NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48187

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 7.9 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48187 soc.men:19419 alt.dads-rights:2621
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!ddsw1!karl
From: [e-mail] (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:15:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL
Lines: 147

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>I suppose then that you won't mind if all of us men who see it as terribly
>>unequal that women can choose AFTER sex whether or not to have a child,
>>while we cannot, make damn sure you LOSE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
>
>Ah, here's another one, Will.
>
>This fellow isn't out to equalize the situation between parents.  He's out
>to take away a woman's bodily autonomy because he can't get a legal 'out'
>to a biological reality.

Nope.  There is no biological reality which claims that it is necessary that
since I pulled down my zipper as a man, that I want to support a child if
one ensues - EVEN IF I PRACTICE BIRTH CONTROL.

>Do you really think this argument is about male choice, Will?  Maybe in
>alt.dads_rights, but not in talk.abortion.

It most certainly IS about male choice.  It is about reproductive freedom
for BOTH sexes.  Women have, for 20 years, been arguing "its my body".  I
say to that -- YES IT IS.  But I refuse to cede to women the right to choose
unless MEN have the right to choose also -- not whether or not to have a
child -- but whether or not to be a parent with all that entails.

>>Support reproductive rights for all, or none.  But don't be a hypocrite and
>>try to play the "I'm a woman and its my body" game and then turn around and
>>say that a man's choice ends when he pulls down his zipper.
>
>"reproductive rights for all" completely ignores the biological reality of
>gestation, which is the only justification for abortion.
>
>So, "ignore a woman's rights" == "reproductive rights for all"?  I don't
>think so.

No, Adrienne, the choice is between reproductive rights for everyone or no
one.  The law does not have to be sexist.  It >does< have to respect
biological differences.  But biology has >nothing< to do with responsibility
for resulting offspring.  It has only to do with the limiting, or not, of
the right to choose whether or not to bear responsibility for a child that
has been conceived.

>and are going to get precisely NO WHERE in affecting change!!!!!!!

Don't bet on it.

Men are damn tired of playing this game and aren't going to take it any
more.  The feminists of this world have a few things to learn -- that the
rage which you felt that brought you Roe .vs. Wade can be used just as
effectively from the other side of the gender fence.

I am all for reproductive freedom -- IF and ONLY IF it is applied fairly.
IF women will not support this position, and insist on removing men's right
to choose while advocating women's, then I feel ethically free to find
equality under the law where I can.

You can either play with men or against them on this issue.  Women can no
longer play this game only for themselves and expect no return fire.  Sorry.

Remember one thing -- at best you can get 50% of the population to support
you if you don't play with men on this issue.  Your odds of getting what you
want codified into federal law increase radically if you decide to be
cooperative with the other half of the population of this country.

I suspect that a goodly number of "pro-life" men would switch immediately to
a reproductive-freedom stance IF IT WERE APPLIED IN A GENDER-NEUTRAL FASHION.

>A woman's body is the only body involved.
>
>GET IT RIGHT!!!

Wrong.  A man's body and the products of same were involved in gestation.
So were a woman's.  That man either has a voice, or he does not.  If I, as
a man, cannot determine that my sperm is NOT to be used for reproductive
purposes against my will, as women can determine that their eggs are not to
be used for reproductive purposes against their will, then there is no
equality under the law.  This is unconstitutional and sexual discrimination --
forbidden in this country at the federal level.

This has nothing to do with biology.  It has everything to do with women
screaming "my body, my choice" while ignoring that men ALSO contributed to
this situation -- and also deserve reproductive freedom.

>Fine my ass.  You can't even see that her contribution not only equals the
>man in the eyes of the law, but significantly exceeds it and it is on hte
>basis of the PHYSICAL reality of pregnancy that she retains a rigth to
>abort.  It has zip, nada nothing to do with money.
>
>Yet another example of the INVISIBLE woman, only this time it's her money
>that is rendered invisible.  We take here in this spurious argument to
>equating her PHYSICAL SELF with a man's wallet. Sheeeesh.
>
>Adrienne Regard

Adrienne, you would do well to settle down and see that I would much rather
support a woman's right to choose whether or not to be a parent.  I will not
do so, however, at the expense of a man's right to choose same, nor while
there is blatent sexual discrimination in the custody and support
obligations of men and women when there is a divorce between parents.

This position is not incompatible with the biological differences of the
sexes.  It IS incompatible with the views of some women who feel that they
ought to be able to choose >for someone else< what their obligations ought
to be -- at the other party's expense.

I fully support the idea that a man and/or woman, once having chosen to
have a child, should be >fully< responsible for that child.  FIFTY-FIFTY.
No ifs, ands, or buts.  That means that absent a single household, custody
is split half-half and NO CHILD SUPPORT is owed anyone by anyone.  Each parent
contributes their half of sweat equity AND money.  Period.  The only way
this should be able to be modified is if it can be shown in court that a
parent is >unsuitable< -- or if BOTH parents agree to an alternative
arrangement.  That means proof -- not supposition or "tender years"
doctrinare.

This is incongruent with the radical feminist element which proclaims that
a woman has the right to choose for both parties whether a fetus will live
or die, and whether a man will be a parent or not -- and then attaches to
that choice the financial consequences of HER DECISION to the other party.

I say that if a man's choice ends when his zipper falls, so shall a woman's.
If I cannot get women to see that equality in reproductive freedom can be
had, and women continue to insist on inequality, then I will instead fight
to gain equality at the "zipper" level.  It is my only remaining option to
obtain equality.  That is NOT in a woman's best interest -- but it certainly
is in a man's best interest, and is a damn sight better than what we have
today.

Women can either decide to fight >with< men for reproductive freedom, or
against men.  If they fight WITH men then both genders gain rights codified
in law.  If they fight against men then they risk losing what they already
enjoy.  Men have nothing to lose from this position; we already have no
reproductive rights under the current legal context.

If you want to see the text of a proposal which can address this inequality
at a federal level, send email to "[e-mail]".  A daemon
will return a proposal to you via electronic mail.  Or you could just read
the newsgroups -- its been posted here in the last few days.

Or go ahead and flame.  I quite need the heat; its cold in Chicago these
days.

--
Karl Denninger ([e-mail], <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [[phone]] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions