Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    re .12
    
    Michelle,
    
    Why isn't it fair to require a father to pay child support ( whether
    he wants to or not)?  After all, he did participate in half of the
    conception - why not half of the consequenses?
    
    -maureen
    

    
    Maureen,
    
    I see the unfairness in the fact that the father is mandated by
    law.  That is the only unfairness I see.  I do think that both
    parents are responsible for the support both financial and emotional
    for the child.  The law should allow for flexibility instead of
    just mandating it.  Afterall, the law does not state that the mother
    is also responsible for the support of the child.  It assumes that
    this is what is going to happen.  What works for one should also
    work for the other.  In other words, the law should state that both
    mother and father are legally responsible to pay support for the 
    child.  (Unfortunately this is what today's society has a need for.)
    
    
    Also, the law should outline equitable custody if need be.  Sure
    the courts do look at custody and support as two separate issues.
    But for the good of the child, each parent must be responsible both
    financially and emotionally.  Each parent must be responsbile to 
    raise the child.  It should not automatically be the mother who
    is delegated the sole and/or majority of responsibility for the
    childs upbringing.  Parents who opt to bring children into this world
    must take the responsibility equally for that child.  
    
    Of course there is another choice available as an option. This would
    be adoption (assuming the mother decides to carry pregnancy to term).
    In this case, all legal rights and responsibilites of both birth
    parents are null and void once the adoption is made legal.  This to
    me is the only way a parent can deny the financial and emotional
    support required of them to raise the child.  Running out is not
    an option, nor is neglecting the child.
    
    Hope that answers your question!
    
    Mi

     Can you conceive of a woman who would purposely get pregnant in order
    to a) attempt to force the father to marry her or b) provide herself
    with a child that she could not support on her own or c) provide her
    child with a lifestyle beyond her own means?
    
     There are documented cases of this happening.
    
     I suppose you would reply to that "it's HIS fault for not wearing a
    rubber." Good point, right? Well, what about when a woman gets pregnant
    because she didn't use protection? She is free to get an abortion and
    solve the problem in a matter of days. She is free to carry the child
    to term and give the child up for adoption. She has two methods of
    terminating her responsibility AFTER her "mistake." PLease explain all
    of the methods (legal) to terminate a man's responsibility AFTER his
    "mistake."
    
     The Doctah

    Mark,
    
    I don't understand.
    
    Here you present two options for women: a) abortion, b) adoption.
    Here you present three goals (of many) for women: to a) force the
    father to marry her, b) provide herself with a child she can't support
    on her own, c) provide her child with a lifestyle beyond her means.
    
    Fine.  Your first option, abortion, will not help her to achieve
    any of those goals.  Your second option, adoption, can only achieve
    the third goal (I think that is the primary goal of adoption, right?)
    of the three, and in so doing, (This is going to be badly phrased.)
    isolates the woman from the goal.
    
    So... so why are these together in the same note?
    
    Now, what you really care about are a man's lack of options.  True,
    he can steadfastly deny paternity.  This sometimes works, but it
    isn't honest.  (However, your examples are of women who are dishonest,
    in some sense; could you just be holding men to a higher standard?)
    He could have his tubes tied so paternity couldn't be proved.  This
    sounds overly drastic even compared to an abortion, but I would like
    to remind you that an abortion is not like trimming your nails either.
    He could run away.  This has worked well in the past, but times are
    changing, and it isn't a responsible thing to do anyhow.  He could
    kidnap the baby and sell it.  This is a novel thought, but still not
    a good one.
    
    No, you're right.  There are no good options for a man today.  What
    we need is fool-proof birth control, not the status quo, and not
    The Way Things Used to Be, when men had options (as given above)
    and women didn't.
    
    							Ann B.

    re 17
    
    Doctah,
    
    I know a woman who did this.  She purposely got pregnant telling him
    she was on the pill when she wasnt.  She basically said "marry me or
    get out of my life".  So she gave him the option at the time.
    He took the option to get out of her life.  Seven months later he
    gets a phone call saying "I'm having this baby and I need your help".
    
    
    What she really wanted was someone to love her.  Instead of doing it
    the right way she tried to do it her way.  And she lost big time.
    Yet she has the child and she gets support.  Is this wrong?  Damn
    right it is.  Yet the current legal system supports this type of
    activity.  Sure women can push to change it, but why?  (I know
    this is going to blow up so just read on first.  Why would anyone
    try to change something that is clearly in their favor?  Makes no
    sense)
    
    
    The father in the above case is my boyfriend.  I have watched him
    go through hell due to this.  Her sheer ignorance has not only
    destroyed him, but it continues to destroy their daughter.  This
    little girls life has been a soap opera  written by the mother.
    Her father became active once help was asked for  (mind you this
    woman ordered him out and then changed her mind that she needed
    help).  Why didnt he help from day one?  She just would not have
    it.  She was so mad at him for not marrying her that she was
    going to punish him.  And she is still doing it.  Only now she
    is also punishing thier daugter.
    
    
    He also made some mistakes.  One by not protecting himself physically.
    Two by not forcing her to sign a legal agreement before the child
    was born.  He was present during the birth.  He even moved in with
    the mother and child to take an active role in raising the child.
    Yet when she decided she no longer liked him she left.  That's right
    without any warning she just up and left.  She left a note for him
    telling him where thier daughter was and that they were never going
    to live together again.  (alot of men can relate to this)
    
    My point is that this should not be allowed to happen legally.
    She was assisted in all phases of her "plans" due to the fact
    that he did not marry her.  She never asked for support payments
    until he sought partial custody and some visitation of his daughter.
    So again she used the system not only to screw him because he did
    not marry her, but because the system allowed her to do it.
    He did not have an issue regarding support as he knew he had
    that responsiblity.  Yet he was denied his child just becuase
    she no longer wanted anything to do with him.
    
    The final (at least for now that is as it changes whenever she wants it
    to) straw came when she wanted to leave the state and go back to NY.
    She all of a sudden wanted to go back to live with her parents cause
    she could not afford to live in Mass anymore.  Mind you she had lived
    here with the child for three years.  Then all of a sudden she couldnt
    afford to live here.  BULL!!!  She just was bound and determined to get
    this man out of her life.  Yet what she was not willing to accept was
    the fact that this man was an active part of his daughter's life and
    he was not willing to just roll over and die.  
    
    I have to stop here cause I am getting really steamed.  s
    
    So to your reply, yes I can conceive of it.  What to do about it?
    You tell me.
    
    Michele

    .17:
    	{why do i get the feeling that this may be heading in a direction
    other than what .0 was asking about?}
    	No, actually i can't conceive. (Well, i have heard of abominal
    implants.)
    	QUESTION: (seriously, now) Should i take it that you are in favor
    of the father-to-be being able to force an adoption/abortion on the
    prospective mother?
    	Maybe, JUST maybe, all those options help level the playing field
    for the female, who - most often - bears all the risks, in a sexual 
    relationship.
    	The simplest solution is still the best.  Avoid sexual relations
    outside the commitment of marriage.
    

>    Here you present two options for women: a) abortion, b) adoption.
    
     Forgotten qualifier: pregnant women who do not want to raise kids
    
>    Here you present three goals (of many) for women: to a) force the
>    father to marry her, b) provide herself with a child she can't support
>    on her own, c) provide her child with a lifestyle beyond her means.
    
     The "goals" presented are a subset of those that could motivate a woman
    to become impregnated under less than honorable conditions. This
    relates to men that do not wish to have children, but are in effect
    manipulated by women.
    
     I'm sure your solution is to say "the man has the responsibility to
    wear a condom." Sure. What I am getting at is the inequity in available
    options once pregnancy has occurred for men who do not wish to have
    children vs women who do not wish to have children. The way the laws
    are currently written, the women have all of the choices and 1/2 the
    responsibility. I was just pointing out that that isn't fair.
    
>    Now, what you really care about are a man's lack of options.
    
     That is what I concentrated that note on (in an attempt to answer
    Maureen's question by providing examples where forcing the father to
    pay support was unfair). 
    
     The Doctah

    re.16
    
    (I think we need our own topic)
    
    Divorce/Custody Laws Here in Ohio do not automatically grant custody
    to the mother.  I have several male friends who are quite happily
    raising children oas single parents.  Also, support payments are
    determined on the basis of EACH parents income.
    
    That being said...
    No matter what Dad decides to do, Mom is still stuck with being
    pregnant.  Until there is 100% foll proof birth control, both parites
    ought to be responsible for caring for the child (or the cost of
    the abortion.  As granma used to say, "if you don't want to pay
    the price, keep your $%^&*( in your pants".  Exactly what are the
    kids who's dad decides he doesn't want to be bothered going to do
    for food and clothing?
    
    You have hit some real sore spots for me.  My "dad" periodically
    decided I was "inconvienient". Mom (who was earning minimum wage
    as a secretary) had a real tough time surviving.
    
    	-maureen
    
    

    This really does need its own topic.  If the two people are not married
    and pregnancy results, I see no moral reason whatsoever why the father
    should be forced to pay for child support.
    
    The woman has the option of having an abortion, if she so choses.  I
    think that the father should have to pay 1/2 if this path is chosen.
    If the woman decides to carry the baby to term, I can "almost" see where
    the father should have a moral obligation to pay 1/2 the hospital bills
    (assuming they aren't covered by insurance).
    
    But, once the woman has had the baby its ultimately *her* decision as
    to whether or not it is kept or put up for adoption.  If she decides to
    keep it, why should the man be forced to pay for the next 18+ years of
    child support for a decision he really doesn't have a say over?  True,
    he could fight for custody (in which case the woman shouldn't have to
    pay him for child support), but he can't (and shouldn't) be able to
    force her to give the baby up for adoption.  If she can't afford to
    keep the baby without the additional child support, then it should be
    her moral obligation to give the baby up for adoption.

    re .23
    
    This is a good example of why I prefer women as sexual partners.
    With that kind of attitude, why should I bother taking the "chance"
    that I might end up with an unwanted pregnancy?
    
    -maureen
    

    Re .23, I do think that unmarried fathers should have to help support
    their children.  I agree that, if I were a man, and I accidentally
    got a woman pregnant, and I didn't want to marry her, or have the
    child, I would be very upset if she decided to keep the baby, and
    force me to pay child support.  But, in the final analysis, I feel
    that I would have to realize that I had willingly had sex, and that
    we all know that it's possible to create children that way, that
    we were unlucky because the birth-control failed or wasn't used
    for some reason, but, that, ultimately, that would still be my child,
    and would feel that I had a moral obligation to help support any
    child that I brought into the world.  If I were a man, and I absolutely
    could not stand the thought that a woman might bring a child of
    mine into the world without my consent, then I would either only
    have sex with women I was in love with and might want a child with,
    or  would have a vasectomy and never worry about it again.  (those
    are a couple more choices men have)
    
    Lorna
    

    Partially.  But mostly I avoid men, because of the uncaring attitude
    expressed in the not I referenced previously. After all, a man can't 
    possibly be expected to be resposible for the consequences of his sexual
    activities, right?  But women get stuck with the abortion decision,
    the adoption decision, and the raising of a child alone if none
    of the othe "alternatives" is acceptable.  Oh yeah, let's not forget
    to mention the effort that our society puts forth to make those
    altenatives unacceptable. And where is dad during these trying times?
    We can't possibly be unfair to him, right?  
    
    Well, I've got one good question... What about the child?  How about
    if single mom's started telling their kids about "dad" -especially
    about the part where it wasn't really his fault, so he couldn't
    be held accountable?
    
    

    
    re 23
    
    Jim
    
    Could you explain why you see the difference between an unwanted
    pregnancy between two unmarried persons and two married persons?
    
    I honestly do not see any difference.  Regardless of whether or
    not the two parents happen to be married the pregnancy is unwanted.
    Can I safely assume then that you think that abortion or adoption
    are not an alternative if the two folks are married?
    
    Either way, both parents are responsible for the child regardless of
    the outcome.  Each parent played a role in concieving the child.
    That gives equal responsiblity to both parents regardless of the
    outcome of the pregnancy.  Each child born into this world has
    a right to each of it's parents.
    
    Michele

I've now moved the discussion (I'll be glad to change the title if I
misunderstood the discussion). I'll move any further divergances along these
lines here as well. I'm sorry; the reference to .n now don't really work too
well.
	Mez

    The law does NOT mandate that only fathers have an obligation to
    support a child.  Both parents have that obligation and there are a
    substantial number of women, where the father has physical custody,
    who are paying child support.  Because the mother still is the usual
    (for whatever reasons) custodial parent, the issue of women paying
    child support -- or not paying it -- is not one we hear much about.
    
    I personally believe that anyone who particpates (literally) in the
    conception of a child out of wedlock has a moral as well as legal
    obligation to support that child.  It's the child who suffers when one
    parent or the other decides that they have no such obligation and let's
    face it, they are the only party that made NO choice in the matter. 

  <<< Note 1009.14 by GIAMEM::MACKINNON "Pro Choice is a form of democracy" >>>
>>> Could you explain why you see the difference between an unwanted
>>> pregnancy between two unmarried persons and two married persons?
    
    I had made an implicit assumption that, in the case of a married
    couple, a mutual decision was made to raise the child and sometime
    after the child was born the parents split and the one partner got custody. 
    In this case, clearly I think, some sort of child support is only fair.
    
    I've got no answer for the situtation where two people are married,
    pregnancy ensues and one person (for now, lets say the woman) wants to
    keep it and raise it and the male very strongly doesn't.

Devil's advocate comment alert...

In meta-terms, what's under discussion is the following:

Action A has a very low probability of [negative] consequence B if measures C
are followed.

Party X takes measures C in taking action A, but B happens anyway. What is X's
responsibility?

	A		   B		    C

1. Sexual activity	Pregnancy	Contraception

2. Driving to work    Kill bicyclist	Defensive driving

3. Hunting	    Shoot friend's dog	Paint dog orange first

The degree of severity of "B" varies, as do the consequences of taking 
responsibility for the action.

Take scenario #2. If I'm driving to work, and a bicyclist hits a pothole and 
hurtles in front of my car, no degree of "reasonable" care on either of our
parts can *guarantee* I won't hit him. The more care each of us takes, the
lower the probability, but lightning *does* strike. Am I morally responsible
to his family?

I'm not suggesting all of the scenarios are equivalent, of course.

By some moral codes, the answer is the same in all cases - you accept the
responsibility for the consequences of your actions, so long as you were doing
something with non-zero risk attached to it and the risk catches up with you.
By other codes, the answer varies: the more care you take, the less 
responsibility you need to assume. 

In thinking about this subject, it's worth asking yourself in what ways 
the various scenarios differ, and whether you believe the resultant degree
of responsibility differs between them.

    Re: some back (Maureen?)
    
    Why should the man ALWAYS be required to defer to the wishes of the
    woman?  In this case, the male have no say over whether or not she
    keeps the baby to term and no say over whether or not she elects to
    raise it.
    
    If you take that hard line a stance then screw it, maybe the male
    *should* be allowed to force a woman to carry the baby to term.
    Afterall, she took the same risk the male did, so why shouldn't *she*
    have to take the consequences of that action?

    Before coming to blows, folks, please remove any glasses, false teeth,
    insulting vocabularies, or other objects likely to come loose and cause
    injury.
    
    						=maggie

>Each parent played a role in concieving the child.
>    That gives equal responsiblity to both parents regardless of the
>    outcome of the pregnancy.
    
     Oh, does it? Don't you generally get rights along with responsibility?
    
     Women demand complete control over their bodies including during the
    process of creating a new life. If they don't want a child, the fact
    that the father does is immaterial- they don't want to be used as a
    "two legged incubator." They don't want to be forced to carry a child
    to term just because they got pregnant. They knew before they had sex
    that they might get pregnant (every bit as much as their partner did).
    Now that they're pregnant- aw, gee, I really don't want a baby. And
    regardless of whether their partner wants the baby to be carried to
    term, there is nothing he can do about it.
    
     On the other hand, consider a man and woman who engage in sex and the
    woman becomes pregnant. And she decides she wants to keep the baby, but
    the father does not. Again, he has no control over his destiny as a
    father, and is thereby indentured for the next 18.75 years.
    
     It seems to me that some degree of equalization of rights and
    resposnsibilities is in order here. As it stands now, the father has
    relatively equal responsibilities for the child, but practically no
    rights.
    
     Very few women want to change this situation, because the inequity 
    benefits them. I can't say that I blame them. Why abandon a good thing?
    
     I believe that men are going to have to smarten up. As long as women
    are paid less than men, we will get "stuck." Have a brain, guys, allow
    women to be self-sufficient and we'll be off the hook (or at least on a
    smaller hook). And for crissakes- don't be unprotected. A simple 50�
    investment can save you easily 50 large over 18 years.
    
     The Doctah

    Doctah,
    
    You think the current set up *benefits* women?  Maybe you could
    elaborate a bit - particularly on how maintaining a job, raising
    a kid alone, and (maybe) getting dad to send some money once in
    a while is beneficial.  
    
    The way I see this whole mess is that it's not fair to anyone, but
    then life just ain't fair - and a child should not have to pay the
    price for her/his parents mistakes.  I also do not understand how
    any man of conscience can just walk away from a child that he helped
    produce.
    
    Please understand that the above are my feelings regarding accidental
    pregnancies, and not the multitude of cases where women deliberately
    decieve/trap men.  Also, please note the sacrasm is the previous
    remark.  Being alone and pregnant just isn't all that much fun.
    I don't know too many women who would opt for this technique for
    trapping a man.  
    
    	-maureen
    

    Herb,
    
    On men's rights regarding abortion/birth, I don't have a concrete
    opinion.  To be truthful, I can see both sides, but I tend to support
    a woman having the final decision.  The reason for this is simple.
    It is afterall the woman who undergoes either the abortion or the
    pregnancy/birth.  Both scenarios have their risks to her health,
    and in some cases, life.  On the other hand, the man incurs no such
    risk (barring irate fathers with shotguns, of course).
    
    I still don't understand how a man can know that somewhere in the
    world is a child of his making, and not care for it.  Maybe it's
    just easier for guys to walk away from?
    
    	-maureeb
    

>    You think the current set up *benefits* women?  Maybe you could
>    elaborate a bit - particularly on how maintaining a job, raising
>    a kid alone, and (maybe) getting dad to send some money once in
>    a while is beneficial.  
    
     The point is that men are required by LAW to send money to support
    their children regardless of their own financial position. If you wish
    me to cite chapter and verse the situations of various DEC dads, it can
    be done. Do you or do you not see the inequity in the fact that a woman
    can discharge herself from parental responsibility after pregnancy but
    a man cannot? That is where the true benefit lies- having control.
    Women have more control than men do over their own reproduction.
    
>    I also do not understand how
>    any man of conscience can just walk away from a child that he helped
>    produce.                             
    
     Given a normal, loving situation, I can't either. But, if you listen
    to enough war stories, you can understand why some people feel that
    it's "no big deal" or a "necessary but immense sacrifice."
    
>    I don't know too many women who would opt for this technique for
>    trapping a man.  
    
     I know some people who could introduce you. :-)
    
     Seriously, though, do we examine such situations on their merit or on
    their prevalence? When are there "enough" examples of an unfair
    practice for us to do something to solve the problem?
    
    oh yeah-
    
>    The way I see this whole mess is that it's not fair to anyone, but
>    then life just ain't fair
    
     I have heard howls of protest when such an excuse is used to quiet
    women's complaints. Validity isn't in the sex of the complainant.
    
     The Doctah

>>    remark.  Being alone and pregnant just isn't all that much fun.
>>    I don't know too many women who would opt for this technique for
>>    trapping a man.  

Work in a school for emotionally disturbed/learning disabled children -
you'll meet a lot of them.

    Re .26, not to be offensive, but I don't even understand why you
    would ever want to have sex with a woman who you would consider to be
    such an unfit mother?? !!!  (I thought people were supposed to consider
    such things about other people before they have sex.)
    
    Also, it bothers me that so many people consider adoption to be
    an option for everybody, without question.  Adoption would *never*
    be an option for me (or my daughter).  I would never give away my
    own child or my own grandchild while I still had breath in my body.
     It would break my heart, and I would never put myself through such
    grief and emotional turmoil.  (I make no judgement against others
    who have chosen to do so.  I respect your choice for you.  However,
    it would never be mine.)  
    
    I don't think that a biological father should be able to force a
    woman to have an abortion if she doesn't want one.  It's such a
    horribly cruel idea to force a woman to have what will someday be
    a baby, killed.  (It's a different story if the woman wants an
    abortion, and I am definitely pro-choice.)  Then, once the baby
    is born, I can't understand a man not being concerned about the
    wellfare of the child, because even if he didn't want it, it's still
    his child.  I don't think a man should be impoverished by child-support
    payments, but I do think they should have to help, unless the mother
    makes significantly more money than the father, and can afford to
    raise the child herself.
    
    The issue that I'm undecided about is whether men should be able
    to keep women from having abortions if it's their child.  First
    of all, how can you prove it's even the man's child?  If the woman
    wants an abortion, and he wants the baby, she could just say it
    wasn't his, if they weren't married, couldn't she?  It's difficult
    for me to relate to this because the most common scenario I can
    imagine for ever having an abortion would be - 1) i accidentally
    get pregnant 2) i want baby 3) man doesn't want baby 4) i can't
    afford to raise it alone 5) i decide on abortion because man wouldn't
    want to help out.
    
    Lorna
    

    I believe that regarding unplanned parenthood, men should be more like
    women! (or most of the women I know)  When a mature responsible woman
    becomes sexually active, she makes amature responsible decision to
    protect herself from becoming pregnant.  Regardless of whether or not
    the male partner is using birth control, the woman uses birth control
    TO PROTECT HERSELF.  I think that is a lesson most men have not
    learned.  If a man does not wish to risk becoming a dad, he must
    protect himself by using birth control, or abstaining. Period. It's
    that simple.  Even aside from all the discussion is here about paternal
    rights and responsibilities, can any man who has had sex with a woman
    be SURE that HE is the father of the unplanned pregnancy?  He must rely
    on the mother's word, or testing which is accurate to a dgree.  Why
    don't men think about that?  
    
    I believe men basically don't think about the risks of having sex
    because they don't have to.  They don't have to be faced with being
    pregnant, women do.  So until men are forced to own up to the
    responsibilites of pregnancy/fatherhood, they will not assume birth
    control as a means of protecting THEMSELVES.
    

    re: women trapping men...
    
    Folks, this works both ways.  Care to know how many times I've heard
    men say "It's ok.  I'm shooting blanks." when it isn't true.  What
    the heck, it's a good line and will probably raise the odds of having
    sex, right?      Deceit is deceit is deceit.
    
    If you're going to have sex and don't intend on supporting any 
    children that may be produced, then it is your responsiblity to 
    yourself and that potential life to make SURE you don't make a 
    woman pregnant.  I don't buy into the assertion that just because 
    "she says she won't get pregnant" you are relieved of all responsibility.  
    

    Some of the arguments presented sound a bit "fatalistic," in that once
    event X (getting pregnant) happens, you just have to live with the
    consequences.  Sounds almost like a Christian Scientist approach.
    
    I apologize for the following analogy, but its the best I could come up
    with.  Suppose you met a person whom you really liked.  Got to know
    each other etc. and decided you wanted to go to bed with them.  Suppose
    you were really concerned about AIDS, so each of you went and got
    tested and came up negative.  Lets suppose you still decided to use
    condoms "just in case."
    
    Now suppose you got AIDS anyway, because the test had been a false
    negative and one time the condom broke.  Do you take a fatalistic
    approach of "well, now I have to live with the consequences" or do you
    make use of the options available (i.e. AZT etc.) to remedy the
    situation.  I see the alternatives of adoption and abortion as
    analogous to AZT.
    
    (Maybe raising the kid could be considered a cure, but the ideal
    situation isn't always a realistic alternative)

    Mike your right.  It shgould be addressed to both genders.
    
    BTW - have you considered that your personal name might be
    considered offensive to women?
    
    -maureen
    

    re .31
    
    Jim,
    
    How can you even *start* to compare procreation and the decision to
    abort/keep/give the baby up to a disease like AIDS?
    
    As one of the previous notes discussed, men can also have an active
    role in birth control.
    
    Judi
    

    re: .26 and similar notes
    
    Please take any discussion on abortion to the abortion topic - topic
    183 - and follow the guidelines in 183.779.  It's a highly sensitive
    topic that many people feel strongly about.....
    
    thanx,
    
    -Jody

  Mike,
    
    I'll take .34 as an honest question and respond sana flames.
    Yes, I find your _pn_ offensive.  It is demeaning in the same manner
    as "chick" or several other unprintable terms. It also implys that
    women are a commodity that can be obtained through something akin
    to the buying sevices the cable TV airs.  

    Mike, you child!  You mean, you don't know about "Terry and the
    Pirates"?!?  My mother clipped that comicstrip every day, and
    sent a weekly collection to my father when he was in the Army.
    
    						Ann B.

    Mike,
    
    You are reading far more into my replies than is there. I only asked
    if you realized that the _pn_ might be contrued as offensive. As
    I recall you asked for an explanation.  I don't recall anyone asking
    you to change it - especially me.  There's lots of things in life I 
    find offensive but somehow I manage to cope with them. Also I believe 
    the choice of a person's _pn_ reflects their character and if you
    choose to project that particular image, so be it.
    
    	-maureen
    

    Re .39, Mike, while I think your new _pn_ is more interesting than
    the previous one, I'd still prefer something with a more upbeat
    message.
    
    Lorna
    

    Comments have been made about "the woman being stuck with all
    the decisions", and "the man ALWAYS being required to defer to
    the wishes of the woman".

    That is simply not true.  Both parties have 2 decisions each:

	Woman:  1. whether or not to continue the pregnancy to term
		2. if the pregnancy is carried to term, whether or not to 
		   accept parental responsibility for the child (i.e., to
		   keep the child or pay support, whichever is applicable)

	Man:    1. whether or not to accept [partial] responsibility for
		   initiating the pregnancy (i.e., to pay a portion of the
		   costs of the pregnancy through the time that the 
		   pregnancy is terminated, whether by birth or abortion)
		2. if the pregnancy is carried to term, whether or not to 
		   accept parental responsibility for the child (i.e., to
		   keep the child or pay support, whichever is applicable)

    You may feel that some of the options presented above are morally 
    wrong, or "unacceptable" on other grounds.  Society may approve of 
    some choices, or combinations of choices more than others.  Depending 
    on the place and time, some may have legal consequences.  

    Some of the above choices are life-threatening, and some choices on
    one party's part may preclude the options open to the other party.
    Therefore, some people may wish they had the other set of choices.
	
    But they're all there.

    Morals differ.  Knowing how compatible your moral code is with your 
    partner's is, next to contraception, probably the best way to prevent
    "unpleasant surprises".  Unfortunately, neither is 100% failproof.

	Sharon

    As someone once said there will never be true equality as far as
    equal repro-rights goes. Biology insures that.
    
    It seems to me that men have very few options.
    
    	1) never have sex if they don't want kids. (no birthcontrol
           is foolproof)
    
        2) Adopt ( if you want children and your partner conceives,
           she may determine to terminate.)     
    
    Kate
    

    RE .26 and others
    
    I guess because I was an unwed mother (I eventually married and
    divorced the father) who has been a single parent since my daughter was
    3, I'm having a hard time not finding some of the comments regarding single
    mothers raising children offensive.  
    
    Let me be real clear with you. Unless you've had an unwanted pregnancy,
    you cannot understand what it's like to have the choices you so easily
    describe.  Abortion was not an option for me (not legal back then). 
    But, let me tell you, having considered adoption for my child and
    having been unable to do it, I don't believe that you can imagine what
    you are asking when you suggest that a woman carry a baby 9 months and
    then give it away.  
    
    I also resent the implication that being raised by a single parent
    results in an emotionally disturbed child.  Being raised by unhappy
    parents/parent will have that effect but that isn't reserved for single
    mothers.  My daughter, and the children of most of my single parent
    friends, are happy, emotionally healthy, well balanced human beings.
    Whatever emotional distress my daughter has felt and had to deal with
    has been largely the result of a father who serially abandons her -- he
    wants to be her Dad for the good times and when he needs her but fights
    any thing that smacks of responsibility, financial or otherwise. 
    
    Is raising a child alone ideal?  No.  It's hard and it's lonely. But, I
    don't regret it for a minute.
    

    .45:
    	I don't think i got the same thing from .26 as i did.  The 
    implication seemed to be that the the disturbed children were
    related to the sort of relationship (?) wherein a woman would 
    attempt to entrap a man into marriage by getting pregnant.
    	Having known a person who had attempted such a measure, out
    of desperation to leave her parents home, i would tend to agree
    with the the original observation.
    	{small hug}				der
    

    recap .46 - first line (correction)
    	I don't think i got the same thing from .26 as YOU did.
    

    
    	HERE HERE! Re:.45
    
    	I was thinking the exact same thing and wondered how many 
    	more replies I'd have to read before reading one from a
    	from a single mother such as myself!
    
    	My daughter is also a loving, caring, intelligent, well rounded
    	HAPPY and loved child.  And much better off without her deadbeat
    	father.
    
    	Cathy
    
    	
    
    

    
    
    What I got from .26 was that he should total control over the
    environment and circumstances of his child's upbringing.  He
    would rather the child be adopted out to unknown strangers than
    to risk that the natural mother would raise 'his' child by his
    standards.  Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
    
    The reality of the situation is simply this. Parents-any one of
    us, mothers or fathers-are all at risk of becoming single parents.
    My son was born into a traditional family with traditionally wed
    parents.  6 years later, thru the miracle of divorce, I was a
    single parent. So was his dad.  
    
    Single parenthood is no piece of cake. Neither is shared parenthood.
    
    Ensuring 2 parents at the time of birth does not ensure that the
    child will always have 2 participating parents.  Being a single
    parent at the time of birth does not mean one will always be a
    single parent (my son now has 4 parent figures, thru a variety of
    relationship arrangements).
    
    Perhaps we should set aside the notion of "parents" (traditional
    married mom and dad), and look more towards nurturing "significant
    adults" in the life of a child....
    
    Deb
    

    I looked at .26 again, Herb, and it seemed to me that .49 had it
    roughly right.  Maybe it wasn't what you wished you'd said, or meant to
    say, or thought you did say.  But I certainly have trouble detecting
    any "scurrilous distortion."

    	RE: .26  Herb
    
    	>Allowing the single mother to bring the child up by herself, would be
    	>unacceptable to me, and I would do everything in my power including
    	>vowing not to participate in child support, to prevent that from
    	>happening.
    
    	After the mother has the child and raises it herself *in spite* of
    	your attempt to force abortion by denying child support, what do
    	you later tell your grown child?
    
    	Once the child is born, it's too late for an abortion.  Once the
    	mother has brought the child home with a decision to raise the
    	child herself, continuing to deny support hurts the *child* more
    	than anyone else.  
    
    	If hurting the child is the intention (for being conceived and born 
    	against your wishes,) continuing to deny support is a great way to 
    	tell the child just exactly how little regard you have for him or her.
    	
    	(Hopefully, you weren't suggesting that you *would* deny support 
    	once the child has been born and is being raised by the mother,
    	though.)

    Re: .26
    
         
    >>My personal probably unsubstantiatable belief-and I won't argue it- is
    >>that single couples who accidentally get pregnant tend to be rather
    >>undesirable candidates for parenthood (there are lots of other
    >>undesirable candidates for parenthood as well). 
    
    Does this mean that people who are married and who accidentally get
    pregnant are desirable candidates for parenthood by virtue of being
    married?  What is the point here, Herb?
    
    >>And that giving the
    >>product of that coupling to a caring adopotive family is a good deed
    >>for both the fetus and the adoptive family as well as for the biologic
    >>parents.
    
    You are making a very misguided assumption that children who are
    adopted are absolutely safe from things like child abuse and life in a
    disrupted or dysfunctional family...and there are no guarantees.
    
    As for the "good deed" notion, it sounds like everybody's feelings will
    just go away and not count as long as the birthmother feels she is
    doing a good deed.  Issues around adoption are complicated for everyone
    involved: birthparents, adoptees and adoptive parents.
    
    Your statements create a general feeling that a pregnant, single woman
    has no *right* to raise her child, and that if she chooses to do so it
    means that she is being selfish, unreasonable and dooming her child to
    a life of misery.  Get real, Herb, a marriage license is no guarantee
    that a child will grow up in an environment where she/he is loved,
    nurtured or well-cared for.
    
    Laura
    
    

    
    
    I think that a tiny tax (like a penny a piece) on condoms could
    easily generate enough revenue to pay child support in those cases
    where:
    
    	both the man and the woman took responsibility for using a 
    	reliable method of birth control, but the woman got pregnant
    	anyway, and she wanted the baby, but the man didn't.
    
    I think that many men have tended to be irresponsible about birth
    control because (quite simply) they don't get pregnant.  I think
    many men have felt pretty free to ignore their responsibility for child 
    support no matter what their current or former relationship to the
    mother, no matter what they said about wanting or not wanting children,
    and no matter what their own economic status.  I'm not saying this is
    true of all men, but many men have bad records when it comes to
    child support.  I'm too much of a cynic to think that we'll
    see any meaningful changes in this area soon, but if employers started
    withholding pay for back child support, maybe those men who have been
    irresponsible with regard to contraception in the past would
    change their ways.
    
    I suspect that if a man had ever been faced with the feared or actual
    responsibility for raising a child resulting from an unexpected
    pregnancy, the words, "I'm on the pill" would be faced with the same
    skepticism as, "I'll pull out in time."
    
    Justine
    

    Justine,
    
    You hit on an issue that is a sore point for me. When I was in college
    (back in the dark ages) the condom was the only form of birth control
    easily available. Further most of us then were romantics...if we
    'lost our virginity' to a man it had to be as a result of 'over whelmin
    love'....only the guys weren't reading the same script.
    
    So I know too many women of my generation - who bought a guy's sweet
    line - who raised a child alone or had an illegal abortion..
    
    and I wonder about those men today..who are now in their 40s if they
    ever regreted their youthful decision to deny a pregnancy (probably
    out of fear) that they knew was theirs...do they ever wonder about
    the child they denied?
    
    Bonnie

>        and I wonder about those men today..who are now in their 40s if they
>    ever regreted their youthful decision to deny a pregnancy (probably
>    out of fear) that they knew was theirs...do they ever wonder about
>    the child they denied?

    Intriguing question for me Bonnie, since I found my Bio-Mom, who
    had been wondering about me and my Bio-Dad who has decided not to
    contact me. He's likely denied the whole event to himself for quite
    a while. It is my opinion that bio-father just don't have the vested
    interest in the children they father that the mother does. 
    
    It's amazing how we all forget about the men out there that cary
    the secret that they have a child out there. In a man's case no
    one needs to know. Only themselves.

    Gail

    Herb,
    I remember this because of the association with my marriage, which
    was in 1967...it became legal by a court case to perscribe birth
    control pills in 1966.. for contraceptive purposes...before that
    they had to be 'to regulate the woman's period' i.e. for medical
    purposes..
    
    I learned years after the fact the the pill perscription I got
    when I was about to be married would have been illegal a year
    previously, and finally understood why my - female, activist,
    gyn doctor - was so delighted to be able to give me a perscription
    clearly labeld 'for contraceptive purposes'. This is a very
    strong memory for me but I admit that after 24+ years I may have
    distorted it a bit.
    
    Bonnie

I have been thinking about this statement for awhile, and think that I 
   have something to add:



1009.25 (the Doctoh)
>   Do you or do you not see the inequity in the fact that a woman
>   can discharge herself from parental responsibility after pregnancy but
>   a man cannot?


I see your point; there is an inequity, but the _fundamental_ reason for 
   this legal inequity is the biological inequity:  only women can be pregnant.
   (Whether this is better for women or better for men depends on who is making 
   judgment   :-)   With this responsibility, should come rights. 


In an ideal world, when a women became pregnant, the responsible male would be
   emotionally and physically supportive through the pregnancy and childhood of
   the offspring.  Since no one is able to enforce that -- financial
   responsibility is the only tool there is.





Barbi

    Bonnie,
    
    I think it must have been different state laws whether or not birth
    control pills were legal for all purposes or not in the 60s.
    
    We were married in 1961 and had no problem getting birth control pills
    in Virginia, Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, Virgin Islands, or
    Florida. 
    
    [We lived in each of those areas over the next three years. We did not
    have prescriptions filled in each of those states (what do you think I
    am?) but I can't recall now just when and where we filled
    prescriptions. The initial prescription was in Virginia, however, which
    at that time, had, and still does, some of the most ridiculous
    sex-restrictive laws.]
    
    Bruce

    Bruce,
    
    yes I was just referring to Mass, I thought I'd said that in my note.
    
    Bonnie