Popped this up to the top as it was scrolling away...

There is a certain amount of free will in this...

Yes, there is!



And fifty percent of it could keep his pants zipped.



Absolutely no argument there. That's the way I was brought up anyway.

But one hundred percent of the burden of unplanned pregnancy falls on one party.

100 percent? I won't argue that pregnancy isn't nine months and 18 years of hard work for a woman, but in an age of court-mandated child-support, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the guy always gets off scot-free (he shouldn't anyway). It may be her body, but it's also damn sure his life's earnings.

Anyway, it's his kid too. There's a lot more than nine months gestation invested in a child. I've always believed abortion, adoption, or just keeping the kid should be a team decision, but I suppose that's just me.

If, as you say, abortion is being used as birth control, this means we need better birth control methods, education, and financing. How many people do you know who would repeatedly choose a surgical procedure over a simple daily pill or an implant? Why do so few health plans include birth control pills and Norplant implants in their packages?

Birth control pills cost between $15 and $30 a month, if you pay for it yourself, not counting doctor visits. There are dozens of programs around here passing this stuff out for free. Norplants in chronic welfare mothers are considered a violation of their rights. But that's beside the point.

A nasty conservative might point out that--man or woman--having sex before you are ready to raise a child is just not a good idea in the first place, but in this age of "Sex-And-The-City-Screw-Anything-With-A-Pulse," this is probably considered neanderthal, reactionary, and of course, patriarchal and anti-feminist.

The fact that almost all cultures throughout the world have had rules, rituals and mores expressing exactly this outlook for tens of thousands of years is totally ignored.

What's your opinion of teaching birth control in sex ed classes in junior high school?

Okay by me. Depends on the curriculum, and what attitudes they are trying to push (See "Sex and the City" above). However, if the kids haven't already gotten this information at home, someone is dropping the ball.

What do you think of assertiveness training ("You're allowed to say no and this is how you do it") for girls and sensitivity seminars ("No means no") for boys in those classes? Many kids don't know this stuff and don't get it from home. (We had strenuous opposition to this on the grounds of teaching immorality. One of the opponents to implementing such curricula already had two grandchildren born to his single high-school-age daughters. Go figure.)

I'm not sure how classes in enforcing and encouraging abstinence, which is what the training you mention seems to refer to, could possibly be interpreted by even the most raving right-winger as "teaching immorality." Am I missing something? Again, if the parents aren't teaching this, they should be.

Pregnancy isn't "an inconvenience". It's covered under major medical. It is an arduous imposition on a woman, physically, emotionally, and financially. It used to cost a woman her job. Now it might only cost her her career. It can still cost her her health, and infrequently her life.



It's a testimony to the character of women that so many of us will take these risks to bear children. Some of us then become dependent and incomeless (and pensionless) to raise them. Those who go back to work face wrenching emotional and financial situations involving good quality child care that doesn't eat all their earnings, but at least they have a shot at a retirement nest egg. Those who put their children up for adoption are seldom praised or recognized except in Dear Abby's Mothers' Day column, although they continue to worry, mourn and wonder about their absent babies.



You seem to be talking primarily about the trials of single mothers here. They used to be the exception, rather than the rule. What happened? You might want to thank your nearest "Who the hell needs a man?" feminist for this, as well as a system that teaches men that the government will handle the daddy job just fine, thanks. Don't forget to thank a culture that teaches us that whatever we want, we should have RIGHT NOW, and if that means treating kids like pets to be farmed out to a kennel, well, too bad.

That aforementioned nasty conservative might point out that the ideal way to raise a child is with a mother and father, one of which ideally can stay home for the kids (right now I fill this role while my wife works outside, being fortunate enough to be able to work out of my garage). The nuclear family, especially one surrounded by close relatives, is the way most children have been raised for tens of thousands of years. It works.

I'm not stupid enough to believe that this is practical, or even possible for all people, but at least it should be considered a goal, and one that is not derided and scorned by "popular culture" and leftover sixties morality. The nuclear family has not just been something that people have been unable to achieve, it has been something that people--especially women--have been actively encouraged to avoid. You can see the results.

Dr. Laura was right about this. So was Dan Quayle. So were a lot of other people. They have been pilloried for it.

The radical feminists are dead wrong. No one will call them on it.

Tens of thousands of years of experience. Ignored.

I find it alternately sad and infuriating that the discussion frames the fetus, a group of newly-organized cells without the physical capacity for thought and a capacity for pain that might equal a caterpillar's, as "the poor baby", and the mother, a fully-realized human being with a complicated life and relationships to other human beings, as "that bitch".

You might find it interesting that Ayn Rand, one of the people I most admire and refer to philosophically, agreed with you on this, almost word-for-word. Her defense of the right to abortion was vehement, to say the least, and along with her atheism, went a long way to making her persona-non-grata with the conservative movement.

Men should be women for 13 months: the first month to experience the menstrual cycle and be courted, and then to be gotten pregnant (and maybe enjoy the process, but no guarantees), give birth, and nurse. Perhaps the light would then dawn. "Take a pill? Oh, I think I'd rather have anesthesia, have a bunch of strangers invade my body, and bleed and cramp for a while, and maybe even get an infection!" is not fun, exciting (except in a harrowing way) or desirable.



I appreciate your libertarian positions. I wish you understood women. ;)



I was with my wife through two pregnancies, and with her when she gave birth. I have also been with her through a seemingly INFINITE number of menstrual cycles, which is no picnic either. ;) My kids are now 14 and 10, and I am still with her although the MS is making it hard for her to get around. That's part of the job description. She has backed me up through some tough spots too.

If you look back at your post, almost every description of the problems women have seem to be based on a woman facing these things by herself.

Having and raising a family is something no woman--or man--should have to do alone, unless forced to by circumstance. I hope someday the return of the best of the old-fashioned values will make single motherhood a relative rarity again.

(I wish to heck I understood women too, but sometimes you have to make it all work out anyhow.)