should get a say in it.  BUT since it IS
    the woman who carries the baby then I think that the tie should
    be able to be broken by the women.....  A payoff for roughly $ 350
    (the cost of an abortion) if the man wants off the hook and the
    woman wants to keep the child?   Sounds fair at first glance BUT
    what about the child with no father?  That deal I think is fair
    to the woman but not the child.    Jeff

            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 415.29                      Men On Abortion                        29 of 29
FSTVAX::BEAN "Attila the Hun was a LIBERAL!"         55 lines  22-FEB-1990 12:34
                                   -< bull! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re: .27
    
>    Speaking for the case of unwanted children or children brought into
>    the world in very unfortunate circumstances:
    
>    Has anyone ever been in a situation where he/she witnessed child
>    abuse? .... 
>    Why let such things happen if there is a
>    way to end it.  
    
    From 1967 until 1988 I (and my ex-wife) was a foster parent.  Many of
    the children I cared for in my home (there were over 160 of them) came
    to us from abusive situations/homes.  I agree it is a terrible tragedy. 
    But, I vehemently disagree that 'just being born' is the cause of it. 
    Saying that these abuses could be avoided if only the child had been
    aborted is ludicrous.  Children are abused because PEOPLE (PARENTS)
    abuse them, not because they wer "born".

* I agree just being born is not the cause, abortion was there when
  these kids came along.  
* It should not be painful to be a child.
* it still hurts to see some of these kids the way they are,
  I'm thinking could they have been spared from the pain.
* I acknoledge and applaud your gift to children of refuge and warmth.  
* Abused children in many cases are usualy from abused parents
  if abortion is a route out then it should be there as a possible
  alternative.
    
>   Speaking for woman:
>    
>    How many woman have died going for abortions on the back streets?
>    This alone is a good reason to have abortions as a reasonable
>    alternative to pregnancy.
>    How many woman have suffered emotional and physical abuse for getting 
    ...
    
    This is a rationalization.  Most abortions are for reasons of
    expediency only.  It is "inconvenient" for the mother to bear the
    child.
    
* rationalization yes, but do you have proof of expediency?  Maybe it
  is inconvient but do you have the right to deside what the mother
  should do.

    I understand this note's intent is to discuss a MAN's reaction to
    abortion, but I cannot ignore such a blatently shallow, selfish
    arguement for abortion to pass.  All the "as for's" in this referenced
    note are pure rationalization for the sake of expediency. 
    Unacceptable.

* The above is very judgmental on your part! step back and see where
  else your judgmental attitude show up in your life.
    


    I'll let a skeleton out of my personal closet:
    
    In 1967 I was dating a young woman in California.  She became pregnant. 
    It was her decision to have an abortion.  I abhored the notion, and was
    devastated by it.  I felt then, as I feel now, that abortion is wrong. 
    She gave me no choice, yet asked me to pay for it.  I refused.  
    
    Our relationship, which until then was splendid, came to a total end. 
    I felt betrayed, hurt and a tremendous sense of loss.  
    
    Neither of us WANTED a child.  Neither of us was prepared, at that
    time, to HAVE a child.  But, you don't always GET what you want, and
    you should always accept responsibility for your actions.  I WAS
    prepared to do what ever was necessary to raise that child, as I have
    raised my own and so many others since.  But, that baby never knew me,
    or anything about life.  It is this worlds, loss.

* Listen to yourself before you make judgments!
* you wanted to make this womans choise for her, 
* you didnt support her in an obviosly very difficult decision.
* listen to how you scream about your own betrail and then
  think about, if its possible that you betrayed her.
* you are a victim only because you made yourself the victim.

* I appreciate your time and response to my reply, you've made
  me think.  Thanks  BIG TIME!!!
    
    Tony

    Without rationalization or support...
    I believe the man does not have the right to demand that a
    woman carry a prenancy to term.  I believe that it is her
    body and there for her right to deside how to handle it.
    
    Jim

    Is reaction to a decision *not* to abort relevant here?
    
    My oldest daughter was conceived due to birth control failure.  It
    was a surprise to both of us, but Mark never tried to suggest that
    I got pregnant on purpose or anything like that.  He wanted me to
    have an abortion "so we could go on the way we had always been",
    and he was more than willing to pay for it.
    
    I decided I couldn't do it.
    
    He told me that if I decided not to abort, he was out of here and
    the baby wasn't his.  And he kept his word.  He's never paid a
    penny of support or an iota of emotional help.  At one time he
    said he'd pay for part of the delivery expenses, but he didn't
    come through on that.  [I never asked for any help, either.]  The
    one time he wrote to me after the baby was born, he didn't even
    ask about her.  He did suggest that I didn't have the right to
    "wreck his life" by "making him wonder all the time what was
    happening to me and the baby."
    
    Now, he had a perfect right to behave like this and I wouldn't
    want a law that specifies otherwise. 
    
    But though he behaved in an entirely opposite manner to what seems
    to be the majority position here, I see one common thread:  both
    sets of men are saying "If you won't let me decree the rules of
    the game, I'm going to take my ball* and go home."  That if he
    didn't have the control over our relationship, there wasn't going
    to BE a relationship.  
    
    And it appears to me that whatever the men here want to say about
    a lifetime of child support, the vast majority of the consequences
    of pregnancy are borne by the woman. Her body is put through nine
    months of pain and discomfort, followed by the acute pain of labor
    and recovery.  She's the one who's assumed to be responsible for
    the day to day feeding and caring of that child, for the unending
    responsibility for that child's wellbeing, with not even so much
    as a movie of her own time without the responsibility of finding a
    babysitter.  She's the one who has the days when the kid won't
    even let you go to the bathroom undisturbed.  She's the one who,
    in the vast majority of cases, deals with the teachers and the
    doctors and the jobs that are lost and the promotions denied
    because she had to take time to run around with the child.  She's
    the one who often can't go to school to get the training for a
    better job because she can't afford someone to watch the child
    while she's in class.  Oh, it can be done.  I did it and a lot of
    other women have done it.  But many more have fallen under the
    burden while their men sit around and complain about the money.
    
    The answer isn't restrictions on abortion, it's equality of roles
    so that the couple can make their decisions based on what's best
    for all parties concerned, without the woman wondering how she's
    going to pay for taking care of herself.  If women had access to
    the economic and political power to be people in our own rights,
    we wouldn't have to ask the baby's father to pay, and he could
    give as much or as little emotionally as he felt able to. 
    
    --bonnie
    
    * That should probably be plural . . .

    As women reach economic equality with men, fewer men will get hosed
    financially. Like I said before, there's no way to ever make the whole
    deal fair, but economic equality for women will tend to make things as
    fair as they are going to be.
    
     The Doctah

    .39  Bonnie,
    
        "If women had access to the economic and political power to be
         people in our own rights, we wouldn't have to ask the baby's 
         father to pay ... "
    
    Although I am touched by your personal story, I disagree with your
    assumptions here.  As a result the gains of the women's movement, women 
    DO have economic and political power and ARE people in their own rights. 
    Women don't HAVE to ask for anything anymore.  Take advantage of the 
    power -- grab it and run with it.  Sadly, some women continue to set 
    themselves up as victims, totally dependent on men from day one.
    
    And unfortunately, this topic has again deteriorated into an
    Oprah-style "men are bad" syndrome, where the classic question, "Why
    aren't men doing enough for us?" rears its ugly head.
    
    Paul

    Some 17 replies ago, a moderator made request that this discussion
    stay centered on the original topic (". . .men's reactions to the 
    decision of their partner to have (or not to have) an abortion.").
    Specifically he requested that this not become an "abortion,
    pros and cons" type of note.
    
    It appears that several people have had difficulty respecting this
    request.  I'd like to re-state the appeal to keep this note focused
    on it's original theme and suggest that there are other notes to
    carry on discussion of other aspects of abortion.  
    
    These include: 	261 - Fathers rights in abortion
    			268 - Abortion leads to femicide
    
    Steve

    
>    And unfortunately, this topic has again deteriorated into an
>    Oprah-style "men are bad" syndrome, where the classic question, "Why
>    aren't men doing enough for us?" rears its ugly head.
    
I guess I can understand this interpretation, Paul, but I don't draw
the same conclusion.  To me, the folks on the other side of the
fence are asking, "Why aren't men operating in partnership/relationship 
with the woman and baby, instead of operating in power-trip mode that 
results in him taking his ball and going home if he can't have his own 
way?"  

Of course the man's feelings count, just as any of our feelings 
count.  But feelings don't dictate action.  (My feelings of anger 
don't necessitate my punching you in the face; men's feelings of love 
toward the fetus/baby don't necessitate their having a say in whether 
abortion occurs.)  

I remember that the way I was brought up was that, if I didn't want to
deal with getting a woman pregnant, I should exercise my choice of not
having intercourse with her.  (A corallary is, "use a condom"; if you
can't be good, be careful.)  I know that this doesn't solve all
problems (What if birth control doesn't work? What if she lies about
birth control?  What if we both plan on having the child and she
changes her mind?), but it comes close to solving the problems of
feeling hosed by allowing the woman complete control of the situation
(since her body is completely responsible) in the first X months of
pregnancy.  

Maybe I'm mixing old-fashioned with radical, but I don't see why we
can't train our boys to understand that sex is not only fun or an
expression of love.  Sex is also a contract with responsibiltie that
are contingent on decisions that can only be made by the woman (to
carry or not to carry).  No sex happens unless it is understood what
the ramifications are.  If we, as a community, want to train our boys
and girls that way, we can.  It's up to us.   

I can also understand that there are men out there who are getting hosed 
in their child support payments, but isn't the solution to get the man 
and woman to act in a more reasonable partnership in regards to child 
payment?  Instead of swinging the argument--in a tit-for-tat way--by 
implying that, if the man has no say in child payment, the mother 
should have no say in abortion?  

It seems vengeful more than it seems like an earnest attempt to make 
life better for the man, woman, and child.  I'd rather expand the 
choices for men and women, not limit them, if possible.

						--Gerry

>Of course the man's feelings count, just as any of our feelings 
>count.
    
     If someone's feelings are ignored, do they still "count" in your
    perspective? Since there is no gay rights bill in NH despite the fact
    that an overwhelming majority of gays are in favor of such a bill, do
    gays feeling count? (I'm using this example since it hits close to home
    for you, Ger.)
    
>I can also understand that there are men out there who are getting hosed 
>in their child support payments, but isn't the solution to get the man 
>and woman to act in a more reasonable partnership in regards to child 
>payment?
    
     That's the tail wagging the dog. The problem is that men and women do
    NOT have a reasonable partnership in regards to child support. Saying
    the solution is to solve the problem is not terribly insightful.
    
>Instead of swinging the argument--in a tit-for-tat way--by 
>implying that, if the man has no say in child payment, the mother 
>should have no say in abortion?  
 
     I think men are saying "because I have sex with you does not give you
    carte blanche with my money." Because men are being held hostage for
    having sex with women. Maybe we should tell boys "every time you have
    sex with a woman, you have potentially ruined your financial future for
    19 years." It's the truth!
    
>It seems vengeful more than it seems like an earnest attempt to make 
>life better for the man, woman, and child. 
    
     If only it were possible to make life better for everyone. Well,
    perhaps if everyone played fair, we wouldn't have this problem. But the
    truth is that men and women victimize each other incessantly. Wounded
    egos lead to acts of vengeance, hatred, and bitterness. And there is no
    protection by the law.
    
    The Doctah

    re  .43
    
    My statement in .41 was addressing the topic of dependency.  I was
    responding to (and disagreeing with) a suggestion that women lack
    political and economic power and, therefore, cannot be "people in their
    own rights."
    
    This may sound like a generalization ... but in general ... no woman or
    man in today's society need be so dependent on another human that it
    ruins a major portion of his or her adult life.   In general, anyone who
    finds himself/herself dependent in this way, IMO, has really CHOSEN to
    be a victim.  We all have choices in life.  Where each of us stands at
    any given moment is the direct result of a series of our OWN decisions
    -- decisions that got us where we are.  Due to the magnificent benefits
    of the women's movement, women as a whole do not have to be dependent
    on men.
    
    Regarding male "power trips" -- being dishonest, playing unfair, and
    all that:  The belief in our culture that women play fair and men do 
    not is a fallacy.   Life itself is unfair.  How many perfectly honest,
    sincere, and saintly people have you encountered in your life?  Do
    these people come with a guarantee that keeps them virtuous and
    altruistic for as long as you both shall live?   Part of being
    independent -- as opposed to dependent or co-dependent -- is dealing
    with and rebounding from life's unfair dilemmas, including persons who
    might doublecross us.  Men do not have a monopoly on scuzzy behavior
    (although Oprah and Donahue would like us to believe most men are
    scumballs).  Women get their hands dirty too.
    
    Men are making great strides, I think, in our own men's "movement,"
    where we are finally beginning to cast off the chains of old role
    models and macho myths, and are finally connecting with our feeling
    components.  (I have witnessed many men's personal growth events,
    firsthand.) A lot of women mistakenly believe the men's movement is a
    mere lesson for men to learn how to get along with women and become
    more responsive their woman's needs and sensitivities.   That's only a
    small part of it.  Men, as a group, are working with thesmelves,
    finding themselves, and most importantly, changing FOR THEMSELVES --
    without shame and WITHOUT the guilt trips that our culture (and women)
    have placed on men in recent decades.  Women did it for themselves in
    the 60s and 70s to feel more whole and empowered.  So it will be with
    men.  As the men's movement matures, I think we will see a great deal 
    more understanding, compatibility, and serenity between the sexes -- 
    even around controversial social issues like abortion.  And this will 
    be a far cry from the hysteria we are witnessing today.
    
    One more thing ... men's feelings about abortion, IMO, ought to be
    respected, not portrayed as the brute instincts of prehistoric 
    cave dwellers. 
    
    Paul

    Re: .32 - Gerry Fisher on loss of control

    Right on! That's EXACTLY how I feel about it, with one tiny exception. The
    man doesn't ever completely regain control. He has NO control during the
    delivery and NEITHER parent completely controls the child. This lack of
    control can be VERY scary, I know it is to me. I think your analysis is
    spot on.

    Re: .*

    The arguments around child support are not pertinent to men's feelings
    about *abortion*. I find it difficult to believe that there are men who
    truly say, "Since if she carries it to term I will be required to support
    it, I should be allowed to decide whether she carries it or not."

    The more general, "Since if she carries it to term I will be required to
    do <X>, I should be allowed to decide whether she carries it or not",
    seems more likely to be applicable. A check for the depth of such a
    conviction would be to see if removing that requirement <X> changes how
    you feel. I think we all agree that say X = "I will have to sign a birth
    certificate" is not enough to justify allowing the man to decide, but X =
    "Commit ritual suicide" might well be.

    I realize that for some men and women "<X>" doesn't matter, abortion is
    simply always wrong, and a man who felt that way would ALWAYS want a say
    in any pregnancy he was involved in, to prevent any possible abortion. I
    understand this position, but, while it is certainly defensible, I
    disagree.  Whether or not such a man's opinion in some sense "counts" is
    certainly relevant. I work very hard to make sure that such opinions will
    never "count" in *MY* house.

    Is X = "have to support it till it is 18 at great financial hardship to
    myself for no reward" sufficient grounds? Perhaps, but then I think we
    need to add in Gerry's factor: you knew it might happen when you had sex.
    Don't have sex unless you accept the risk. How about if you DID accept the
    risk, and WERE diligent in taking precautions. Do you THEN get a say?

    It's easy to say that EVERYONE should talk about STD's before having sex,
    and that if there's a risk of pregnancy EVERYONE should talk about
    contraception, support, and abortion, but that's unrealistic. It doesn't
    always happen. It took AIDS to get people to talk about STD's before sex,
    and it hasn't even gotten EVERYONE talking yet. Can you see two teenagers
    talking about the risk of pregnancy and what they will do about it while
    in their parent's darkened living room?  Yeah, right.

    I've had unprotected sex twice in my life. The first time, thinking about
    potential consequences scared the hell out of me, and I resolved never to
    do it again.  The second time was to conceive a child (I may yet resolve
    never to do *that* again! :-) I acknowledge that birth control is not
    perfect, that I might accidentally father a child despite my best efforts.
    If that happens, I will talk to my lover and we will decide. If two people
    can't agree, SOMETHING will still happen.  It could be 1) his view 2) her
    view 3) always to term or 4) always abort. I can see arguments for 2, 3,
    or 4.  I personally only support #2 - she has the final say. I can imagine
    people arguing for #1 - the man decides, but it makes me shudder.  Read
    "The Handmaid's Tale" if you don't know why.

    I've only had sex with one woman that I *knew* would take an accidental
    pregnacy to term. Scared the hell out of me, and we've always used a belt
    AND suspenders. I've often had sex with women that I knew would abort an
    accidental pregnancy. I've ALWAYS had sex with women I thought would talk
    to me about it, and consider my feelings. They might, in the end, decide
    differently, but they would consider me as well. They all knew, I hope,
    that I would consider them, and ultimately that they got to decide.

    In the local world of individual relationships, men's feelings about
    abortion DO matter. I can't imagine sex with a woman who didn't care about
    my feelings on something so important. On the other hand, I can't imagine
    going to bed with a woman who would expect or allow me to decide for her.
    We would decide together, and if we ultimately disagreed, she would
    control the decision. (I can't actually imagine ultimately disagreeing,
    since my position is to talk about it, but to go along with her decision.
    It's hard to disagree with someone you've decided in advance to agree
    with...)

    In the global world of generalities and platitudes, academic debate, and
    laws, men's opinions on abortion are strictly irrelevant. Force a woman to
    carry a baby she doesn't want? Bear the child in pain? Risk her life?
    Because some MAN thinks she should? HAH! Are you men who think you should
    have a say willing to give up YOUR careers and stay home taking care of a
    child? Are YOU willing to sacrifice everything you have ever worked for
    because you accidentally conceived a child? Some of you may be, and you
    have my respect. The rest of you are simply whining, since that is exactly
    the decision many women have to face.

	-- Charles (who is looking forward to the day he has a vasectomy...)

Re: .32 and .46

I won't try to paraphrase you, your notes speak best for themselves!

I'm *very* happy to see other men who share these opinions, thank you
for describing them so elequently.

Kerry

    I dont feel the issue is about "words men use", child support, 
    control, ownership of a fetus.  I feel its about supporting
    the other partners decision to carry to term or abort.  I
    think a man has the resposibility to support her decision
    and not stand on his Rightous Box and crawl all over her for
    a decision that was tough to make in the first place.  To
    walk away is unmanly and unsupportive, to support even if its
    not what you want is supportive and caring about the other and
    I think shows trait of a real human being and man.
    
    Thanks
    
    Sorry about standing on my soap box earlier, just could not
    resist and opportunity to express and opinion.
    
    Jim

RE: .48	Some things are hard to be supportive of. Would you be supportive
	of a loved one who decided to randomly kill people? Probably not.
	But you'd say "That's different. Abortion is not killing people."
	Most people who believe that abortion is ok or should be left to
	the woman believe that a human life is not at stake. Many people
	who do not support abortion believe that a human life *is* at stake.
	To ask me to be supportive of a woman who decides to have an abortion
	is not fair. Such a request totally ignores my feelings and beliefs
	and shows total lack of respect for me as a person. For me I can
	no more stand by and help or support someone have an abortion than
	I can hand them a knife to stab someone who cut them off in traffic.
	A human life is at stake. People have tried to convince me otherwise
	but have failed.

	I understand that other people see things differently and I respect
	then for standing for what they believe. I just wish others would
	show me the same respect. Do not ask me to support women who have
	abortions; it is insulting, degrading, and shows a complete lack
	or caring about an other persons feelings and beliefs.

	RE: Words people use

	It seems like when a woman wants to have a baby it's "our baby".
	When they want to abort it's "my body". Why is that?

	People object to strong words in a debate of abortion. Such words
	as "murder" and "killing" are banned in some conferences debates
	on abortion. Even terms like "an unborn baby is a human life" are
	totally unexceptable in some conferences. Did you know that? This
	is an example of lack of valuing differences. It says once again,
	"Your opinion is invalid. It is wrong and you are wrong to have it."

	Some times I think that the only "differences" that are valued
	at Digital are "politically correct" ones.

			Alfred

    Re: .49

    Alfred, (may I call you Alfred? ;-) I understand that some people believe
    abortion is immoral. I can see how a man who held such a belief would find
    it very difficult or impossible to support a partner's decision to have an
    abortion. However, I am suspicious of most such men, because I doubt the
    depths of their commitment. I wonder how many men, morally opposed to
    abortion, ALWAYS use birth control or abstain from sex?  How many such men
    would volunteer to support BY THEMSELVES a child that they fathered if the
    woman did not want to bear it? How many such men would OFFER to pay any
    and all associated medical costs and costs of raising the child over the
    cost of having an abortion? How many of these men are prepared to deal
    with the cost and emotional turmoil of putting your newborn baby up for
    adoption? How many of these men are REALLY prepared to own the
    consequences of their position. These questions sound farfetched perhaps,
    but consider the case of a woman who is morally opposed to abortion. She
    has to face exactly these and other hard questions.

    Abstract moral stands are easy, following through on the practical
    implications can be very tough. I've known more than one woman who has had
    an abortion who told me that before they were morally opposed to it. An
    unwanted pregnancy can be a strong test.

    One of the major problems I have with the "there is a human life involved"
    arguments, is that I feel that there are TWO human lives involved, and I
    refuse to make the fetus' rights paramount from the start. To me it's
    clear, an unfertilized egg has no rights. A fertilized egg has almost
    none, at some point the developing fetus becomes a person with all the
    rights that implies. Until then, the mother's wishes prevail. After all,
    childbirth is not risk free, and in fact is MUCH more risky to the
    mother's health and life than an abortion.

    Re: words

	It seems like when a woman wants to have a baby it's "our baby".
	When they want to abort it's "my body". Why is that?

    Because no one aborts a baby. It seems that when Nicaraguans are Contras
    they are "freedom fighters" but when they are Sandinistas they are
    "communist insurgents". Why is that? Especially when it's often the SAME
    PEOPLE? Don't be disingenuous Alfred. No one is a villain in their own eyes.

	People object to strong words in a debate of abortion. Such words
	as "murder" and "killing" are banned in some conferences debates
	on abortion. Even terms like "an unborn baby is a human life" are
	totally unexceptable in some conferences. Did you know that? This
	is an example of lack of valuing differences. It says once again,
	"Your opinion is invalid. It is wrong and you are wrong to have it."

    Not everyone believes these things Alfred, and some of us find them
    offensive. I do not say that your opinion is invalid, nor wrong, merely
    that I feel harassed and threatened by it. My wife had an abortion, I
    supported her decision, you realize that a statement like "abortion is
    murder" is equivalent, to me, to "your wife is a murderer and you are an
    accomplice". Yes I value differences, but you better watch what you say
    about my wife! Do you believe you should be allowed to call your fellow
    employees murderers? ESPECIALLY when the law does not recognize your
    position? I recognize your position, I accept that you hold it very
    strongly, I ask you do the same for me.

	Some times I think that the only "differences" that are valued
	at Digital are "politically correct" ones.

    Poor Alfred, would you like a lolly? Digital's Policies and Procedures
    define what is "politically correct" here at Digital. Your statement is
    what we call in logic vacuously true, or true by definition. You seem to
    enjoy that "valuing differences" soapbox you're standing on. Have you ever
    taken the "Understanding the Dynamics of Difference" class? I recommend it.

	-- Charles

    in re Gerry, Charles and Alfred,
    
    you are all men whom I admire very much, tho your personal
    choices obviously vary widely.
    
    The one thing that I see in each of you is a great deal of human
    compassion and an ability to act honestly from deeply felt personal
    convictions.
    
    NO one should be forced to act against their personal wishes, and
    all decisions around pregnancy should be made with love and compassion
    and understanding in an ideal world.
    
    This world or at least this small part of it, is a better place because
    people like each of you is willing to speak to the truth as he sees it.
    
    Bonnie

    Charles,
    
    your answer .50 was entered as I was writing .51
    
    I have known Alfred Thompson a little over the past 3 and a half
    years.
    
    I can't speak for the other men who have answered in this file,
    but my knowledge of Alfred is that he is a totally honest man
    who is entirely sincere about his beliefs. He is one person that
    I would belive implicitly about his moral stances. However, I do
    believe that he is somewhat unique in his personal make up.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .50 I can speak only for myself. I have never ever had sex
    with anyone when I would not welcome a baby born from that union.
    I could not morally do so. 
    
    Yes I realize that saying that abortion is the killing of a human
    being parses very easily to "your wife killed a human being." I'm
    sorry it that is painful to you. I don't say it to hurt I said it
    because I believe it to be true and to not say it is that same as
    lieing. I can't discuss the issue without saying things like that.
    It's sort of like telling white South Africans that apartide is wrong.
    It's perfectly legal there. Would you not say it was wrong to spare
    someones feelings? In Nazi Germany the killings of millions of
    people was "legally" ok. Would you hesitate for a minute telling
    someone that it was "murder" to spare there feelings? Now to you
    and millions of other people abortion, Nazism, and apartide are
    totally different. To me however they are shockingly similar.
    I can no more not object to any one of them then I could any other.

    Is something right if someone I know and respect does it? Is that
    the way to make moral judgments? I don't think so. Should I sit
    quietly by and say nothing because you and your wife did it? Do
    you decide to speak up or stay silent based on what I and my wife
    do or do not do? I suspect not.

    If you believe that what you and your wife did is morally correct
    than I don't understand the threat you feel. I'm not suggesting
    that you be tried and punished for it. I understand that the law
    allows it and did so at the time it happened. I'd like to see the
    law changed though. 

    I am not totally opposed to abortion BTW. Few pro-life people are.
    We too understand that there are two lives involved. I'd never stand
    in the way of abortion to save a woman's life. Allowing it for
    cases of rape and incest appear to be a compromise I can life with.
    I agree with you that a man and woman who don't want to have kids
    should either not have sex or practice major protective sex. Perhaps
    it's because I would never have sex without being willing to have
    the baby and, seriously, don't understand why everyone doesn't feel
    that way that I don't see the need to allow abortion in other cases.

    RE: .52 I don't think I'm that unique. I know other men like me.
    There are men in the world who have only had sex with their wives.
    There are other men who never have sex without being willing to
    support a baby that may come from it. It's easy. It's very easy.
    All it requires is that you consider sex more than just fun and
    principles more than just rationalizations for ones actions.

    	RE: .53  Alfred
    
    	Why is it insensitive and a sign of disrespect to you for pro-choicers
    	to voice honest opinions about the support they feel women should be
    	given for reproductive choice, while your assessment that another
    	noter's wife killed a human being should be accepted in the spirit
    	of allowing you to speak your mind *without having to concern yourself*
    	with anyone else's feelings?
    
    	Please explain to me why a general statement about supporting women's
    	choice (without mentioning you specifically) should be viewed as
    	being so personally insulting to you, while your comments about an
    	identifiable noter's wife (and your assessment that she killed a
    	human being) should *not* be regarded primarily as an insult?

    
    	By the way, Alfred, if you're not in a position of worrying about
    	an unwanted pregnancy, then you weren't in the group being addressed
    	by the comment about how expectant fathers should support the woman's
    	decision whether to abort or not.
    
    	Your direct support for women's choice (when you're not directly
    	involved in the pregnancy) has not been sought, so there was never
    	an insult to you (by asking you to provide support for the decisions
    	of these women) in the first place.
    
    	You are free to deny support for legislation that makes abortion
    	legal.  The pro-choice majority is in a position to make such
    	rights possible throughout most of our country *without* involving
    	the need for support from you.
    

    Alfred, I said that you were 'somewhat' unique not 'unique' i.e.
    I know that you are not the only person who feels as you do. Why
    I say that your are unique is that you have chosen not to engage in
    any behavior that would risk the birth of an unwanted child, and
    you are also the sort of man who would, if asked support a child of
    a woman who came to you, rather than her have an abortion. You also
    have a great deal of compassion and also act on your compassion for
    the poor and desititue.
    
    
    So I feel that you are unique in that you act on your beliefs
    rather than just preaching on them.
    
    I personally have come to believe that a fetus is not ensouled until
    the 2nd or 3rd month (you've seen my arguements before) so I differ
    from you as far as I deal with my personal understanding of abortion,
    in that I don't believe a person is present in early abortions.
    
    As to later, I support those in cases of rape incest and danger to
    the mother..
    
    that is my personal stand.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .54 It's not insensitive for pro-choice people to say that women
    who have abortions should be supported. It is insensitive when they
    say that people should ignore their own basic principles to give that
    support. Earlier comment in this topic seemed to me to say that even I
    who is not directly involved should support a woman who has an
    abortion. That seems a bit much to me. If people feel they have to say
    such things I don't have to like it or agree with it though.

    I was fully aware that my statements would probably hurt someones
    feelings. Hurting someones feelings was an unavoidable side effect.
    As the saying goes sometimes the truth hurts. If someone doesn't
    believe that abortion is killing then my statements will be considered
    foolishness and ignored. Sort of like one ignores someone who calls
    someone a killer for stepping on an ant. The only ones truly hurt
    will be those who have doubts as the the correctness of their actions.

    Answer me this: If you saw a friend beat their child to with in an
    inch of their life would you refrain from telling them that they did
    wrong rather than hurt their feelings? Would you ask me to? If you
    said something to them would your intent be too insult them? If your
    answer is "no" to them then asking me not to say that abortion is
    killing is hypocrisy.

    		Alfred

    	RE: .57  Alfred
    
    	> It's not insensitive for pro-choice people to say that women
    	> who have abortions should be supported. It is insensitive when they
    	> say that people should ignore their own basic principles to give that
    	> support. 
    
    	If it's their opinion (and not a *demand*), you could accept it as
    	such and counter it with your own opinion.  Why the need to create
    	this argument that someone else's *opinion* is a direct insult to
    	you?
    
    	> If people feel they have to say such things I don't have to like 
    	> it or agree with it though.
    
    	No one demanded that you like it or agree with it.  It was an opinion.
    	Again, there was no basis for characterizing this opinion as a lack
    	of respect for you (or an insult to you as an individual person.)
    
    	> The only ones truly hurt will be those who have doubts as the the 
    	> correctness of their actions.
    
    	The law disagrees with you.  You could face an injurious law suit 
    	for a false accusation of "murderer" (depending on where you did it.)
    	There is *NO* legal recourse, however, for a request for support.
    
    	> Answer me this: If you saw a friend beat their child to with in an
    	> inch of their life would you refrain from telling them that they did
    	> wrong rather than hurt their feelings? Would you ask me to? If you
    	> said something to them would your intent be too insult them? If your
   	> answer is "no" to them then asking me not to say that abortion is
    	> killing is hypocrisy.
    
    	If I believed that killing an ant was murder, I'd try to keep myself
    	aware that my view was not shared by the majority in our culture, so
    	that when I started making accusations of murder for reasons others
    	consider foolish, they were likely to criticize me for it.  (Who
    	*likes* being called murderer for someone else's personal definition
    	of it, after all.  The word is offensive enough to be disliked even
    	when the claim is preposterous.)

    Murder and killing are not the same thing. Not legally and not
    in practice. I didn't say anyone was a murderer. It's a big
    difference.You are trying to paint me as a bad guy because I
    want to save lives. It's a strange world we live in.

    As to people making demands that I support abortion don't tax
    dollars pay for some abortions? Do I have a choice about paying
    my taxes? It seems to me that quite a few people are demanding that
    I fund abortions. Do you demand I pay for abortions or do you
    support removing funding of abortion by tax dollars?
    
    			Alfred
    

Re: .59

I see, so my wife Janice isn't a murderer, she's just a killer. Thanks I feel
much better now. My tax dollars go to support many things I find morally
reprehensible, including killing women and children around the world, and not
going to many things I find valuable, such as the World Health Organization, and
AIDS research.

That's what representative government is all about. Go work on getting people
elected that represent your views (I know you do, and I know I do). In the mean
time, stop calling my wife a killer.

	-- Charles

    During the past several years I have had to make an uneasy peace with
    this topic.  I would rather be boiled alive than go through the hell I
    went through when my ex-fianc� aborted our child without my knowledge
    and now the only thing left is the memory that someone who was supposed
    to be my child never was because their mother's vainity prevented her
    from getting married while pregnant. 

    As Alfred has pointed out, it is presently politically incorrect and
    socially unacceptable in "the enlightened circles" to oppose abortion.
    I can respect that, for I find repugnance in the fact that there are
    those who would attempt to legislate their own morality and prevent
    others from making a choice. 

    But those who believe that freedom of choice is the overriding factor
    in this never-ending debate have deflected aside the true issue: Is the
    foetus a human individual?  For those of us who believe that it is, no
    amount of rhetoric, no appeal to common sense, and all the water in the
    world cannot wash away the stains, nor erase the guilt of being members
    of a society where aborting a child is more acceptable than shooting a
    dog. 

    I have tried to come to peace with events in my past by attempting to
    convince myself that that which was destroyed those many years ago was
    just a lump of protoplasm and not my child.  It was an exercise in
    denial which lasted about a year.  It was the only refuge I could find
    from the pain.  But in the end I only found that I cannot separate
    myself from my morality for the sake of "political correctness" or even
    for my own peace of mind.  This left me only with grief. 

    I take the lesson from history for there was a time when it was
    politically correct to extend the boundaries of the human species only
    to those people with white skin.  All others were subject to
    exploitation without rights or freedoms.  We still live with the
    vestiges of that thinking. 

    As far as the stake which men have in this issue, I think it that their
    point of view has been blanketed over simply because the argument has
    become an issue regarding who has control over an individual's body.
    Since the right of control over an individual's person is near-sacred
    in our society, those who support abortion have found themselves in a
    well fortified and very high tower.  
    
    The outcome is that, for the most part, the issue is a "woman's issue"
    which leaves men without a voice worth hearing, after all men are
    supposed to be more concerned about who wins the Super Bowl than
    whether their child falls victim to an abortion. 

    For whatever it's worth, I would have raised my child by myself and
    accepted any responsibility which my ex was unable or unwilling
    to take.  If I find myself in the situation where I am unwilling
    to accept the responsibility for a child, I'll abstain.
    
    I would not attempt to prevent anyone from having an abortion.  I will
    never support a political movement to ban abortions.  A person's moral
    path is one which only they can choose.  But society cannot continue to
    disregard, without compassion and for the sake of political
    correctness, those who believe that abortion is murder. 
    
    Kris 
    

    	RE: .62  Kris
    
    	You have my sympathy for the pain you've suffered for your fiancee
    	having had an abortion without your knowledge.  As much as I believe
    	in pro-choice, it is also my opinion that the feelings of the father
    	should be considered by a woman who is faced with an unwanted preg-
    	nancy.  
    
    	Realistically, though, it isn't possible to force a woman to confide
    	in *anyone* when she finds herself in this situation (since awareness
    	of pregnancy happens longs before the condition is obvious to anyone
    	other than the woman herself.)  The best protection for men who are
    	seriously opposed to abortion would be to discuss these feelings with
    	prospective lovers *prior* to sexual intercourse, so that it can be
    	established before sex what the possible outcome of an unplanned
    	pregnancy might be.
    
    	> As Alfred has pointed out, it is presently politically incorrect and
    	> socially unacceptable in "the enlightened circles" to oppose abortion.
    
    	Cries of "politically correct" are becoming quite fashionable these
    	days (to the point of having become one of the most popular cliches
    	of the new decade.)  
    
    	If the Chinese communists were well-versed in American slang, I'm
    	sure they would be calling the moves (in Europe and the USSR) towards
    	democracy "politically correct," too.  It's a cheap shot, suggesting
    	that popular ideologies must necessarily be flawed (as evidenced by
    	their popularity alone.)  I don't buy it, and the cliche is getting
    	immeasurably tiresome.
    
    	> I can respect that, for I find repugnance in the fact that there are
    	> those who would attempt to legislate their own morality and prevent
    	> others from making a choice. 
    
    	So do I.  I'm in favor of reproductive choice.
    
    	> For those of us who believe that it is, no amount of rhetoric, no 
    	> appeal to common sense, and all the water in the world cannot wash 
    	> away the stains, nor erase the guilt of being members of a society 
    	> where aborting a child is more acceptable than shooting a dog. 
    
    	You can choose not to feel personal guilt, though.  There are many
    	things acceptable in our society that I find disturbing (but can
    	not control.)  I could torture myself by feeling personal guilt for
    	these things, but I don't see the point.  I doubt if my professing
    	to feel personal guilt would change the minds of those who do find
    	these things acceptable, so I'd only be hurting myself needlessly.
    
    	> I take the lesson from history for there was a time when it was
    	> politically correct to extend the boundaries of the human species only
    	> to those people with white skin.  All others were subject to
    	> exploitation without rights or freedoms.  We still live with the
    	> vestiges of that thinking. 
    
    	Comparisons between embryos and born human beings is just that: 
    	a comparison.  You could compare dogs, cats or gorillas in the same
    	way, but it wouldn't prove the need to *extend* human rights (simply
    	because such comparisons can be made.)  
    
    	Comparing abortion rights to the Holocaust, for example, is another 
    	tired cliche, and the implications (that abortion rights supporters 
    	are the "Nazis" of our age) are more than just a little bit offensive 
    	and unfair.  Hopefully, you weren't trying to do that.
    
    	>As far as the stake which men have in this issue, I think it that their
    	>point of view has been blanketed over simply because the argument has
    	>become an issue regarding who has control over an individual's body.
    
    	My personal opinion is that a father's feelings in the situation of
    	an unwanted pregnancy are very important (and certainly played a
    	big role when I was in this very situation myself.)  
    
    	In my case, though, the father wanted there to be an abortion and I 
    	didn't, so I was forced to ignore his feelings (or face being subject 
    	to an abortion against my will.)  In the end, it came down to what I 
    	was willing to have done to my body, so the child was born and raised
    	(and at 19 years old, is still the light of my life.)
    
    	If I had allowed the father to make my decision for me, my son
    	would not be here today.  (Allowing the mother to make the final
    	decision can work either way.  Surely you knew that if fathers
    	were allowed the final say in abortion, many pregnancies would be
    	aborted *against* the wishes of the mothers.)
    
    	>Since the right of control over an individual's person is near-sacred
    	>in our society, those who support abortion have found themselves in a
    	>well fortified and very high tower.  
    
    	If only that were true.  (If true, the pro-choice marches and rallies
    	in Washington, not to mention the vast number of state-level marches,
    	rallies, phone campaigns, and lobbying efforts, wouldn't have been
    	necessary.  Our position is only as secure as it is because a great
    	many people have expended an enormous amount of effort to make it so.)
    
    	>The outcome is that, for the most part, the issue is a "woman's issue"
    	>which leaves men without a voice worth hearing, after all men are
    	>supposed to be more concerned about who wins the Super Bowl than
    	>whether their child falls victim to an abortion. 
    
    	Allowing fathers to make the decision wouldn't reduce the number of
    	abortions, though.  My personal experience (with people I've known
    	in my life) suggests that many men tend to choose abortion more often
    	in unplanned pregnancies than the mothers of their children do.
    
    	Forced abortion is even more repugnant to me than forced pregnancy.
    	The woman has to have the option of making the final choice herself
    	(if it differs from that of the father,) although I do agree that
    	fathers' feelings should be given great consideration when possible.
    
    	> For whatever it's worth, I would have raised my child by myself and
    	> accepted any responsibility which my ex was unable or unwilling
    	> to take.  
    
    	You have my utmost respect for this.  Quite sincerely.
    
    	>I would not attempt to prevent anyone from having an abortion.  I will
    	>never support a political movement to ban abortions.  A person's moral
    	>path is one which only they can choose.  
    
    	That's what being pro-choice is all about.
    
    	> But society cannot continue to disregard, without compassion and 
    	> for the sake of political correctness, those who believe that 
    	> abortion is murder. 
    
    	There's that cliche again.  (Ugh!)
    
    	You do many/most pro-choicers a great disservice by claiming that
    	we disagree that abortion is murder for the sake of "political
    	correctness."  It is my strongest conviction that abortion is not
    	murder, and I would believe it whether anyone else agreed with me
    	about it or not.
    
    	The fact that there is a pro-choice majority doesn't render this
    	conviction as false (by its popularity alone.)

    	Technical correction to .63.
    
    	My wife had several miscarriages before our second child was born,
    and after a while I could tell when she was pregnant before she could.
    Her body scent changed about ten days after conception, and she
    couldn't notice it since she was with it all the time.

    
    "You are trying to paint me as a bad guy because I want to save lives"
    
    Many women who abort look at the abortion as a way of saving the
    child's life.  
    
    Michele

>	time, stop calling my wife a killer.

    	Grow up Charles. The only one here who has called your wife
    a killer is you.

    RE: .60

>    Poor Alfred, would you like a lolly? Digital's Policies and Procedures
>    define what is "politically correct" here at Digital. 

    Now who is being disingenuous ? Politically correct is in quotes for
    a reason. Digital policy says what is technically or theoretically
    correct and allowable. Practice is different. For example the FWO
    topics in WOMANNOTES are in violation of the letter of policy if any
    moderator action is taken to enforce them. They are in violation of
    the spirit of the policy if they exist at all. (That's the opinion
    of the man who "owns" the Orangebook not me BTW.) Yet they exist
    anyway. Not because they are correct but because the fit a certain
    agenda that is not easily challenged. That is the kind of think
    I meant by "politically correct". There is a lot of that going around.

>    Have you ever
>    taken the "Understanding the Dynamics of Difference" class? I recommend it.

    No I haven't. Though if you take it and I see a change in your attitude
    I'll consider it. In general, I've found that most people who have
    taken it fall into two categories. Those who are intolerant and like
    it and those who are tolerant and did not like it. Your experience
    may vary of course and that's not 100% mine. But it leans that way.
    
    			Alfred

    RE: .41  

    Paul -- Sorry for the delay responding, but I've been on vacation. 
    This answer is a bit oblique, I'm afraid -- it's rather difficult
    for me to write about.  

>>    Although I am touched by your personal story, I disagree with your
>>    assumptions here.  As a result the gains of the women's movement, women 
>>    DO have economic and political power and ARE people in their own rights. 
>>    Women don't HAVE to ask for anything anymore.  Take advantage of the 
>>    power -- grab it and run with it.  Sadly, some women continue to set 
>>    themselves up as victims, totally dependent on men from day one.

    It's true that women have more power now than they did when I was
    pregnant with Kat in 1973.  I managed to pull through (more below)
    and now I'm a good member of the upper middle class, who can
    afford to give my daughter a good education and good training in
    the skills of life.  Both women who are well off and poor women
    of burning ambition who are determined to make something better of
    their lives have more power and more hope than there was before. 

    But if you think the young women presently in high school are
    being reared to take equal roles in society, you're badly
    mistaken.   When I talk to my daughter's classmates and friends, I
    find boys planning for how they're going to get into the best
    college possible, so they can get the best jobs possible.  I hear
    girls talking about not going too far from home.   They assume
    they'll have a job for a few years, until they have kids.  Then
    they'll leave the work force to raise them.  

    For the most part they're thinking of jobs, not careers, and they
    aren't thinking of the better paying professions.  They're still
    looking at teaching, social work, the other helping professions
    that may be critical for the survival of society and rewarding in
    many ways but never pay as much as engineering and accounting. 
    They aren't thinking of how hard it will be to get back into the
    work force after five or ten years home with the kids, competing
    with young new faces who can be paid junior salaries for ten years
    until they, too, leave to have their children.  They aren't
    thinking of what it's going to be like to give up years out of the
    middle of their career and find out when they come back that
    they're permanently handicapped in the rat race. 

    A mother alone, without an education, trying to raise a child on a
    minimum wage and welfare payments, watching her little one grow up
    without even a warm coat to wear to school or a decent meal
    waiting at the end of the day, is facing a struggle whose pain
    most of us can only imagine, not really comprehend.  I made it on
    my own and went on to a healthy, happy marriage and a new family. 
    But I had a good education and a loving, healthy, supportive
    family.  If I had less education, or less help from my parents and
    grandmother, or abusive and dysfunctional family residue to cope
    with, or less luck (finding a technical writing job instead of the
    junior-high-English-teaching I was planning on, for instance), I
    wouldn't be here now.  Just because I had the education and
    emotional preparation to seize my own power and opportunity
    doesn't mean I don't see how society handicaps other people in
    their attempts to control their own lives.  
    
    It does mean that I'm going to be the last person to judge harshly
    a woman who decides that it's better for a child not to be born
    than to be born into the kind of world she's facing.  I don't know
    whether that's supportive or not, but it's the only way I can look
    at it.  
    
    --bonnie

    Alfred,

    I really do respect your position, and I think I understand it. I think
    you and the other readers understand my position as well. I don't want
    this note to turn into yet another pro/anti abortion note, I like seeing
    men talk about how they FEEL about abortion without having to feel that
    their opinions will be bashed or judged. As such I apologize for hassling
    you for stating your opinion, since to some degree that IS what I was
    doing. I could go on reacting to your notes, and you to mine, but I'd
    rather go back to listening to what other men have to say about their
    feelings about abortion.

    Thanks for sharing yours.

	-- Charles

P.S. We can continue discussing abortion itself if you like, and Digital's
P&P, and Womannotes, and Political Correctness if you like, but let's do it in
a different note?

.53>I am not totally opposed to abortion BTW. Few pro-life people are.
.53>We too understand that there are two lives involved. I'd never stand
.53>in the way of abortion to save a woman's life. Allowing it for
.53>cases of rape and incest appear to be a compromise I can life with.


Not to take issue with anyone in particular on this, but I have a problem
with this.  Not a moral problem...  a logical problem.

A) fertile egg is human life
B) it is illegal/immoral to take a human life
C) therefore it is illegal/immoral to abort fertile egg

EXCEPT (and here is where I lose the logical connection)

D) in cases where the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy
   or as the result of rape or incest.

    Now let me get this right.  If I'm the  fertile  egg,  I have as much
right to live as anyone else.  But, since it is  either  me  or  mom, she
wins  (some  lives  are worth more that others?).  Or, since (through  no
fault of my own) I happen to have come into existance because of  rape or
incest, then I lose again (all lives are worth more than mine?).

    Again, I want to emphasize that I am  not  singling out the author of
.53.    I  have  heard  this exemption stated quite  a  lot  by  pro-life
spokespersons and have just never been able to make it logically balance.
It seems to me that it would make more sense to state that a person would
not accept the concept of abortion at all.

    Anybody care to educate me?


Just wondering,
Roger

    re: .69
    	I would not attempt to justify the following argument, but it might
    lie behind some people's thinking.
    
    	There is a possibility that a tendancy to rape is a hereditary
    characteristic. Many behavioural characteristics are hereditary, and
    this one might seem to have a positive survival value.
    
    	If we insist the children of rapists always survive, we may be
    building a society of rapists. If we insist they are always aborted we
    eliminate the trait. If we leave the choice to the woman, who knows?
    

    re .69
    
    If the mothers life is threatened, then it is possible that the
    fertilized "life" is also threatened.  In this case it becomes the
    decision of sacrificing one "life" for another vs. loosing two.
    
    From what I understand of rape and incest they are very traumatic
    experiences.  While a pregnancy resulting from them may not be a
    physical threat to a woman's life, it could be a threat to her mental
    health.
    
    Now, can we get back to the original topic?  For those that have
    forgotten, the topic was "What are the feelings that you experienced
    when a friend/spouse/relative had an abortion?"
    
    Rich (Your topic author)

    .67  bonnie,
    
    Thanks for responding and sharing your stories.  On some levels I can
    understand your frustrations regarding societal pressures on
    girls and young women to be/live/work in certain ways.  Boys and young
    men get pressures too, but for many different reasons.  On other
    levels, however, I don't understanding why -- if your portrait of young 
    women's attitudes are true, which I doubt -- young women still buy into 
    these antiquated stereotypes and expectations.  The women's movement has
    matured and come full cycle, and surely there are plenty of older women
    available as healthy role models for girls.... aren't there?  If not,
    it looks like women in America are letting their younger counterparts 
    down (not men).
    
    From my personal vantagepoint, and from women I know / have known in my
    life... I see a much different picture.  For the most part, young women
    I know refuse to be victims, refuse to bound themselves with the old
    chains of the past, refuse to succumb to devaluing, stereotyped
    mindsets, and take advantage of the tools handed down to them by the
    courageous women of the 60s and 70s, who paved the way.  Most young
    women I know wouldn't allow themselves to get into the situation of
    raising children without the means to do so -- or into the situation
    where they surround themselves with men who abuse, demean, and take
    advantage of women.  (Believe it or not, Bonnie, a lot of men out there
    share your values.)
    
    The dynamics of dependency are often hidden, and if girls and young
    women of today are still towing the same line, then it seems to me they
    are not taking advantage of the resources that their predecessors
    handed down to them.  
    
    There's more to say, but later...
    
    Paul
          

    Two women in my family have had abortions. They are not sisters of
    mine but they are still family. I was not involved in their lives
    when they had their abortions. I was quite saddened when I heard about
    them though. Their brother is, besides being a relative, my best
    friend and we've talked a bit about his feelings. He has a deep sense
    of lose. People who would have been his nephews or nieces never had
    a chance to be born and it grieves him. One of these women has also
    given up a child for adoption. Abortion was not something she could
    do again. My friend misses that child as well but at least has the
    happiness that he/she is alive and living somewhere with a family
    that cares for them.

    My brother was in a relationship some years ago and the women became
    pregnant. It was no big deal to her and she got an abortion. Now my
    brother still grieves for the child that might have been. He gets
    noticeably depressed at the time that would have been the babies
    birthday. I believe that changed his outlook on sex quite a bit. He
    got a lot more serious about who he had relations with after that.
    He also got VERY serious about birth control.

    			Alfred

    re: .72, Paul --
    
    I'm not sure what part of the country and society you're living
    in; there are certainly many young women who feel the way you
    describe.  I know some of them, and I think my own daughter's one
    of them.  But there are many more who haven't heard the
    progressive messages we take for granted.  
    
    I'm presently living in a mostly Catholic ethnic part of Nashua NH
    where many families still send their sons to Ivy League colleges
    but won't pay for their daughters to attend college at all, or at
    most UNH or UMASS.   I know one young woman who graduated from
    high school with a 3.86 GPA who's waiting tables at Friendly's to
    pay for UNH classes while her eldest brother's about to flunk out
    of Dartmouth and her younger brother is in Phillips Exeter getting
    ready to go to another Ivy League school, Yale I think. 
    
    I don't imagine the daughters of the southern Baptists and such
    who are being specifically taught that women's place is in the
    home and the husband is boss are in much better shape for taking
    on equal responsibility in the world. 
    
    And there are the many many young women who don't have the good
    fortune to grow up in functional families.  These young women have
    learned that being surrounded "with men who abuse, demean, and
    take advantage of women" is the norm.  Their mother is treated
    that way, their aunts, their older sisters -- that's the way the
    world is.  
    
    >(Believe it or not, Bonnie, a lot of men out there share your
    >values.)
    
    I know.  I'm married to one of them :) :)
    
>    The dynamics of dependency are often hidden, and if girls and young
>    women of today are still towing the same line, then it seems to me they
>    are not taking advantage of the resources that their predecessors
>    handed down to them.  
    
    This may be.  I'm talking more about the reality of the situation
    than why it might be happening and what can be done about it,
    which didn't strike me as particularly relevant to feelings about
    abortion.   In reality, women still bear an unequal portion of the
    consequences of bearing an unwanted child.  In reality, society
    still needs a lot of education.
    
    >>The women's movement has matured and come full cycle, and surely
    >>there are plenty of older women available as healthy role models
    >>for girls.... aren't there?  If not, it looks like women in
    >>America are letting their younger counterparts  down (not men).
    
    There are more role models for women than there used to be, but I
    wouldn't say there are an abundance of healthy options to choose
    from.  Boys get Donald Trump, flaunting his wealth and manhood all
    over the front pages, the girls get Ivana Trump who had a facelift
    so she'd look young enough to please her man and still got dumped. 
    (I picked this one 'cause it was on the front of a magazine my
    daughter was reading last night.) 
    
    I didn't mean to imply that I thought men were letting women down. 
    I'm trying to say that society -- of which both men and women are
    a part -- is still working against equality, but that equality is
    the only lasting and fair solution to many of the diverse issues
    facing us.
    
    --bonnie

re.73
It nice to see a relevant reply mixed in with all of the broken records
that have been playing here thanks for posting it.
Several notes entered here could be handled better by posting a pointer
to other notes where the same thing has been said again and again and again
save your fingers and my time.

-j

I can understand men who are heartbroken because their partners aborted
a baby they would have wanted to raise.  My heart goes out to their grief.

What I'm still having trouble understanding is my ex's reaction, 
walking out when I wouldn't have an abortion, because he wasn't "ready" 
for the responsibility of fatherhood.  I wasn't ready for motherhood, either, 
but it had already happened.  But he could walk out and I couldn't. 

Extrapolating from the notes here, I would assume that he was afraid he'd
be stuck with the support and never get any of the rewards, and judging
from the experiences of the men here, his fear might have been reasonable.
I always felt I could take care of myself, and of the baby, so the finances
weren't an issue for me and I was shocked to think he'd think I was that
kind of person.  I think maybe that was the worst part of the whole thing,
realizing he was willing to walk out and let me take the entire consequences
of our joint action. 

Why would a man do that?

--bonnie

    re  .76
    
        "... he wasn't 'ready' for the responsibility of fatherhood.
         I wasn't ready for motherhood, either, but it had happened.
         But he could walk out and I couldn't."
    
    Sure, you could have walked out via alternatives, such as abortion or
    adoption.  And maybe you should have done so, if, as you say, you were
    not ready for motherhood.  If the couple is not ready for parenthood --
    a prime source of child neglect/abuse -- then why should they bring a
    child into the world?  Or if it is brought into the world, why should
    they raise it?  Isn't this setting oneself up to be a victim?
    
        "He was willing to walk out and let me take the entire consequences 
         of our joint action...  why would a man do that?"
    
    Try to look at this from his point of view.  Since neither one of you was
    ready to raise a child, he believed that not having/keeping the child 
    WAS the responsible thing to do.  His walk-out may have been a reaction 
    to what he saw as an irresponsible action on your part.  Moreover, this
    behavior isn't indigenous to men.  Some men want to keep the child,
    while their partner chooses to abort.  Wanting to abort the fetus, or
    putting the baby up for adoption, is not equivalent to "irresponsible"
    behavior, IMO, especially if the parents are not ready to be parents.
    
    Paul
    
    This topic was supposed to be about men's feelings about abortion.  Why
    do a lot of women have so much difficulty in taking a break in their 
    non-stop expression of their own feelings -- a long enough break, at 
    least, to listen to and understand the feelings of men (as different 
    or similar as those feelings may be)?  

>I think maybe that was the worst part of the whole thing,
>realizing he was willing to walk out and let me take the entire consequences
>of our joint action. 

>Why would a man do that?
 
     Because he could. Seriously. Due to a quirk of biology, he was able to
    up and leave. Since he didn't want a baby (for whatever reasons) he
    took matters into his own hands. Since you were unwilling to release
    him from his responsibility the easy way (for _him_), he did the next
    best thing- abdicated his responsibility by running from it.
    
     I personally consider a man who leaves his wife because she is
    pregnant and won't get an abortion to be extremely selfish and lacking
    in the qualities that I believe constitute a "real man." Real men face
    the music- they don't run and hide like a scairt rabbit.
    
     So few people understand the implications of sex. All they care about
    is the nice feeling in the genitals. How sad.
    
     The Doctah  

    .78
    
    Well, some men feel that "being a real man" and "facing the music"
    means not bringing a child into the world and/or raising it, when
    neither a man nor his wife believe they are ready to be parents.  I am
    not advocating "walking out" to solve this type of dilemma.  But I do
    feel it takes a certain amount of so-called "manly" courage to make a
    conscious choice NOT to victimize everyone involved, including the
    unborn fetus, when two people are ill-equipped to raise a family.
    
    When a couple gets pregnant when they are not ready to be parents, and
    when one of them chooses to "walk out" as a result, then it seems there is 
    more wrong with the relationship than what meets the eye.  It doesn't
    necessarily mean men at large have a proclivity from "running away" 
    from life's problems.
    
    Paul  

     Ignoring unpleasantness doesn't take a fraction of the courage that
    facing up to it does. No matter how you slice it, running away from
    problems requires less courage than dealing with them. If you choose to
    believe that a man who doesn't want to be a father and so abandons his
    wife and child is being courageous, there is little I can do to change
    your mind. I would ask you to consult the dictionary to ascertain that
    you are talking about the same definition of courage, though.:-)
    
>    Well, some men feel that "being a real man" and "facing the music"
>    means not bringing a child into the world and/or raising it, when
>    neither a man nor his wife believe they are ready to be parents.
    
     If everyone waited until they were "ready," the world would be far
    less populous.
    
    The Doctah

    re .76ff
    
    One of the stories was from a man whose wife had had one abortion
    (mutual decision), and they thought that she had gotten pregnant so
    they were considering another because it "wasn't the right time to
    start a family".  Well, a friend pointed out that it really never is
    the right time; you'll always have that debt that you would like to rid
    yourself of first, or that promotion that you would like to get first,
    and that if you keep put off having children until it is the "right"
    time, you'll miss your chance.  After the guy thought about it he
    realized that she (the friend happened to be a woman) was correct, and
    he started getting used to the idea of being a parent soon.  As it
    turns out his wife was not pregnant.  They did end up having children
    shortly after that though.
    
    So, the question can become more of "Do you want to be a parent?",
    rather than "Is this the right time to become a parent?".  It's
    important that people know what they are doing and recognize the
    potential outcome when they engage in sexual intercourse.

    .80
    
        "Ignoring unpleasantries"
    
        "Running away from problems"
    
        "Abandoning wife and child"
    
    Gimme a break.  This is not what I said.  Please do not put words in
    my mouth.   8-)  
    
    Paul
    
    P.S.  If everyone waited till they were ready [to have children] then
    the world wouldn't have nearly as many unwanted, neglected, abused, 
    malnourished, and underloved children as it does now.  Doesn't the
    quality of a child's existence matter anymore?  Are you saying people 
    should have children even when they are not ready to be parents?  If
    so, that's not courage, that's ... well... something else.  :-)
    
    

     Ok- Paul, you want a break.
    
     Let's deal with a few issues.
    
     I said that a man that abandons his wife and child lacks courage in
    .78. You apparently disagreed in .79, at least, one could not conclude
    that agree based on your reply.
    
>    When a couple gets pregnant when they are not ready to be parents, and
>    when one of them chooses to "walk out" as a result, then it seems there is 
>    more wrong with the relationship than what meets the eye.
    
     What exactly do you mean by that? "One of them decides to walk out?"
    It's not like that by "walking out," the woman won't be pregnant
    anymore. So what we're really talking about here is the man walking
    out. And it sounds like you're mitigating the irresponsibility of that
    act by saying that there's more wrong with the relationship than meets
    the eye. What the heck does that mean? What meets the eye is that the
    guy bolted! You are giving no mitigating circumstances; just saying
    that it's not all his fault (apparently). Explain. I wouldn't want to
    put words in your mouth, ya know. :-)
    
>  It doesn't
>    necessarily mean men at large have a proclivity from "running away" 
>    from life's problems.
    
     I don't believe that has been asserted. We call that a "straw man."
    You are rejecting an argument that has not been made. Good. Reject it.
    Then rejoin our discussion. :-)
    
     You seem to think I'm saying that every time a woman gets pregnant a
    baby must be produced. I'm not. If the man and woman can both agree to
    an alternative, fine. If they disagree, the law is clear- he must
    accept his financial responsibility for the child. That's all I'm
    saying.
    
     The Doctah
    

    .83   Dear Wahoo,    
    
    Thanks for giving me a break... I think.  8-)
    
    When I said something seems inherently "wrong with the relationship" I
    mean that when someone helps create a sticky situation -- in this case,
    a fetus + a couple not ready for parenthood -- then he suddenly "bolts," 
    without having the wherewithal (courage?) to work out such a sticky 
    situation, then it seems to me there are some serious fundamental 
    problems with the relationship to begin with.  If partners in a
    committed relationship do not share similar values, and they don't know 
    each other well enough to foresee the potential for disaster, then the 
    relationship is most likely already sitting on a very weak foundation.
    
    I know you won't like this... but... courage and taking responsibility
    ALSO has to do with owning up to and dealing with mistakes, including
    the flawed decisions/choices we make, which, of course, includes
    attracting to us persons who are inclined to "bolt."  Does each of us
    create his/her own reality?  I believe we all do.
    
    I want to make it clear that I am not presuming to know the specifics of
    what Bonnie went through or how good/bad that relationship was.  
    
    Did I press more of your buttons??  8-)
    
    Paul
    
    P.S.  I would also like to point out that while "bolting" is wrong,
    the decision to have/raise a child when the parents do not consider 
    themselves ready is also wrong (in my opinion).  I am not defending the
    Boltee, and two wrongs don't make a right, but who are the winners
    here?  It seems most everyone is a victim, either way you cut it.
     

    I just want to add one more quick thing ...
    
    When I talked about dissimilar values and not knowing each other well
    enough to foresee the potential for disaster, it seems that in cases
    like these, the predicament works both ways.   The woman did not
    foresee the potential disaster of the man bolting.  And the man did not
    see the potential disaster of the woman insisting on having/raising the
    child, when they BOTH know they are not ready to do so.  Such a
    relationship seems pretty hopeless.   Realistically, the birth of a
    child can't glue it back together.
    
    Paul

    re *
    
    Let me see if I have this right.
    
    * A man should *never* have sex with a woman unless he wants to
      take the responsibility of a pregnancy, but a woman can do
      whatever and "excercise her choice" if she gets pregnant.
    
    * A woman who "excercises her choice" ie aborts is ok because
      she "has a right to determine what is going to happen to
      her body", but a man has no say whatsoever in what happens
      to the body of his child or whether or not his body will
      be held in virtual slavery for the next 19 or so years.
      
    * There is something almost virtuous about a woman who "abandons"
      her child either by abortion or by adoption because "she
      has a right to make a choice", but a man who abandons his
      child is scum.
    
    Humm...
    
    Sounds just a tinsy bit hypocritical to me.
    
    How does that make me feel??  Madder'n *&@#%^.
    
    fred();

re-.1
Fred,
You have discovered the meat in this stew.

It is a double standard in the most obvious form.

-j

re: .78

Thanks, Doctah, that's very clear.  I can understand that.  

I didn't mean to be talking about my feelings, I was trying to understand
his, which is hard to do when he's not here.

Yes, Paul, there were serious problems with the relationship and having 
the child would not have done any good.  But getting pregnant was not
in our plans -- it was birth control failure, plain and simple.  

And this is definitely my feelings, so not relevant to this note, but I'll 
add it since it came up. I didn't have an abortion or give up for adoption 
because I found I couldn't walk.  It wasn't any strong moral opinion about
murdering unborn children, just a conviction that since I had chosen to have
sex knowing this could happen, it was my responsiblity to raise the child.
And I'm glad I did.  

--bonnie

    fred
    
     I didn't say you had to like it. I didn't say I liked it. But them's
    the rules for now.
    
     The Doctah

    .88  bonnie,
    
    Thank you for sharing that.  I am glad things worked out in the long
    run for you and your child.
    
    Paul
    

    re .89 doctah
    
    Whose Rules??  Make a remark like that in Womannotes and see how
    far you get before they lynch you.
    
    fred();

    	RE: .86  Fred
    
    	> * A man should *never* have sex with a woman unless he wants to
      	>   take the responsibility of a pregnancy, but a woman can do
      	>   whatever and "excercise her choice" if she gets pregnant.
    
    	The woman faces a painful medical procedure, or long-term changes
    	to her body that could result in her death.  (Such a deal, right?)
    	Women can just do "whatever" and possibly die because of it.
    
    	> * A woman who "excercises her choice" ie aborts is ok because
      	>   she "has a right to determine what is going to happen to
      	>   her body", but a man has no say whatsoever in what happens
      	>   to the body of his child or whether or not his body will
      	>   be held in virtual slavery for the next 19 or so years.
    
    	The alternative would be that the woman could either be forced
    	to submit to an abortion against her will, or 9 months of
    	pregnancy against her will (risking possible death.)  If the
    	father ends up in a position to pay for the next 19 years or
    	so, the woman will spend those years raising the child (with
    	him or without him.)  If she ends up being a single parent,
    	it could be a long struggle to keep herself and her child alive 
    	(whether the man pays child support or not.)  Again, such a deal!
    
    	> * There is something almost virtuous about a woman who "abandons"
      	>   her child either by abortion or by adoption because "she
      	>   has a right to make a choice", but a man who abandons his
      	>   child is scum.
    
    	An aborted fetus never becomes a child (with needs that aren't
    	being met.)  An adopted child is a gift to parent(s) who are 
    	in a position to provide for the child's needs.  
    
    	When a man walks away from a child, a woman is sometimes left
    	to cope without having the financial resources to provide for
    	the child adequately, which ends up causing suffering for the
    	child (and a burden to society that is carried by the rest of
    	us.)  
    
    	> Sounds just a tinsy bit hypocritical to me.
    
    	What's hypocritical?  As a single mother myself, I don't see
    	the great advantages about it that you seem to imply.
    
    	My son's father insisted on an abortion, so I had to push my
    	"right to choice" to avoid being forced to have an abortion
    	against my will (which is a pretty horrifying thought, but
    	would have happened if the father had been allowed the right
    	to choose *for* me.)
    
    	My son's father told me that since he had no choice about 
    	the child being born, he wouldn't help us financially.  I
    	didn't have the resources to do anything about it, so our
    	only chance was for me to struggle through college while 
    	raising a baby by myself (getting my B.A. so I could get
    	a good career.)
    
    	Meanwhile, the father hasn't been required to do anything
    	about all this in the past 19 years (while I now face the
    	expenses of college for my son, and helping him get out on
    	his own someday.)
    
    	Where was my advantage in all this (as the mother)?  Where
    	is the double standard?  Where is the hypocrisy?
    
    	> How does that make me feel??  Madder'n *&@#%^.
    
    	If you'd gone through an abortion and/or a full-term pregnancy
    	and/or had raised a child by yourself for 19 years (with no help 
    	from the father at all,) you wouldn't be so mad.  
    
    	You'd know that the situation for women isn't as carefree as 
    	you have implied.

>    	Meanwhile, the father hasn't been required to do anything
>    	about all this in the past 19 years 
    
     Is this a result of the laws of Colorado or is this the result of your
    unwillingness to use the law to get the father to pay his share?
    
     My wife was a single mother for 12 years. For most of that time, she
    got nothing from the father. The rest of the time, she has gotten a
    pittance. This is because she chose not to pursue things; she could
    have (and should have IMO) gotten a much more reasonable settlement and
    not affected his finances (he's making serious cash at DG).
    
     The Doctah

    	RE: .93  Doctah
    
    	>> Meanwhile, the father hasn't been required to do anything
	>> about all this in the past 19 years 
    
     	> Is this a result of the laws of Colorado or is this the result of 
    	> your unwillingness to use the law to get the father to pay his share?
    
    	When I really needed his help, I didn't have the money to use the
    	law to pursue it.
    
    	When I made enough money to use the law to pursue it, I no longer
    	felt that I needed his help.
    
    	So, he has never been required to pay a thin dime in support of his
    	child.
    

    	
    	RE: .95  Bonnie
    
    	> Even if I could have afforded the legal costs, it wasn't worth 
    	> the bother for me.  If he didn't want to willingly participate in 
    	> his daughter's life, forcing him into it wasn't going to accomplish 
    	> anything, as far as I was concerned. 
    
    	That's pretty much where my feelings ended up, too.  If he was so
    	determined not to help us, then he could keep his money (and I
    	would take care of things by myself.)  And I've done exactly that.
    
    	Being a single mother in this situation offered no advantage at
    	all, but I do feel a sense of accomplishment for having managed
    	to go through 4 years of college (and on to a career) in my son's
    	lifetime.  It was far from easy, though.

    This topic is becoming "Women on Child Support".
    
    Let's start another string or get back to "Men" on Abortion....

    
    	Actually, we were discussing the attitudes that the men who
    	fathered our children had about abortion.
    
    	It's helpful to keep in mind that there are some men who push
    	quite strenuously for abortion, but whose children are born
    	anyway (and that some of these men *still* don't end up in
    	"virtual slavery" for 19 years as a result.)
    
    	These things were already being discussed here.  
    

    Re  .98
    
    Regarding your ongoing urge to describe male "attitudes" in this type
    of setting, for the sake of decorum let me simply say I agree with .97.
    
    Paul
    

I *THOUGHT* I clicked on CANCEL ENTER and was quite surprised to enter
notes and see Suzanne's reply to my note!  

--bonnie

    Point to ponder:
    
    How many of us would be here if abortion had been more available
    and acceptable at the time we were born?
    
    As the nineth of eleven children, sometimes I wonder.  Knowing
    my parents and their background, I don't think that they would
    have supported abortion.  Better birth control, though, might
    have been a different story ;^).
    
    fred();

    How many of us would be here if we'd been born when infant mortality
    was higher?
    
    How many of we adopted people would be here if our parents had followed
    the dictates of society and church and abstained from sex before
    marriage?
    
    How many of us would be here if we'd been hit by a truck this morning?
    
    Ray

    I'm surprised about some men's opinion.
    They wan't to have a choice too wether the woman has an abortion
    or gets the child.
    I think on the point where the man is concerned about birth control
    by himself, he should have something to say about the woman's decision,
    because than he takes the responiblity of what's happening.
    My experience is that (most) men don't care at all about birth control.
    It's mostly all up to the woman. So (IMO) it's also all up to her
    wether she wants to get the baby or not.
                                                               
    Men: Don't let it be all up to the woman, care about what your
    doing when you have sex. You have the choice before "she" gets pregnant!
    
    

    
    	RE: .103   by  SKYWAY::NIEDEROEST
    
    	Your title reflects *Choice*, but there is where it ends IMO.
    	How can you say men only should have a say in birth control?
    	The way things are now, we don't even have that!! To get the
    	big "V" we must be good little boys and brings mommies okay,
    	yet she can have the tubes tied without us even knowing it!!
    	She has all the choice if she will or will not carry THEIR
    	child to term, he has no choice but to pay even if he doesn't
    	want it. Sure everyone says, "well then, let him worry about birth
    	control", to this I say fine, same to the woman!! If she worries
    	about support, then don't have it!! What really gripes me is
    	in the case of a friend, he had the "CUT" and still after his
    	faithful loving wife got pregnant he was informed at the divorce,
    	YOU WILL PAY XXXXX FOR THIS CHILD UNTIL 18. Where is the choice
    	for this man, especially when it's NOT even HIS child? Did the
    	court give him any choice, or did the woman?
    
    	Well, where is the choice for any man??
    
    	G_B
    
    	BTW - Before anyone flames me for anti-abortion crap or controlling
    	the womans lives, I wouldn't stop any woman from having an
    	abortion if that is her wish. I just wish men would be given
    	some choice without always hearing how we want to hold women
    	hostage or something.

    
    	RE: .104  George
    
    	Is it true that men can't get vasectomies without written
    	permission from their wives?  
    
    	If so, that's ridiculous!
    

    At least in Nude Hampster it IS TRUE Suzanne.
    
    VERY true.

    Actually, I think it depends on where you go.  Though I don't have
    first-hand experience, I have been told that many clinics do require
    a spouse's permission for sterilization, for either sex, because they
    are afraid of being sued.  Some have the enlightened opinion that
    it's your body, and if you have communication problems in your
    marriage, that's not THEIR concern.
    
    I don't believe that either NH or Mass have state laws on this
    matter.
    
    I didn't read .103 the same way George did.  I think the author
    (sorry I don't recall the name) is confusing several different
    issues.  Though as many already know I am an avid proponent of
    BOTH partners taking responsibility for contraception, the
    methods available to men (other than sterilization) are not
    even close to 100% effective.  Some of the women's methods are
    near that, but others are not and accidents do happen.
    
    This is a complex issue with no simple answers.  It is made worse
    by our society's insistence that the father bear the primary
    financial responsibility for his children, but without giving
    him much if any control over what happens to the child.  But if it
    came down to it, I would not ever attempt to tell a woman who was
    pregnant with my child that she either must or must not have an
    abortion.  I would hope that she would take my feelings and desires
    into consideration when making her decision, but the decision is hers
    alone to make.
    
    					Steve

    
    	Well, I do feel better now that I let out alot of steam in
    	my reply (.104). It was just that, steam, I in no way feel
    	I have any right to impose my will on any womans reproductive
    	rights. At the same time I'm very un-happy with the way men
    	are expected to sit back and let someone else dictate their
    	future financial lives. A real BIG catch-22 from my view!!
    
    	RE:  .105  Suzanne
    
    	When I had mine done (1971) I checked with several doctor's
    	(all in Mass BTW) and every single one required my then wives
    	signature. I don't know if it's state law or not. My brother,
    	also had the same when he had his done three years earlier.
    
    	As far as the woman, my now ex had her tubes tied and I never
    	knew about it till a year after our divorce. I can't see any
    	reason why a woman can do whatever she wishes in regards to
    	birth-control, but when the male tries to be responsible and
    	take responsibility for his part, he has to have some womans
    	okay first. Heck, before I could even talk to the doctors about
    	having the vasectomy, I had to tell them I was married. It appears
    	that in Mass anyways, you can't get it done if you are unmarried.
    
    	Go figure the logic to that one,
    
    	G_B

    Re: .108
    
    The Bill Baird center in Boston, when it was open, did not require
    a spouse's permission for a vasectomy.
    
    I do agree, though, that the medical profession and our society does
    try to make things difficult for the man who wants to be responsible.
    
    				Steve

    Some of the seeming inconsistencies about which gender needs permission
    from their spouse in order to be sterilized may be more a question of 
    timing than discrimination.
    
    States that initially required a spouse's signature before a
    sterilization can be performed may have changed their laws so that
    neither gender now needs the signature of the other.
    

    
    	Like I said, I'm not sure if it's law or not. Anyways, a friend
    	(single and dislikes kids) wanted to get cut two years ago and
    	couldn't find a doctor to do it. Yet I do know a few single woman
    	who have had their tubes tied and didn't have any trouble finding
    	a doctor to do it.
    
    	G_B

    a few years ago, after I had already fathered six kids and DEFINITELY
    didn't want any more, and was well into my 40s, I *STILL* had to get
    the wife's permission to have a Vasectomy.  This was in Texas.
    
    tony	(who's glad he's BROKE!)  ;^}

    15 years ago my husband had to sign a form saying that he was
    aware that I was having my tubes tied, not giving me permission
    (this was in Mass).
    
    Bonnie

    And if he had (hypothetically) refused to sign the form, Bonnie?
    Was your operation on hold, denied you, under his control?
    
    DougO

    Nope, not under his control
    
    at least that I recall, it's been a while. (I'll ask him tonite
    when we are driving home)
    
    Bonnie

    There may have been a legal reason for a physician's asking (or
    requesting) consent from one's spouse, prior to their undergoing
    a sterilization procedure.
    
    Before no-fault divorce existed in Massachusetts, one of the valid
    grounds for divorce was a person's inability to have children.
    
    Also, the "guilty" party was *usually* penalized in a divorce
    settlement, both financially and in the amount of time that
    he/she could remarry.
    
    So, perhaps, the consent was an acknowledgement (that would stand
    up in Court) that a spouse could not use his/her partner's sterility
    as a means of obtaining a divorce.
    
    BTW, failure to have sex with one's spouse was also Legal grounds
    for divorce. I'm not sure what the allowable non-frequency was, though.
    (Once a decade?) :-)
    
      Alan

    
    	RE: .116
    
    	Okay, let's look at your reason as stated. "Before no-fault
    	divorce existed in Mass, one of the valid grounds for divorce
    	was a person's inability to have children" So far so good, BUT
    	how does this explain the fact the women doesn't require consent
    	while the male does?
    
    	G_B

    Re: .117
    
    George, I'm not at all sure that a male *today* in Massachusetts
    requires "consent" from his partner, either.
    
    I was responding to those people who said they needed their partner's
    consent/acknowledgement in the good ole' days (~10-15 years ago).
    
      Alan                              

    in re consent/acknoledgement
    
    I talked to my husband about it, and his memory is as vague as mine..
    
    he does remember signing something but we both are sure it was
    not permission...
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .13-But at least the child has a chance, when aborted, a life is
    definitely lost.
    
    RE:.14-A woman is never stuck with the responsibility of a child. 
    There are many people out there who would love to adopt a child.
    
    RE:.23-Thanks for telling us what we should do.  
    
    RE: The topic-I would do everything in my power to stop a woman from
    getting an abortion on the child which I fathered.  The child is proven
    to be a seperate living being of his own with his own genetic code.  
    
    
    Mike  

		Father's, mother's, child's, society's rigths.

	This is an issue with many sides, and its very complicated. So in order
to make things a bit more clear lets look at an extreme case, not as a moral,
or as a law case but at its PHYSICAL realities.

Situation:	A man and a woman living in a deserted island, cut off from
		the rest of the human race (no phone, no boat, nothing). Life
		is hard they have to work all the time to feed themselves.

Lonely situation right, so what do they do, they make love naturally.. And SHE
GETS PREGNANT. (So far I think everybody agrees the responsibility is 50/50.)

But the consequences are not 50/50. Because biologically speaking they are not
equal.  The child gestates in the woman, making her more vulnerable and less
able to feed herself.  The man well, he has to care and feed the woman or she
might well die leaving him all alone.

At this point the WOMAN has a choise, she can abort or not. And there is
nothing the man can do to prevent this, after all he has to sleep some time.
The woman can abort by eating a certain root (women in certain primitive 
tribes do just this).

At this point the MAN has a choise, he can work extra hard to feed the woman
and himself or he can leave her to her own resources. And there is nothing the
woman can do to prevent this. 

** BABY IS BORN **

At this point the WOMAN has a choise, abandon the baby (a kind of abortion,
that also has been practiced truout history) or not. After all its her life 
right, (its her life includes its her body), and she may not want to get stuck
feeding and caring for it for all those years.

At this point the MAN has a choise, earlier abortions, would have meant the
dead of the child. But at this point he can chose to support the baby or 
abandon it as well.

(In physical reality only when the child becomes an idependently functional
 human being. Will the possiblility of abortion by withdrawing life support
 cease to be an option.)

** end of case **

From the above case I conclude that that the child only gets what its parents
willingly give it, nothing more.  From conception until its functional
independence the human zigote, fetus, baby, child can be *aborted* by simply 
withdrawing its life support. Luckilly the support that parents are willing
to give to their children is a hell of a lot, otherwise our race would be
gone.

I also conclude that the father or failing that society should assume support
for the child as soon as it can live idependently of the mother's life support,
if the mother choses not to do it.

As for father's and mother's rights I think they depend on wether the parents
are married or not. If they AREN'T MARRIED then the woman should have the
choise of aborting or not. But killing the child should occur only if it can't
yet live indendently of her (currently 21 weeks into the pregnancy, As stated
somewhere else in this note).

The father on the other hand has the option of not supporting either her or
the child whatever her choise.

If they ARE MARRIED, its a different story. When you marry part of what a woman
agrees to is to have and care for their children.  Part of what a man agrees to
is to care for his wife and their children. (Its different for each because they
are biologically different, and marriage is a biological union. Their life
responsibilities are 50/50, but the consequences of these responsibilities are
not the same for both)

So the woman should not be able to lawfully abort unless her husband also
agrees to it (something missing in our laws). And the man should not be able
to lawfully withdraw his support from his wife and children (something our laws
have already taken care of).

Maybe when artificial wombs are developed. Can both the responsibilities and
the consequences of marriage be exactly the same for both mates, if they so
choose. But until then well what we got is not so bad it has been working ok
for a long time. All the above things only occur when there are disagrements
that the couple can not resolve by themselves (a small fraction).

	Gil

    Gil,
    
    That was certainly a unique way to look at the overall situation.
    I don't think I've ever seen that approach used before.  Thanks for
    sharing it.
    
    As it goes, I only had one quibble where I felt you deviated from your
    intent, to look at it 
    "not as a moral, or as a law case but at its PHYSICAL realities."
    
    That point was where you started defining what a marriage contract
    should mean.  You went on about what the agreements in marriage
    meant for each party, and how this was partially reflected in our laws
    and partially wasn't.  Well, I disagree with your definitions of what
    a marriage contract "should" imply, and I submit that your case at this
    point diverges from an analysis of PHYSICAL realities to your analysis
    of the physical realities of a universe where everybody sees marriage 
    the same way you do.  
    
    Other than that, though, it was a neat way to slice the problem apart
    and look at it with new eyes.  Good job.
    
    DougO