home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49107 alt.abortion.inequity:5257 soc.men:19770
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
- From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
- Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
- Message-ID: <1992Nov22.042357.18446@rotag.mi.org>
- Organization: Who, me???
- References: <1ebu7hINNchd@gap.caltech.edu> <BxzHMB.LvI@cs.psu.edu> <1ej28kINNi66@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:23:57 GMT
- Lines: 77
-
- In article <1ej28kINNi66@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
- >In article <BxzHMB.LvI@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
- >>In article <1ebu7hINNchd@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
- >>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
- >>>
- >>>>In article <1992Nov17.180422.14301@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
- >>>>>In article <1eb9ucINNjb0@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
- >>>
- >>>>>>People lie. We all know this. We *all* know this. Therefore, relying
- >>>>>>upon the word of another person is AUTOMATICALLY stupid. That's where
- >>>>>>the whole growth of the legal industry sprang from.
- >>>>>>Now, if you want to be a disingenuous idiot, go ahead.
- >>>>>
- >>>>>Life is full of hard choices, isn't it? But, you know, if the choice
- >>>>>really was that hard, then yes, I'd rather be a disingenuous idiot,
- >>>>>than live my life in the manner implied by the above posting.
- >>>
- >>>What is so hard about donning a condom to protect yourself?
-
- What is so hard for women to stop lying about their fertility or their
- birth control? Why should men submit to a blatantly sexist standard of
- prevention?
-
- >>Perhaps here's the problem: in the last couple of posts I've seen,
- >>only the women seem to believe that condoms are highly reliable.
- >>That's an interesting comment in itself.
- >
- >
- >don, you are having a hard time getting you own reasoning straight.
- >
- >IF the woman WANTs a child enough to entrap a man, she isn't about to use
- >a birth control method, is she? She isn't about to be thinking that condoms
- >are 100% reliable, is she? No. THAT woman will support completely his
- >choice NOT to use a condom.
- >
- >IF the woman DOESN'T want to become pregnant, she very well may use her own
- >method of birth control -- and will probably tell him so, if he were curious
- >enough to ask. And he may trust her birth control to be 'enough', or he
- >may ACTUALLY engage the gray matter between his ears and figure that ADDITIONAL
- >birth control is in his best interests, TOO!
- >
- >Now, if you are the random man, and you don't know the woman very well,
- >you are going to have a hard time telling the difference between woman
- >#1 who says, "Don't worry, honey, I've taken care of it" and woman #2
- >who says, "Don't worry, honey, I've taken care of it."
- >
- >But the result of sexual congress with these two women is likely to be
- >different in some significant fraction of the cases, right?
- >
- >So, what is a fellow to do? A THINKING fellow uses birth control HIMSELF.
-
- I would venture to say that, in a significant percentage of the cases under
- discussion, for the man to insist on wearing a condom, when the woman has
- already assured him that birth control is "taken care of", there will be
- no sex at all, regardless of whether the woman is a #1 or a #2. So, for
- those cases at least, your "advice" amounts to a choice between abstinence
- or risk. Since we've already discarded abstinence as a workable solution
- in the case of eliminating the need for abortions, that leaves us with
- risk. Now, why not assign more responsibility to the party most able to
- control the risk and/or the consequences? Is this not sound social policy?
- Is not the most fruitful ground for accountability the party who is most
- able to control the outcome?
-
- >It's not foolproof (maybe that's your problem (-:), true. But it's a
- >damned sight better than nothing.
-
- Would you still impose the same punishment on a man who DID use a condom,
- and STILL ended up becoming an involuntary father, then?
-
- >Or, and this is the important part: he can go off on an unrelated tangent,
- >an essentially punitive tangent that defeats his own purposes, and get
- >precisely no where.
-
- Male choice is not "an unrelated tangent". It is the issue at hand. And
- one which apparently you're not willing to face.
-
- - Kevin
-