Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    WOW!  My first reaction is the M is a total jerk.
    
    In a marriage, I do feel that both partners should mutually
    reach a decision as to whether or not to abort or have the
    baby.  Actually, I feel that before marriage, the couple 
    should discuss the issue of having children.  Once they have
    decided no, then methods of birth control and then what they
    would like to do if the bc fails.  Granted, these views can
    drastically change during the marriage, but it's at least a
    good start to see which way the partners are inclined.  I 
    don't feel the man has the right to force his wife to have an
    abortion because he doesn't want the child, but I don't feel
    it's right for a woman to expect the man to support the child
    if she chooses to have it *if it was already clear that he did
    not want childeren*.  I'd say that if M is so adamanet, W is
    better off without him.  It's a very convoluted issue and as
    much as I feel women should have the right to choose, men do
    deserve to have some say in the decision where it generally 
    affects their lives too.  It's even sadder (IMO) when a couple
    is very careful about using bc and end up faced with this dilemma.
    FWIW, tho, I still think M is a jerk.  His reactions are very
    extremist (IMO) and W doesn't need the added stress.
    
    Christine
    

I believe that your questions revolve around the fundamental right to
privacy.  I'm not trying to be a jerk here myself, but I must point out
that you violated that right by putting W. and M.s story here without
telling them (not putting in names doesn't change that).

The crux of the abortion issue - IMO - is whether or not government is
allowed to invade one's privacy to the point of controlling one's body.
I think the same is true in your W. and M. story.  Just as the couple's
choice of birth control could not force M. to have a vasectomy - for that
would surely invade his privacy rights - so now the resolution cannot
force W. to have an abortion.

IMO, this is a two-way street.  So, if W. did choose an abortion, that 
would also be her private right to rule her own body.

So, what of the couple's rights, or of the deciding crucial issues together?
Surely, by the second child, W. and M. might have thought of the responsibil-
ity that goes with the right.  Perhaps they might have discussed or made
their own positions known on what would happen if W. ever got pregnant again
as soon as the first child was born.

I cannot comment on the moral issues involved here, but I am sure you will
receive many replies to this issue from those who will do that.  I do admire
your wanting to give this situation more thought than to just condemn M. to
"jerk" status (however tempting that may be).

However, it's going to be a rather confusing discussion as many are torn by
this argument.

I have come to regard the denial of abortion in the same manner as the forced
sterilization of some in our mentally challenged population - government
interfering with us at the grossest level - our very own bodies.  For the
same reason, I do not belive M. has a right to force an abortion on W.

So, to me it is the right to privacy.

Barb  

I'm assuming that by the time of the the birth of baby #1, W. had communicated 
to M. her traumatic abortion experience, and her determination not to get one
ever again.  If that is the case, then, if M. wanted never to have any children,
he should have gotten a vasectomy, or refrained from sexual acts that could lead
to a pregnancy.  So, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, a joint decision *had been made*,
_de_facto_ [i.e. that if W. got pregnant, she would carry to term], and
M. has absolutely no kick coming.


In the more general case, while I agree that the decision should, in a perfect
world, be a joint one, I still feel that the woman's right to choose is
paramount.

I don't usually tell stories about men in this notesfile, but a relevant story
here is that of a friend of mine who was in the middle of a rocky relationship
(this was many years ago).  His lover told him that she was on the pill, but
in reality, she was trying to get pregnant.  They broke up before he knew
that she was pregnant.  She subsequently sued him for child support, and got
it.  

(Don't fall down in shock, now :-)  When I expressed outrage that he
should be put in this position when she lied to him, he said, "No, I have
it coming.  I knew the relationship was going to end, and I should have
taken my own precautions!"   I've lost track of him, but when I last was in
touch, he was continuing to pay support, and had established a solid 
relationship with his daughter.  Hopefully, M will do the same.  However, I
recommend that W. get in touch with her feelings about this, and explore all
her options.

Bobbi "made another dealine" Fox

    It's an issue of rights.
    
    W, being the posessor of the body in question, has the right to
    terminate or not to terminate her pregnancy.
    
    M, being half of the couple, has the right to leave or stay.
    
    W made her choice, M made his.  Neither choice is "right" or "wrong",
    and neither choice makes either one a jerk.
    
    Verbal abuse is a seperate issue. No matter who makes what choices, W
    has the right to be free from verbal abuse, and M does *not* have the
    right to inflict abuse.  Therefore in *that* respect, M was in the
    wrong.
    
    I think "jerk" is an undefined term, and relatively meaningless.  Being
    morally wrong does not necessarily make someone a jerk.
    
    D!

    I apologize for the term jerk.  I disagree with terming it
    that he was morally wrong for behaving in the manner he did,
    but agree that it was an inappropriate response.
    
    A good point was made regarding the right of the man to leave
    or stay.  I don't think a man (in general) should be forced to 
    pay child support if he is purposely lied to (the assumption
    being a mutual decision was reached that the woman would take
    that responsibility) about birth control or if he was clear
    in his desire not to have childeren (and takes appropriate 
    steps to insure this will not happen).  I don't think a man 
    has the right to force a woman to have or not have a baby.  I
    don't think abortion should be utilized as an alternate method
    of birth control.
    
    Christine

    First, please make sure this discussion stays within the realm of
    discussion of the basenote.  Discussion of Abortion, and its whys and
    wherefores, belong in topic 49, and must follow the guidelines in 49.0
    
    See also:
    
    Mennotes
    261 - fathers rights in abortions
    
    -Jody
    

    Meaningless or not, the guy was a jerk for inflicting abuse. She should
    have dumped him. I agree that he should be allowed some input into the
    decision, however when that input is reduced to ranting, raving, and
    threats against the financial wellbeing of an unborn person, then he is
    in the wrong. If it takes M the entire gestation period and 1st few
    weeks after birth to make up his mind, then he is either REAL DUMB or
    else the most uncaring, callous person I have yet to hear about. He is
    just as responsible for the failed birth control as she is. The method
    seems to have been accepted by both parties and therefore both parties
    should take responsibility for it's failure. If one or the other was
    hesitant about the method used, then they should have spoken up at the
    time.
    
    I know saying she should have dumped him is not the answer. Some people
    are not emotionally or financially able to be on their own. I guess we
    eachhave to make the decisions that are right for us at the time and
    can only hope that others understand or else tell them to butt out.
    
    I have more but the cafe is closing and I need one more cup of decaf
    before I go.
    
    Phil

    From your description M appears to place all blame for the pregnancy
    on W.  Unless W deliberately deceived M into thinking she was using
    protection, that's a bum rap.  I know of no fool proof method of birth
    control other than sterilization, so both M and W should have been
    aware of the risk of pregnancy and are equally responsible for its
    occurrence.  M shows a lack of maturity for failure to recognize his
    part of the responsibility and acknowlege that SHE didn't ruin HIS life.
    It's the old double standard.  It's the woman's fault if she gets
    pregnant.
    
    M also shows a lack of maturity in his attempt to control W.  "If you
    don't do it my way, I'm gonna take my toys and go home."  Threatening
    to leave your spouse if you can't get your way, is a very low blow.
    She might want to hold him to his word.  Could be a bluff.  It was the
    first time.
    
    It's interesting how the emergence of effective birth control methods
    promotes this strange attitude.  "I'll agree to marry you, and have sex
    with you, but if YOU get pregnant, it's all over."  Before birth
    control, this guy would have been laughed off the planet.
    
    Mary

    
    IMHO..If a man does NOT have a vasectomy, then he gives up his right
    to choose whether to have a baby or not when he, in sound mind and of 
    his own free will,has sex with a woman.
    
    My reason for saying that is that there is NO 100% safe birth control
    method. Even if a woman is on the pill, she can get pregnant. Or
    she can genuinely forget to take it one day or she may be on
    antibiotics for an unrelated illness, and thus make the pill
    ineffective.
    
    So, when the woman gets pregnant, then he should accept her decision
    as to whether she should have an abortion or not. 
    The verbal abuse is totally uncalled for. She should insist that he
    stop it or let him leave. Let's face it..can she really DEPEND on 
    this guy?? He's probably the type who will walk out anyway when
    there are problems with the kids as they surely will be..
    
    Desryn
     

    I think that men who *know* they don't want children should have
    vasectomies.  It's not fair to put all the responsibility for
    preventing pregnancy on the woman.  
    
    Also, I wouldn't expect someone who loved me enough to marry me to
    treat me the way M. is described has having treated W.  In this
    instance it sounds to me as though M., not only acted like a jerk, but
    was very cruel towards someone he supposedly loves.
    
    Lorna
    

    All I have to say is, it takes two to tango.  Why is it W's
    responsibility, and not M's, when she got pregnant?  Just because the
    woman has the egg and man has the sperm, what right does that give him
    to berate her like that?  So, it's her fault and her responsibility
    becuase the method of protection failed and, subsequently, she must do
    M's bidding because of that?
    
    One redeeming quality -- at least M liked his daughter.  One would hope
    that he will learn to cherish his children and not pass on his
    attitude to them.  I hope he will like his son once it's born.
    
    Tammi

    I personally can't agree with the concept of men who don't
    want children being told they should have vasectomies-it
    reminds me of men telling women the shouldn't have abortions.
    I think both consenting adults should agree to their choice
    of birthcontrol and both be willing to take the responsibility
    of weighing their choices if it fails.  Ultimately, it's a
    woman's decision what she will do with her own body, but if I
    were a man, I think I'd like to know what was going on instead
    of the woman coming home and saying, "oh, honey, BTW, I got
    pregnant and just aborted".  I guess what I'm trying to say is
    that hopefully most couples will have discussed both their 
    responsibilities and various options they are both willing to
    consider should an alternative plan be needed.  It is unreasonable
    for either partner to blame the other as we all know that the only
    sure fire way of avoiding pregnancy is abstinance (even the big V
    isn't always effective and after hearing about the procedure, if I
    were a man, had it done once, it didn't take, I definitely wouldn't
    go for round 2!)

    basenoter here.
    
    first, thanks for all your replies.
    
    it's an awful tough question.  I believe that M. had made his feelings
    plain after their daughter's birth, if not before (!).  I do believe
    that THEY share responsibility for the pregnancy.  Their bc failed, and
    therin is the crux of the matter about rights-in-the-decision to
    continue or abort the pregnancy.  M. did not do EVERYTHING in his
    power, ie vasectomy, to make positively sure that he would not become a
    father again.  W., knowing how strongly her husband felt -- it is hard
    for me to say this -- maybe she discounted his expressed position,
    since by not doing EVERYTHING in her power to avoid becoming pregant
    (ie sterilization) she implicitly consented to the possibility.
    -d Binder's wife said this, as he related in .-1.
    
    It is just this that gives me such pause: W.'s right to control her own
    body, to make her own decision about the pregnancy, does in fact affect
    her husband for the rest of his life, against his will.  Just as in
    former days, a woman's lack of choices (bc, and abortion) forced on
    her, against her will, consequences she might not have asked for.  It
    doesn't seem like any way could be fair here.
    
    Tanj for torment.  That's real life, all over, but that doesn't make it
    easier to swallow.                               

    re .7, Phil, while my first impulse is to agree with your characterization
    of M., especially since I'm kinda mad at him right now, I have to admit
    that my description was not exactly complete.  He *is* real dumb about
    some things, but he is not an uncaring or callous person.  In real life
    he is observant of people and their physical and emotional states, and
    sympathetic.  (It may be that, like my 8-yr-old daughter, he never
    hurts the feelings of anyone outside his immediate family...)  He and
    W. do love eachother, and he does love his daughter.  He has
    (already;'}) begun to accept his son, and I agree with W. that he will
    eventually come around.
    
    I still can't justify the abuse.  The anger yes, the abuse no.
                                                                  0
    Friends in =wn=, thanks for letting me express myself here in a way
    that I won't to W. or M.  I can't say these things to W., because I
    think that my role is to support her in what _she_ decides to do, not
    to tell her what to do.  I can't say these things to M., because he has
    not asked me for advice.  In general I think it is wrong to get mad at
    person B because you think person A should be mad at B.  That's how
    soap operas get started!
    

    
    Has the couple considered giving the baby up for adoption.  This
    would free W from the worry over abortion and M worry from financial
    matters.  I realize this is greatly simplifying things, but it is
    an option.
    
    
                                         L.J.

    I doubt that W. would have even considered adoption.  I know she wanted
    this little boy, and named him long before his birth.

    There's no question in my mind why m. (yes, little m...) should have a 
    vasectomy.  
    This would eliminate his stress in the future and prevent the unlucky
    child of his having to bear the reality of having such an ignorant
    father...Yes, ignorant.  It's like he stuck his hand in an open
    flame, yelled and screamed about it, and did it again not learning
    that fire burns.  He's blaming his wife for his part in this.  If I
    knew him, I'd tell him so!!!

    WHy the heck does it have to be "his" fault, or |her" fault?  Why not
    THEIR fault?  It DOES take TWO (yes two) to tango ya know.....

I don't agree with -d's wife that W. is partially to blame because "she
should have taken steps to make sure she didn't get pregnant again except
by a man who really wanted the baby" [I'm paraphrasing here].  The only
choices that gives W. are sterilization and abstinence, because no other
form of birth control is 100% effective.  If W. gets sterilized and M.
dies or divorces her, that means W. *still* can't have kids.  And abstinence,
obviously, requires M.'s buy-in too.  M's the one who didn't want kids, 
and he took his chances.  That's not W's fault.

However, I have to wonder if there might not be something else here - if,
perhaps, W. might be planning these kids behind M's back, or they might
have chosen one of the less reliable methods of birth control, with W.
thinking "if the unthinkable happens, we'll have the baby", and M. 
thinking  "If the unthinkable happens, we'll get an abortion".  If so, 
then M's abuse is only part of the picture of an overall power struggle 
in which emotional abuse and biology are weapons.  Two unplanned children 
in 5 years is a lot for a couple who has decided not to have kids,
especially if both people are taking that decision seriously.

I'd hesitate to pin blame on W. or M., because it is obviously not an
individual problem.  However, they don't seem to have worked out their
communication problems very well.

    Sharon

    
    Re: 21
    
    I must admit I have to agree that it strikes me there could be a bit
    more to this situation than two "accidents" (BTW, the term "accident"
    implies to me that neither is at *fault*).
    
    Having children is an issue that really should be discussed before
    marriage, and if this was the case, it seems to me that if M. did state
    before marriage that he didn't want children, W. didn't take him that
    seriously, perhaps thinking that he would change his mind once he got
    the cuddly little bundle in his arms - a belief perhaps reinforced by
    the fact that he did take to his daughter once she was born.  After
    all, the basenoter has stated that W. did want the little boy, and had
    even named him long before he was born - maybe she really wanted him
    even before he was conceived?  In which case it's a little unfair to M.
    
    However, this does not excuse the verbal abuse he has given his wife.
    Sounds like these two have talked about this but neither has really
    listened.
    
    Sam
    

    in .21, Sharon said
>.. with W.
>thinking"if the unthinkable happens, we'll have the baby", and M. 
>thinking "If the unthinkable happens, we'll get an abortion".

    This is what I actually think happened.  Remember, they were using bc
    so I can believe that neither of them really thought that the problem
    would arise.  When it did, each had a fixed and immovable position.
    M's problem is that from his point of view, there is a solution, but W.
    will not consider it.  W's problem is that M will not accept her
    decision.
    
    so there's no fairness here, if we accept that the decision to abort or
    bear is solely W's.  It does not seem fair that M cannot escape the
    consequences of a decision he had no part in making.  Even if W and M
    split up, M cannot escape at minimum financial responsibilities.  And
    it does not seem fair that a woman can  be forced to bear or abort by
    her husband.
    
    What a world.

    
    
    I think M's parents should have aborted him!
    
    
    bonnie

    re .9
    
    "IMHO..If a man does NOT have a vasectomy, then he gives up his right to
    choose whether to have a baby or not when he, in sound mind and of his
    own free will, has sex with a women"
    
    Hmmmmm. IMHO.. if a women does not have a hystorectomy, then she gives
    up her right to choose whether to bear a baby or not when she, in sound
    mind and of her own free will, has sex with a man.
    
    Which of these statements denies reproductive freedom to the subject? 
    

    This whole situation stinks... we are treating children like a
    commodity, they are not wanted... what a lousy way to come to this
    world... they are just barely accepted because there is no way to
    retract! SHE can make a decision, HE can make a decision, but CHILDREN
    cannot! they have to "wait" to see what their "parents" are going to
    decide... if going to the butcher and terminate their lives or even
    worse, letting them live without being wanted... and hopefully, they
    will be accepted, or adopted, or whatever... who knows?
    
    What a sad life we are going through...

If I'm considering having sex with a woman (how bloodless! how cold that
sounds!) and she makes it clear that if she becomes pregnant that she will
carry the baby to term, and *I* don't want the responsibility I will take
serious precautions, I won't have sex, or I will accept the risk.

If I were a woman and was considering having sex with a man, and I was certain
that I would carry a baby to term if I became pregnant, and the man made it
clear that he would NOT support any child he fathered - either monetarily or
emotionally - I would either take serious precautions, not have sex, or accept
the risk.

Assuming each of them made their positions clear to the other, then it seems
clear to me - M should either put up or shut up. Either he should leave, or
he should stay and support the child. In either case he has no right to berate
W. He knew the risk and he knew the consequences.

	-- Charles

 
On the one hand we have a M, who says he does not want children,
but when they appear, gets to like them. I can imagine someone
getting upset when they are confronted by a situation like this.
I'm sure none of us can put our hands on our hearts and say "I have
never got upset/shouted/ranted and raved". 

On the other we have a W, who has had three unplanned pregnancies.
This seems rather a lot. 

Both these people seem to not have thought about the possible
outcomes in their lives. Is this rare ?. I don't think so.
A lot of people here are saying "They should have discussed it 
beforehand". These are the statements of an intelligent informed 
public. Which is not the majority of people today.

Jane

    RE .16 He may be a caring individual, but his reactions don't reflect
    this. If he cannot be observant of an unborn then he is not IMHO a
    caring individual. He may love his children, but if it takes several
    weeks after birth to accept them, then to hell with him. My son wasn't
    planned. I loved him from the minute I found out about the pregnancy.
    My ex-wife has a daughter by her 2nd husband (I was 1st) and while I
    cannot say I love her as my own children, I care that she is taken care
    of and also interacts well with my two children who are her flesh and
    blood. Besides, I love all children. 
    
    Around the decision to abort or not. Yes he should have input. Calm,
    rational, reasoning input. BUT, the reproductive rights are hers. It's
    her body, ultimately it's her choice, and he should calmly accept the
    decision or bail out of the marriage. Financial responsibility may be
    imposed on him by the state or he can disappear. Morally, my oppinion
    says he has a responsibility to financially support the child and an
    even greater one to be involved in the child's upbringing. Again, this
    is all my own oppinion. I do not think that I would like to know this
    individual.
    
    Phil

    
    
    I know this may not be a popular opinion, but I want to express it
    anyway.  From my experience with folks who have experienced unwanted
    pregnancies, if the man wants the woman to abort and she does not
    want to, he will try whatever he can to get her to some how get rid
    of the pregnancy or the result of the pregnancy.  Now this could be
    abortion, adoption or abandonment.  Often, one way they will do this
    is by putting the blame completely on the woman.  Another way they
    will do this is by threatening to leave the woman if she intends
    to have and raise the child.  Yet another way is to physically ,
    emotionally, and verbally abuse the woman.  All with the unbalanced
    thought of the result of his pressure being the child will not be
    born, or be born and given away.
    
    Now I know there are men out there who stand by the woman's decision
    on an unwanted pregnancy.  I just wanted to present a point of view
    that I have witness both personally and with friends.  
    
    Regardless of whether or not this man wanted this woman to abort, he
    had absolutely no right to emotionally or verbally abuse her especially
    once it was apparant she intended to continue the pregnancy and raise
    the child.  
    
    Michele

    
    
    re .26 If a man/woman does not have a vasectomy/hysterectomy, then
    he/she gives up his/her right to have a baby or not when , in sound
    mind and of his/her own free will, has sex with a wman/man.
    
    Well, using woman instead of man does make me think a little more, but
    I still stand by my first sentense using a man because:
    
    1. A hysterectomy is a much, much more serious operation than a vasectomy.
    Average recovery time for a vasectomy..2 days.
    Average rcovery time for a hysterectomy..6 weeks.
    Thus, the woman be  better off having the baby or an abortion.
    
    2. If an abortion is decided on, the WOMAN ALONE has to have it. The
    man may not even exist for all practical purposes.
       If a baby is carried to term, the WOMAN ALONE has to make it. The
    man is certainly NOT needed, although he is wanted by most women, but
    it is not NECESSARY for him to be present for the baby to be born.
    The WOMAN ALONE  feels the pain. It's a fact whether it's fair or not.
    
    3. A man does not HAVE to pay support. They can have an agreement or
      they can give the baby up for adoption, but STILL the WOMAN HAS to
      carry that baby for 9 months and make it in PAIN.
    
    4. When a woman tells a man she is pregnant, he can DISAPPEAR and
    forget it, that is he can DO NOTHING.  A woman cannot DO NOTHING.
    She has to either have an abortion or have a baby..see 2 &3 above.
    
    Desryn.
    
    

BTW, what now?  There M and W and the two (unplanned?) kids - what happens in 
the future?  

Have they figured out how they each really feel about kids, and reached an
*honest* agreement on the possibility of more kids?

Are they ready to make sure this NEVER happens again?  Have they made 
appointments to sterilize one or both of them, with plans to conscientiously
follow all prescribed routines and all the followup visits?  Or, alternately, do
they plan to more into separate bedrooms and commit themselves to complete
abstinence for the rest of their married life together?

Or have they decided that more kids would be ok, after all, if it happens.  And 
maybe BOTH have a part in planning for the next one.

Or are they just going to continue using bc and hoping... each in their own way?

		Helen

    what happens now?  gosh, I wish I knew.  I know what I would do, but
    neither of them has asked me.
    
    I mean, I know what I like to think I would do.  I only wish I knew
    some way to satisfy all the claims to 'right' in this.

    I have a close personal friend who went thru this scenario almost to
    the letter in his first marriage.  However in this situation there was
    deception involved where it was agreed on birth control and the wife
    was clearly negligent.  This caused my friend to become enraged and
    perhaps even acted similarly to the husband in the base note.  He did 
    in fact over time accept the first child.  
    When it happened a second time, negligence again on the wifes part, they 
    agreed to an abortion.  She still to this day holds this against him.
    
    From his point of view he wasnt ready for children.  They had agreed to
    use a method of birth control.  She did not follow the agreement.  She
    even admitted that she wanted children so badly.  He chose not to have
    a vasectomy at the time since he simply wasnt ready.  He was working
    two jobs and trying to get the finances squared away before having a
    family.
    
    In this case, deception was the reason for the anger.  I do not know
    how supportive he was during the preganancy, but how would you react to
    this deception??
    
    
    
                                                                            

    re .35, I just think that if two people really love each other they
    won't turn on each other over an issue like this.  I mean, which is
    more important to people - to be with the person they supposedly fell
    in love with, or to have their life set-up in a certain ideal way?
    
    I just can't imagine a man leaving a woman he really loves just because
    she's pregnant (or treating her like sh*t either).
    
    Lorna
    

    re .32
    
    So, as in Animal Farm, all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal
    than other pigs. Or at least as far as their reproductive freedom is
    concerned.  The point here is not the relative seriousness of the
    respective procedures, is it? Isn't it that to require that a person's
    only recourse to preserving their reproductive freedom envolves
    destroying their ability to reproduce is unreasonable. Especially when
    you place that requirement on only one gender.
    
    Re. the situation stipulated in .0
    
    As has been pointed out in previous notes, this couple certainly appear
    not to be a pair of rocket scientists.  On his side, I agree that his
    reaction to her pregnency is ungallant to say the least, but he comes
    across in the basenotter's presentation of the story as sort of
    astounded and surprised by the whole thing. like he isn't making the
    connection between sex and babies. On her's, like someone said, three
    unplanned pregnencies.....! maybe she isn't making that connection
    either!

    I agree with all the points that have been brought up here, namely that
    the situation may be difficult, but abuse is intolerable.  I just have
    a teeny nit.
    
    If we are going to use relative seriousness of procedures, then let's
    remember that a woman does *not* have a hysterectomy for sterilization
    reasons only, she has a tubal ligation.  Recovery time:  *what* 
    recovery time?  I don't remember needing any.
    
    
     E Grace

    
    
    
    I think the point about vasectomies vs hysterectomies is that the only
    way to be sure that you won't be part of making a baby is to be sure that 
    *you* can't be part of making a baby.  If you decide to take any risk, 
    then I think you have to think about what you'll do if your wishes don't 
    come true.  It sounds to me like this couple has terrible communication 
    problems, and in the face of trauma, communication problems are 
    exacerbated.  I hope W. decides that she will not tolerate emotional and 
    verbal abuse from M. and does what she needs to do to stop it: leave him, 
    seek therapy with her partner, tell him to shape up or ship out, etc.  
    He has a right not to have a baby (though as I said, if he's not willing 
    to avoid all risk of pregnancy, he is equally responsible for the 
    pregnancies that happen), but he doesn't have the right to abuse his 
    partner and their children.
    
    Justine
    

    Well, I feel bad for the kids...they will know/sense that they
    were unwanted.
    
    I think both W and M need to grow up; they're playing stupid little
    games with each other, not thinking about the victims they're creating.
    
    If he is so 'not ready' then he surely should have a vasectomy; if
    she so needs and wants a baby, then she should have it with the
    acceptance that probably she will be raising it alone.
    
    Have these people thought of divorce?  It might be the best way out.
    
    Maia
    

    Gee Lorna, in his shoes I think I'd feel betrayed.  I mean, if she
    really loved me then why was she sneaking around behind my back and
    planning a family without my consent, huh?  I'd start to question
    whether I could trust her or not.

    However, in this scenario I'm assuming that we'd agreed not only on
    a method of birth control but also on a backup plan in case of an 
    accidental pregnancy, such as "we'll use birth control method X, 
    and if that fails, we'll discuss our options then, and both of us
    will consider all options."  If she refused to discuss any option
    other than what name to pick for a girl vs. a boy, I'd get suspicious 
    that maybe the pregnancy wasn't accidental.  If those suspicions 
    were confirmed, I'd feel manipulated and angry.  And yeah, I might
    even act like someone who feels manipulated and angry if she *still*
    refused to discuss it.  Especially if the agreement were more like 
    "we'll use birth control method X, and in case of accidental 
    pregnancy, decide whether to abort or to have the baby and give it 
    up for adoption," in which case I would consider her behavior abusive.

    It boggles my mind how many couples don't consider "backup plans",
    though.  If you're fertile and sexually active, not discussing what-if
    is not responsible behavior.  And if you refuse to consider one or
    more of the options, that's the time to voice that opinion.  Otherwise,
    you gotta take your lumps like an adult.

    I wouldn't know what to do, though, with a spouse who agreed on one
    thing, then reneged and tried to manipulate to get his/her way, whether
    it was a wife who agreed to take birth control pills but didn't, or a
    husband who tried to force me to abort a planned child because "I've
    changed my mind".  I think it gets difficult to love someone who treats
    you like that.

	Sharon

    My opinion is that it is the woman's choice.  When it comes down
    to the end who is it that must undergo the process, the woman. 
    Therefore it is her sole decision.  If you do what you feel is right
    in you heart, you cannot be wrong, at that time.
    
    As for if M. is a jerk or not...well it comes down to the question
    I ask everyone who come whining at me with relationship problems,
    "Who's the bigger A**hole?  Is it him/her for treating you like
    a big piece of dirt, or is it you for sticking around and taking
    it?"
    
    I may not agree with M.'s behavior, but if W. is letting him treat
    her that way (and if they are still sharing the same bed, living
    in the same house) I don't really care how he treats her.  Apparently
    she must not mind too awfully much if she can still love him, and
    accept the fact that he doesn't respect her (you don't talk to people
    like that if you have any respect for them), I have no pitty for
    her.  The children, however, I pitty a great deal.  Apparently this
    M. is unstable, and to grow up in an unstable home is very sad.
    
    Regardless of what method of BC failed, she's pregnant.  Once the
    decision is made whether or not to keep the baby, the case should
    be closed.  I'd give M. the biggest, pointyest, boot in the butt
    he ever felt.  Out the door BUCKO....
    
    Kel
    
    BTW, I'm a single parent.  The final decision may be hard, but it's
    worth it for your own well being, and most importantly for the childs.

    re .41, naturally, I think it is wrong for a woman to sneak around
    behind her partner's back and get pregnant, on purpose, when she knows
    he doesn't want a baby.  I think he has a right to demand a discussion
    and an explanation, and he may even feel that he can't trust the woman
    enough to stay married to her.  But, I still think he's financially
    responsible for the child.
    
    I think people should realize when they have sex with someone else that
    they are taking a chance that birth control can fail and a chance that
    the other person has not been honest.  Therefore, I think that if a
    person, whether man or woman, wants to make absolutely certain that
    they won't bring a child into the world, then he/or she should either
    get a vasectomy or tubal ligation.  Otherwise, whenever we have sex we
    should be aware that a pregnancy could result.
    
    My reply that Sharon replied to really was in reaction to an accidental
    pregnancy.
    
    This is a hot button for me because I have had a relationship, in the
    past, with a man who said that if I were ever to get pregnant by
    accident, that he would insist that I had an abortion and that, if I
    didn't, he would not acknowledge being the father.  I asked him if he
    ever wanted to have any more children.  He said, No.  Never.  (He had
    already had four children, two alive and two that had died as babies.) 
    I then asked him if had ever considered having a vasectomy, and he
    almost had a fit saying that he would never let any doctor fool around
    with his whatever....bodily parts.[ :-)]  He then suggested that if I
    didn't want to ever have an abortion, that I should have a tubal
    ligation.  My reaction to that was, "Why the h*ll should *I* have a
    tubal ligation just because *you* don't want any more kids?"
    
    So, hearing stories like the one in .0 brings up unpleasant incidences
    from my own past.
    
    Lorna
    

>    This is a hot button for me because I have had a relationship, in the
>    past, with a man who said that if I were ever to get pregnant by
>    accident, that he would insist that I had an abortion and that, if I
>    didn't, he would not acknowledge being the father.  I asked him if he
>    ever wanted to have any more children.  He said, No.  Never.  (He had
>    already had four children, two alive and two that had died as babies.) 
>    I then asked him if had ever considered having a vasectomy, and he
>    almost had a fit saying that he would never let any doctor fool around
>    with his whatever....bodily parts.[ :-)]  He then suggested that if I
>    didn't want to ever have an abortion, that I should have a tubal
>    ligation.  My reaction to that was, "Why the h*ll should *I* have a
>    tubal ligation just because *you* don't want any more kids?"

    That attitude would get me pretty livid too.  (In fact, sarcastic 
    comments about what he therefore should and shouldn't be doing 
    with his ...bodily parts [:-)] are already springing to mind.)
    But I gotta give him points for being up front about it, at least.

	Sorry this is a nit - but how does one get pregant when one is
	behind ones lover's back?????

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Not sure if I really want to know.

    re .45, ha-ha, I don't know...I can't picture it either.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    >At the risk of declaring myself and my sex obsolete, the way a woman
    >gets pregnant behind her lover's back is by parthenogenesis. 
    
    Parthenogenisis is at the current time only a theory.  It is not
    currently possible, all rumors to the contrary aside.
    
    Would that it were...
    
    D!

    Re All
    
    To recap:
    
    The male has reproductive choice only at the moment of conception.
    
    To preserve that freedom of choice, the male must resort to self
    mutilation, or abstinence.
    
    If, contrary to the male's choice, the female conceives, the male is
    nontheless financially responsible for the offspring.
    
    The female may excercise reproductive choice at any time during the
    pregnency regardless of any wishes the male might have regarding the
    offspring. 
    

    RE: -.1
    
    No, I don't think you *do* have it right.  I think you will find that
    most people stated that communication on _both_ sides is important.
    I think most people just don't feel that threats and verbal abuse is
    communication.
    
    E Grace

    Except for calling a fetus an "offspring" -- which it hasn't yet --
    you've got it.  Just like the man, the woman gets to choose the
    method in which her body is mutilated (laproscopy, hysterectomy,
    abortion, or birth) or she chooses abstinence.  (Alas, that last
    choice is not always respected.)
    
    						Ann B.

    Don;t forget that the male can also use a barrier method, such as a
    condom, or just abstain from intercourse.  This doesn't mean abstaining
    from sex.  I also feel that any couple should be in tune with the
    cycles (fertility in this case) of the female partner(s).  Then he can
    avoid unprotected intercourse at the danger zone week and a half as
    well.  While natural family planning isn't a great primary method of BC
    for most couples, extra precautions during fertle periods may well be
    in order, especially if they seem to be mutually very fertile.
    
    This however takes massive cooperation and communication between a
    couple and I'm not convinced that this is taking place in this case. 
    It also says that m must take more responsibilty for where and when he
    is spraying live sperm.  However if he is dead set against more
    children and his partner[s] aren't the best and most foolproof method
    is the big V.
    
    Just my 2 cents.
    
    Meg  

    Gee, it's getting awful COLD around here.  Whatever happened to love
    and listening and communicating and working-it-out.  Trusting and
    sharing and caring that are supposed to occur in a marriage or a
    relationship....?
    
    I mean, in every Relationship I've been in, we've talked about "what
    if" before we ever had sex.  We've talked about responsibility and
    choice.  Without that trust I wouldn't have HAD sex with them in the
    first place.  If you can't trust 'em, why are you screwing 'em
    anyway?!!!!!
    
    pardon my graphicness, but you get the point...
    
    -Jody

    re .49, if by self mutilation you mean a vasectomy, I didn't realize
    most men gave themselves vasectomies?  I was under the impression the
    doctor did it.
    
    Besides, I've been with men who have had vasectomies and nothing looked
    mutilated to me.  I wouldn't have been able to tell they had it done
    just be looking!  
    
    (on the other hand, the fact that I had a C-section
    is visible but I never thought of it as mutilation before)
    
    Lorna

    re:  .49
    
    Who ever said that the man has to be financially involved?  My sons
    father is not financially or physically involved.  I left that
    choice solely up to him.  
    
    We both concented to having sex, the method of birth control failed,
    I was against the thought of abortion (for me), and I felt mentally
    capable of having a child.  He was not ready for the responsibility,
    so he's not in the picture.
    
    The bottom line (IMO) is that if a man doesn't want a sure fire
    way to stop pregnancy (the snip), than he forfeits the right to
    decide on the mutalation of the woman's body.  Should he be held
    financially responsible?  I personally don't think so.  It was my
    choice to keep the baby, and I felt it my choice to provide for
    him.  Should he decide to be a part of the childs life later on,
    he will be financially responsible for a fair portion.
    
    Just my narrow-minded thoughts.
    
    Kel
    

    .49> The male has reproductive choice only at the moment of conception.
    
    I would reword this to say that the male has unilateral reproductive
    choice only up to the moment of penetration/ejaculation.  After that
    his choices must be negotiated with the woman.  That doesn't mean he
    has no choice, but he can no longer make any choice without her consent.
    
    .49> To preserve that freedom of choice, the male must resort to self
    .49> mutilation, or abstinence.
    
    As stated above, his unrestricted freedom ends when he ejaculates into
    the woman.  If he want unrestricted freedom, he has to prevent that
    from occurring however he chooses.
    
    .49> The female may excercise reproductive choice at any time during the
    .49> pregnency regardless of any wishes the male might have regarding the
    .49> offspring. 
    
    If she doesn't consent to his wishes, he cannot stop her from making a
    unilateral choice.  In this respect the sexes are not equal.  It is a
    consequence of biology.  Sorry guys, it ain't fair, but it's life.
    
    .49> If, contrary to the male's choice, the female conceives, the male is
    .49> nontheless financially responsible for the offspring.
    
    No, the male (and for that matter the female) is free to choose whether
    or not to take financial responsibility.
    
    .49> the female conceives
    
    Please, conception itself is not a willful act on the part of the
    female.  This sounds like the "it's all her fault" reasoning.
    
    Mary
    

    In fact, given that a couple is going to have intercourse, conception
    itself is not in the realm of anyone's choice or control.  They can only
    influence the probability that it will or will not occur.  Baby free sex
    is not a guaranteed right for men the way M thinks it should be.

    .56>
    
    >I would reword this to say that the male has unilateral reproductive
    >choice only up to the moment of penetration/ejaculation.  After that
    >his choices must be negotiated with the woman.  That doesn't mean he
    >has no choice, but he can no longer make any choice without her consent.
    
    I must disagree withyou.  .49 ahd it correct.  The male ONLY has choice
    at that particular time. PERIOD.
    
    "Negotiation"?  There is no negotiation.  A woman has TOTAL control of
    her body (with exception of a few landmark court battles) and no matter
    what the male wants, HER CHOICE still comes first.  Simply put, if she
    wants the child, she has it.  If she doesnt, she can abort.  Plain and
    simple.
                                                                
    
    >No, the male (and for that matter the female) is free to choose whether
    >or not to take financial responsibility.
    
    That comment is no longer valid.  States are implimenting processes
    that rectify that "problem".  Thus, he has no choice there either.
    
    
    >Please, conception itself is not a willful act on the part of the
    >female.  This sounds like the "it's all her fault" reasoning.
    
    Maybe not "all her fault" but surely all her choice.  
    
    

>	Sorry this is a nit - but how does one get pregant when one is
>	behind ones lover's back?????

    I've never been able to picture it myself, but there's a book out
    there that says it is possible; see _The_Tao_of_Love_and_Sex_ by 
    Jolan Cheng (sp?).

    {Whew.  That'll teach me to mix (misuse, actually) my metaphors!}

	Sharon

    Sharon,
    
    Male pygmy hippos have their male organ reversed. They mark their
    territory, since they are largely out of the water only at night,
    by spraying urine behind them.
    This does mean, however, that female pygmy hippos do indeed get
    pregnant behind their mates' back.
    
    -d
    
    Actually parthenogenisis can also occur when the preovum, instead 
    of dividing into two eggs, fails to separate. The resulting cell
    then begins to divide like a fertilized egg and can produce a
    normal offspring which is genetically identical to the mother. 
    
    I believe that it is only insects where you get haploid parthenogenic
    females. Parthenogenisis in vertebrates results from the type
    of event described above and all the offspring are diploid.
    
    I was told once that such events have been recorded in mammals
    and even humans, tho obviously rarely, but I have absolutely
    no references on the subject.
    
    Bonnie

    
    I read a few notes back that a man who feels he is "not ready" should
    have a vasectomy.  So what then happens when he *is* ready?  I know
    that everyone takes the risk, but there are an awful lot of teenage
    boys out there having sex who are definitely "not ready" to become
    fathers.  This doesn't mean that they won't be one day, when they are
    more mature.  God forbid that every boy has a vasectomy just because
    they aren't ready to be fathers!  And, because they are mostly immature
    and headstrong, telling them to abstain won't be much good.  I'm not
    condoning this risk, or trying to absolve them of responsibility for
    their acts, but saying that a vasectomy is their only choice is a bit
    short-sighted.
    
    Sam
    

    The original note was about a man who definitly did not want children.
    For a man in this position, I would strongly agree that he should have
    a vasectomy.  An adolescent, however, does not (in my opinion) have the
    maturity to make that decision.  The man in the original note sounds
    like a perfect candidate for the vasectomy.  And I would feel the same
    about a woman who expressed these same views about children...she
    should do something permanent if she doesn't want children.
    
    It only makes sense.

    
    I don't know what the law is in the US, but here in the UK a younger
    man will have to justify his case pretty well in order to get a
    vasectomy (other than for medical reasons).  I don't know how old M is,
    but a friend of ours went through this situation:
    
    He was 25 at the time, married with three young children (very devoted
    to each of them).  His wife could not take the pill and other methods
    of contraception didn't seem to work too well.  So they talked about it
    and he decided to have a vasectomy - neither of them wanted any more
    children.  His doctor said "no"!  They said that he was too young, that
    he might change his mind, that he might divorce his wife or she might
    die, or his children might die (I can't believe they said that!) and
    therefore he might want to have more children in the future.  Point
    blank refusal to do it.
    
    I have heard that a young woman who wants to be sterilised in the UK
    has to go through similar justification and counselling sessions.
    
    Please note that I am *not* in any way trying to excuse M for his
    behaviour, it was appalling.  It's just that sometimes getting
    sterilised is not as easy as it sounds, for either sex.
    
    Sam
    

    re .67, I've known men in the US who had vasectomies while they were in
    their 20's.  One of the them didn't have any children.  So, I guess
    it's easier over here.
    
    I never said that teenage boys or young men who aren't "ready" to have
    children yet should have vasectomies.  But, I do think that men who
    know they don't ever want any more children or any children should, and
    if they choose not to have a vasectomy, even though they know they
    don't want kids, then they shouldn't place all the blame on the woman
    in the event of accidental pregnancy.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Re: .68
    
    Lorna - 
    
    I agree entirely.
    
    Sam
    

    
    In the great state of Colorado a wife can have her tubes tied anytime
    she wants. Ok, so what else is new. Well, if the husband wants to have
    a vasectomy he must have the wife's permission by LAW. What kind of
    choice is that. 
    
    
    		Wayne 

    
>    In the great state of Colorado a wife can have her tubes tied anytime
>    she wants. Ok, so what else is new. Well, if the husband wants to have
>    a vasectomy he must have the wife's permission by LAW. What kind of
>    choice is that. 



	Too bad she has to be MARRIED to do it...many doctors will
	laugh you out of their office if you're a single woman wanting
	the same thing.

	kath

    Maybe we need a separate note to discuss paternalism in medicine
    and government ?

    The great state of Colorado does have a state equal rights ammendment. 
    If someone wants to challenge the unfairness of the law, it can easily
    be stricken from the books one way or the other.  
    
    Meg

    In reference to my note (.35) regarding my friend who wasnt ready...his
    doctor would not perform a vasectomy since he was too young; 20/21.
    
    judy

    re: .75
    
    >>his doctor would not perform a vasectomy since he was too young; 20/21. 
    
    I find these kinds of stories very irritating...doctors who withhold
    medical procedures like vasectomies and tubal ligations because they
    feel that the client is too young to make a decision.  Whose body is it
    anyway!  Since when did M.D. stand for mr./ms. deity?  
    
    Maybe this should go in hot buttons!                 

>    I find these kinds of stories very irritating...doctors who withhold
>    medical procedures like vasectomies and tubal ligations because they
>    feel that the client is too young to make a decision.  Whose body is it
>    anyway!  Since when did M.D. stand for mr./ms. deity?  


	Sign it one of my hot buttons too.  I'm 25 and have been trying
	for three years to find a doctor who will do it.

	kath

    
    	I had a vasectomy back in 1976 at age 26 and had to bring the
    wife with me so the doctor could make sure it was alright with her
    and that she knew about it.  He also wanted us to know it was almost
    impossible to reverse back then.  We already had three kids so he 
    didn't give me a hard time, I think his biggest concern was to make
    sure the wife knew about it.   
    
    Joe

    to .78...
    That's the way it should be... BOTH should be in consent to do such an
    irreversible thing. If people were a bit more careful it shouldn't be
    so many attempts to REVERSE such operation... doctors are wise in
    making sure a person DOES know the full and "permanent" effect of a 
    vasectomy... there have been cases of divorces and remarry again, and then
    what?, then they go again to the doctor to REVERSE because their actual
    wife does want children! A vesectomy is a serios decision and should
    not be taken lightly... the base note is a person that does not deserve
    to be married and certainly does not deserve the GIFT of procreation
    and a FAMILY... I am sorry for his wife... what a "jewel" she got!