ME:

Your long message below sidesteps the basic question. If so much
attention in the U.S. is given to ensuring that women have as many
post-conception choices as possible, why can't men have post-conception
choices (or in this case, post-intercourse choices)?

It would be perfectly possible for men to be allowed to make a legal
disclaimer of their paternal rights and responsibilities in situations
where they did not want to be forced into fatherhood by the unilateral
decision of the woman involved. That's not something that could be done
only in a perfect world.

To me, discussions about this issue often are characterized by two
factors:
(1) The determination of so many women to cling to the status of being
the victims of men, although in reality it is women who are making the
choices and imposing their choices on men.
(2) The disparity in the application of the principle that "life isn't
fair." That principle is supposed to be the end of the argument that
men should have equal rights. However, for decades, the drive towards
giving women more choices hasn't been held back by the consideration
that THEY mustn't expect life to be fair.

Your comments exemplify both of these factors.



ME wrote:

I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC,
it is too dangerous for that kind of availability.
I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would
lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen
pregnancy, and other matters of the sort.

As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived
in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with
the man first, but we don't. BUT...
As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world
all men would actually pay their child support and be there
for their children through all of their life, but they don't.

A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday.
Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with
her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal
he is the father he would support the child totally.
She goes through the pregnancy without him.
When the baby is 6 months old
Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high
school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she
won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father
to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests.
Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners
at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was
with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby.
$45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. After 2 1/2
years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it.
He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt....Baby is now 5
years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court
ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the
enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other
cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby
starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine.
Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month
depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. Dad doesn't bother
to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns
his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week)
Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old
because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out
in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this,
Dad didn't do that. To make this story as short as possible
because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by
men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly
both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child
support etc.
My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in
using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also
ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the
child, providing clothes or moral support)
Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and
dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc.
Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control,
RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life but then make a law that Dad also
has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. This argument could
go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the
wrong.
Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay
for the choices of men each and every single day.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not
RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is
-- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the
birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product.

However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving
reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of
giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very
simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made
unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal
rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very
largely because there is no special interest group representing
heterosexual men.

For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money
to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the
post-conception choices U.S. law has given them.


Kathi Kelly wrote:

"Kenneth S." writes:

But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this
proposal.
A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries)
ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an
over-the-counter basis.

Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486.
However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure
for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences.

IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD
should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet
another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the
detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous.

The interested readers can peruse these pages.

http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm

http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1

N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention
of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own
political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.