Conference quark::mennotes-v1

I don't understand this one at all.  Men have had safe and effective
birth control for many years - the problem is that few are willing to take
advantage of it.  True, it would be nice to have something as convenient
and temporary as the contraceptive pill, and research is going on towards
that end, but it's a much harder problem to solve.

I think that part of the problem is that most men view birth control as
"the woman's problem" since it's the woman who gets pregnant.  And many
equate ability to sire children with "manliness", which makes them unwilling
to get a vasectomy when they know they don't want more children.

    Steve
    
    I've been told that it is harder to 'stop and start' the male sperm
    cycle. It doesn't have the built in hormonal control points that
    the woman's cycle has, making it harder to produce a male pill. I've
    also read that a male pill exists but it makes men ill when they
    take it and drink alcohol. I've also been told that no woman would
    trust a man who told her he was 'on the pill' :-). Years ago there
    were clinical trials on valves that would open or shut the male
    vas. I wonder what became of those.
    
    Bonnie

Re: .2

Yes, I've read all that too.  And I agree - since it's the woman who takes
the immediate risk, she should not depend on the man "taking precautions".
Likewise, the man should not depend on the woman doing the same.

Perhaps the "valve" you mentioned will show promise.

			Steve

    Condoms are for men, and they must be the ultimate in safe birth
    control since they prevent disease as well.  Vasectomies are far safer
    than sterilization for women.
    
    What's the example of safe birth control for women?  The Pill?
    
    Ray

    Ray
    
    The diaphragm is probably the safest in terms of side effects.
    
    Bonnie

The Pill is only safe when held between the knees....

		Steve

    
    Men have only three reall methods of birth control.  1) abstinence--
    not much fun, 2)sterilization--too permanent, and 
    
    3) condoms--often refered to as "taking a shower in a rain coat".
    This is an often overlooked indicator that the physical contact
    of "love making" is very much as important to a man as is "getting
    his rocks off".  Also condoms are not all that reliable.  Too many
    can and will break unless you use the ones that are made out of
    used innertube (see physical contact).  
    
    A men is also very vulernable to the woman sayign "what's the 
    matter---don't you *trust* me"?  My first child was the result of 
    my (ex)wife supposedly being on the pill when she wasn't.  There
    are still all too many cases of a woman getting pregnant to trap
    him into either marriage or "child support".  
    
    With the clamps of "child support" being screwed tighter and tighter, 
    the issue of male contraception may just be starting.  If there *is*
    ever a safe, reliable, reversable, form of men's birth control such
    as a pill, norplane-like transplant, or reliably reversable vasectomy,
    we may well see the birth rate drop precipitously.
    
    fred(custodial parent);

Re: .7

I know that the "rain coat" analogy is commonly used, but I think it's phony,
put forward by men who don't want to be "bothered" to take responsibility
for birth control.  I've used condoms and never had any problems with breakage
or "sensitivity".

Yes, they're a nusiance at times, but one can even make them part of the fun.
And they are effective at both contraception and disease control (at least
the latex versions.)

			Steve

    Fred
    
    the failure rate of the condom is once every 161 acts of intercourse
    and is largely the result of faulty use, poor storages, or failure
    to leave a space at the tip... source The Journal of Contraceptive
    Technology, as reported in Ask Beth in today's Boston Globe. 
    
    Further there are thin condoms that increase sensitivity.
    
    Finally, I know this sounds a bit woman centered, but I do have
    a problem with compairing the decreased sensitivity to a man to
    the risks of pregnancy, or the dangers of the IUD and pill to a woman...
    *especially* when men get so upset at the idea of supporting an
    unwanted child. To me it is a whole different order of magnitude.
    
    My tendancy would be to say to men, either use a condom or be
    prepared to support a child and/or catch something really nasty.
    I assume tho that such a response would be considered insensitive
    on my part?
    
    Bonnie

>    My tendancy would be to say to men, either use a condom or be
>    prepared to support a child and/or catch something really nasty.
>    I assume tho that such a response would be considered insensitive
>    on my part?

 In other words, you enjoy the advanatage women currently enjoy in this area of
human relations and are loathe to give it up, no? Sounds quite similar to
attitudes expressed by men regarding certain financial advantages held
by men. But then, I've always enjoyed symmetry.

    huh? what advantage are you talking about...?
    
    I'm talking common sense

    re .10, .11, she didn't say she enjoyed the advantage.  She's talking
    the way things are, not ideally.  If most women made as much money as
    most men, then women wouldn't have to depend on men to help support
    their babies, but until that day comes, if ever, then men have to
    realize that their financial help will be sought.  If men want to avoid
    that then it is in their best interest to make sure they don't get
    anybody pregnant.  What's wrong with that?
    
    Lorna
    

    If I don't have any say as to whether a child of mine is born, then the
    mother does not have any say as to whether I pay for said baby.
    
    My $150,000 worth ( cost of raising a child + college ).
    
    
    
           		Wayne

The raincoat analogy is not phony, and yes, Bonnie, this is one point on 
which you will never be competent to comment.  The effect on sensation is real.

    RE:-1,
    
         I don't know about that.  All the women I've been with would MUCH
    rather "do the nasty" WITHOUT a condom and they cite sensation as the
    reason.
    
    RE: Man's Pill,
    
        I would love to be able to take a pill for birth control (BC) as
    long as the side effects weren't too bad.  I'd also continue to use
    condoms until I get into another monogomous relationship (maybe never :-))
    and deem it "safe" .  An additional BC safety factor, if you will.
    
    RE:  Men's decision in abortion vs carrying,
    
         Morally impossible to legislate.  We can do what we think best for
    the majority, but that's it.  It's the womans body, it's the man
    child......who's to say.
    
    

    re .13, naughty boy.  
    
    re .15, .16, I agree that the sensation is much better for women
    without the so-called "raincoat."
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .17: That would be, "for _some_ women"; I didn't notice a difference
    in sensation, myself. I do prefer "without," but only because of the
    nuisance-and-worry factor: having to interrupt the proceedings, however
    briefly; concern about whether it's in place, and whether it stays in
    place and intact.
    
    However, I hear that death causes an even greater loss of sensation, so
    it's, what do you call it, a tradeoff.
    
    -b

 What I am talking about, Bonnie, is the currently legislated advantage
that women have regarding "spawning" as you so blithely put it.

 The current situation gives all post-coital choices to the woman, and none
to the man. He is, however, given at least 50% of the responsibility. How
incredibly generous.

 A woman who does not want a child can simply opt not to have one _after_
she is pregnant. There is no such corresponding choice or right for men.
This clearly is an advantage that women have over men. Do you or do you
not recognize this advantage? Do you or do you not want to see a corresponding
right of choice for men (eliminating the female advantage)?

 The Doctah

    re .18, obviously, I didn't mean that risking death is preferable to
    using a condom.
    
    I'm still amazed you don't notice a difference, though.  Oh, well.
    "for _some_women" then.  No problem.  
    
    Lorna
    

    re .19, I think you talk like you think it would be nothing for a woman
    to have an abortion.  It may be a choice, but it's not a very pleasant
    one in my opinion.  Many women consider it to be very painful, as well
    as upsetting emotionally.  Personally, given the choice, I would rather
    that more women made more money than most men, and that men were the
    ones who had the option of having their insides scraped out to get rid
    of the kid.
    
    Lorna
    

    I agree with your assertions. I have a _small_ problem with your conclusion.
    
    I don't know where I come down finally on this matter, but
    since a woman is the one who has to carry the fetus for 9 months, it is
    hard for me to accept that she should be entitled to only 50% of the
    decision on whether to terminate the pregnancy.
    Of course anything MORE than 50% may be the same as 100% unless others
    like -god forbid- child/fetus advocate agencies have a say in the
    matter.
    Maybe if a woman chooses to continue a pregnancy over the wishes of the
    man then that absolves the man of responsibilities? In which case,
    perhaps our welfare system accepts responsibilities? (hopefully, more
    like the way it is in some of the European countries rather than the
    USofA.
    I don't feel comfortable with most of these observations of mine, am just
    grappling. So if folks want to argue about them, I probably won't reply.
    
    				herb

    in re .15

    I wasn't claiming competency to comment on condoms for men. I am also
    aware that there is an effect on sensation on women. Like many/most
    women I'd prefer not to have to use condoms.

    The point I was trying to make was that compared to:

    1. Having to support an unwanted child
    2. Risking catching AIDS or some other STD
    3. The health risks to women of pregnancy, the pill, the IUD etc..

    the question of sensitivity would rank at least 4th in importance.

    in re .19 Mark

    'spawning' is not how I 'so blithely put it'.... that was taken
    directly from 716. I personally didn't much care for the term either.

    All I was addressing with my comments, was the relative importance of 
    the above mentioned items. It was not meant to be a commentary on
    the larger issues of child support vs. abortion.

    *However* I do feel that if a man has unprotected intercourse with
    a woman with whom he has not previously discussed the possibility
    of pregnancy, and if the woman gets pregnant with his child, and
    if that woman is morally opposed to abortion, then he has a
    responsibility to *his* child. Not the woman, *his* child.

    I personally think that anyone, man or woman who has unprotected
    intercourse with someone that they have not had a discussion of
    pregnancy, or disease issues with is being irresponsible, and should
    be expected to shoulder the responsibility for any out come of that
    act.

    Re choices/responsibilities: Unfortunately, any attempt to take
    financial pressure off of the father results in increased financial
    pressure on the mother to abort or adopt, or on the rest of society if
    she wants to keep the child and get public assistance for it.
    
    Now, _if_ both parties agreed before having intercourse that, should a
    pregnancy result, the woman would have an abortion, and _if_ the woman,
    having become pregnant, changed her mind, my vote would be that the man
    is responsible for half the cost of an abortion, nothing more; the
    woman could do whatever she wanted, but shouldn't be able to demand
    anything further from him. 
    
    That's not a realistic scenario, though, because in most cases the
    people probably didn't discuss what-ifs at all, and because it would be
    easy for either party to lie about whether they'd agreed on abortion
    beforehand or not. And, while it might be prudent, the idea of having
    to sign statements of intent before having sex is something of a
    turn-off. [Say, maybe that's the problem that the knockout lawyer is
    having!]
    
    -b

    re .23, .24, I agree with Bonnie.  I think that even if the man doesn't
    want the child, if the woman won't have an abortion, then the man owes
    financial support to the child.  Like Bonnie said, the child, not the
    woman.
    
    The problem I see with .24, and the scenario that if the woman
    originally said she'd have an abortion, but later changes her mind, is
    that I've always considered abortion to be one of those situations
    where I couldn't really ever be sure ahead of time how I would react. 
    You know. like some people say you never know if you could really kill
    another person until the time comes, or you never really know how you
    would act in battle until it happens, I don't think I could really tell
    if I'd be able to actually go through with an abortion unless I were to
    find myself in the situation.  (Even though I'm adamantly pro-choice
    for everyone else, I've never been sure if I am for myself.  I almost
    feel like - if other women don't mind killing their unborn babies,
    that's fine for them, but I don't know if I ever could.)
    
    Lorna
    

 I suppose that you might be wondering where I'm coming from with all of this.

 I am talking about equality. A great many people who describe themselves as 
feminists want equality on when it's beneficial to them. They are more than
happy to invite the aspects of equality that are attractive, but are usually
unwilling to even discuss equality when it would be to their disadvantage.
Equality cannot be a buzzword. It cannot be a matter of convenience. Otherwise
it is a lie.

 One of the things that men fear most about "equality" is that it won't be 
equality at all but merely turnabout. Only a moron would agree to give up
advantages so they could be turned into disadvantages. Hence the reluctance of
men to take the feminist movement at face value, particularly when many
proponents so openly indicate that equality really isn't what they are after.

 Freedom of choice has to work both ways. Just as women can currently opt not to
continue a pregnancy, men ought to have that right too. It's part and parcel
of equality. Why is it a man's responsibility for your uterus? I really
disagree with the rationale that say's it's a man's responsibility but a woman's
choice. Isn't she mature enough to handle the responsibility for her own
uterus? What is it about women that makes them only partially responsible for
their uteruses? (uteri?)

 Women clearly want it both ways, and that is not equality.

 The counterpoint is that women do not tend to make as much money as men, and
that fact alone is sufficient to justify the continuation of this inequitable
system. When is equality acheived? When everything is equal, n'est-ce pas?
How can everything be equal if we continue to allow inequities to be
legislated into existence? It can't.

 "Our Bodies, Ourselves," right? Why not add, "Our Responsibility"?

 Do I really want men to run around creating babies simply due to the lack
of a financial disincentive to do so? Of course not. What I really want is
equality. What I really want is for women to take responsibility for the very
same bodies over which they insist upon having absolute dominion. There really
is no sound excuse for not doing so.

 If women knew that birth control was entirely up to them, do you think
they would tend to be more careful than they are now, less careful, or
equally careful? I think they would be more careful. Right now, if they
make a mistake, they've got someone else on the hook for it. If they were
made to be self-reliant, maybe they'd behave differently.

 It is an inescapable fact that infant mortality is greater among unmarried
women than it is among married couples, regardless of education level. In fact,
the lowest income and least educated married couples experience a lower infant
mortality rate than the most educated and financially successful unmarried
women. I believe that if women knew from the get go that it was all up to them
(unless the father elected to participate, of course) they would probably
take greater care to avoid getting pregnant in the first place.

 Hey, men have had to shoulder some of the burdens of the new equality. No
reason why they ought to be the only ones to have to adapt.

 The Doctah

    re .26, Mark, I am just amazed at your note, because I really think
    that most women *do* think that birth control is entirely up to them. 
    I think there have been enough men who haven't paid one cent to support
    their children, for women to have gotten the hint.  I think that only a
    very small percentage of women take the attitude that it doesn't
    really matter if they use birth control because they can just sue the
    guy for child support.  It seems like you're trying to make an example
    out of something that most women would never do.
    
    Lorna
      
    
     

    RE: .26  The Doctah
    
    > I suppose that you might be wondering where I'm coming from with all 
    > of this.
    
    Your next sentence makes your intentions pretty clear.
    
    > I am talking about equality. A great many people who describe themselves 
    > as feminists want equality on when it's beneficial to them.
    
    Are you talking about men feminists or women feminists here?  (Or is
    your generalization simply meant to discredit the movement in general?)
    
    What equality do men feminists want that is only beneficial to them?
    
    > Hence the reluctance of men to take the feminist movement at face value, 
    > particularly when many proponents so openly indicate that equality 
    > really isn't what they are after.
    
    "OPENLY"??  Isn't it (rather) a conclusion you have drawn as the result
    of some issue(s) with which you have found disagreement?  Let's be
    real here, Doc.
    
    > Freedom of choice has to work both ways. Just as women can currently 
    > opt not to continue a pregnancy, men ought to have that right too. 
    > It's part and parcel of equality.
    
    Should the woman have the right to decide IF, WHEN and WHERE a man
    has a vasectomy?  Do you wish to allow some other party to decide
    when surgery is performed on your genital area?  If not, then why do
    you propose that someone else can decide to operate on the woman's
    reproductive organs against her will (if this is, in fact, what
    you are suggesting by saying "men ought to have [the] right [to opt
    not to continue a pregnancy.]")
    
    > What is it about women that makes them only partially responsible for
    > their uteruses? (uteri?)
    
    A woman's uterus is not an independent human being who goes to school,
    and needs food and clothing, Mark.
    
    Women are responsible for their own uteruses, but children brought
    into the world are independent beings made from two people.
    
    > Women clearly want it both ways, and that is not equality.
    
    Fine.  When men turn over decisions about surgery on their sexual
    organs to women, then we'll do the same.  This would be equality.
    
    > The counterpoint is that women do not tend to make as much money as men, 
    > and that fact alone is sufficient to justify the continuation of this 
    > inequitable system.
    
    In many cases, if the child were forced to live on the woman's lower
    income alone, it's the child who would suffer.  If you care more about
    the suffering of men (due to funds being taken to support children,)
    then fine.  Many people worry more about the living children left to
    pay the price for the man wanting to keep from supporting them.
    
    > What I really want is equality. What I really want is for women to take 
    > responsibility for the very same bodies over which they insist upon 
    > having absolute dominion. There really is no sound excuse for not doing 
    > so.
    
    Birth control fails sometimes.  
    
    > Right now, if they make a mistake, they've got someone else on the hook 
    > for it. If they were made to be self-reliant, maybe they'd behave 
    > differently.
    
    Tell this to 80% of the poor population of the U.S. (who just happen
    to be women, most with children.)  I doubt many of these women are
    surprised that no one ended up on any hook except themselves.
    
    > I believe that if women knew from the get go that it was all up to them
    > (unless the father elected to participate, of course) they would probably
    > take greater care to avoid getting pregnant in the first place.
    
    So, meanwhile, let the children starve to try to affect women with the
    knowledge that no one will help them?  Thanks, but enough children
    are starving (or at least very hungry) already in this country.
    
    > Hey, men have had to shoulder some of the burdens of the new equality. 
    > No reason why they ought to be the only ones to have to adapt.
    
    Hey, Doctah, is this the only way you can think to demand that women
    adapt?  No problem for me.  I was on my own with my son from Square
    One and didn't get a penny of help from his Dad (ever!), as many other
    women in this country have done (on their own.)
    
    Now, how about letting more women adapt to having the means to do a
    good job of supporting these kids on our own (via equal employment
    opportunity, etc.)
    
    It wouldn't be equality AT ALL for men to have "say" over what surgery
    is performed on women's reproductive organs (while denying women the
    chance to order surgery on men's organs,) and then to say "Let's make
    it so men don't have to support their unwanted children" without making
    it possible for women to have enough equal employment opportunity to
    MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE.
    
    If the men get "off the hook" before women have enough opportunities
    to pick up the slack, then it's the children who will suffer.  Men
    will simply have another advantage in our society (among many other
    advantages they already have.)

    By the way, Doctah, one thing you need to remember when discussing
    equality issues with feminists is that MOST OF US ARE NOT IN THE
    SITUATIONS YOU ARE CALLING "THEY-WANT-IT-BOTH-WAYS."
    
    I'll never, ever, EVER be in the position to ask for support from
    a man for an unplanned pregnancy (where he is reluctant to pay.)
    Even when I *was* in that situation, I still didn't ask the man
    for support (even though my son and I lived in abject poverty 
    while I worked my way through college.)
    
    These days, I most definitely *DO* earn quite a tidy breadwinner's
    income, thank you very much.  I consider myself 100% responsible for
    whatever happens (until I get married and join in a partnership
    with my mate.)  When that happens, we will share the responsibility
    jointly and equally (by choice.)
    
    Our society hasn't progressed enough for most women to have the
    opportunities I've been lucky enough to have found in my career.
    
    My interest in their opportunities is fueled MOST by the desire
    that women have the option (and the means) to be 100% independent
    if need be, so that when a reluctant father is encountered, more
    women will have the opportunity to be the breadwinners in their
    families (to support and raise their children in a reasonable
    manner.)
    
    Now, tell me - what part of my equality ideals are "only beneficial
    to me"?

    I have to agree with Doc on this one.  When a man's *responsibility*
    begins with the sex act and a womans *choice* ends with the decision
    to give the child up for adoption.  THIS IS NOT EQUALITY.
    
    In most states a woman can get an abortion or can get her tubes
    tied w/o the concent of her husband.  A husband must get a legal
    paper signed by his wife to say that it's ok for him to get a
    vasectome.  THIS IS NOT EQUALITY.
    
    fred();

    Fred
    
    Until recently women couldn't get her tubes tied with out a form
    saying that her husband knew she was doing it. As I understand
    it, this is not permission, just an indication that the spouse has
    been informed. If the laws have been changed so that this has
    been dropped for women and not for men, then men and women need
    to work to get the other laws changed. (assuming they think this
    is a good thing for one spouse to be able to have sterilization
    surgery without the other spouse having to be informed.)
    
    Bonnie

    	In most states, can the woman drag her husband to the doctor
    	to ORDER that a vasectomy be performed on him against his
    	will?  If a man could force an abortion on an unwilling woman,
    	this would be the equivalent action.  It would only be equality,
    	IF MEN GIVE UP THE RIGHT TO HAVING A DECISION ABOUT SURGERY
    	ON THEIR OWN GENITALS.
    
    	As for "getting permission" to have tubes tied or vasectomies
    	(from co-signing spouses,) NO ONE (male or female) should have
    	to have their spouses sign for this permission.  NO ONE.
    
    	If this is the law in most states, then let's change it.

>    If not, then why do
>    you propose that someone else can decide to operate on the woman's
>    reproductive organs against her will (if this is, in fact, what
>    you are suggesting by saying "men ought to have [the] right [to opt
>    not to continue a pregnancy.]")

 Recognizing the inherent unfairness of having others make surgical
decisions for you, I would never suggest that men be allowed to force
women to have abortions. Nonetheless, so long as women are allowed the
option of walking away from a pregnancy, men ought to have the same
right. Because zygotes are not children, a man walking away from such
a situation would not be abandoning his child. He would be abandoning
a zygote.

>    A woman's uterus is not an independent human being who goes to school,
>    and needs food and clothing, Mark.

 Women surely have the means to prevent such an occurrence.

>    In many cases, if the child were forced to live on the woman's lower
>    income alone, it's the child who would suffer.

 What business does anyone have bringing children into the world which
they are incapable of supporting? Or do you believe that there is no
moral compunction against reproducing without regard to how the children
will be taken care of?

>Many people worry more about the living children left to
>    pay the price for the man wanting to keep from supporting them.

 There are no living children left to "pay the price" when women who
are unable to support children don't have them in the first place. Or
do you believe that it is acceptable for a woman to have as many children
as she can biologically muster?

>    Now, how about letting more women adapt to having the means to do a
>    good job of supporting these kids on our own (via equal employment
>    opportunity, etc.)

 Absolutely. That's part of equality.

>    If the men get "off the hook" before women have enough opportunities
>    to pick up the slack, then it's the children who will suffer.

 Only if women have children they cannot support. THEY and only they are
in a position to control that.

> Men will simply have another advantage in our society (among many other
>    advantages they already have.)

 No, it won't be an advantage. it will be equality. or does equality actually
favor men?!!!

    re .33, I can agree that people (women or men) shouldn't bring children
    into the world that they can't afford to take care of.  That's one
    reason my ex-husband and I only had one child.
    
    But, even though people shouldn't bring children into the world that
    they can't take care of, some people still do, and some of them not on
    purpose, but because of accidental pregnancy.  I don't think these
    women should be forced to have abortions if the man doesn't want to
    help pay for the child.  And, if a woman does choose to keep a child
    that results from an accidental pregnancy, I think it should be
    possible to legally force the man to help support the child, even if he
    would have preferred that it be aborted.  How can you respect a man who
    refuses to help provide food, clothing and shelter for his own flesh
    and blood?  What if the child is starving to death and wearing rags and
    living on the street?  Do you think it's perfectly fine for the
    biological father to say, "Hey, tough.  I told the bitch I didn't want
    a kid anyway."  Because, to me, that sounds like what your saying. It
    sounds like you're more interested in punishing the mother for being
    irresponsible than you are interested in whether a child receives the
    basic necessities of life.  Yes, it's wrong to bring children into the
    world irresponsibly, but once they're here they have to be taken care
    of.  I think by *both* biological parents.
    
    Maybe this is just an issue that most men can never see eye-to-eye on.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .31 Bonnie
    
    Recent challenges to laws requiring the wife's concent for vasectomy
    have failed because, "he is depriving her of the right to be a 
    complete woman and bare children".  Talk about hypocrisy of the first
    order.
    
    fred();

    re .34, I meant most men and women can never see eye-to-eye on.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re the vasectomy, tubal ligation business, I think that married people
    should have to sign forms showing that they are *aware* that their
    spouse is having the procedure done.  If I were to marry someone
    thinking that we could have children together, having talked it over, I
    wouldn't want to think they could go behind my back and get sterilized
    without my even knowing it.  Maybe I wouldn't have married them if I'd
    known they were going to get sterilized.  I think married people are
    supposed to be a team and discuss things and make mutual decisions
    anyway.  I think if people don't ever want to take another person's
    feelings into consideration before deciding something like that, they
    should just stay single.  
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .33  Doctah
    
    > Nonetheless, so long as women are allowed the option of walking away 
    > from a pregnancy, men ought to have the same right. Because zygotes 
    > are not children, a man walking away from such a situation would not 
    > be abandoning his child. He would be abandoning a zygote.
    
    Fine.  Let the men leave.
    
    Meanwhile, women MUST have the option of earning a decent breadwinners
    income in our society (to make up the difference.)
    
    >> Men will simply have another advantage in our society (among many other
    >> advantages they already have.)

    > No, it won't be an advantage. it will be equality. or does equality 
    > actually favor men?!!!
    
    Doctah, for God's sake.  Be honest in your arguments, at least.
    
    You know doggone well that I stated that if women DO NOT have equal
    employment rights YET men are allowed "off the hook" anyway, then men 
    would simply have another advantage.
    
    Surely you don't believe that it would be EQUALITY for women to be
    discriminated against in wages *and* to have men let off the hook
    for child support at the same time.

>I don't think these
>    women should be forced to have abortions if the man doesn't want to
>    help pay for the child.

 You are forgetting the option available to women who are incapable of
supporting a child but are also opposed to abortion: adoption.

> And, if a woman does choose to keep a child that results from an 
>accidental pregnancy

 If she can't support it and chooses to keep it anyway, she is being incredibly
selfish.

> How can you respect a man who refuses to help provide food, clothing and 
>shelter for his own flesh and blood?

 This isn't about respect. It's about the law. Two completely separate
issues.

 To answer the question- I can't respect such a man. I also can't respect
a woman who chooses to have children she is incapable of supporting.

>It sounds like you're more interested in punishing the mother for being
>irresponsible than you are interested in whether a child receives the
>basic necessities of life.

 I am not interested in "punishing" anyone. I am interested in ensuring
that men and women are treated equally in the eyes of the law.

 The Doctah

    	The fact that (some) men end up paying support for children
    	they did not want is only another PRICE men pay for the lack
    	of equal rights for women.
    
    	If you want to talk about "incentive," Doctah (as in "Women
    	wouldn't be so apt to get pregnant if they knew men wouldn't
    	have to help them" or whatever) ... How about this:
    
    		Making (some) men pay for children they don't want
    		is a good incentive for more men to support equal
    		employment rights for women (so that women would
    		be better prepared to support their own children
    		if the man wanted to walk away.)
    
    	Ok, Doc?

    	Hold the phone.
    
    	Doctah, I just realized that you really are suggesting that men
    	be let off the hook for child support (for children they don't
    	want) *NOW*!
    
    	You are equating surgery with money (as if the fact that men
    	can't force surgery on women means that men shouldn't pay money.)
    
    	Surgery equates to surgery, and money equates to money.
    
    	How in the world can you call it "equality" for our society to
    	continue wage discrimination against women, yet allow men to
    	be freed from all financial responsibilities for children if
    	they so choose?
    
    	If men were freed from this responsibility, WOMEN WOULD STILL
    	BE SUBJECT TO WAGE DISCRIMINATION.
    
    	Is this your idea of true equality?  Instead of giving us
    	equal employment opportunity, we're reminded that we have
    	the uteruses (and are told that this is as good as equal
    	opportunity in wages?)
    
    	Gee.

    re .40
   >	The fact that (some) men end up paying support for children
   > 	they did not want is only another PRICE men pay for the lack
   > 	of equal rights for women.
    
    There may be *some* truth in this since the big push to collect
    from *deadbeat dads* is really a result of trying to keep women
    and children off welfare rolls rather than as a result of any
    real concern for *fairness*.
    
    However,  current child support laws require the ncp to pay "child
    support" even if the cp is making *more*.  So I do not buy your
    argument that "everything would be hunky-dory if women were just
    givern equal pay".  (Not saying that they should not get equal pay,
    but I don't thind that that would fix the other problems).
    
    fred();

    Fred
    
    I'm soon to be a ncp and I am making about 1/2 of what my husband
    made at Dec. I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn't pay
    child support. 
    
    Bonnie

    Fred - the idea is that the "ATTITUDE" of the family courts toward
    men and women would not be as "patriarchal" ("Oh, dear, make the
    man pay regardless since women need all the help they can get") 
    from the mostly MALE family court judges.
    
    It isn't cast in stone that men pay so much money in child support
    - isn't it more a matter of the "attitude" of the judge?
    
    If women had equal employment opportunities, such judges would tend
    to see men and women as more equal (and would start treating us all
    more equal - and sooner.)
    
    (P.S. I also agree with Bonnie that it is appropriate for MEN OR WOMEN
    ncp's to pay child support even if the cp earns more.  I don't think
    Bonnie or anyone else should be forced to live in a car as a result,
    but I do think people of either sex can be expected to pay child
    support in many/most situations.)

>    I'm soon to be a ncp and I am making about 1/2 of what my husband
>    made at Dec. I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn't pay
>    child support. 

 Completely different situation (especially in these areas): you were married,
you both agreed to take on the added burden of additional children, you
are divorcing.

 I'm talking about situations where the two people are unmarried and acts of
sexual congress result in unexpected (at least by one party) pregnancy.

 Besides, I never, ever said a man _shouldn't_ pay child support. I just
said that as a matter of law, his obligation following an unwanted pregnancy
should be to give to the mother one half the cost of the abortion and if
she decides to keep the child he must sign away all parental rights. What an
individual man decides to do above and beyond the legal requirements is a matter
for his own conscience and morality, just as it is for the woman.

    
    >yet allow men to be freed from all financial responsibilities for
    >children if they so choose?
    
    
    I give up Susanne! I really give up! There is a man here who has sent
    in to Steve Lionel a consern that his girl friend is bearing a child
    that he doesn't want and cannot afford. He has NO SAY WHAT SO EVER in
    the carring of that child till birth or if she will abort the child
    because its her damn body. What justice does he have? What fairness
    will there be for him for the next 18 years or so? Women can do what
    ever they damn want and men gotta pay for it? Sounds selfish to me.
    Sounds very self centered. But that is the norm today. Right. Me first
    and screw you. I got some tenants that are not collecting from the
    fathers of their children because she doesn't want to spoil the
    relationship of the child and the father. I don't understand what this
    is all about. Mean time, WE ALL ARE PAYING FOR IT!
    
    No doubt about it. Children are our future. In less then 10 years this
    is gonna be their company and their world. And your going to put
    children that are hated into the world because their dads rejected them
    because some women are self centered and WILL NEVER GIVE THAT MAN A
    CHANCE TO HAVE A SAY IN ITS FUTURE?? I don't understand it.

    re .43 Bonnie
    
    Not saying that ncp should not pay child support.  What I am saying
    is that unequal-pay-for-women .eq. men-not-have-to-pay-support
    is a nonsequitur.  Ncp's will have to pay child support even
    when women receive euqal or more pay.
    
    fred(custodial parent who can't collect support);

    Mark
    
    That was aimed at Fred not you. :-)
    
    and one of the reasons we have child support laws is that in the past
    a man could indeed just walk away from an out of wedlock pregnancy and
    this resulted in great hardship on women and children. 
    
    I still think that the simplest solution for the problem is for both
    sexes to use birth control, or take the mutual responsibility for
    any resulting child.
    
    Children don't need to be made to suffer for their parents actions.

    in re .47
    
    But if women make more, then the men should theoretically have to
    pay less. I know that the amount I have to pay is decreased by
    consideration of their father's income.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .46  George Rauh
    
    With regard to the anon noter who had non-committal sex with a great
    many women and got one of them pregnant - I definitely do feel sorry
    for him.  He took great risks (including exposing himself to the
    HIV+ virus) and he's in big trouble.
    
    However, I guess I don't see the point of "justice" being "Let's
    forget about the fact that the mother of his child is bound to face
    difficulties getting equal employment opportunities in a sexist
    culture and let the poor dude off scott free since he isn't the one
    with the uterus."
    
    He would be better off if women had equal rights.  In such a case,
    the woman probably wouldn't want his help (and most judges wouldn't
    be inclined to give it to her even if she did want it.)
    
    As long as women face widespread discrimination in our culture, men
    will be forced to share in the price for it (as well they should.)
    Women didn't cause this discrimination any more than any individual
    man caused it.  It's a burden we all share.
    
    So let's fix it so we can ALL stop paying for it.

    
    re .48 Bonnie
    
    
    >and one of the reasons we have child support laws is that in the past
    >a man could indeed just walk away from an out of wedlock pregnancy and
    >this resulted in great hardship on women and children. 
    
    That past has come to an end.  Even as we speak (note) Congress is in
    the process of making it a FEDERAL OFFENSE to not pay "child support".
    HOWEVER, the father can now be kicked out in the cold for no d##n
    good reason at all and be *forced* to finance the situation.
    
    Not saying that ncp shouldn't pay support, but these other problems
    are being totally ignored.   Can you say hypocrisy??
    
    fred();

    George,
    
    The only way that I can support what you are saying is if abortion
    continues to remain legal. Even then I have problems with a man
    having no concern for his flesh and blood. The solution to me,
    as I've said before, is to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
    Any man who does not make sure that no unwanted pregnancy will occur
    when having intercourse, is to my mind, rather foolish. The young man
    in the anonymous note did not use a condom even tho he knew he had
    been exposed to HIV. He had some say before he ever chose to have
    intercourse. A man can't just blithely have intercourse without
    protection where ever and when ever he pleases and then get upset when
    a woman chooses to bear the child he sired and expect him to be
    responsible for the child.
    
    If Roe vs Wade is over turned and women cannot have abortions will
    that make any change in how you feel on this matter?
    
    Bonnie

    rep .49
    
    That still doesn't mean that fixing women's problems will automatically
    fix men's problems.  We have already seen cases where fixing injustices
    against women have caused an *increase* in the injustices against men.
    
    fred();

    Fred
    
    I really hope that you did not mean by that remark that you are
    saying that I am hypocritical. If you were, I expect you to either
    prove that by quoting my writing here or in womannotes or to
    appologise for the insult.
    
    Bonnie

    .54
    
    Not saying that you in particular are hypocritical, but
    I am saying that the whole attitude of feminism is hypocritical.
    I do not have the time to dig up all your old notes nor will I
    appologise.
    
    fred();

    Being offended by an unfair and untrue remark has nothing to do
    with the fit of shoes. and that shoe doesn't fit me, nor would
    I wear it.

>    I still think that the simplest solution for the problem is for both
>    sexes to use birth control, or take the mutual responsibility for
>    any resulting child.

 I thought we had abandoned the idea of simple solutions in favor of equitable
ones?

> A man can't just blithely have intercourse without
>    protection where ever and when ever he pleases and then get upset when
>    a woman chooses to bear the child he sired and expect him to be
>    responsible for the child.

 Naughty, naughty! "Blithely"? ;^) <giggle>

 You say it's ok for a woman to use a man to get pregnant and force him to
pay support, but a man who impregnates a woman cannot force her to finish
what she started and then pay support. Nothing like equality, Bon. :-)

>    If Roe vs Wade is over turned and women cannot have abortions will
>    that make any change in how you feel on this matter?

 Then it would be logically consistent to force men to pay child support,
because women would be forced to deal with the child, too. If either party
has a choice, then both should have the choice. If neither has a choice, then
no problem (with consistency and equality).

    Mark
    
    A lot of women are personally strongly opposed to abortion. Should
    they be forced to bear a child and give it away or raise it in
    poverty?
    
    and what the heck isn't equitable about expecting men and women to
    be careful when they have sex.
    
    I am amazed and the lenghts people appear to be going to avoid what
    should be an automatic response:
    
    Don't have unprotected sex unless you want a child.
    
    Period
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .55  Fred
    
    > ...but I am saying that the whole attitude of feminism is hypocritical.
    
    You can say it all you want, Fred, but it won't make it true.
    

    RE: .51  Fred
    
    > Even as we speak (note) Congress is in
    > the process of making it a FEDERAL OFFENSE to not pay "child support".
    > HOWEVER, the father can now be kicked out in the cold for no d##n
    > good reason at all and be *forced* to finance the situation.
    
    > Not saying that ncp shouldn't pay support, but these other problems
    > are being totally ignored.   Can you say hypocrisy??
    
    The Federal Government is not run by feminists.  When fathers abandon
    their child support obligations, quite often it's government welfare
    that picks up the tab.  This is why Congress is passing laws to go
    after these guys.
    
    Feminists are not doing this.  Your charge of hypocrisy is
    unsubstantiated.

    	Look at it this way, Fred:
    
    	Men are being HURT (financially, etc.) by the lack of equal rights
    	for women.  Feminists know this!
    
    	Yet, the very men who are being hurt by the lack of equal rights
    	for women are the ones who (sometimes) appear to be fighting the
    	hardest to keep from working towards equal rights.
    
    	So why should feminists put all their energy into fighting the
    	problems created for (some) men when many of these will be
    	addressed ANYWAY as we move closer to equal rights.
    
    	I get the impression that you (and the Doctah) are suggesting
    	that we fix men's problems *before* fixing women's problems
    	(instead of trying to see them worked out at the same time by
    	fixing the root cause of both.)
    
    	As long as the women's movement receives continuous and vigorous
    	resistance (and trashing) from some of the men who would benefit
    	the most from women's equal rights, our best course is to make
    	the progress that would help us all.

    re .58
    
   > A lot of women are personally strongly opposed to abortion. Should
   > they be forced to bear a child and give it away or raise it in
   > poverty?
    
    A lot of men are strongly opposed to abortion.  Should they be forced
    to have their chidren taken away from them, then be forced
    to finance the injustice?  A lot of men *have* been willing to take
    custody of the child even out of wedlock, but have mostly run up
    against a brick wall on this one.
    
  >  and what the heck isn't equitable about expecting men and women to
  >  be careful when they have sex.
   
    Because a woman has *choices* and a man has *responsibilities*. 
    
  >  Don't have unprotected sex unless you want a child.
   
    This should go for women as well as for men. 
    
    fred();

    	Fred, if women had nothing but choices (and no responsibilities)
    	- then men would be supporting ALL OF US (every single woman in
    	the U.S.)
    
    	You know doggone well that this isn't happening.

    .52
    
    Bonnie,
    
    	The over turning of Roe vs Wade doesn't give me an option either
    way. It does not give an option for the man who wrote to Steve L.
    Its a womans body once the fetus has developed, we have no say. I have
    been aproached off line lately by a man who wanted to have a child.
    Would cut off his genitles for one. Well his wife was carring one and
    she decided to abort the child. WHAT THE HELL FAIRNESS ARE WE TALKING
    ABOUT? To me, I have no vested interest either way the coin falls.

    	RE: .64  George
    
    	What the wife did (in the case you mentioned) was heartless, in
    	my opinion.  I could never imagine myself making such a decision
    	(within the confines of a serious relationship or marriage) with-
    	out giving far-reaching consideration to my SO or husband.
    
    	However, this is a problem within the relationship itself.
    
    	Women do have the uteruses (and have the physical means to control
    	what happens in their bodies, despite the law or anyone else's 
    	feelings about it.)  What is your suggestion to fix this?  Would
    	you like to see all women have their reproductive organs removed
    	to be maintained in laboratories?
    
    	Feminists didn't design the reproductive systems in human beings.

    Susanne,
    
    	With much respect. We had a noter here who faced such a problem.
    Hoyt. There are many others with such power of life and death because
    its their body. Not our child. Just as I have met a woman who was
    having an affiar with a MARRIED MAN. She became pregnant by him. She
    wanted this child. She is an older woman. She and he have messed with an
    institution that will hurt many others. Marriage. But, BOTH new the risk. 
    And his marriage will be trashed because its her body not their option. 
    He will have to pay for this unwanted child for the rest of his life and
    beyond. What will his wife say? His children? What moralality are we
    passing to the next generation? He will be the cad for asking his
    mistriss to abort, and he will be the rasputin for having the child and
    not wanting to suport it. 

    	George, are you looking for an apology from me because women
    	are the ones born with uteruses?
    
    	Yes, fetuses grow in our bodies (and we are usually the first
    	ones to know it so that we can make decisions about it before
    	anyone else knows we're pregnant.)
    
    	A lot of unfair things can happen when someone has this sort
    	of biological control over herself.  
    
    	However, our society is set up to have men make most of the
    	money (unfairly discriminating against women,) which is why
    	society makes (some) men pay support for their unwanted
    	children.
    
    	We can't take uteruses away from women, but if we had fairness
    	in a lot of other ways, there would be little or no reason why
    	(some) men should have to support their unwanted children.
    
    	At the same time, please remember that many, many men walk away
    	from their unplanned children without having to spend a dime.
    	It's not the case that all men involved in unplanned pregnancies
    	are forced to pay support for 18 years.  A great many women live
    	with their children in poverty because the fathers walked away
    	scott free from the situation.

    No Susanne, I am asking for no apoliges. I am just trying to help you
    understand as your trying to help me understand each others views. 
    You tell us all how unfair women have it in the world. I agree. You do
    have it rough. And in the same part, many men have it just as rough.
    What else can I say. 
    
    In the same breath, Susanne, Our society has set it up for men to fall
    too. My previous stories have said it. 
    
    Please dont tell me of this fathers walking away crappie with men being
    denied visitations. I have 23 men who have contacted me off line for
    how to see their children. Tell me of that?

    re .66, so you really think this man's marriage is trashed only because
    the woman he fooled around with wouldn't have an abortion?  No other
    reason, huh?  I suppose she held a gun to his head, forced him to have
    sex with her, and refused to let him put a condom on??  It seems to me
    you blame women for an awful lot.  The situations you describe are
    certainly unpleasant, but I don't see why the woman should be
    completely to blame in each case.  It takes two.
    
    Lorna
    

    It is not totally his fault. Execpt that fact that she could be using
    birth control too. But she wanted the child. He did not. Just like the
    unknown man who wrote to Steve Lionel.

    re .67.
    
   >	We can't take uteruses away from women, but if we had fairness
   > 	in a lot of other ways, there would be little or no reason why
   > 	(some) men should have to support their unwanted children.

    	again this is a nonsequitur.
    
    
   >	At the same time, please remember that many, many men walk away
   > 	from their unplanned children without having to spend a dime.
   > 	It's not the case that all men involved in unplanned pregnancies
   > 	are forced to pay support for 18 years.  A great many women live
   > 	with their children in poverty because the fathers walked away
   > 	scott free from the situation.
    
    	At the same time, please remember that many, many men have
    	their children forcibly taken away never to see them again 
     	except for the "responsibility" of paying "child support".
    	Many, many men are forced to stand idley by while their babies
        are butchered and they can do nothing.
    
        FOR THE LAST TIME THE ONE DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE OTHER.
    
        fred();
    

    RE: .68  George Rauh
    
    > You tell us all how unfair women have it in the world. I agree. You do
    > have it rough. And in the same part, many men have it just as rough.
    > What else can I say. 
    
    Many of the problems of both sexes could be solved together if we made
    progress towards equal rights.
    
    We'll never have the situation where it's impossible for individual
    women and men to do horrible things to each other.  This is part of
    the risk of loving and being loved.
    
    However, it does not justify having a society that denies equal rights
    to women.  First off, not all women marry or have children (so they
    aren't in a position to take a man's children away or make him support
    them.)  We can't say "Fathers have it tough, so therefore, it's ok
    that women as a group receive employment discrimination."
    
    > Please dont tell me of this fathers walking away crappie with men being
    > denied visitations. I have 23 men who have contacted me off line for
    > how to see their children. Tell me of that?
    
    Well, I'm sorry, but some men DO walk away from their children without
    a care in the world (and it's every bit as real of a problem as the
    men you know who aren't allowed to see their children.)

    RE: .71  Fred
    
    > again this is a nonsequitur.
    
    No, it isn't (and it won't be, no matter how many times you say this.)
    
    Why do you think men are charged so much for child support?  Do you
    think it's because (mostly male) judges hate men?
    
    Men are seen as "breadwinners" (which equates to "men have the money
    and women know how to raise kids, so let the men pay and let the
    women raise the children.")
    
    Unfair?  You bet!  If women and men were BOTH regarded as competent
    breadwinners AND nurturers (based on their individual capabilities,)
    courts would not see "MAN" and say, "HE PAYS" as often as they do now.
    
    > FOR THE LAST TIME THE ONE DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE OTHER.
    
    No one said it did.  However, it's useful to point out that the
    "problem" is not as one-sided as you claim.  It is not the case
    that a man who fathers an unplanned child (or any child) is
    necessarily going to pay big bucks in child support for 18 years.
    
    Many men do walk away.

    Many women walk out too. Your talking to one who had it happen too.
    Remember Craimer vs Craimer? (sp) I agree with what your saying Susanne
    insofar as working for the common cause. But, you have to have 100% of
    both sides or it will not work at all. Or the remainding bunch will
    drag their heals over some tomas fooley. What ever the sex or the
    issue. 

    	George, individuals of both sexes do horrible things to each
    	other (as I mentioned earlier.)  Love/marriage/children is
    	always a risk.
    
    	We can't stop people from walking out.  It helps to know that
    	people of both sexes do it (sometimes in very cruel ways.)  
    	Sometimes people do it to escape a horrible situation.
    
    	The best we can hope for is that our society matures to the point
    	where it can see that fathers are not just folks that make money.
    	Many fathers are very caring and nurturing parents.
    
    	If my parents had divorced when I was very young, NO QUESTION
    	but that I would have begged the court to let me live with my
    	Dad.  My Mom knew it, too.  My Dad was always a better parent
    	to me (more loving and supportive towards me) - and I adored
    	him.  I still do.  He is a Prince.  My son adores him as Grampa
    	now (and he's still one of the most loving, caring people I've
    	ever known.)
    
    	So I know (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that some Dads are the
    	right people to raise their kids after divorce.  In some cases,
    	the Moms are the right ones.
    
    	We must, must, MUST get courts to look at men and women as
    	individuals (so that men aren't seen as "those who pay big
    	bucks" while women are seen as "those who don't make much
    	money out in the world so let's give her the man's bucks.")
    
    	Doesn't this make sense to you?

    Susanne,
    
    	It has always made sence to me. From day #1 when I realized what
    side of the fence I was standing. Remember the little ditti that I
    wrote in the file about women sitting on a fence? They have to hang
    their feet over one side or the other? One traditional value and the
    other a modern? Well I was standing on a modern side and the courts
    were working in the traditional value. For, as I have said before we
    all need to make changes or we will perish with in our own falure of
    children. Men/women live on though their children from generation to
    generation. Bringing to this world peace, hope, and a new beginning.
    To ruin it.. Well we can just let things go as they are.....

    Suzanne, Suzanne, Suzanne, you sound like a salesman trying to sell a
    bad product, "if you buy this it will make your life soooo much better".
    
    
    		You just don't get it, do you?
    
    
    			Wayne

    	RE: .77  Wayne
    
    	Gee, I would have thought you would WELCOME the idea of more
    	women being prepared to support themselves (and their children)
    	without so much reliance on male $upport.
    
    	All my beliefs on equality include the idea of taking unfair
    	financial burdens OFF men by providing equal employment
    	opportunities for women (so that more of us can get to where
    	we want to go by working for it ourselves.)
    
    	What's the problem, Wayne?  Isn't this what you want?

    	People talk about the horrors men face in divorce (and rightly
    	so, since many cases are in fact quite horrible.)
    
    	Here's the way mine went (between two independent people):
    
    		We split up all our possessions fairly (and amicably)
    		when we separated.
    
    		Time went by, and I was living in another state.  We
    		decided one of us should file for divorce, and that
    		the laws in his state were simpler than mine - so he
    		bought a "do-it-yourself" divorce kit (for something
    		like $100.)  I don't think he got a lawyer, but if he
    		did then we shared the same one. 
    
    		He went to court by himself and the court ordered him
    		to bring a notarized financial statement from me.  He
    		sent me the form.  I didn't fill it out.  I returned
    		it with a notarized letter to the judge stating that
    		I didn't care to reveal my financial status since we
    		were not asking anything of each other (and since we
    		made comparable salaries.)
    
    		He took it back to court - the judge accepted it
    		and dissolved the marriage.  At the moment we were
    		divorced, I was working at a customer site repairing
    		a disk drive.  I called the court later in the day
    		and they told me that everything was finalized.
    
    	No problem.

  >>  and what the heck isn't equitable about expecting men and women to
  >>  be careful when they have sex.
   
    >Because a woman has *choices* and a man has *responsibilities*. 
    
    Fred, I'm confused what you mean by this, could you clarify it for me? 
    In my eyes BOTH men and women have choices and responsibilities.  
    
    Karen

    
>   
>    >Because a woman has *choices* and a man has *responsibilities*. 
>    
>    Fred, I'm confused what you mean by this, could you clarify it for me? 
>    In my eyes BOTH men and women have choices and responsibilities.  
>
          
    Step 1 - Before Relations Discussion 
    Woman - choice on birth control, discussion on abortion, adoption, etc
    Man - choice on birth control, discussion on abortion, adoption, etc    
    
    Step 2 - Given This Information Decide Yes or No to Relations
    Woman - GO or NO GO given info from step 1
    Man - GO or NO GO given info from step 2
    
    Step 3 - Relations 
    Man and Woman .....
    
    Step 4 - Pregnancy Occurs (could be accidental)
    Woman Discovers
    Man Finds out if she chooses to share info
    
    Step 5 - Decision Process
    Woman - chooses to inform man or not
            chooses to consider his opinion or not
            chooses to follow what she said she would do before relations
                    or she chooses to change her mind
            lives through a tough choice
    Man - Hmmm ..never mind not having a choice he may not even know the
            situation exists
    
    Step 6 - Outcome
    Woman - chooses abortion .. even if there was a previous agreement not
                to abort 
            chooses adoption .. (Does the father have to agree?)
            chooses to keep the baby ... NCP pays support (currently
                usually the man) ... even if there was a previous agreement to
                abort
    Man - legal options dictated by women's choice
    
    
    It seems to me around step 5 it stops being equal.  
    
    
    Greg
    

    RE: .81
    
    Two possible corrections on your steps:
    
    In the case of adoption, it may be a state-to-state thing, but I
    do know that in some states the father MUST agree to it.
    
    In Mass., for example, even if the father is someone who raped the
    mother (and is in prison for the rape,) he must sign a form to agree
    to the adoption.
    
    As for the father paying support for an unplanned child - I'm sure
    you realize that this involves a lawsuit from the mother.  No support
    can be obtained otherwise (unless the father volunteers it.)  Many
    women choose not to file a lawsuit (since it takes more money upfront
    than most single mothers are prepared to pay.)

    After talking to a friend this morning, I want to clear up one thing
    about my stand in this discussion.
    
    I do realize that some men are treated terribly, terribly unfairly
    in divorce (including being denied visitation with their children.)
    
    I would like very much to see this particular problem fixed - I have
    no answers as to how this could be done, but it is an appalling injustice.
    
    My take on the divorce situation IN GENERAL is that a change of
    attitudes toward men and women in our society would have a more general
    and widespread impact on divorce (by allowing that men CAN be wonderful
    nurturers and that women CAN be excellent breadwinners.)
    
    Eliminating the stereotypes men and women face in divorce court may
    not be much of a help in the case of extreme injustice towards some
    fathers, but it would help in many of the more average cases, IMO.

    in re .81
    
    You left out a step in there somewhere..
    
    - Woman undergoes nine months of pregnancy with it's comcomittant
    discomforts, risks, dangers and expenses.
    - Woman undergoes labor or surgery to deliver child. 
    - Woman has ultimate responsibilty to care for the child if the
    man does not wish to be involved, or suffer the heart ache of
    giving the child away.
    
    Since the man can never take this part of the burden the situation
    can never be exactly equal. I do not think it is unreasonable for
    the woman to be compensated to some degree for this inequality.
    
    Bonnie

>I do not think it is unreasonable for
>    the woman to be compensated to some degree for this inequality.
 
 Exactly. That talk of "the baby deserves it" was just that. Talk. It's really
about compensating females for biology. Equality is only viable when it's
convenient.   

    Mark
    
    Don't be absurd! Of course the baby deserves it... but there should
    also be some way to balance the unequal burden women carry in regards
    to their health, risk to their lives etc.. 
    
    Bonnie

>Of course the baby deserves it.

 Wait a minute. How is it that "the baby" deserves it, when it ain't a baby
in the first place? Whenever the subject of abortion comes up, we talk about 
zygotes and fetuses, and stress how they are NOT babies. But when discussion
turns to contraception, why that zygote is a baby after all (at least in terms
of the FATHER'S responsibility.)

>but there should
>    also be some way to balance the unequal burden women carry in regards
>    to their health, risk to their lives etc.. 
 
 Women have many more choices of viable contraception control than do men.
In addition, men have absolutely no options available for after the fact
"solutions" to unexpected pregnancies whereas women have at least two. Do you
disagree that this uneven distribution of options compensates women for
the "unequal burden women carry [...]"?

    RE: .87  The Doctah
    
    > Women have many more choices of viable contraception control than do men.
    > In addition, men have absolutely no options available for after the fact
    > "solutions" to unexpected pregnancies whereas women have at least two. 
    > Do you disagree that this uneven distribution of options compensates 
    > women for the "unequal burden women carry [...]"?
    
    If this is true, Doctah, then no "equalizing" needs to be done for
    men (in terms of relieving them of unwanted financial burden to
    compensate for men's lack of choices.)
    
    Once the biological stuff is out of the way, it still comes down to
    men being expected to help out because of the economic inequalities
    that exist between men and women.
    
    If you really want equality, then how could you suggest that men be
    relieved of this burden without women being relieved of the burdens
    of the economic inequalities resulting from discrimination, etc.?

    
>   
>    You left out a step in there somewhere ... (the pregnancy)
>                              .....
>    Since the man can never take this part of the burden the situation
>    can never be exactly equal. I do not think it is unreasonable for
>    the woman to be compensated to some degree for this inequality.
    
 
    I agree it is unequal and that the women should have the choice.  I do
    not believe it is so unequal that the man should not even know what is
    happening.
    
    Greg
    

>    If you really want equality, then how could you suggest that men be
>    relieved of this burden without women being relieved of the burdens
>    of the economic inequalities resulting from discrimination, etc.?

 I have avoided even commenting on this straw man argument, but just in case
some of the latecomers didn't notice, this is not my position. I believe that
both should occuir. So there.

 Unlike some, equality isn't a matter of convenience for me.

    RE: .90  The Doctah

    > I have avoided even commenting on this straw man argument, but just 
    > in case some of the latecomers didn't notice, this is not my position. 
    > I believe that both should occuir. So there.

    Isn't it true that you tried to promote "equality" by saying that men
    should be compensated for their "lack of choices" (eg, their biology)
    by being relieved of the burden of child support for unplanned/unwanted
    children?  (Yes, sure, you did toss in that women should also be given
    economic equality, but you seemed to be suggesting that the big factor
    needed to "equalize" men and women was for men to have ECONOMIC choices
    in exchange for women's BIOLOGICAL choices.)  Have you changed your
    mind about this since then?

    > Unlike some, equality isn't a matter of convenience for me.

    Your unfounded accusation doesn't take on credence by mere repetition,
    Doctah.

>    Isn't it true that you tried to promote "equality" by saying that men
>    should be compensated for their "lack of choices" (eg, their biology)
>    by being relieved of the burden of child support for unplanned/unwanted
>    children? 

 Nope.

>    you seemed to be suggesting that the big factor
>    needed to "equalize" men and women was for men to have ECONOMIC choices
>    in exchange for women's BIOLOGICAL choices.)

 Nope. Strike two.

>    Your unfounded accusation doesn't take on credence by mere repetition,
>    Doctah.

 We criticize most in others what we dislike about ourselves, eh Suzanne?
Steeerike three! You're outta there! <thumb>

    RE: .92  The Doctah

    Wonderful, Doc!

    Then I can discount your reply .26 almost entirely (and be happy that
    you agree with my stand on this, except for your unfounded accusation
    about feminists wanting "equality when it's convenient.")

    You've made my day.

    (By the way, here are some of the things you wrote that I will
    discount:)

    	"Freedom of choice has to work both ways. Just as women can currently 
    	opt not to continue a pregnancy, men ought to have that right too. 
    	It's part and parcel of equality."

    	"The counterpoint is that women do not tend to make as much money 
    	as men, and that fact alone is sufficient to justify the continuation 
    	of this inequitable system. When is equality acheived? When everything 
    	is equal, n'est-ce pas?  How can everything be equal if we continue to 
    	allow inequities to be legislated into existence? It can't."

    The point is that women have biological choices BECAUSE we are the ones
    who go through the pain and the physical toil involved with pregnancy.

    We can't reach "equality" between the sexes in childbirth by giving
    men "economic choices" to go along with women's "biological choices."

    We could gain a form of "biological equality" for men by manufacturing
    and marketing reliable birth control devices (beyond condoms) that
    give men more assurance that they have control over the dispersement
    of their seed.

    We could gain a form of "economic equality" for women by reaching
    equal employment opportunities for more women (so that a decision to
    have a child without the support of the father would be more feasible
    for women and their children than it is now.)

    I'm glad we could agree on all this, Doc!

 You still aren't listening. I, for one, am shocked. :-)

    Doctah, all I have to go by is what you say.
    
    When your statements become a moving target (and you deny any and
    all attempts to pin you down to a firm position,) then perceptions
    about your position don't make much difference, do they?
    
    So tell me - are you trying to gain "equality" by exchanging women's
    biological choices for men's economic choices (or not?)
    
    Simple enough question, Doc.

    	By the way, the infamous "women have choices, men have
    	responsibilities" quote is featured in the movie "Parenthood"
    	(which I saw again recently.)

    	It's a copout, pure and simple, to try to equate women's
    	biological choices (available simply because women are the
    	ones with the uteruses) to men's economic choices (which
    	are sometimes limited by society because women are regarded
    	as being tied up with pregnancy or child rearing, and since
    	we do not currently have equal employment rights.)

    	We would move closer to equality in biological and economic
    	areas by giving men a convenient method of birth control (one
    	that most men would be willing to use) that would give men
    	more control over their likelihood of impregnating a partner
    	(in the event her birth control fails or if she isn't using
    	any.)

    	Men would be less expected to bear the financial burdens of
    	unplanned children if women had more access to equal employment
    	(so that single mothers could have a better chance of earning
    	the money it takes to support themselves and their children in
    	a reasonable manner.)

    	If reliable, convenient birth control (other than condoms) is
    	invented and marketed for men, the smartest thing would be if
    	couples used BOTH "his" and "her" birth control methods instead
    	of relying on one or the other.  It would make a great "backup"
    	for a failed method, and neither would be putting his/her future
    	on the line for someone who might be intentionally deceiving the
    	person.

    Mark
    
    I've been too busy to log in to mennotes of late, and it seems that
    the questions you threw at me have been answered. I felt when I read
    them that you were changing your approach/attack selectively to
    pick on what I hadn't said in a particular note i.e. if I didn't
    mention babies in one note, then my previous note about the rights
    of a child were invalid, and when I said 'of course' about the baby
    you accused me of being inconsitent given my stand (in soapbox) that
    a zygote is not a baby. If you still want to discuss this and
    have a sincere misunderstanding of my point of view, please let me
    know what you have a problem with, either here or in mail.
    
    Bonnie
    to discuss

            women's rights               men's rights
            --------------               ------------

            can use contraceptives       can use a contraceptive

            can choose not to have       can choose not to have
            a child after pregnant       a child after sex partner is pregnant
            regardless of sex partner's  regardless of sex partner's views
            views

            can choose to have baby      cannot choose to have baby without
            without partner's approval   partner's approval

 Perfect equality in this area cannot ever occur because humans bear live
young asymmetrically. It's not like a pile of fertilized eggs that either
parent can bring to bear.

 However, there is asymmetry in the above lists. Women have 100% choice in
whether the baby is carried to term. Men have 0% once pregnancy occurs. 
Because men have 0% choice in whether a pregnancy in another's body is
carried to term, giving men the _option_ of choosing to be a part of that
potential life is in order. This does not mean that a man can convince a woman
that he's going to be there, then changing his mind after the option of abortion
has passed and being free and clear. This means that he has the same amount of
time to make up his mind as the woman. This doesn't mean that a father of two
can simply bolt to cat around with an 18 year old sexpot and abandon his
children's support. This means that a man has every right to conclude his
association with a zygote that a woman has to conclude hers. That's equality
(at least as near as it can be made.)

 The claim that the fact that men earn more money makes such an arrangement
inequitable is specious. It is a fact that women can support children on
their own. They do it all the time. And women have a number of options for
dealing with an unexpected pregnancy, none of which the man can impact unless
she chooses to allow him.

 There's just no way that you can say that allowing women the option to 
terminate an 18+ year committment but disallowing men the same option is
equality. No friggin' way. And if "too bad" is your response, then how can
you fault men that feel the same way about other aspects of equality that 
women find to be more desirable?

    
    Well said Doc, as always.
    
    						Hank

    re .98, well, you should be telling that to the state wellfare
    departments, shouldn't you?  Regardless of what Bonnie, or Suzanne, or
    I, or anyother woman noting here, thinks, my understanding is that if a
    single mother goes to the Wellfare Dept., at least in Mass., and tries
    to get state support for a child, that the Wellfare Dept. won't give
    the woman aid unless she names the father, and then the state goes
    after the guy for money.  Isn't that the case?  Unless he can prove
    that it's not his kid, then I think the state can make him pay child
    support.  If that's the case, then even if the woman doesn't want to
    make the man pay, if she falls on tough times financially, trying to
    raise a child alone, and asks the state for help, then, whether she
    wants it or not, the state will go after the guy.  So, it isn't just a
    bunch of feminists from womannotes who feel this way.  It seems that
    the men who run the wellfare dept. feel the same way, too.  Unless I'm
    mistaken about this, but I've heard that this is the case in Mass.
    
    Also, I don't think a man should have 9 months to decide if he wants a
    baby.  I think he should tell the woman a little sooner than that so
    she can plan what she's going to do, don't you?  If I were the woman I
    wouldn't be too pleased if the guy changed his mind about helping
    financially two days before the kid was born.  I'd rather know ahead of
    time so I could plan for it.
    
    I still think that, given all the forms of birth control available,
    that men who don't want kids should utilize some type of birth control,
    and just accept the fact that if everything fails and a child is
    conceived, that they have an obligation to help raise it.  I just don't
    think it's right for a man to say, "I know it's my kid, but I didn't
    want it so I don't give a damn what kind of a life it has.  I don't
    care how it suffers or what it goes without."  I think that's a cruel,
    inhuman, selfish attitude for a man to take toward his own flesh and
    blood, regardless of how much he may hate the mother.
    
    Also, just because a lot of women have raised children on their own
    doesn't mean it was easy and that the women and kids didn't suffer and
    live under conditions and without things most of us want to have.
    
    Lorna
    

    After reading .98, .100 I have a better understanding why I was
    reluctant to participate in this discussion.
    

    That's interesting, Herb.  I am having similar difficulties with these
    issues, which is one reason I too have refrained from commenting.
    
    					- Vick

    Herb,
    
    That being said, don't you find anything disagreeable about what is
    being said?  Doesn't your gut say something is very wrong here?  I know
    mine does...

The thing I find so disagreeable is the need for this debate...  

Human Beings have the capacity to acknowledge "Cause and Effect".  Knowing what
can happen (creation of a Human life) by certain actions and then shirking the
responsibilities devalues Human life as well as the sex act.  Our society has
become so cavalier about life that we place a monetary value on it.  Whatever
became of valuing the "potential" of Human life?  Does it take AIDS to make us
realize the value of our own life?  I am amazed we don't eat our young...

Don

    RE: .98  The Doctah

    > However, there is asymmetry in the above lists. Women have 100% choice 
    > in whether the baby is carried to term. Men have 0% once pregnancy 
    > occurs. 

    This is false.  Women do not have 100% choice of whether the baby is
    carried to term or not.  In many states, abortion is already against
    the law (and the Supreme Court is about to overturn Roe v. Wade, at
    some point after the next Presidential election.)  Even where it is
    legal, abortions aren't free.  If the woman is underage, parental
    permission is required in some states (where abortion is still legal)
    and spousal consent is required in some other states.

    Many men have far more than 0% choice in this, as well.  It depends
    on the relationship (spousal consent is required in some states, and
    many women do consult with the fathers of their children before making
    such decisions anyway.)

    > Because men have 0% choice in whether a pregnancy in another's body 
    > is carried to term, giving men the _option_ of choosing to be a part 
    > of that potential life is in order. 

    If you want to allow men this option BECAUSE women have the option of
    abortion, then what happens when women lose this choice?  Should we
    have the courts go against unwed fathers ALL THE MORE for support
    (or what?)

    > This does not mean that a man can convince a woman that he's going to 
    > be there, then changing his mind after the option of abortion has passed 
    > and being free and clear. This means that he has the same amount of
    > time to make up his mind as the woman. 

    Again, your argument depends on the legality of abortion.  What happens
    AFTER Roe v. Wade is overturned (and many states disallow legal abortion)?
    Will you stop asking for men's "choice" to support or not to support?

    > This means that a man has every right to conclude his association with 
    > a zygote that a woman has to conclude hers. That's equality (at least 
    > as near as it can be made.)

    Equality would be if the woman had an equal chance of providing support
    that the man has chosen not to provide (disregarding the question of
    the legality of abortion in the near future.)

    > The claim that the fact that men earn more money makes such an 
    > arrangement inequitable is specious. It is a fact that women can 
    > support children on their own. They do it all the time. And women 
    > have a number of options for dealing with an unexpected pregnancy, 
    > none of which the man can impact unless she chooses to allow him.

    Mark, if you want women to take over the responsibility of supporting
    a man's children when he would rather not do it, I say FINE.  However,
    it isn't equality if you expect women to do this without having a level
    playing field in employment opportunities.  It is NOT equality if you
    expect more women to take over this responsibility in the kind of
    poverty that many single mothers face due to widespread discrimination.)

    > There's just no way that you can say that allowing women the option to 
    > terminate an 18+ year committment but disallowing men the same option 
    > is equality. No friggin' way. 

    Aside from the fact that women are losing this option (which makes your
    argument almost moot once again,) you're confusing biological and
    economic choices again.  Society holds men to their financial commitments
    toward unplanned children *because* women are not given equal access to
    employment.  It is still a burden on society when fathers "walk away."

    If women had equal opportunities, single mothers would be far better
    prepared to support their families in a reasonable way if fathers wanted
    to stay out of it.

    > And if "too bad" is your response, then how can you fault men that 
    > feel the same way about other aspects of equality that women find 
    > to be more desirable?

    I'm not saying, "Too bad."

    In this argument, some men seem to want rights without responsibilities.
    They want "someone else" to worry about birth control (so they won't
    have to be responsible for the kinds of details that might make sex
    less fun) - then some men want the right to walk away without having
    to take responsibility for what happened when they were NOT taking
    responsibility during sex.

    Fine.  My take is - let the men walk away, if they want.  A man who
    doesn't want an unplanned child should have the option to say, "Goodbye."
    However, let's fix the problem of unequal employment rights so that
    the mothers and children left behind still have a chance for a decent
    life.

    I'm completely comfortable with the idea of women being expected to
    support their unplanned children much of the time (heck, most single
    parents of unplanned children already DO it, since it takes a lawsuit
    and money to get support from an unwilling father.)

    My idea of equality is that women are given the opportunities to take
    over the financial burdens some men are so anxious to leave behind
    them.  It isn't equality if men give up this burden while women are
    still BEING PREVENTED (on such a widespread basis) from taking it over.

    RE: .100 Lorna
    
    You're right about the policy of some/many states when it comes to
    Welfare.
    
    If the Mother seeks so much as Food Stamps (while falling on hard
    times,) the state will not do anything for the Mother until she
    names the Father.  Then they go after him (and the Mother has NO
    CHOICE about this, no matter how much she wants the father left
    alone.)
    
    You're absolutely correct that it is NOT feminists who are seeking
    that these Fathers are tapped for the support paid to their children
    by Welfare.
    
    Fewer single Mothers would FALL on hard times if we didn't have 
    widespread wage and employment discrimination against women.

    	Doctah, the folks you need to convince to let men "walk away"
    	from an 18+ year commitment they don't want are the taxpayers.
    
    	As long as women constitute the majority of the adult poor in
    	our society, we would ALL take over the financial burdens left
    	by men sanctioned to "walk away."  We'd pay via our taxes in
    	many cases.
    
    	I'd rather see women self-supporting and independent than living
    	on Welfare, wouldn't you?  If women had better access to equal
    	employment opportunities, it would make this goal far more
    	feasible.

I think that central issue has been clouded in this discussion.  That issue is:
"If a child is conceived by accident, should the father be legally held fi-
nancially responsible to help the mother raise it".  For the sake of argument,
let's assume that the conception was a complete accident:  a generally highly
reliable method of birth control was correctly used, which failed.

The woman choses to bear the child to term.  This is, IMO, quite understandably
her right.  Whereas I believe in protecting a woman's right to chose abortion, I
also believe that no woman should ever be *forced* to chose it.

The woman then choses to raise the child.  I can't for the life of me see where
she should have any right to demand the father's help in paying for it.  The de-
cision to raise the child without the father's willing participation is a com-
pletely personally one, since the option to give the child up for adoption is
available.  If a woman is not personally capable of supporting an *accident-
ally conceived* child, then I can't see why she should be given a legal right
to force the father to help her do it.

                                                        -- Mike

    re .100
    
    Men wouldn't have 9 months to decide whether or not they wanted to be
    involved in the childs life, they would have the same amount of time
    that the woman has to decide whether or not to abort.  I believe that
    this is generally limited to the first trimester.
    
    Also, according to your description of the welfare system, what's to
    prevent a woman from making a false declaration of the father and
    hurting someone who was not responsible?  Remember, you said that the
    "father" would have to prove that he isn't the father (that sounds
    contradictory to the constitutional rule of innocent until proven
    guilty).  Maybe the mother should have to prove that a particular
    person is the father if he contests it; that would follow the
    constitution.
    
    re .105
    
    Requiring men to pay support because they have a higher probability of
    making a larger income will promote the continuation of that state as
    people will use the argument of (possibly) having to pay support as a
    reason to pay men more.
    
    Rich

    re: .105
    
    I didn't know abortion was against the law in some states.
    What states?

    .100
    Crap-ola! I have had tenants with situations that contradict all that
    has been said. The mothers don't have to name any fathers unless they
    want. 

    RE: .110  Hank
    
    Sorry - some states have recently passed extremely restrictive
    abortion laws.  With Roe v. Wade about to be overturned (the
    Supreme Court is in place to do it any time it wants to) - it's
    only a matter of time before abortion is banned altogether in
    a number of states.

    re .111, Excuse me?  "Crap-ola!"  I think that's a very rude comment
    for you to make about my reply.  If you can describe a situation that
    refutes this, then do so, but you don't have to use insulting words.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    as I was reading the "inequality list", a thought occurred to me.  
    
    Picture, if you will, the possibility that enabled a woman who was
    pregnant to feel comfortable sharing with the father of the embryo
    the fact that she was pregnant.  The following choices could be made:
    
    1.  she wants an abortion very strongly.  She feels she will suffer
    severe emotional, spiritual, and physical trauma if she carries to term
    and tries to raise the child.  She can share this with him, and he can
    support her in feeling this way.  Hopefully, he will support her in
    meeting her own needs.
    
    2.  she wants to have the child very strongly, and he does not. In
    which case they sign an agreement that he need not be involved in
    raising the child.
    
    3.  he wants the child very strongly, and she does not.  Perhaps she
    can concede to bearing the child to term, providing he supports her
    financially throughout, and signs a form that he will be the sole
    supporter and provider for the child for the rest of its life.
    
    
    I guess the key is, it's vital to talk about "what-if" before it
    happens.  Much of the time, I will have the "what-if" talk before I
    sleep with someone.  I want them to know where I stand, and I want to
    know where they stand.  Sometimes not sleeping with each other is the
    result.  
    
    The very acknowledgment that birth control is never 100% sure goes a
    long way towards straightening out how each partner feels, and can
    contribute to a warm and supported feeling in the relationship.  You
    can even have the what-if discussion with someone you don't intend to
    be in a relationship with!  It may even possible to have a
    30 second discussion before having zipless sex with a nameless
    stranger!
    
    It all boils down to responsibility and commitment.  Responsibility for
    your actions (male or female) and commitment to the future.  Commitment
    to ensuring all the question marks are squashed.  Commitment to
    maintaining integrity (even at the cost of a little embarassment - if
    you ask what-if-someone-gets-pregnant and the other person says "huh?",
    it's time to take a few minutes and talk about it....).  Integrity with
    yourself and your relationships - integrity with being thorough about
    what your life will and won't contain, integrity about a commitment of
    money and time that can happen due to lack of foresight, or just plain
    oversight.
    
    -Jody
    

    Doctah, as far as I can tell, our positions really don't seem that
    different.  We put emphasis on different aspects of what we regard
    as equality, of course, but we do both agree that women should have
    equal employment rights and that men should have the option of not
    being committed to 18+ years of support (in some/many situations.)
    
    Please keep in mind that I'm a case in point of what you're requesting
    - I'm a single Mom who *did* let the man out of such a commitment when
    he stated that he did not wish to support his child (although I gave
    the man unlimited visitation rights *anyway*.)
    
    At the time I knew I'd be supporting my child on my own, I thought
    it was the best thing for me.  If I'd counted on the Dad, I might
    never have learned the lesson that carried me through my son's
    infancy and childhood best:  How to count on myself.

    re .108, yes, but that being said, even if forcing a man to pay child
    support for a child he didn't want is not fair to the man, what about
    the child?  What does it say about a man who doesn't care what happens
    to his own flesh and blood once the child has been born?  How can a man
    just go off and have a happy life without knowing that his own child is
    receiving the basic necessities of life?  It's not about being fair to
    a man or being fair to a woman.  It's about parents caring about what
    happens to their own children!
    
    I have often thought, from observing life, that many men only care
    about the children they have by women they are in love with (at the
    time anyway) and that many men don't seem to fully comprehend that the
    children they father with women they don't love, are, biologically
    speaking, just as much their children, as the children they have with
    the women they do love.  I think this is easy for men because they
    don't walk around with a baby inside them for 9 months, and they don't
    have to actually give birth.  It's easier for them to pretend these
    children don't exist and aren't theirs.  By the time a woman has been
    pregnant for 9 months and then gone through childbirth, she is usually
    well aware that the child is hers, even if she loathed the man who
    fathered it.  Maybe that's why it has sometimes occured to me that most
    women seem to love all their children, even the ones they have by men
    they weren't in love with, while many men seem to  love only the
    children they have with their wives and women they were in love with at
    the time.
    
    Also, .108, please be aware that adoption is not an option for every
    woman.  Personally, I would die before I would give away my own child. 
    The way I see it, if I have a child it's my responsibility to take care
    of it as long as I'm alive and/or it grows up.  I don't pass any
    negative judgement on mothers who don't feel this way, and have given
    their children up for adoption, but it would never be an option for me.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna
    
    I've heard the same information about single mothers on welfare that
    you did. I know of one woman who had asked a man to father a child
    for her to raise as a single parent. She lost her job and had to
    go on welfare and inspite of the agreement that she had in writing
    with the child's father the welfare department went after him
    for support.
    
    It does happen.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .116  Lorna
    
    Interesting theory (about when men love their children, etc.), but
    it's a gross generalization.
    
    Men can love their children as much as women regardless of the situation 
    with the children's Mother.  It just depends on the man as an individual
    (in the same way Motherly love depends on the woman as an individual.)

    re .103, .104
    
    Not sure of your frame of reference, Don.
    If you are suggesting that abortion is disagreeable, I agree,
    If you are suggesting that carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term is
    disagreeable, I agree.
    If you are suggesting that assigning 'responsibility is unpleasant, I
    agree.
    The conversation starts out with a disagreeable frame of reference in
    my opinion. Namely, what to do about and how to 'assign' responsibility
    for an unpleasant reality.
    Once _in_ that unpleasant reality, -a surprise pregnancy- how ought it
    be handled? That's an unpleasant subject. Unfortunately, it's also
    reality, the reality that is under discussion.
    
    				herb

    re .118, I think that men are just as apt to love the children they
    have by their wives, or their planned children, as women are, and that
    some men love their kids more than some women, and vice-versa.  But, my
    observation has been that *most* men don't seem to love their unplanned
    children, that resulted from casual encounters, whereas most women seem
    to wind-up loving those children, too.  There are exceptions in both
    cases, of course.  But, as you can see from replies here, it doesn't
    occur to many men that they would ever wind-up loving children they
    didn't want.  They don't even want to help support them, nevermind love
    them.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .120  Lorna
    
    I'm sure you also realize that "unplanned" children often come from
    long-term love relationships (where people were going together for a
    long time or lived together, but weren't ready to get married yet.)
    
    Sometimes an expected pregnancy can put distance between couples
    who love each other (but who disagree about what they want to happen
    once a pregnancy has occurred.)
    
    I realize you were making generalizations, but please keep in mind
    that many of the non-married couples you're talking about had FAR
    more going for them than a casual encounter, ok?

    please note that the conversation seems to be shifting from
    pregnancy/abortion (a.k.a. zygote) to  children.
    As Mark has so cogently observed, that is a different discussion, with
    different values.
    
    
    				herb

    re .121, yes, Suzanne, I realize there are unmarried couples in
    longterm relationships who have more going for them than a casual
    encounter, but that doesn't change my previous opinions, since I wasn't
    really referring to those couples.  I was including them when I
    referred to men being in love with the women who got pregnant, and said
    that they usually love those children.  It's the children resulting
    from casual encounters that men don't tend to want to acknowledge, in
    my experience.
    
    re .122, but, when talking of financial support, what's the difference
    between a zygote (what a word!) and a child?  A zygote doesn't need to
    be supported, and if it never turned into a child the question of
    support would never come up.  When men (or women) say that men should
    not be held financially responsible for children they didn't want, then
    we *are* talking about children.  
    
    Lorna
     

    RE:  .122
    
    It's a slippery topic, Herb.  Given the possibility also under
    discussion that the woman is opposed to abortion, the zygote may become
    a child, which also has to be considered.
    
    
    RE:  .116
    
    Lorna, I guess the problem is one of viewpoint.  As the accidental
    father, I would probably view the conception as an unfortunate mistake,
    and one that I'd be unwilling to pay for for the next 18 years.  The
    mother's unwillingness to either abort or give the child up for
    adoption would seem like a major betrayal to me, especially since we
    *would* have discussed and agreed on abortion or adoption before I'd
    have had sex with her.  I think that I'd be very bitter about being put
    through a major financial hardship needlessly.
    
    But, as you point out, there's an emotional component for a woman who
    bears a child to term that may be impossible for me to fathom. 
    I just can't see where it's fair to ask me to pay for someone emotional
    inability to honor an agreement.  I like Jody's proposed
    solution--there should be some legally binding contract you could enter
    into that would stipulate the courses of action you agree to be
    financially responsible for in the event of accidental pregnancy and
    which would release you from any further culpability should the other
    party chose another course.  I don't expect this to happen in our
    mock-puritanical society, of course.
    
    Since this has never happened to me, I'm merely speculating as to what
    my reaction would be.  Maybe the knowledge that a child of mine existed
    would arouse some feelings of paternal protectiveness in me.  I don't
    know.  I just wish I had more legal protection against breach of verbal
    agreement.
    
                                                             -- Mike
    

    no bid

.119> The conversation starts out with a disagreeable frame of reference in
.119> my opinion. Namely, what to do about and how to 'assign' responsibility
.119> for an unpleasant reality.

I repeat my statement from .104> Human Beings have the capacity to acknowledge
"Cause and Effect", or, we have the ability to anticipate what you call an 
"unpleasant reality".  NOT doing this is what is what sticks in my craw!  
Debating "damage control" should happen before the fact as Jody stated in her
.114> summation:

.114> I guess the key is, it's vital to talk about "what-if" before it
.114> happens.  The very acknowledgment that birth control is never 100% sure
.114> goes a long way towards straightening out how each partner feels, and can
.114> contribute to a warm and supported feeling in the relationship.

.114> It all boils down to responsibility and commitment.  Responsibility for
.114> your actions (male or female) and commitment to the future.  Commitment
.114> to ensuring all the question marks are squashed.  Commitment to
.114> maintaining integrity...

If this were done, disagreeable issues such as abortion and unwanted pregnancy
would never need to be resolved/debated.  

.116> Lorna

I like the "slant" your replies are taking in this topic...


herb,

.122> please note that the conversation seems to be shifting from
.122> pregnancy/abortion (a.k.a. zygote) to  children.
.122> As Mark has so cogently observed, that is a different discussion, with
.122> different values.
    
What's the fundamental issue here?  Where are we most likely to achieve a 
consensus that can be built upon?

<Debating "damage control" should happen before the fact as Jody stated in her

<If this were done, disagreeable issues such as abortion and unwanted pregnancy
<would never need to be resolved/debated.  

That's right, but that also is not reality!

Women get pregnant!!!!! Women get pregnant!
Women get pregnant by men.
Sometimes that was not planned.

I think _that's_ the discussion.

Your reaction that that should never happen is noble and worth it's own
discussion, but i don't think it is _this_ discussion.

If we can't even agree on what the conversation is about how can there
_possibly_ be agreement about conclusions.
    
<What's the fundamental issue here?  Where are we most likely to achieve a 
<consensus that can be built upon?

I doubt like hell there would be ANY disagreement about Jody's suggestion,
or your support of it. If that is the case then let's not bother discussing
it. Or is it your position that that is the ONLY thing that is worth
discussing? 
If so, I feel you are being ostrich-like, and i have no interest in either
sharing your hole, or finding one of my own.

				herb

.127> That's right, but that also is not reality!

So why not spend the energy/intellect to understand how this reality (not a very
good one) came about and then come up with ways to get a new/better reality?

.127> Women get pregnant by men.
.127> Sometimes that was not planned.

I believe this reality can be changed...

.127> Or is it your position that that is the ONLY thing that is worth
.127> discussing? 

Yes, I'll plead guilty...  

.127> If so, I feel you are being ostrich-like, and i have no interest in either
.127> sharing your hole, or finding one of my own.

I don't see myself that way.  I'll admit this seems to be a "hot button" for me
but it is good to feel the passion of one's convictions once again...  Sorry if
you felt dragged into anything.

Regards, Don

.127> Your reaction that that should never happen is noble and worth it's own
.127> discussion, but i don't think it is _this_ discussion.
.127>
.127> If we can't even agree on what the conversation is about how can there
.127> _possibly_ be agreement about conclusions.

I don't know how much anyone cares what *you* think the discussion is about
Herb.  You've only entered 5 replies here and the first one was after .100
(I'd like to thank you for your restraint, BTW).  You are not moderator of this
conference or this discussion and you didn't even start the topic.

.127> <Debating "damage control" should happen before the fact as Jody stated in her
.127>
.127> <If this were done, disagreeable issues such as abortion and unwanted pregnancy
.127> <would never need to be resolved/debated.  
.127>
.127> That's right, but that also is not reality!
.127>
.127> Women get pregnant!!!!! Women get pregnant!
.127> Women get pregnant by men.
.127> Sometimes that was not planned.
.127>
.127> I think _that's_ the discussion.

For what it's worth, I think that in the absence of prior discussion or agree-
ment on birth-control and the consequences of its failure, the current legal
state of things is quite reasonable.  Having intercourse without such fore-
thought is clearly irresponsible (like driving without a license) and both par-
ties should be equally culpable for the "damages".  Under no circumstance should
any woman be forced to have an abortion, or forced to give up her child (unless
she's clearly unfit to act as its parent).  As I've stated though, I think that
if there *has* been an agreement not to keep an accidentally conceived child and
the mother chooses to break it, that the mother should be solely responsible for
the financial burden of raising it.

                                                        -- Mike

    <both parties are equally irresponsible>
    
    I agree.
    
    But not sure that I would want irresponsible cohabiters to be given
    (forced to have?) the  responsibility for parenting -some nine months
    hence- the results of an irresponsibly fertilized egg.
    
    Hellava environment for the child! 
    I think a better decision would be to wash the zygote down the drain.

    
    >You are not moderator of this conference or this discussion and you
    >didn't even start the topic.
    
    So what the the price of tea in China got to do with how you feel about
    Herb. He was trying to help define where this topic is going and was
    trying to set it streight. If you interested in being a moderator,
    pention Steve Lionel. Then you can set unseen to what you don't want to
    read. Or just set next unseen to skip over the stuff that you dont want
    to read about Herb.

RE: .131

Sorry--I may have been hard on Herb.  Too many times have I seen perfectly good
topics flushed by people (Herb among them) essentially poking their fingers in
their ears and yelling "I don't want anyone to discuss this, I don't want anyone
to discuss this" at the top of their lungs.  I've guess I've gotten to be a bit
touchy about it.  Discussing the disposition of and financial responsibility for
a child born after an accidental conception is obviously closely enough related
to the original topic of men's rights in abortion decisions to not be considered
a rathole.

In any case, I have as much right to object to Herb's trying to define valid
topics for this conversation as he has to do it.

                                                               -- Mike

RE: .130

I agree, Herb.  In most cases, it probably *would* be better to abort than
having one or two irresponsible people raising the child.  But you can't legi-
slate that.  It would be evil to *force* an abortion on someone, and taking
a child away rightfully requires some proof of neglect or outright insanity on
the part of the parent(s).

However, concerned people can and have taken children out of environments when
irresponsibility is carried through into the raising of the child.

                                                         -- Mike

    	Folks, let's not characterize people who experience unplanned
    	pregnancy as irresponsible, ok?  Birth control does fail and
    	responsible people do sometimes make mistakes.
    
    	My own parents had an accidental pregnancy, for goodness sakes.
    
    	They expected my brother would be conceived right after they
    	got married (and he was born 10 months after the wedding,)
    	but my older sister was a SURPRISE (unplanned) pregnancy when
    	my brother was a tiny infant.  She was born 11 months after my
    	brother (and my parents felt like naming her "OOOOOPS!")
    
    	My folks were very hard pressed to afford a second baby so
    	soon (and my Dad had to be away a lot in the military) - so
    	Mom ran with her baby (and the second one expected) to HER
    	Mother for help.  My Grandmother paid the hospital bill and
    	was given the priv of naming my sister.  
    
    	Years later, when my parents were settled and "old hands" at
    	parenting, they planned "one more baby":  me.  My older brother
    	and sister named me.
    
    	Things happen sometimes - people do the best they can to cope
    	with the change of plans.  An unplanned pregnancy doesn't mean
    	that the people are permanently incapable of raising the child.

.134> My own parents had an accidental pregnancy, for goodness sakes.

If you were to ask your parents if they felt that the second pregnancy was 
irresponsible, what do you suppose they would say?  

Same question except for one word: If you were to ask your parents if they felt
that the second pregnancy was a mistake, what do you suppose they would say? 

    I don't believe that having an accidental pregnancy is equivalent to
    irresponsibility for two reasons

    	a) there are other people who are irresponsible who have never
           gotten pregnant
    	b) there are (even) people who get accidentally pregnant who are
    	   quite responsible. And i'm perfectly willing to accept that your
    	   parents are two of them, if you feel insulted that somehow by
    	   implication they are not (responsible).

    On the other hand perhaps you had in mind to argue that most of the
    people who experience unplanned pregnancy are _responsible_. And use as
    proof that your parents had an unplanned pregnancy and they are
    responsible?

    RE: .135  
    
    They would answer that the second (immediately after) pregnancy was
    unintentional (an "accident.")  Although they didn't have the means
    to take the responsibility for a second baby on their own at that
    time, they weren't irresponsible.  My Mom got help from her Mother.
    
    (I should mention that another aspect to all this was that my Mom
    was a new "Roman Catholic" convert, and they had been trying to live
    up to religious rules about not using birth control.  Mom was 19 and
    didn't have a good handle on how the rhythm method was supposed to
    work - neither did Dad.  They had sex anyway, evidently, and had an
    accidental pregnancy.)
    
    Not having the means to assume responsibility at a particular moment
    isn't the same thing as being "irresponsible," though.

RE: .134

I certainly wasn't trying to imply that all unplanned pregnancies happen to 
irresponsible people.  I do hold that those who have sex without first agreeing
on birth control methods and what to do if they fail *are* acting irresponsibly
(especially in this day and age).

                                                       -- Mike

>    Again, your argument depends on the legality of abortion.  What happens
>    AFTER Roe v. Wade is overturned (and many states disallow legal abortion)?
>    Will you stop asking for men's "choice" to support or not to support?

 Of course. I only want as much equality as is possible to provide. Surely
you want nothing less for women?

>My take is - let the men walk away, if they want.

 Then why have you been arguing so vehemently to the contrary?

 A question:

 Why is it if a man decides to opt not to have a part in an unplanned pregnancy,
he is abandoning a child, but if a woman decides to abort, she isn't killing
a child? It seems to me that some people are trying to have things both ways.

    re .140, because if the woman has an abortion the fetus is killed
    before it turns into a child, but if the man refuses responsibility for
    an unplanned pregnancy, and the baby is born, then it becomes a child,
    that has been abandoned.  At least that's the way I see it.
    
    Lorna
    

    Gee. Sounds like your were both saying the same thing?? I am confused?

    RE: .139  The Doctah
    
    >> My take is - let the men walk away, if they want.

    > Then why have you been arguing so vehemently to the contrary?
    
    I haven't been, Mark!!  
    
    I've been arguing vehemently that if men have the option to walk
    away, then we need equal employment rights for women (so that the
    women raising children without the fathers' help can have enough
    opportunities to support themselves and their children in a
    reasonable manner.)  
    
    It's what I've been saying all along.

    I remember back when this whole abortion thing started.  There was
    as TV movie about a woman who got pregnant late in life and was
    looking to get an abortion---until she found out that *her* mother
    had tried, unsuccessfuly, to get an aboution....think about it.
    fred();

    Re .144: You remember when "this whole abortion thing started"? Who are
    you, Methuselah? 
    
    And while "think about it" is frequently good advice, it doesn't say
    anything about the choice one would make _having_ thought about it.
    If I were unwillingly pregnant and wanted an abortion, discovering that
    my mother might have aborted me had she had the chance would *not* make
    the slightest difference to my decision - nor can I see why it should.
    (Others' mileage may vary.)
    
    -b

    Anyone who is interested in the history of 'this whole abortion thing',
    should read "Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood" by Luker. It
    comes the closest to giving a clear look at both sides of the issues
    and the history of the pro/anti movement of any book I've heard of.
    
    Bonnie

    I have heard allot from the folks who are pro-abortion. Havent heard
    much from the pro-life folks. When I tried to find the local chapter
    to get info from them. I ususally got a woman on the tele who would
    not give me any info or would denie the existance of them in the 
    state.

    George
    
    Would you mind calling those who are on the other side of the issues
    from the pro-life crowd 'prochoice' not 'proabortion'? Proabortion
    implies something very different to my mind than prochoice.
    
    Thankyou
    
    Bonnie

    No problem. I will try to be PC in the future. But I call them as they
    wanna be called. Not as someone else wants them to be called. 

    gee if we really want symmetry on this perhaps it should be
    
    pro-life		anti-life
    anti-choice		pro-choice
    anti-abortion	pro-abortion
    
    Of course, in terms of symmetry of 'impact' it should prolly be
    something like...
    
    pro-life		pro-choice
    anti-choice		anti-life
    anti-abortion	pro-abortion

    >But I call them as they
    >    wanna be called. Not as someone else wants them to be called.
    
    I want to be called Pro-choice.  I don't like abortion.
    
    						- Vick

    Everyone gets all heated up unless you say "pro-choice" and "pro-life". 
    It doesn't make sense to me either, but there you go and both sides do
    it.
    
    My mother almost certainly would've considered abortion.  I don't see
    how that should affect my opinion any more than her almost certainly
    considering NOT having sex without birth control makes me want to have
    sex without birth control.
    
    Ray

    
    Herb
    
    Most of those terms are offensive to some people. I wouldn't call
    a 'prolife' person 'antichoice' because I know that some prolifers
    find the term offensive. As a prochoice person I object to being
    called 'prodeath' or 'antilife' or 'proabortion'. I would appreciate
    being shown the same courtesy I show others.
    
    and George
    
    What on earth is PC about calling someone by the name/term that
    they prefer to be called by? I call it 'good old fashioned manners'.
    
    Bonnie

    I've been reading this notes string with a certain amount of
    bemusement.  This feeling comes from those people, men mostly, who are
    trying to say that men should be liable to not support children they
    might father because they didn't want the child.  To buttress that
    argument, they bring up the specious doctrine of unfairness.  

    I say specious because there are some things that, by their very
    nature, are not amenable to total 100% fairness.  So, while a man might
    wish to force a woman to have an abortion, or alternatively, prevent a
    woman from aborting the fruits of his loins, and claim unfairness when
    he isn't able to have his wishes carried out, it is even less fair to
    the woman to place her body in chattel to him.  On the other hand, the
    man claims if a woman has the child against his wishes, and she is
    unwilling or unable to provide for 100% of the child's support, that
    isn't fair either.  Right, it isn't fair.  But, it is even less fair to
    the man's son or daughter that the person who is 50% responsible for
    the child's existence should not contribute to that human being's
    survival and well being.  It is almost as unfair to expect society to 
    pick up the tab when the man refuses to live up to his
    responsibilities.

    While our society is based on the idea that all should be treated
    fairly, there are frequently clashing points of fairness.  What our
    ideals of fairness say in those situations is that the side that is
    most fair will, and should, carry the day.  Now, one can squawk that
    women have it all in this issue, and so they do.  But the complaint
    shouldn't be lodged with the law or society, but against whomever or
    whatever is responsible for designing the human reproductive system the
    way it was.  By way of counterbalance, I can think of quite a few
    areas wherein men have the advantage over women as a result of biology.

    For me, the bottom line is that whenever a male and a female have sex
    which results in a baby being born, both partners in that sex act are
    equally responsible for the care and support of that baby.  There is no
    other moral position possible.  Not that this is going to stop men from
    walking away from their responsibilities in this area, because they
    have been doing so for thousands of years.  That still doesn't make it
    right. 
    
    Mike

    Bonnie,
    
    	Call me anything you want. Never call me late for lunch!:) PC? No,
    not personal computers. I call em like people want me to do. I don't
    call feminist feminazis, unless I want to tick someone off. So, the
    folks who want life. Pro-lifer's want to be called things with a
    positive light like those who wanna be called with a positive adj.
    But what do I knwo. I can't even spell. 
    
    Geo

    re .154
    
    >I say specious because there are some things that, by their very
    >nature, are not amenable to total 100% fairness.  So, while a man might
    
    I'll remember that the next time someone who is not a white male 
    complains.
    
    Fairness and Equality must apply to *everybody* or it's not fairness
    or equality.  It's hypocrisy.
    
    fred();

    Umm, I was talking about issues of fairness based on biological
    differences, not political or racial ones.  There is a distinct
    difference, you know.  
    
    While I appreciate your meaningful comment, I do wish that you had
    taken the time to put that sentence on which you commented in the
    context of my whole reply.  Unless that is all you got out it, in which
    case I failed to communicate my concerns properly, because it seems you
    were unable to understand.
    
    Mike
                              

 Mike-

 The issue isn't fairness. Life isn't fair. The issue is equality. Feminists
demand equality. I believe equality is "the right thing to do." However,
equality isn't a matter of convenience. You can't ignore the less attractive
attributes of equality.

 You say that our society is founded on the premise of fairness. I disagree.
It is founded on the premise of equality. There's a substantial difference
between the two.

 You claim unfairness to the child to live in a land where equality reigns.
I say that women who choose to have children (after all, only women can make
that choice) who do not have the resources to raise them are horribly selfish.
It ain't a child in my scenario. It's a fetus, or a zygote. I don't believe that
men should have the right to abandon children any more than you do. I do
believe that men ought to have equal rights to choose not to continue a 
relationship with a zygote or fetus up to the point where abortion is no
longer an option. To parallel as closely as possible the rights women have
with that very same entity. (Men's rights still lag behind women's rights
in this scenario, for mostly biological reasons.)

>    For me, the bottom line is that whenever a male and a female have sex
>    which results in a baby being born,

 Babies are not born as a result of sex. Babies are born as a result of
pregnancy. Not all sex leads to pregnancy. Not all pregnancy leads to babies.
A pregnant woman may choose to continue to carry the child or may choose to 
terminate the pregnancy. It is that choice which brings about the parallel
choice of men to opt not to be in the future of a particular fetus. The choice
of a woman to continue a pregnancy in the face of an unsupportive sex
partner does not make the man responsible. It's her choice, not his.

>There is no other moral position possible.

 Sez you. Mike Smith, however, does not hold the definitive power to establish
morality.

    Okay, I used the word fairness.  You use the word equality.  In my
    mind, I was equating the two.  Now, maybe that isn't quite correct,
    semantically speaking, but if you substitute the word equal for fair
    in my reply .154, my point remains the same.

    Doc, with only one notable legendary exception, I am unaware of any
    pregnancy  that wasn't a result of sex.  Further, I specifically left
    out talking about fetuses and zygotes, and so forth, because I think
    the man's responsibility for his offspring doesn't kick in until after
    the baby is born.  Prior to that, the only responsibility the man has
    is toward financially helping the woman through the pregnancy, if she
    wants it.  Now, how a man feels about the zygote/fetus is beyond my
    concern.  If he leaves his baby to live a life of financial misery,
    and/or live a childhood live of dependency on the rest of society, I am
    quite concerned, however.

    >Sez you. Mike Smith, however, does not hold the definitive power to
    >establish morality.

    True enough.  I'm quite sure that if such power were offered me I would
    refuse it.   My opinion is offered for what it's worth, however.  I
    would like to think that it has some moral value, even if you should
    decide that it doesn't.

    Mike

    RE: .158  The Doctah
    
    > However, equality isn't a matter of convenience. You can't ignore 
    > the less attractive attributes of equality.
    
    One of the less attractive attributes of equality (for some of the
    men who want the option of walking away from an unplanned pregnancy)
    is that society is not going to make us ALL pay for the financial
    responsibilities of men who "walk away" from zygotes while widespread
    inequities still exist for men and women in employment.
    
    You can call such women horrible names; you can yell about how unfair
    it all is (that men can't walk away from zygotes with society's
    blessing, even though a great many men walk away from zygotes without
    it); you can blame it all on feminists (and claim that those of us
    who are the last people on Earth that would demand support from a
    man are guilty of wanting "convenient" equality.)  
    
    None of it will help.  Our society will never let men off the hook
    (with societal blessings) for unplanned children until women have
    enough equal opportunities to support themselves and their children.
    
    Let me ask you something:  As a taxpayer, do YOU want to pay to support
    the children who grow out of the zygotes that other men leave behind?
    Even if you call single Mothers every rotten name in the book, your
    money would still be used to support them.
    
    Wouldn't you rather that women support themselves?  Equal employment
    opportunities would make this much more likely.

    
    there is "equal employment opportunities"
    
    they are decreed by law.

    re .159
    
    	I've returned to school and I'm taking a Natural Science seminar as
    part of a degree program.  The emphasis in this course is on
    genetics...  Just last night my prof. said that there were two
    _documented_ cases of parthenogenic birth.  Neither of these is the
    legendary one of which I believe you are speaking...  Children without
    sex can occur, but not often enough to really enter into the
    equation...

    in re .161
    
    but not necessarily carried out in practice...

    re .157
    
    >Umm, I was talking about issues of fairness based on biological
    >differences, not political or racial ones.  There is a distinct
    >difference, you know.  
    
    this is *another* sword that cuts both directions.
    
    re.163
    
    Unequal employment opportunities do indeed exist.  And their weighted
    heavily *agains* white males.  Can you say EEO.
    
    fred();
    
    

    RE: .164  Fred
    
    > Unequal employment opportunities do indeed exist.  And their weighted
    > heavily *agains* white males.  Can you say EEO.
    
    Do you have anything beyond anecdotal evidence to prove this?
    
    The U.S. Bureau of the Census has released info which disagrees with 
    your claim.

>If he leaves his baby to live a life of financial misery,
>    and/or live a childhood live of dependency on the rest of society, I am
>    quite concerned, however.

 The point is HE isn't leaving ANY babies. It is entirely the woman's 
responsibility because it is entirely her choice. Only the woman gets
to make choices about having babies.

 You seem to believe that a man is responsible for every sperm cell he
produces, regardless of what happens to it.

 How about an extreme example to demostrate the point:

 A rich and powerful man is sufficiently self enamored to stockpile his
sperm cryogenically. A woman steals a vial, uses the proverbial "turkey
baster" and becomes pregnant. She sues the man for paternity and child 
support. What do you think? She it be awarded to her? Why or why not?
Please contrast this with what you feel should happen to a man who engages
in casual sex resulting in a pregnant stranger (who insists on having the
baby and insists he fork over some cash.)

 Bear in mind that all of this talk of the money being "for the baby" is
just talk. There are no safeguards whatsoever to ensure that the child
benefits from a single penny of an award. (And staunch resistance to the
very idea of it!)

    
    No, Susan,  I have a life.
    fred();

    Doctah, do you think that men who do not take the responsibility
    for birth control (via their own method)s should be regarded as
    having NO responsibility for impregnation if they engage in sex?
    
    Is it only a woman's responsibility to use birth control?  If a
    man has sex without using his own precautions, isn't he liable
    for the results of his mistakes?

    It is very difficult for me to interpret EEO in any way that does not mean
    that the probability of a white man getting the job has been reduced.
    (which i think may be what Fred had in mind)
    
    I don't see any necessary conflict between .101,.102 and Fred's point
    about EEO. What conflict do you see?

    
    	Phrased another way, Doctah -
    
    	Do men have responsibilities when it comes to sex?
    
    		Are men responsible for birth control?
    
    		Are men responsible for supporting any babies that grow
    		  from the zygotes they help create?
    
    		Are men responsible for ANYTHING that has to do with
    		  engaging in sex (or does all responsibility fall 
    		  upon the woman if the man does not WANT any
    		  responsibility for anything involved with having sex)?

    slow down Suzanne!

    RE: .169  Herb
    
    >It is very difficult for me to interpret EEO in any way that does not mean
    >that the probability of a white man getting the job has been reduced.
    >(which i think may be what Fred had in mind)
    
    The probability has been reduced from nearly 100% (eg, the probability
    that *some* white male would get the job) to something slightly
    less than that (depending on the job.)  Wages are still lower if a
    person is NOT a white male, meanwhile.
    
    This hardly qualifies as having opportunities stacked AGAINST white
    males overall.

    Doctah,
    
    Let's look at this from another point of view.  Unless men are
    completely at the mercy of their hormones, then there is no way they
    can be trapped into having an unplanned child, by those nasty,
    cold-blooded, women who are just out to get a meal ticket. 
    
    The solution is simply not to have andy form of genital to genital sex
    with a nasty, icky, bound-to-do-you-dirty woman unless you and she want
    to have a child together.  There are plenty of other things you can do
    with her, yourself or another consenting adult partner that don't
    involve a risk of an unplanned pregnancy.  If women beg, plead, or even
    demand to carnally experience you, just say no.
    
    It's what women have beend told to say to men for years, it should work
    for you all as well.  
    
    Meg

    re: .166 (doctah                  

    >The point is HE isn't leaving ANY babies. It is entirely the woman's 
    >responsibility because it is entirely her choice. Only the woman gets
    >to make choices about having babies.

    Nope.  I disagree.  He is very much partly responsible for the baby,
    unless and until the woman lets him off the hook.

    >You seem to believe that a man is responsible for every sperm cell he
    >produces, regardless of what happens to it.

    Nope, again.  A man is responsible for whatever pregnancies that occur
    as a direct result of his implanting his sperm in the woman.  Once he
    gives up control of his sperm to an external agency between him and the
    woman who would be pregnant, he is off the hook, absent any legal
    agreement to the contrary, that is.

    >How about an extreme example to demostrate the point:
    >
    >A rich and powerful man is sufficiently self enamored to stockpile his
    >sperm cryogenically. A woman steals a vial, uses the proverbial "turkey
    >baster" and becomes pregnant. She sues the man for paternity and child 
    >support. What do you think? She it be awarded to her? Why or why not?
    >Please contrast this with what you feel should happen to a man who
    >engages in casual sex resulting in a pregnant stranger (who insists on
    >having the baby and insists he fork over some cash.)

    You truly do have a gift for hyperbole at times, Doc!  Anyway, as to
    what I think, see above.
                            
    >Bear in mind that all of this talk of the money being "for the baby" is
    >just talk. There are no safeguards whatsoever to ensure that the child
    >benefits from a single penny of an award. (And staunch resistance to
    >the very idea of it!)
     
    Now we are talking about another issue.  In my perfect world, as the
    man has a responsibility to contribute to his child's well being, the
    woman has an equal responsibility, as well.  I support legislation that 
    makes certain that financial assistance given by a non-custodial parent
    for the support of the children be used for that purpose.  However, as
    this is not a perfect world, it seems to me that the non-custodial
    parent should do what they can when the other parent can't or won't do
    their share.  Even if it means that the aid given is in the form of
    clothes or food rather than cash.  Abandoning the child is not the
    correct response, in my opinion.
                                       
    Mike

    re:    <<< Note 733.164 by CSC32::HADDOCK "I'm afraid I'm paranoid" >>>

    >>Umm, I was talking about issues of fairness based on biological
    >>differences, not political or racial ones.  There is a distinct
    >>difference, you know.  
    
    >this is *another* sword that cuts both directions.
    
    True enough.  I think I said as much.  But not when it comes to men
    being responsible for their children.  No amount of sword slashing can 
    change that.
    
    Mike

    As far as the issue of men's earnings versus women's earnings, the fact
    is that, regardless of any laws, women in the US only make about 70
    cents to every dollar earned by a man.  I just read last week that 80%
    of all women who work fulltime in the US earn under $20K a week. 
    Most women without college degrees have jobs that pay very low - such
    as secretary, receptionist, nurses aid, waitress, cashier.  Most men who are
    considered blue collar workers make a lot more money than women without
    college educations.  I don't want to argue *why* that is right now,
    whether it's because women in the past were raised only to learn
    certain things and those things were valued less by a patriarchal
    society, than the things most men learn to do, or whether it's because
    most women are just too darned lazy to go out and earn a decent living
    (which is I'm sure what many of you men smugly think).  The fact is
    that most men earn a lot more money than most women.  The fact is that
    most women do not earn enough money to raise a child on their own, and
    if the woman's personal beliefs do not allow her to terminate an
    accidental pregnancy or give a child up for adoption, then I think she
    should be able to seek financial aid from the father.
    
    As has been said so many times in this topic, if men don't want to take
    a chance of having unwanted babies all they have to do is use a condom.
    
    Lorna
    

    I meant under $20K a *year* of course - I think we all earn under $20K
    a week!  :-)  Sorry!
    
    Lorna
    

    re .176
    
>    As has been said so many times in this topic, if men don't want to take
>    a chance of having unwanted babies all they have to do is use a condom.
    
    The condom could break, yielding an undesired (and unexpected)
    pregnancy.  What can the man do then?
    
    Rich

In all reality, since the law isn't likely to change in this regard, the only
safe courses would seem to be vasectomy (optionally having some sperm stored)
or, as Suzanne suggests, foregoing all forms of sex which might bring semen into
contact with the vagina.

Life sucks, you die. 8^(

                                                       -- Mike

>    The condom could break, yielding an undesired (and unexpected)
>    pregnancy.  What can the man do then?
    
    When I used condoms for regular birth control, it was in combination
    with spermicidal foam.  "We're free! We're free! Hey... I feel kinda
    woozy... *death rattle*"  
    
    I can certainly remember special occasions with fewer precautions.  On
    those occasions I took a risk in the sacred name of lust. But so did my
    partners.  Giving birth and having custody of a child are at least as
    painful as being ordered to pay child support. 
    
    Life sucks, but at least it sucks for everyone.
    
    Ray

    re .180, exactly.  I'm glad to know that at least a few men realize
    that.
    
    Lorna
    

    in re .178
    
    Rich I entered something earlier in this string about how often
    a condom breaks. It is something like once per 160+ acts of
    intercourse. If a man uses concoms carefully and uses a spermicide
    as well, the odds are stacked against a pregnancy from condom failure.
    
    Bonnie

    
    re .182
    
    >It is something like once per 160+ acts of
    >intercourse. 
    
    Which means that for a reasonably active sex life, 1 or 2 per
    year will break.  It only takes once to get you 20 years of
    "child support" payments.
    
    fred();

    re .183, but then the odds that that particular woman will also not be
    using birth control, and that it will be a time of month that she could
    get pregnant, and that, if it is, she will get pregnant, are pretty
    slim.  I think most of the accidental pregnancies in the US are by
    teenagers who used no birth control.
    
    (Anyway, this entire conversation is academic to me since I couldn't
    have any more kids even if I wanted to, which I don't!)
    
    Lorna
    

    in re .183
    
    Lorna is correct about the other odds. Further, in a recent article
    about abortion, I read that in over half the cases the couple had
    used no contraception at all. It seems to me that regular use of
    condoms makes a great deal of sense, both as a means to reduce the
    rate of unplanned pregnancies and prevent disease, but to greatly
    increase the odds that a man will not have to support an unwanted
    child.
    
    Bonnie

    re .185
    
    >Further, in a recent article
    >about abortion, I read that in over half the cases the couple had
    >used no contraception at all. It seems to me that regular use of
    >condoms makes a great deal of sense, both as a means to reduce the
    >rate of unplanned pregnancies and prevent disease, but to greatly
    >increase the odds that a man will not have to support an unwanted
    >child.
    
    As does the use of some form of birth control for at least the
    50% of women who seem to be counting on abourtion of some form
    of support to take care if them should they get pregnant.

    I agree that given today's social climate.  Some form of male
    birth control makes a *lot* of sense.  
    
    fred();

    Fred
    
    I think the women who did not use birthcontrol were extremely foolish.
    Especially because when I was in my teens and early twenties birth
    control was essentially unavailable for single women. I am amazed and
    appalled that women who have ready access to what I and my
    contemporaries would have given out eye teeth for chose not to/refuse
    to use it! I think this is stupid, and immature and etc etc etc..
    
    But this particular discussion was about men not women.
    
    Bonnie

    re .187
    
    "Choices" for men should there be an unplanned pregnancy have been
    reduced to 1)Hope she decides to have an abortion (or, not, whichever
    the case may be, but whatever the case the choice is hers and all he
    can do is hope), or to give the child up for addoption  2) Help (if 
    not totally) support the child in one form or another for the next 
    20+ years.  3) Cut and run.
    
    Current Congressional and legislative action is making Chice 3 more
    and more unlikely.  So as I said.  Given today's social climate,
    some form of birth control form men makes a *LOT* of sense.  Men
    need to start taking the responsibility for protecting *themselves*.
    I agree it's total stupidity not to.  Even in marriage men need to
    start asking themselves about the long term obligations and securities
    for *themselves* as well as others.
    
    I also believe that if there is ever a safe, reliable, reversable, 
    form of birth control (other than condoms) such as a male pill
    or norplant-like implant.  That you will see a *dramatic* drop
    in birth rate.  I love my kids,  and I have fought long and hard
    to see that they are taken care of and educated and prepared to
    face the world, but I have been very lucky in a lot of circumstances.
    My wife and I have chosen a permanent solution to birth control.  
    If I had it to do over.......
    fred();

    Fred
    
    How is this a 'reduction' in choices? There is one there that was
    not present when I was growing up - at least abortions were not
    legally available  then, even if they could be obtained at a
    price in risk and dollars. What other choices did there used to
    be? Well there is a 4th choice that is still available, 4. Marriage
    Shot gun weddings used to be the commonest response to an unplanned
    pregnancy. Do you wish to return to having that be a major option?
    
    Bonnie

    re .189
    
    If there is an unplanned pregnancy a woman's choices are 1) abortion,
    2) adoption (socially acceptable) 3)collecting welfare and/or child
    support or possibly marriage.
    
    A man's "choices" are 1) Hope, 2) support the child in marriage or
    not and 3) cut and run.  Althoug "3)" may be arguably the male version
    of giving the child up for addoptin, it is not socailly acceptable and
    rapidly becomming illegal ( see "reduction in choices" ).  Although
    marriage or not may still be a "choice", it will make no difference
    as to whether or not he has to support the child.
    
    Given these "options"  for a man to not start taking some
    responsibility in "making sure" there is no pregnancy to start 
    with is pure stupidity.
    
    fred();

    RE: .190  Fred
    
    > If there is an unplanned pregnancy a woman's choices are 1) abortion,
    > 2) adoption (socially acceptable) 3)collecting welfare and/or child
    > support or possibly marriage.
    
    Another frequent choice for women:  4) Support the child.
    
    > Given these "options"  for a man to not start taking some
    > responsibility in "making sure" there is no pregnancy to start 
    > with is pure stupidity.
    
    Thanks very much for stating this!!  In all the times I've seen it
    suggested in notes that men fight the problem of supporting unplannned
    children by taking responsibility for birth control to protect their
    own future interests, I've almost never seen men step up to greet
    this idea enthusiastically.
    
    I'm with you on this - considering the STAKES involved, I can't
    imagine why more men don't insist on taking responsibility for
    birth control upon themselves (regardless of whether the woman
    is using birth control - or says she is - or not.)
    
    I have seen some men suggest that men be relieved of support
    responsibilities (so women will be inspired to do a better job
    of birth control) - but it still makes the MOST SENSE for men
    to decide that THEY need to be the ones insuring that they are
    protected from unplanned pregnancies as much as women need to
    be the ones insuring the women's protection, too.
    
    Dual birth control methods is the best form of "backup" in case
    one method fails, after all.

    We seem to be dangerously close to a reasonable solution to the
    problem.  Scary!
    
    Mike

RE: .191

I've been trying to imply that it's foolish for men not to take some respon-
sibility for birth control.  I wouldn't dream of having sex in this day and age
without a condom with a little spermicide in the tip.  But, barring vasectomy,
this is about as much as a man can do.  Statistics say that 18 out of 100
couples per year will conceive, when properly using condoms alone.  When com-
bined with vaginally inserted spermicide, it drops to 2-3 failures per 100
couples per year (just marginally less effective than "the pill").  But for that
part, you have to trust your partner.

The point is that, no matter how much responsibly a man acts, if conception
occurs anyway, we lose control.  And then you have to trust someone else not to
make a decision that could ruin your life.

Such is life, I guess.

                                                            -- Mike
                                                         

    RE:  .193
    
    Sorry--I misquoted statistics in .193.  Condoms, when used properly,
    result in 10 conceptions out of 100 couples/year.  Still not odds that
    I'd like to bet a big chunk of my next 20 years wages on.  18
    conceptions out of 100 couples/year is what you get when using
    *spermicides* alone.
    
                                                          -- Mike

.166> The point is HE isn't leaving ANY babies. It is entirely the woman's 
.166>responsibility because it is entirely her choice. Only the woman gets
.166>to make choices about having babies.

    Bingo.

    While I am pro-choice, I also see that the situation is unfair
    for the man.  Once conceived, he may have no say in the child's
    future, and he may be financially incapacitated for the next 18
    years, if the woman so desires.

    Not sure of the answer, but I do see the problem.

    Perhaps the man could do a virtual abort, meaning he relinquishes
    all connection to the child, and in turn has no responsibilities
    to the child or the mother.  This would be whether the mother wants
    to or not, since that's the same way real abortions are had.

>    Perhaps the man could do a virtual abort, meaning he relinquishes
>    all connection to the child, and in turn has no responsibilities
>    to the child or the mother.  This would be whether the mother wants
>    to or not, since that's the same way real abortions are had.

 Precisely what I've been saying for lo these nearly two hundred notes.

 Amazing, isn't it, that so many refuse to see the inequity or simply
resign themselves to its existence. The women's movement didn't get to
where it is today by ignoring inequities; they hit them straight on. So
must we men.

 Saying "life's tough" just isn't good enough. Mark my words. We may all be
old and gray by the time this happens, but it will happen, doubters 
notwithstanding.

 Men will eventually be given equal rights. Someday.

>    Doctah, do you think that men who do not take the responsibility
>    for birth control (via their own method)s should be regarded as
>    having NO responsibility for impregnation if they engage in sex?

 Responsibility for a pregnancy is exactly that of women; no more and no
less. He is responsible for "taking care" of the "problem." This means,
if he chooses to have a "virtual abortion" he must give the woman � the
cost for an abortion and sign away any and all future parental rights
to the child. Then he has fulfilled his responsibility. The rest is up to the
woman and she has every right to do exactly what she wants (within the
bounds of the law, of course.)

>    Is it only a woman's responsibility to use birth control? 

 It is primarily a woman's responsibility, seeing as she is the one who
gets pregnant.

>If a man has sex without using his own precautions, isn't he liable
>    for the results of his mistakes?

 Absolutely. Up to the extent described above. Please remember I am speaking
about LEGAL responsibility, and not NOT **NOT** moral responsibility. (And
ne'er the twain shall meet.)

    re .197, the problem is, some of us just don't have much faith in the moral
    responsibility of many/most men.  History and a lot of children on
    wellfare have shown us it's not to be depended on.
    
    Lorna
    

.196> Saying "life's tough" just isn't good enough. Mark my words. We may all be
.196> old and gray by the time this happens, but it will happen, doubters 
.196> notwithstanding.
.196>
.196> Men will eventually be given equal rights. Someday.

In order for this sort of "right" to be given, we'll have to have come point
where we can disregard the moral and emotional dilemma that the mother may be
being put into.  If the mother cannot emotionally or morally accept either an
abortion or giving her child up for adoption, then no economic incentive is
going to stop her from bearing and raising the child.  If she doesn't have the
money to do it on her own, and the father is allowed to disavow financial re-
sponsibility, then society ends up paying, which certainly isn't right either.
Obviously, the father is much more responsible for the existence of the child
than society is.  Even if you don't grant the woman the right to demand support,
society has every right to insist that the father pay as much as possible before
it's called upon to pay anything.

The best that might be conceded is legally allowing the father to bow out if the
mother is financially capable of raising an accidentally conceived child
independently.  Even so, the father would still have to be held responsible
in the event that the mother became uncapable of supporting the child in the
future.

I'm afraid our best hope is the development of a reliable, reversible form of
birth control which a man can use without leaving any part of it up to his
partner.  Unfortunately, this is a ways off.

                                                          -- Mike

>    re .197, the problem is, some of us just don't have much faith in the moral
>    responsibility of many/most men.

 An excellent reason for women to take birth control into their own hands 
(where it certainly is most effective.) Why leave yourself open to the 
possibility that you may have to shoulder the entire burden by yourself
if that isn't what you want?

>If the mother cannot emotionally or morally accept either an
>abortion or giving her child up for adoption, then no economic incentive is
>going to stop her from bearing and raising the child.

 Perhaps a separate argument is "at what point is a woman's "right" to reproduce
subject to limitations by society?"

 Everyone's seen the talk shows with women who have been on welfare for years
that have 10+ kids and are pregnant again insisting they have an unequivocal
right to reproduce without bound. I disagree with such a notion. But that's
another discussion.

.202>  Perhaps a separate argument is "at what point is a woman's "right" to
.202> reproduce subject to limitations by society?"

I think that human reproduction, like free speech, is one of those things which
cannot be reasonably limited by society.  Once you accept that there is a reason
good enough to forcibly prevent someone from bearing a child, it gets easier and
easier to accept other reasons:  the mother can't afford to raise it;  tests
show that it'll be born "differently-abled";  it'll be a member of one of those
troublesome minorities;  the parents have aligned themselves with the wrong
politics.  If the day comes when the government thinks it has a right to control
human reproduction, I don't just want to be old and grey--I wanna be long dead.

But, as you said, that's another discussion.

                                                            -- Mike

    I will never understand any man who would walk out on a child of his.  
    Virtually abort him/her.  A real spiffy term, that.  Nor will I ever
    support the idea that this is a matter of men's equality.  It is about
    equality, all right, but neither the man's nor the woman's, but the
    child's and society's. 
    
    Mike

    RE:  .197  The Doctah
    
   >  Responsibility for a pregnancy is exactly that of women; no more and no
   > less. He is responsible for "taking care" of the "problem." This means,
   > if he chooses to have a "virtual abortion" he must give the woman � the
   > cost for an abortion and sign away any and all future parental rights
   > to the child. Then he has fulfilled his responsibility. 
    
    If the man refuses to give the woman money for an abortion, then is he
    responsible for supporting the resulting child?  (You do realize that
    if he does refuse to give the woman abortion funds, it will be too late
    to have an abortion by the time he is taken to court for this money.)
    
    >> Is it only a woman's responsibility to use birth control? 

    > It is primarily a woman's responsibility, seeing as she is the one who
    > gets pregnant.
    
    ...but it's NOT primarily the man's responsibility since he's the one
    who could end up supporting an eventual child that he has conceived
    with a woman?  If some men have such huge objections to supporting
    children conceived accidentally, then why don't they regard it as
    THEIR responsibility to see that this DOES NOT HAPPEN?
    
    So what it boils down to is: If we don't want men held responsible
    for birth control, and if we don't want men held responsible (beyond
    abortion funding) for any failures to prevent conception...
    
    ...so what's left?  Should men only be held responsible for making  it
    clear to women that they will NOT accept any responsibility at all
    (except, possibly, for the cost of the $110 abortion women can get at
    some offices of Planned Parenthood)?  Doesn't sound like much.
    
    Of course, it might seem desireable for men to have almost NO
    responsibility for whatever sex they have (with whomever they
    decide to have it) while taxpayers (society) are left to pay the
    bill.  

    Re: .207
    As is evident from the length of this discussion, that argument is
    simplistic, and I disagree with it.
    						- Vick
    
    P.S.  I am always leary of simple answers to complex problems.  A
    simple problem does not generate 208 replies.

    	Maybe it's because most of the contributors have the U.S. cultural
    background, but except for what might have been a hint at the end of
    .205, nobody has mentioned that in some societies no individual has the
    responsibility to bring up a child, and it is regarded as eccentric to
    try.
    
    	Children are an asset of society. If there is nobody in the U.S.
    producing goods in forty years time when you have all retired then even
    the pension you have saved for will be worthless. It is reasonable for
    society to pay people who wish to produce children.
    
    	In France they do tend to take this attitude. I used to have three
    dependent kids (one has left home). The monthly child allowance I was
    getting would have been enough to rent a small appartment. Since both
    my wife and I work we had no difficulty getting our youngest child into
    a free state nursery from the age of three - for a single working
    mother it would have been almost a right as soon as they were toilet
    trained. I won't describe the tax situation and other benefits when you
    have lots of kids - it would only upset you.
    
    	If the U.S. took its kids seriously as an asset would it change
    some of these arguments?

    re .210, maybe the US has too many unwanted kids to consider them to be
    an asset.  Also, as everyone (I imagine, even non-Americans) knows, the
    US is far from being a Socialist state, doesn't even have a Socialist
    party, and individuals *are* expected to take full responsibility for
    raising their children.  There are not many safety nets, in the US, for
    people who fall through the cracks and can't provide for themselves. 
    That's why with the declining economy we have such an increase in the
    homeless.
    
    re Mike, I have a totally different perspective on this issue than you
    do.  I don't see the situation as about being fair to either the man or
    the woman.  Once the baby is born, regardless of who wanted it or
    didn't want it, the situation is about providing the basic necessities
    of life for a child, and in this country the biological parents of the
    child have always been expected to do this.
    
    To say that you, or any other man, didn't want a child, is irrelevant
    when that child has to eat, and be kept warm from the elements, and I
    think that whoever's genes are carried on in that child is responsible.
    
    As Lou Reed says, "Life's good, but not fair at all."  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I guess one of the places where I feel both must take responsibility
    for what happened is when precautions WERE taken, on BOTH sides.  And
    pregnancy occasionally still results.
    
    I'd say from there it's on a case-by-case basis, but they still are
    both responsible for what occurred, and for deciding what happens next.
    
    -Jody
    

    re: .children as an asset.

    There was a time, even in the USA, when children were considered an
    asset.  That no longer seems to be the case.  Instead, if one were to
    listen to these people who want to "virtually abort" their children,
    they are considered a liability.  And more's the pity.  

    I understand the point from which these guys are arguing, that it's an
    issue of gender equality.  And if there premise were valid, their
    arguments would be valid, too.  The problem is, they are arguing from
    the wrong premise.  The premise isn't about male/female equality.  It's
    about taking care of one's children.  Therefore, their arguments do
    not hold any moral weight, in my opinion, of course.

    In my opinion, men who abandon their offspring should be forced, by the
    fullest weight of law that society can muster, to contribute to their
    children's financial well being.  Since it isn't possible to force
    someone to provide for their emotional well being, I suppose we let
    these men off the hook on that "little" item.

    Mike 

> Also, as everyone (I imagine, even non-Americans) knows, the
>    US is far from being a Socialist state, doesn't even have a Socialist
>    party,

 This is demonstrably false.

> and individuals *are* expected to take full responsibility for
>    raising their children. 

 This is also false.

> There are not many safety nets, in the US, for
>    people who fall through the cracks and can't provide for themselves. 

 Oh no? What is welfare? What is AFDC? What is WIC? What are food stamps?
Get real, Lorna. We spend billions on the safety net. It isn't perfect-
we cannot afford for it to be perfect. But it's there, it's real, and I can
put you in touch with people who use it.

>    I guess one of the places where I feel both must take responsibility
>    for what happened is when precautions WERE taken, on BOTH sides.  And
>    pregnancy occasionally still results.

 How is that different from when neither takes precautions? Or when one does and
it fails?

>    I'd say from there it's on a case-by-case basis, but they still are
>    both responsible for what occurred, and for deciding what happens next.

 How are "both responsible for deciding what happens next?" Are you arguing
that women do not or should not have the unqualified right to decide what
happens with the pregnancy, regardless of the feelings of the man?

    re .214, well, all I can say is that I disagree with you.  If what you
    state were true, then why is it that there are so many homeless people
    in the US today, including single women with children?
    
    Again, I can only say that I've talked with intelligent, educated
    people who have lived in the Europe, and according to them there are
    other countries with many more safety nets than the US offers it's
    citizens.  One person I know who has been working in the UK for the
    past 4 yrs., in a management position (i.e. no dummy), has stated more
    than once that if he were going to be unemployed, he'd much prefer to
    be in the UK, than in the US.  In his opinion there are so many safety
    nets in the UK that an unemployed person doesn't really have to worry
    about being homeless, whereas in the US, once a person's unemployment
    checks run out, it could be a short step from an apartment to the
    gutter.
    
    Lorna
    

>      <<< Note 733.209 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "more sensitive than a rock" >>>
>
>    Please explain the faults with that argument.
>
>    Sometimes, there are simple problems to complex problems.
    
    See 732.4.  And many replies written by other people since, of course.
    
    Ray

 Lorna-

 Oh, so your position really isn't that the US has no safety net in an absolute
sense; it's just not as pervasive as some of the safety nets found in Europe?
I'll agree with that. Doesn't make either one right or wrong, just different.

RE: .213

I think that in agrarian societies, children are an asset--sometimes a necess-
ity.  While I hesistate to term them "liabilities", I think that in the urban
environment they can sometimes be looked upon as "luxuries".  I don't think
that anyone living in one of today's urban centers can claim an actual *need*
to have children (though they may have a desire strong enough to be nearly
indistinguishable from need).

That's what the argument is about.  Men are often forced to take responsibility
for these "luxuries", while woman insist upon having a choice.  After all this
deliberation, I've come to the conclusion that though the current state of af-
fairs might not be fair, any arrangement more "fair" to men is either immoral
(somehow forcing a mother to abort or give up her child) or an unreasonable
drain on the resources of society (letting the father legally disavow financial
responsibility for rearing an accidentally conceived child).

Like descrimination against minorities and women in hiring, this is social di-
lemma that doesn't have a viable solution that is completely fair for everyone.

                                                                    -- Mike

    re .218, Mark, my position is that I don't think the safety nets in the
    US are good enough.
    
    re .219, I agree.  
    
    Lorna 
    

re: .215

> How is that different from when neither takes precautions? Or when one does and
>it fails?

    If both took precautions, there can be no FAULT for who was not careful
    "he should have..." and "she should have..." no longer enter into the
    picture.  There is no party who theoretically perhaps should have done
    something they did not do, so there is no BLAME.  It is often the BLAME
    characteristic which people argue "he should use a condom" "she should
    use the pill"...whatever.  The real crisis in conscience and decision
    arises, I think, when they are BOTH careful and pregnancy still occurs. 
    What to do?
    
> How are "both responsible for deciding what happens next?" Are you arguing
>that women do not or should not have the unqualified right to decide what
>happens with the pregnancy, regardless of the feelings of the man?
    
    I mentioned earlier in one of these "spawning" topics my concept of how
    it should go - if she wants the child and he does not, she should
    realize that he should not have to support it.  If he wants the child
    and she does not, perhaps she can consider whether or not she wishes
    to carry the child to term under his financial auspices and then 
    give him sole responsibility for it.  
    
    I still FIRMLY believe that fundamentally, if a woman is pregnant and
    feels that carrying through with the pregnancy will result in
    emotional, physical, or spiritual hardship beyond what she can handle
    at this point in time, she should be able to terminate the pregnancy.
    
    -Jody
    

    re "this is demonstrably false"
    
    please demonstrate
    
    				herb

    I think there are LOTS of people in both urban _and_ rural parts of our
    country who feel that children are liabilities and treat them as
    unwanted liabilities/excess baggage.
    It would be interesting to understand what percentage of homeless
    children were NOT considered liabilities by their parents.
    It would be interesting to understand what percentage of high-school
    dropouts were NOT considered liabilities by their parents.
    It would be interesting to understand what percentage of law-breakers
    were NOT considered liabilities by their parents.

RE: .223

Please note, Herb, that I said that *I* "hesistate to term them 'liabilities'
they can sometimes be looked upon as 'luxuries'".  Perhaps I should have said
"whereas they may or may not be 'liabilities', they can certainly be looked
upon as 'luxuries'".


RE: .222

What note are you taking that quote from?

                                                            -- Mike                                

    re .222
    
    There is a Socialist Party in the US of A; it just isn't one of the
    major parties, so we seldom hear about it in the news.  Look carefully
    on your ballot this fall, you may see them listed.  Many people think
    that we have a "two party system", but that isn't written down
    anywhere, it has just become custom that there are two major parties,
    one of which favors business and the other favors social services. 
    Some people feel that there is a benefit to having only two parties in
    that we don't end up in the situation of other countries that have a
    couple of major (but non-majority) parties and a lot of small parties
    with their constant bargaining in the legislature.
    
    Also, many people consider the Democratic party to be socialist in many
    of the policies that they espouse, particularly Democrats like Harkin.

    	I didn't intend to derail the topic into a political debate, but
    the social system is relevant in several ways. As an expression of the
    majority wishes of a society it reveals that society's attitude to
    children. It also influences the attitudes of members of the society
    about children, and expressions of opinion on the social system reveal
    the attitudes of individuals about children.
    
    	And in case anyone thought I was being particularly critical of the
    U.S. system I will give a counter example. There is one woman I know
    who while intelligent is not mentally stable. She became a single
    parent. She then deliberately had a second child purely because that
    would put her sufficiently high on the priority list to guarantee state
    provided housing. She is not sufficiently mentally stable (in my
    opinion) to be a good mother, so the fact that the system in one
    European country actually encouraged her to have a second child is a
    defect in the typical European system.
    
    	Dave (father of three assets ;-)

    RE:  .221, .225
    
    I too agree with Jody in that women who chose to bear and raise
    accidentally conceived children against the wishes of the father
    should, *if possible*, raise the child without his help.  This is the
    only honorable thing to do, especially if she's not following through
    on what they agreed to do in this event.  But this can only be a
    matter of honor on her part--if she is or ever becomes financially in-
    capable of doing it, she has no choice but to apply to social services
    for aid, and they have no choice but to make sure the father is
    contributing all he can before granting any.
    
    							-- Mike

    This entire string has completley confused me.  On the one hand in
    this conference I hear men constantly complaining that they are allowed
    no interaction with their children after a seperation or divorce, on
    the other hand I am hearing people saying that men should be free to
    walk out of their children's lives if they aren't ready to have
    children or if a child is "accidently conceived" rather than planned.    
    
    I guess I wonder what makes an "accident" less valuable then a planned
    conception.  Is it that you really feel the woman was just a tool for
    relieving your lust, and any products of conception that she has,
    really isn't worthy of your attention, or is it that you really feel
    that men should be allowed to relieve their needs at any time with no
    regard to what could happen to your sperm?
    
    This entire string reminds me of a NCP I know who pays no support, 
    "becauseI told the b*tch to use Birth-control", who never used a 
    condom, even though the child's mother said that she wasn't using 
    anything.  He feels that he should have all of the joy and pride in 
    his daughter's accomplishments with none of the responsibilities of 
    fatherhood, lest he make life easier for his daughter's mother.  When I
    asked him why he didn't take precautions against amking this baby (she
    is now 14) he basically said that condoms deaden sensation, and besides
    women are supposed to take care of this themselves.  
    
    So is it the opinion of the people who say that bio-father should have 
    no legal financial responsibilty to accidently concieved children that 
    the virtual abortion applies only to the finances, and not to the
    interaction of these children when they grow up enough and accomplish
    enough to be proud of?      

>    So is it the opinion of the people who say that bio-father should have 
>    no legal financial responsibilty to accidently concieved children that 
>    the virtual abortion applies only to the finances, and not to the
>    interaction of these children when they grow up enough and accomplish
>    enough to be proud of?      

 Of course not! No "having your cake and eating it, too" allowed! That would
be analogous to the current system, where women don't have to consider the 
economic implications of their choices as much since the guy's on the hook
whatever they decide.

    Most of this 'virtual abortion' discussion seems to hinge upon actual
    abortions being a safe & legal option.
    
    Am I being too naive in my assumption that the virtual abortion
    proponents will wholeheartedly support paternal support for children
    conceived, regardless of intent and desires, once [if?] the illustrious
    SCOTUS allows for removal of this option?
    
    Or does this merely mean that the 1/2 subsidy costs will become
    greater?  Like 1/2 the costs of transportation, meals and lodging over
    and above the cost of the actual procedure.
    
      Annie

    my "please demonstrate" in .222 was in reference to .214s
    <this is demonstrably false>
    

>    Am I being too naive in my assumption that the virtual abortion
>    proponents will wholeheartedly support paternal support for children
>    conceived, regardless of intent and desires, once [if?] the illustrious
>    SCOTUS allows for removal of this option?

 Absolutely correct. This was stated early on in this string.

re 

Note 733.214     Topics from 716 - Spawning issues, birthcontrol      214 of 233
WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Ride the Tiger"                     19 lines   4-FEB-1992 10:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<> Also, as everyone (I imagine, even non-Americans) knows, the
<>    US is far from being a Socialist state, doesn't even have a Socialist
<>    party,

< This is demonstrably false.

Mark:

Please demonstrate or at least say why you said that Lorna's statement is
demonstrably false.

 I didn't miss your question; somebody else answered it. There is a socialist
party in the US. Indeed, at least one elected official in Vermont is a member
of the Socialist party. (Don't remember who, just remember he's from 
Burlington.)

    re.233
    
    Thanks.  I rather hoped so; but hadn't had the opportunity to wade
    through the entire string to date.
    
    The alternative I posited seemd to be ripe for exploitation and bound
    to create even more trouble.
    
    ok, so my question answered:
    
    I believe that the entire cost of an abortion would be a more
    reasonable opt-out cost.  Although on the surface it might appear that
    half is the 'fair' amount; it would still be a one-time cost rather
    than residuals.
    
    In addition, in view of the number of people searching for
    birth/biological-parents, I would hope that the quit-claim would also
    include an option for contact upon attainment of majority should the
    child wish to initiate it.  I do not view this as 'having cake and
    eating it as well.'  I believe that people have the right to know who
    their ancestors are; hence, I see this as fairness to the child.
    
      Annie

That there is a socialist party in the United States hardly refutes the
assertion that "the U.S is far from being a Socialist country". Which was,
-I think- the thrust of the remark in .211.
Given that, I felt that 
<this is demonstrably false> 
was rather disingenuous,as well as dismissive.

				herb

    re .237, thanks, Herb.  I felt the same way.  In fact, I feel that, for
    all intents and purposes, there is no socialist party in the US.  Not
    when one has to "look carefully" on the ballot in order to realize it's
    existence.
    
    re .229, Meg, .236, Annie, good notes.  Thanks.
    
    Lorna
    

    re:.229

    Just as women are not a monolithic group, neither are men.

    Some want children, some do not.

    re.239 
    
    Then if a woman's cost-to-disown is the price of a safe legal abortion,
    do you feel that a man's cost should be equivalent? and if both wish
    to disown that they should split the cost?  [after all, they were both
    there]
    
    It isn't physically possible for a woman to 'totally walk away' -- she
    must take some action or make some decision.  Fairness would demand,
    despite his physical ability to do so, that a man not do totally walk
    away either -- that he take some action to bring the issue to closure
    as well.
    
      Annie

.236>    In addition, in view of the number of people searching for
.236>    birth/biological-parents, I would hope that the quit-claim would also
.236>    include an option for contact upon attainment of majority should the
.236>    child wish to initiate it.  I do not view this as 'having cake and
.236>    eating it as well.'  I believe that people have the right to know who
.236>    their ancestors are; hence, I see this as fairness to the child.
    
    I don't think that I agree.  I think that the father should be obliged
    to give a complete (and anonymous) family medical history, but if
    you're going to legislate this option, you might as well let the father
    completely forget the child exists.
    
                                                       -- Mike

    
    Couldn't find a better place for this .....
    
    I received a birthday card this morning from my wife, it read .....
    
    "What do you call people that use the rythm method as contraception?"
    
    "Mum and Dad"
    
    Boy can I relate to that one!
    
    Steve
    

    re .238
    
    Everyone should look carefully at their ballot before voting.  More
    choosing a candidate based upon platform and less based upon party
    would (hopefully) lead to better representation and government.
    
    Rich

>    I believe that the entire cost of an abortion would be a more
>    reasonable opt-out cost.  Although on the surface it might appear that
>    half is the 'fair' amount; it would still be a one-time cost rather
>    than residuals.

 Why do you believe the man should foot the entire bill?

    > Why do you believe the man should foot the entire bill?
    
    My reasoning behind this is in .241 [I agree that I should have
    explained more fully at the outset]
    
    If the woman alone wishes to opt out, her cost is that of a safe and
    legal abortion.
    
    If the man alone wishes to opt-out, his cost should be the same.
    
    If it is a mutual decision, whatever that is, both should share the
    cost of that decision.
    
      Annie

 Ok. I can go along with that. I just realized that it would be unfair to force
a man to subsidize an abortion that he did not want to occur. So symmetry
still rules.

    I'll bet there are very few cases where a man, especially amongst
    unmarried people, wants a baby that a woman doesn't want.  I bet there
    might be one case to every thousand where the woman wanted it and the
    man doesn't.  It seems rather ridiculous to me to make such a todo over
    a scenario that almost never happens.  It is very common for the woman to
    want the baby and the man not to want the baby.  The other way around
    is extremely rare.  
    
    I know of one case where a friend's boyfriend begged her not to get an
    abortion.  Even though she didn't originally want the baby, she gave in
    and kept it.  What happened?  When the baby was six months old the man
    walked out of both of their lives forever, leaving my friend to support
    their child, alone, with an assembly job.  She told me that many nights
    they both ate cold cereal for supper.  Later on, in another
    relationship, she accidentally got pregnant (they had used foam), and
    she just went out and had an abortion without even telling the guy. 
    When I told her I wasn't sure that had been right, she reminded me that
    I had never had to raise a child alone and didn't know how frightening
    it was.  
    
    Lorna
    

    	I think I am faced with a culture gap problem again. If I were
    faced with the choice of having sex with the most beautiful woman in
    the world *or* having a child I would choose to have another child.
    Ideally I would combine the two, but my wife might argue about that ;-)
    
    	Half of the notes in here seem to be from men who feel deprived of
    their children, and the other half seem to be from men wanting to
    disown them and feeling that it is unfair to pay for them.
    
    	Maybe I didn't make myself clear in the earlier notes. Your pension
    *does* depend on a well trained working force in 40 years time. It is
    not "socialist". In France the "socialists" want to support the
    underprivileged (who are mainly of Arabic origin) while the right wing
    want to encourage the French to breed so these "Nordafs" (term of
    abuse) will not become a majority. Even if you assume that children
    will somehow appear in spite of financial disincentives it is just
    common sense to make sure that they will be as well fed and trained as
    possible to ensure the survival of *your* culture (fascist bias) and to
    ensure the value of *your* pension (selfish bias) and to ensure the
    welfare of your conscience or of your soul (if you have either of
    these).
    
    	I cannot understand anyone who does not want to produce as many
    children as he can bring up well. I cannot understand any man who does
    not want to bring up well all the children he has produced.
    
    (I hope I have phrased this carefully enough; it is something I feel
    rather strongly about, and it is easy to misuse words).

    <I cannot understand anyone who does not want to produce as many
    <children as he can bring up well. 
    
    I don't understand why one would need to understand this. It is
    reality. In fact it's MY reality. I would never bother to try to
    explain it to you. Not in the least because I don't think you want an
    explanation, I think you want an opportunity to convert.
    
    <I cannot understand any man who does <not want to bring up well all the
    <children he has produced.
    
    Sounds to me like you may have a problem recognizing humans as humans,
    rather than -say- exact images of some perfect icon.

Re: .250

I don't agree that it is "reality", or perhaps I'd say that I wish it weren't.
I wish that people wouldn't assume that "more kids is better", and that our
government would stop encouraging people to have more children (through
tax credits and welfare increases.)  This world has too many people as it is,
and we're all paying for it.

Each child born should be wanted and loved, but people shouldn't "make babies"
just because it seems the thing to do, or is an accidental side-effect of
having sex.  Better forms of and access to contraception, better education,
and continued legal access to abortion are all important.

I understand that my view will be unpopular with some.  But I wanted to
express it anyway.

				Steve

    	I don't want an opportunity to convert, I want an opportunity to
    understand. I have *no* religious affiliations (if that is what you
    were thinking).
    
    	Why should children be unwanted by either parent? Why should they
    be unwanted by U.S. society?
    
    	On a purely Darwinian level, there is a need for a species to
    produce young and ensure their survival until they in turn become
    reproductive, otherwise they become extinct, and this translates to the
    individual level. This in turn translates to instincts, and in a
    rational species, rationalisation of those instincts. Perhaps you could
    translate my "I cannot understand" with "why haven't traits that don't
    support this become genetically extinct?"  It was not intended as a moral 
    statement. Producing children that survive to reproduce is a matter of 
    genetic survival. Producing children that will be productive members of 
    society when you are no longer capable of producing is pure self
    interest. 
    Producing children that you love and are permanent parts of your life
    sounds like material for conversion, so I will leave the topic.
    
    	Dave

    Steve:
    I was saying the reality is that many people do NOT want as many
    children as possible. 
    Did you mean to be referinmg to .250 or .249?
    
    re .252
    I have 2 children. That is an many as I want, that is as many as my
    wife wants.
    At age 35, I decided I did not want any more children.
    At age 32, My wife decided she did not want to have any more children.
    So, after our second child was born 18 years ago, we took steps to
    ensure that my wife would not get pregnant again.
    
    Many people make that decision each day
    
    I cannot fathom that somebody living in modern society does not
    understand why people would make such a decision. Until I have a much
    better understanding of why and how you do not understand how people
    could come to such a decision, I am unwilling to state reasons. (in
    fact, now that I think of it, I doubt if I will under almost any
    circumstances)
    
    				herb

Re: .253

Herb, I apparently misunderstood your meaning in .250.

Yes, many people do conciously make the decision as to whether they do or don't
want more children.  But many more just "let it happen", and this is a 
problem as I see it.

				Steve

    <many more just "let it happen">
    I agree with you that that is a problem 
    In fact, in my opinion it is much worse that problematic,
    It is unconscionable!
    	

    re. Dave [if you're still around]
    
    I dearly love children and children seem to adore me.  But I do not
    believe that I could bring up a child well.  That is to say that I
    believe that no child that I raised would leave childhood without
    severe emotional scarring.
    
    Many would say that I have a moral responsibility not to reproduce
    no matter how intensely the biological imperative presses upon me.
    
    I cannot understand why someone would not want a child either; but I
    can certainly understand why someone would choose not to reproduce.
    
      Annie

    Further to responsibility and fairness.
    
    Now that everyone is having these contraception discussions up front,
    would the virtual abortion proponents agree that a man who, with
    knowledge aforethought, engages in sexual relations with a woman who
    has stated that she does not believe that abortion is an option would
    have a moral obligation to contribute to the support of any child
    conceived because of contraceptive failure?
    
    Or do you feel that her upfront statement has no bearing on his
    options?
    
      Annie 

    I want to say that a man who has unprotected intercourse with a woman
    who does not believe in birth control, "deserves what he gets"
    because he is a jerk.
    But that is really avoiding the issue because children _ought_ 
    to *be* and to *mean* something a hellava lot more than "deserve what
    he gets"
    
    All of the options are stupid, because neither the man, nor the woman
    "ought' to be in that situation.
    
    Each of the options makes me angry, because it is a situation that
    ought not be. BUT IS.
    
    So as far as I am concerned both parties have proven to MY satisfaction
    that they are not sufficiently responsible to be parents.
    
    My next answer is so far out, that I cant publish it.
    
    But i'm going to anyhow.
    
    Unless the male willingly marries the woman or the woman _willingly_
    and knowingly forswears any damages against the man, and forswears any
    societal debt, then (here come the cannons) she ought to be _compelled_
    to abort (with him paying the costs). But how that avoids the child
    becoming a social problem if she choses to carry the baby to term as a
    single parent, I don't know!
    
    Maybe, the 'cost' of seeking children's aid from welfare agencies,
    should be sterilization?
    
    
    				herb

    re .258, we'd be living with a lot more traumatized people, than we are
    now, if women who couldn't afford children were forced to have
    abortions.  That's the type of situation that could drive a woman over
    he edge.  Also, where would it stop?  Eventually would only couples who
    made over a certain income be allowed to have children?  Not a pleasant
    society to live in, IMO.
    
    Lorna
    

    that conclusion (forced abortion) only obtains in the circumstance when
    	a) the man doesn't voluntary accept responsibility AND
    	b) the woman is unwilling to foreswear all demands upon society
    	c) and she is unwilling to give the child up at birth
        
    The woman who couldn't afford children should have thought of that
    before she got pregnant.
    (by the way, in those circumstances where she is _punished_ for HER
    crime of conception, he ought to be also.
    
    Lookit we are talking about crazy circumstances and irrresponsible/crazy 
    people! I don't think that they SHOULD be parents.
    
    				herb

    RE: .252

    I think if the population were in danger due to lack of reproduction
    you would have a valid point.  Instinctual reproduction is a valuable
    and necessary trait for survival in a world full of predators.

    However, man's predator is man and the threat to the continued survival
    of our genes comes not from a low birth rate but, quite the contrary, from
    the strain on resources due to overpopulation.

    What good will a planet full of our ancestors be if they are suddenly
    wiped out by famine, plague or war?  Admittedly this isn't a pleasant
    topic.   

    /Greg

    re .260, but what if the woman used birth control and it failed.  That
    does happen.  When birth control fails, I don't think those people are
    irresponsible.  It was just the luck of the draw.
    It happens sometimes.
    
    Lorna

    Sure accidents happen, and when they do one does the best possible
    to clean up after the accident.
    All of the above options are still applicable and possible.
    If when all is said and done, she ain't prepared for any of those options
    then I assert that society should take the fetus/baby away from her.
    She by being unable to accept any of the options has proven to MY
    satisfaction that she is irresponsible. 
    
    
    				herb
    

    that list of options is not meant to exhaust ALL options.
    I'm sure that folks could come up with additional sensible options.

    an additional option that comes to mind is some sort of a contractual
    arrangement with a home for unwed mothers run by whatever organization
    the woman/man feel comfortable with. This organization would take care
    of pre-natal care (with daddio forking over some bucks for the cost of
    the care) and would have a commitment to provide some sort of
    state approved care facilities with the goal of earliest possible
    adoption into an 'approved' family.
    
    In fact, perhaps the only thing the female would be unable to do would
    be to keep the baby as a single parent without showing the means of
    caring for that baby satisfactorily. (how to determine the means test?,
    i dunno!)
    
    				herb

    RE:  the last few.
    
    GAG ME!!!!!!
    
    Why not educate and train a person for a job that pays enough to raise
    a youngster, instead of penalizing 
    
    1.  The mother
    
    2.  The child involved.
    
    This seriously sounds more like "The Handmaids tale" solution, rather
    than reasonable thought from "compassionate" people.  Herb what you are
    proposing strikes me as baby-brokering and enslaving both women and
    children, simalar to the kind of choices people are given in the People
    republic of China.  
    
    Have you no respect for any kind of bonding?  Have you talked to birth
    mothers who have given up their children?  Have you talked to any
    adoptees who always wonder why their mothers "rejected" them.  

    Perhaps the cost of training, education, etc has broken the backs of
    many of us already. This is just a discussion. Not a matter of fact
    that we are all going out to do it tomorrow. I think that many of us
    have come to realize that there is a bonding with child and mother.
    There is sometimes no bonding. Sometimes, children are born, tossed in
    a corner and thats life. Some children are tossed into the streets.
    I have met a couple over this past year. One child was just about to
    turn 18, and a claus in the divorce would stop child suport payment
    reguardless if he was in school or not. His bonding mother tossed him
    out. Some bonding job. Sorry kid. No child suport no place to live.

RE: .250

I too, love children.  I'd like to raise some one day.  But not today--I have
too many other things I'd like to acheive first that trying to take part in
raising a child would interfere with.  Also, I'd like to grow up a little more.
I think I'll know when I'm ready.


RE: last few

I think that the emotional bonding which happens for a mother is something that
men can only vaguely understand, and that only when they've been through a
pregnancy of someone with whom they're in a close relationship.  I think that's
been one of the basic problems in this discussion--men keep making responses
based on the assumption "Well, if she can't face an abortion, that's her per-
sonal problem and she should pay for the consequences herself".  Personally, I
admit that I can't really understand the bonding effect, but I'm willing to
postulate that it exists, and that if it's strong enough, abortion becomes a
threat to the woman's mental health and that she can't be held to blame for
that.

                                                         -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    I think you made an excellent point.  When I was pregnant with my son,
    I was immediately protective of this new life inside me.  This was a
    part of ME, in ME.  I loved being pregnant, the thought of bringing a
    new life into this world, feeling him move inside me.  I believe I
    bonded with my son before he was born.  Men just can't experience those
    feelings.  
    
    FWIW, I did get pregnant on the pill several years after my son.  That
    baby didn't have a chance in h*ll of being born normal.  I'd had back
    x-rays roughly 2 weeks after conception and had been on a variety of
    medications which clearly could have damaged the embryo.  As it turned
    out I did lose that baby.  I can say with that pregnancy I didn't have
    quite the feelings that I had when pregnant with my son.  My SO at the
    time wasn't supportive and I wasn't sure I ever wanted more children,
    so I believe that fate intervened.  Today there is a big part of me
    that is glad that I miscarried.  But there is always that part of me
    that wonders what that baby would have looked like and whether it was a
    boy or girl.
    
    Karen

    re: .261
    	The problem is not lack of natural resources. The EEC (with 50%
    more population than the U.S. in a smaller area) has the the scandals
    of a "butter mountain" a "wine lake", French farmers burning truck
    loads of imported live sheep from Britain because they don't want the 
    competition. The U.S. is paying farmers not to produce wheat. Holland,
    which is about the most densely populated country in the world,
    produces butter, cheese and vegetables to excess, and then produces a
    lot of flowers because these make more profit.
    
    	Meanwhile, France has a declining population, with a continual
    increase in the percentage aged over 70, and this is in spite of the
    fact that so many people have migrated from North Africa that 10% of
    the population is Muslim. An extrapolation of trends from Western
    Germany a few years ago suggested that by 2020 the population would be
    no higher, but that the majority language would be Turkish.
    
    	And from the example of Holland, many countries that are
    justifiably described as "underdeveloped" are just that. Most could
    *easily* feed their populations if they had the investment and
    expertise. Unfortunately we seem to find it better to pay farmers *not*
    to produce than to send the money and expertise where it would be
    useful.

.241>    Then if a woman's cost-to-disown is the price of a safe legal abortion,
.241>    do you feel that a man's cost should be equivalent? and if both wish
.241>    to disown that they should split the cost?
    
    Sounds fair to me.

.257>    would the virtual abortion proponents agree that a man who, with
.257>    knowledge aforethought, engages in sexual relations with a woman who
.257>    has stated that she does not believe that abortion is an option would
.257>    have a moral obligation to contribute to the support of any child
    
    Of course.
    
    And if he doesn't want to risk children, he should find someone
    else to knock boots.

    Usually I am a read only person in this file, but I have a question
    that I ask in order to more fully understand.
    
    Why just 2 kids?  What is the magic reason that so many younger
    reproductive couples settle for this number?  Are there some financial
    reasons? Or is it just fashionable/trendy/conformity to have 2?
    
    I have more than 2 myself, and I would say for my wife and me one child
    is very hard; 2 are hard; and it gets easier with 3.  I came from a
    family of three.  Two seems lonely.
    
    So you parents of two, please share with me your reasons for stopping
    at such a small number.
    
    Paul
    
    PS  Relative to situations in Europe where non-European immigrants are
    reproducing faster than the natives, I read in a US News a few years
    back of a phenomenon called Birth Dearth, which stated that due to the
    declining birth rates in developed countries, severe consequences
    (cultural, financial and military) might possibly be instore (such as a
    developed country not being able to muster a significant standing
    army, workforce, etc.)
                                                      

    If everyone had two children, then the world population would stop
    growing, actually start a slow decline.  That is why the number 2 is
    kind of a magic number.  Why does it get easier with three?  I only have
    two hands.  If I take three kids shopping I don't have a hand for
    each.  Maybe if you spread them out enough so that the oldest one can
    watch the youngest.  I guess.  I have two kids, and that was our plan.
    Our parents each had three, and I don't see how it was easier for them.  
    Not at all.
    
    					- Vick

    Your question has an inappropriate premise.
    The premise is that 2 is a _small_ number

>that our government would stop encouraging people to have more children 
>(through tax credits 

 This is a canard. Nobody with any brains at all has children to get a "tax
credit." (The fact that there is no such thing as a "tax credit" for children
notwithstanding.) The _deduction_ you get for having dependents doesn't even
begin to cover the cost of maintaining them, so to argue that the government
encourages people to have children via tax laws is ludicrous. One wonders
what the real agenda is, when such a specious argument is proferred...

.257>    would the virtual abortion proponents agree that a man who, with
.257>    knowledge aforethought, engages in sexual relations with a woman who
.257>    has stated that she does not believe that abortion is an option would
.257>    have a moral obligation to contribute to the support of any child
 
 No. People who "don't believe in abortion" have the option of adoption. If
the woman is incapable of supporting the child, she can give the baby up
for adoption by someone who can.

 Of course, this presupposes the unlikely; that unexpected pregnancy options
have been discussed prior to the initial sexual encounter. 

 To turn the tables a bit, what do you believe ought to be the responsibility
of a woman who engages in sexual congress with a man who has stated to her
that he will take no responsibility for contraception whatsoever and no
responsibility for any resultant pregnancy?

    <that our government would stop encouraging people to have more>
    <children through tax credits>
    
    I agree that the government should not encourage people to have more
    children. I don't think that the government _does_ encourage either
    accidently or intently people to have more children. My personal guess
    is the number of people who have children because they see some
    financial advantage is very, very small indeed. (and they are mistaken)
    
    I think that offering tax credits as encouragement for NOT having
    children is not such a bad idea theoretically. Perhaps a prerequisite
    might be certification of sterility?
    Am interested in understanding who would be eligible for such credits
    and for how long. Perhaps you have in mind some means test?

    	The French government *does* encourage people to have more
    children, and I have already quoted an example of a woman I know (in
    another country) who had a second child purely because of the benefits.
    My oldest child is now financially independant (and working for DEC and
    might be reading this notes file, so let's not get too personal) and
    that will mean a *lot* more tax for us.
    
    	Having been warned I will not try to divert this into a discussion
    of morals or politics, but some governments doing economic planning 20
    years ahead see *planning* rather than reduction of the population to
    be their objective.
    

    by "our" or "the" government I meant -and consistently mean- the U.S.of A. 
    government. 
    
    Children who are not societal liabilities (in the U.S. of A.) before
    they start contributing taxes maybe ultimately turn out to be societal
    assets (in the U.S. of A.). But even that is open to question, given
    such matters as world population size, consumption of scare resources
    etc.

    Children who consume societal assets (welfare, etc) as minors (in the
    U.S. of A.) are rather less likely to become societal assets as adults
    (in the U.S. of A.), it seems to me.
    
    			herb

Re: .276

No, it's not a canard at all.  It's true that, at present, there are no
tax credits directly for children, these are part of several of the
"tax reform" proposals being put forth by presidential candidates and some
members of Congress.  And in the welfare system, there ARE direct payments
for additional children.  Indeed, one governor (in New Jersey, I think)
recently proposed not increasing welfare payments for children born after
the mother went on welfare, which I think is a good start.

But the issue of whether or not the credit/deduction "pays for the child"
is not important, as most people don't see it that way.  They see that they
get more money for having more kids, and if they can't support the kid
themselves, they'll get someone else to pay for them.

I firmly believe that we have too many children being born for the wrong
reasons, "wrong" in my view as being to save the marriage, for the
additional deduction/credit/stipend, cannon fodder (the "military"
argument), because they're cute, because we have three girls and REALLY want
a boy, etc.  I believe that children should be brought into this world only 
when they are loved and wanted by their parents and when the parents can reasonably support them.

In many parts of the world, overpopulation is the deadliest menace of all.
It's what's responsible for the destruction of the rain forests and
the poverty conditions of hundreds of millions of people.  

				Steve

 Concocting a position based on election year proposals seems to be
just a little bit reactionary, don't you think? There is no such thing as
a tax credit for kids, which you've admitted yourself. I purposely excluded
welfare from my argument because it is well known that payments are adjusted
according to the number of dependents.

> I firmly believe that we have too many children being born for the wrong
>reasons,

 This is really the crux of your position, and you just went fishing for 
buttressing arguments. I happen to agree with the sentiment expressed;
but your supporting arguments are not helpful in that they are not all
real arguments. The welfare argument has merit. The tax argument does not.

 The Doctah

    an exercise...
    
    Where on the political spectrum would you place the owners of the last
    4 entries?

Re: .282

I disagree with your analysis of my motivations, but I don't see the point
in debating it.

Re: .283

You might be rather astonished by the results.

			Steve

    re .284
    <i disagree with your analysis of my motivations...
    maybe he just didn't realize you made a mistake, and maybe you forgot
    to acknowledge it (so it may have seemed that you were trying to cover
    up a mistake)
    
    <you might be rather astonished by the results>
    tswhy i posed the (rhetorical) question

    RE: .270

    I believe looking at even the past 100 years of food production in
    an attempt to justify the current strain we put on the environment
    is shortsighted.  Lack of natural resources most certainly is a 
    problem and we'll be a lot better off in my opinion the sooner we
    realize this.  Besides, mountains of excess corn and dairy products
    in this country (USA) are doing nothing to help the jobless and the 
    homeless.  By resources I mean more than just food.   People have to
    have a reason to live and an environment in which life is worth
    living.

    That aside, I still don't understand the need for everyone to reproduce 
    as much as possible.  The birth rate in developing nations is very high.  
    I don't see how the gene pool is at risk, unless you are referring to the 
    gene pool of specific regions.

    /Greg

Re: .285

I didn't make a mistake.  There are proposals for tax credits for children,
those are what I referred to.

				Steve

>I didn't make a mistake.  There are proposals for tax credits for children,
>those are what I referred to.

 Steve, you claimed that the government encourages reproduction via tax credits.
You then admitted that nothing of the kind is happening, but that such a
thing is proposed. Seems to me that predicating an argument on something
that is nonexistant is a mistake. Your mileage must vary.

 The Doctah

    
>
> Steve, you claimed that the government encourages reproduction via tax credits.
> You then admitted that nothing of the kind is happening, but that such a
> thing is proposed. Seems to me that predicating an argument on something
> that is nonexistant is a mistake. Your mileage must vary.
> 
    Currently, we do get a deduction for every dependent .. most kids are
    dependents.  The result ...
    
    All other things being equal currently a couple with children pays less
    in federal income tax than a couple without children.  
                                           
    I wouldn't use the word encourage but I would use the word subsidize. 
    
    
    Greg
    

    re .-1 

    even if the point has some nit picky reality, it is silly.

    It costs a hellava lot more each year than the tax deduction to support
    a child.

    By granting a deduction for each off-spring the gummint is
    making the cost of each child a LITTLE less onerous. (and by do so, of
    course it is expressing a certain social policy.) So sure, the gummint
    is PARTIALLY subsidizing children.
    But ANYBODY who thinks that he or she should have children BECAUSE of
    the little gimmint subsidy ...
    

    re .290, but I don't see why the government should make the cost of
    raising a child less "onerous"?  I don't see why there should be
    deductions for children, especially if it doesn't really come close to
    the actual cost of raising a child anyway.
    
    Lorna
    

    ok, that's a gummint policy you disapprove of. It's been codified
    for a very long time. Just like the government policy that makes owning
    a home less onerous by making the mortgage interest payments tax
    deductable.
    The gummint implements social policy and expresses social biases all
    the time.
    

    tobacco subsidies for instance

.291>    re .290, but I don't see why the government should make the cost of
.291>    raising a child less "onerous"?  I don't see why there should be
    
    Investing in the children is important for the future of America.

    Awe cummon Mike, a tax reduction of the bracket cost of taxes on $2000.00?
    On the other hand, if each family invested that tax reduction each year...

    There are other bennies, like free public schools coming from the
    property taxes of home owners.
    
    I was speaking in general, not just citing current tax deductions.

    	There are two extreme positions
    1) No part of the cost of bringing up a kid is communal. Only adults
    have the vote and pay taxes (no taxation without representation,
    right?) and the taxes levied and what they are used for has nothing to
    do with kids. If you happen to have a kid you can choose to pay extra
    for him to use a state-surfaced road or anything else provided from the
    taxes, or you can choose not to.
    
    2) Upbringing of kids is the responsibility of the state. Parents'
    choices (and individual cost and responsibility) are insignificant.
    This is the Aldous Huxley "Brave New World" model. At any given time
    there are the right number of each type of citizen to support the
    others, as planned by the state.
    
    	Anywhere between these two we are just talking about percentages of
    state and parental responsibility, and I can't off-hand think of any
    society that has gone to either extreme.
    
    	re: political spectrum, since I regard this as multi-dimensional
    you would need a set of coordinates, and since I don't have a vote it
    doesn't really matter.

    re Mike, if the US is so concerned about investing in the future of
    America, via helping to raise children, then I think, first off,
    something should be done about the rising cost of a college education.
    
    Lorna
    

    	If you live within the EEC and have EEC nationality you can get an
    EEC grant to pay the tuition fees at an EEC university for your child
    for a first degree. Some individual governments will pay more, but that
    is all I have been able to claim, since I am living in France and my
    two elder children have gone to British universities. I still have to
    pay for accomodation, food, air flights home,... so it isn't cheap, but
    it's manageable. If they had chosen to go to a university 30 miles away
    instead of one 1000 miles away it would have been within the range of
    most parents. It seems a reasonable investment for a society to make in
    its future.
    

    re .299, well, in the US it seems that most people make too much money
    to qualify for aid, but not enough money to actually be able to afford
    the tuition to most colleges!!
    
    Lorna
    

    re.277
    
    Second question first:
    
    A woman engaging in sex with a man who clearly states that contraception
    and possible outcomes are not his concern is on her own.  There's no
    grey area in his statement.
    
    The adoption option:
    
    I was not speaking of 'capability to support.'  It doesn't matter to me
    whether the accidental pregnant woman is on the Forbes 400 list or on
    welfare.
    
    But if we're to throw adoption into it, then the cost to the man should
    be the entire cost of medical care, legal fees, and post-partum
    counselling associated with an adoption.  A slightly higher cost, to be
    sure; but he kenw the odds and freely took the chance.
    
      Annie
    
    
    

>    But if we're to throw adoption into it, then the cost to the man should
>    be the entire cost of medical care, legal fees, and post-partum
>    counselling associated with an adoption.  A slightly higher cost, to be
>    sure; but he kenw the odds and freely took the chance.

 But Annie, those costs are picked up by the adoptive parents. Besides, even if
those costs were not, I don't see any reason why the man ought to be required 
by law to provide anything more than his share of the cheapest "remedy."

 If you accidently scratch someone's car, then you are responsible for paying
to have the car repaired. If the cheapest alternative is to have the scratch
repainted, that's all you are legally required to do. If the person decides
that he wants the entire car repainted so there's no possibility of a paint
matching problem, that's hir choice. But you don't _have_ to pay for it.
On the other hand, you may choose to do so out of the goodness of your heart.

    re .302, how can you compare a scratch on a car with a potential human
    life?
    
    Lorna
    

 I knew someone would make that comment. I am surprised that it was you.
Talk about diversionary...

    no 'cheapest remedy' way out.
    
    this is not a car, forget even that it's a human life [I don't like to,
    but lets remove emotion from this]
    
    it's a contract
    
    in my younger days, I basically brought contraception and possible
    failures into every sexual encounter.  You play, you may have to pay,
    non-negotiable.  I was quite upfront in saying that I would not have an
    abortion [I am and was pro-choice, not was my choice].
    
    I did some research.  Most of the child services agencies could not
    guarentee that propsective parents would pick up any fees beyond their
    own costs.
    
    Now I was a careful little person and never had so much as a scare, but
    the possibility was always there.  If a man felt that my 'potential
    cost' was too high, we didn't have sex.
    
    In the end, I'm not a 'required by law' sort.  I don't want laws about
    these things.  No, NEVER.
    
    I want people to make contracts and require each other and
    them_selves_.
    
      Annie

>    In the end, I'm not a 'required by law' sort.  I don't want laws about
>    these things.  No, NEVER.

 So if the "contract" is unilaterally dissolved by one party or another, you 
want no recourse? Eg, if a guy agrees to support the kid, and the woman has the
kid, and the guy says "bog off" she should be stuck? I don't agree.

 There needs to be a set of minimal laws IMO. Laws that indicate the minimal
responsibility required of either party. What you decide to do over and above 
the law is your choice (which was the point of my analogy.)

    I've got no sympathy for the unmarried man who has sex with a woman
    with no protection, then whines about getting hit with a paternity
    suit.  With all the STDs today, he's a d&*n fool.
    
    For that matter, I've got no sympathy for the woman either.
    
    The one I really pity is the child of their thoughtlessness.
    
    Of course, if they used a highly reliable form of birth control (eg
    pill, condom and foam, diaphragm) and it failed, that is a much more
    complex question.
    
    Laura

    It should read "pill, condom and foam, or diaphragm".   (add the word
    or)
    
    nit, nit
    
    Yeah, I think people are responsible for their actions.  Note I said
    "are" not "should be".  You can whine, make excuses, play the victim,
    or plead insanity, but no matter what you are still responsible for
    your own actions.   Clears up a lot of fog, right?
    
    Laura