Women's Rights
Sen...@no.mail
har...@bcsupernet.com (Meaghan Walker) wrote:
>In article <54md6k$j...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.com
>says...
>> In <326d1285...@news.compuserve.com> 10174...@compuserve.com
>> (James Sindberg) writes:
>> >
>> >My computer downloaded this message from
>> >lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) who wrote:
>> >
>> >;In <3266FE...@foto.infi.net> Leigh <TZ...@foto.infi.net>
>> >writes:
>> >;>
>> >;>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>> >;>>
>> >;>> In <325FAE...@foto.infi.net> Leigh <TZ...@foto.infi.net>
>> >writes:
>> >;>>
>> >;>> (edit)
>> >;>>
>> >;>> >And when we received "child" support - the so-called "best
>> >;>> >interest of the child" is at our whims as women. We should
>> >;>> >have to adhere to the same strick laws you are forced to as
>> >;>> >males, or those laws should loosen up on the guys. The truth
>> >;>> >is the "best interest of the child" or anyone, is thrown out
>> >;>> >the window when it is in conflict with
>> >;>> >"women's rights". That is wrong - it is always wrong to
>> >;>> >make gains by inflicting wrongs on others.
>> >
>> >
>> >; Actually, your statement is historically untrue. We often
>> >;make laws that provide a balance of interests; that's why our
>> >;legal lady carries the scales :] That means that within that
>> >;balance some win a bit; some lose a bit; sometimes both do a
>> >;little of both before the balancing act is completed. White
>> >;men, for example, historically made more money by devaluing the
>> >;work of women. Today, a balance act is taking place, and there
>> >;is also a backlash to that balance. It's to be expected.
>> >
>> >
>> >Historically most work outside of the home was too physically
>> >demanding for women to successfully compeat and have equal value
>> >in the job market.
>>
>> -----
>> I simply don't buy that. The reality of the situation has more
>> to do with issues related to gestation than competition in the
>> job market. When you haven't the ability to control your repro-
>> duction, well....you can't always work in the field while pregnant.
>Yeh - but you could keep your legs closed. That solves a lot of
>problems... If two play and two pay - thats the price she has to pay for
>having sex.. right LEFTY??? Keep your panties on, all day and all night
>long : thats how to avoid the problems of not wanting to become a
>parent.. right LEFTY!!!!
Two ,two, two, two, two, both, both, both, ... If two play and TWO
pay. He doesn't just walk off and say "I didn't want it anyway."
>> If these same women didn't have the additional burden of child
>> birth, they may well have worked for money; that wasn't available
>> to them, however.
>> -----
>They could have just kept their legs closed.. right lefty... two play -
>two pay!!!!! <----- weeeeeeeeee its fun being an anti feminist!
So could HE. She's raising the kid partially because he dropped his
drawers. Two, two, two, two, two...
>> Only in the past couple centuries has this
>> >situation changed.>White women, for example, currently spend more
>> payroll money than>men while devaluing the value of Fatherhood.
>>
>> -----
>> Men still make more money than women no matter how you'd like
>> to juggle the books.
>No- loook at fringeriders stats - MEN *dont* make more money... and even
>if they did.. guess who has the most spending power in NORTH AMERICA...
>it's NOT MEN - thats for damn sure!
Because the women are spending every dime they have on their children,
you think? I sure do.
> As long as that continues, men will likely
>> be more responsible than women for the children that are produced.
>> The one who gets the most, pays the most. If that shifts, women
>> will pay more; it's a fairly easy concept.
>>
>> Lefty
Ross Williams
In article <54o1sn$2...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com> SendMe wrote:
>har...@bcsupernet.com (Meaghan Walker) wrote:
>>Yeh - but you could keep your legs closed. That solves a lot of
>>problems... If two play and two pay - thats the price she has to pay for
>>having sex.. right LEFTY??? Keep your panties on, all day and all night
>>long : thats how to avoid the problems of not wanting to become a
>>parent.. right LEFTY!!!!
>
>Two ,two, two, two, two, both, both, both, ... If two play and TWO
>pay. He doesn't just walk off and say "I didn't want it anyway."
Is your point that this happens? or is your point that this happens
*exclusively*?
>>They could have just kept their legs closed.. right lefty... two play -
>>two pay!!!!! <----- weeeeeeeeee its fun being an anti feminist!
>
>So could HE. She's raising the kid partially because he dropped his
>drawers. Two, two, two, two, two...
And on which side is our laws based upon the constitutional lever of Equal
Protection?
When *he* fails to act in a bilaterally agreeable manner The Law declares
him a scoundrel and imposes any number of measures against him, a fair
portion of which are of dubious constitutionality.
Whne *she* fails to act in a bilaterally agreeable manner The Law roundly
ignores her and tells him to go cry in his beer.
That's the reality. Rationalize this, now.
>>> Men still make more money than women no matter how you'd like
>>> to juggle the books.
>
>>No- loook at fringeriders stats - MEN *dont* make more money... and even
>>if they did.. guess who has the most spending power in NORTH AMERICA...
>>it's NOT MEN - thats for damn sure!
>
>Because the women are spending every dime they have on their children,
>you think? I sure do.
Then you would be wrong. Women do not, as a class, spend the majority of
their monies on children-stuff, although a majority of children-stuff is
bought by women.
Is this confusing to you? Can you not see how this could be?
Get a 9th-grader to help you with the Venn Diagrams.
-rw (the one and only - limited supply, act now)
Meaghan Walker
In article <54o1sn$2...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, Sen...@No.mail
says...
> >> -----
> >> I simply don't buy that. The reality of the situation has more
> >> to do with issues related to gestation than competition in the
> >> job market. When you haven't the ability to control your repro-
> >> duction, well....you can't always work in the field while pregnant.
>
> >problems... If two play and two pay - thats the price she has to pay for
> >having sex.. right LEFTY??? Keep your panties on, all day and all night
> >long : thats how to avoid the problems of not wanting to become a
> >parent.. right LEFTY!!!!
>
> Two ,two, two, two, two, both, both, both, ... If two play and TWO
> pay. He doesn't just walk off and say "I didn't want it anyway."
DUH!
Read for comprehension, not for your feminsta agenda... Carol Anns
Arguement reads "two play, two pay" - if you apply this line of
fallicious reasoning to this so called "employment equity and the reasons
for needing AA" - I am merely taking her reasoning from one bullshit
arguement and applying it to a completely different one - using the same
principles...
This wasnt about c4m , but her reasoning in defence of C4M can also be
applied here- with the results that you femiwhiners dont want to look at.
>
> >> If these same women didn't have the additional burden of child
> >> birth, they may well have worked for money; that wasn't available
> >> to them, however.
> >> -----
>
> >They could have just kept their legs closed.. right lefty... two play -
> >two pay!!!!! <----- weeeeeeeeee its fun being an anti feminist!
>
> So could HE. She's raising the kid partially because he dropped his
> drawers. Two, two, two, two, two...
This isnt about C4M - this is about employment equity.... Did you bother
to read this thread before commenting?
>
> >> Only in the past couple centuries has this
> >> >situation changed.>White women, for example, currently spend more
> >> payroll money than>men while devaluing the value of Fatherhood.
> >>
> >> -----
> >> Men still make more money than women no matter how you'd like
> >> to juggle the books.
>
>
> >No- loook at fringeriders stats - MEN *dont* make more money... and even
> >if they did.. guess who has the most spending power in NORTH AMERICA...
> >it's NOT MEN - thats for damn sure!
>
> Because the women are spending every dime they have on their children,
> you think? I sure do.
HAHAHAHA People spend more on their frigging pets than they do on kids...
try again.
Meaghan Walker
Sen...@no.mail
Ross Williams <rossw...@gnn.com> wrote:
>In article <54o1sn$2...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com> SendMe wrote:
>>har...@bcsupernet.com (Meaghan Walker) wrote:
>>>Yeh - but you could keep your legs closed. That solves a lot of
>>>problems... If two play and two pay - thats the price she has to pay for
>>>having sex.. right LEFTY??? Keep your panties on, all day and all night
>>>long : thats how to avoid the problems of not wanting to become a
>>>parent.. right LEFTY!!!!
>>
>>Two ,two, two, two, two, both, both, both, ... If two play and TWO
>>pay. He doesn't just walk off and say "I didn't want it anyway."
>Is your point that this happens? or is your point that this happens
>*exclusively*?
It goes to show you the IQ isn't everything. He still didn't get it.
>>>They could have just kept their legs closed.. right lefty... two play -
>>>two pay!!!!! <----- weeeeeeeeee its fun being an anti feminist!
>>
>>So could HE. She's raising the kid partially because he dropped his
>>drawers. Two, two, two, two, two...
>And on which side is our laws based upon the constitutional lever of Equal
>Protection?
>When *he* fails to act in a bilaterally agreeable manner The Law declares
>him a scoundrel and imposes any number of measures against him, a fair
>portion of which are of dubious constitutionality.
>Whne *she* fails to act in a bilaterally agreeable manner The Law roundly
>ignores her and tells him to go cry in his beer.
>That's the reality. Rationalize this, now.
>>>> Men still make more money than women no matter how you'd like
>>>> to juggle the books.
>>
>>>No- loook at fringeriders stats - MEN *dont* make more money... and even
>>>if they did.. guess who has the most spending power in NORTH AMERICA...
>>>it's NOT MEN - thats for damn sure!
>>
>>Because the women are spending every dime they have on their children,
>>you think? I sure do.
>Then you would be wrong. Women do not, as a class, spend the majority of
>their monies on children-stuff, although a majority of children-stuff is
>bought by women.
>Is this confusing to you? Can you not see how this could be?
>Get a 9th-grader to help you with the Venn Diagrams.
>-rw (the one and only - limited supply, act now)
Mr. Williams, I understood your point with ease. Since you felt it
necessary to try the pre-emptive strike technique of argument, I'll
let you just sit on your bias, which gets broader the longer you sit
on it. Have a nice day.
Andy Taylor
> >> I simply don't buy that. The reality of the situation has more
> >> to do with issues related to gestation than competition in the
> >> job market. When you haven't the ability to control your repro-
> >> duction, well....you can't always work in the field while pregnant.
>
> >problems... If two play and two pay - thats the price she has to pay for
> >having sex.. right LEFTY??? Keep your panties on, all day and all night
> >long : thats how to avoid the problems of not wanting to become a
> >parent.. right LEFTY!!!!
>
> Two ,two, two, two, two, both, both, both, ... If two play and TWO
> pay. He doesn't just walk off and say "I didn't want it anyway."
>
> >> birth, they may well have worked for money; that wasn't available
> >> to them, however.
> >> -----
>
> >two pay!!!!! <----- weeeeeeeeee its fun being an anti feminist!
>
> So could HE. She's raising the kid partially because he dropped his
> drawers. Two, two, two, two, two...
>
> >> Only in the past couple centuries has this
> >> >situation changed.>White women, for example, currently spend more
> >> payroll money than>men while devaluing the value of Fatherhood.
> >>
> >> -----
> >> Men still make more money than women no matter how you'd like
> >> to juggle the books.
>
> >No- loook at fringeriders stats - MEN *dont* make more money... and even
> >if they did.. guess who has the most spending power in NORTH AMERICA...
> >it's NOT MEN - thats for damn sure!
>
> Because the women are spending every dime they have on their children,
> you think? I sure do.
Really? None on yourself? Doubtful.
Alan Madsen
Ross Williams (rossw...@gnn.com) wrote:
: In article <54ohnt$o...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> SendMe wrote:
: >Ross Williams <rossw...@gnn.com> wrote:
: >>In article <54o1sn$2...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com> SendMe wrote:
: >>>har...@bcsupernet.com (Meaghan Walker) wrote:
: >>>>Yeh - but you could keep your legs closed. That solves a lot of
: >>>>problems... If two play and two pay - thats the price she has to pay
: > for
: >>>>having sex.. right LEFTY??? Keep your panties on, all day and all night
: >>>>long : thats how to avoid the problems of not wanting to become a
: >>>>parent.. right LEFTY!!!!
: >>>
: >>>Two ,two, two, two, two, both, both, both, ... If two play and TWO
: >>>pay. He doesn't just walk off and say "I didn't want it anyway."
: >
: >>Is your point that this happens? or is your point that this happens
: >>*exclusively*?
: >
: >It goes to show you the IQ isn't everything. He still didn't get it.
: What I don't get is Baseless Assertion with Bumper-Sticker Chaser. Try
: again. If you have a point to make, make it. I will then again use
: mirror-image application, and we'll see if your ideology holds up under
: turnabout.
<snip>
typical... the male circumstance is not mirror image to the
female circumstance...
ross, go find a book on human physiology and look at the pic-
tures...
--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.
Ross Williams
In article <54ohnt$o...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> SendMe wrote:
>Ross Williams <rossw...@gnn.com> wrote:
>>In article <54o1sn$2...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com> SendMe wrote:
>>>har...@bcsupernet.com (Meaghan Walker) wrote:
>>>>Yeh - but you could keep your legs closed. That solves a lot of
>>>>problems... If two play and two pay - thats the price she has to pay
> for
>>>>having sex.. right LEFTY??? Keep your panties on, all day and all night
>>>>long : thats how to avoid the problems of not wanting to become a
>>>>parent.. right LEFTY!!!!
>>>
>>>Two ,two, two, two, two, both, both, both, ... If two play and TWO
>>>pay. He doesn't just walk off and say "I didn't want it anyway."
>
>>Is your point that this happens? or is your point that this happens
>>*exclusively*?
>
>It goes to show you the IQ isn't everything. He still didn't get it.
What I don't get is Baseless Assertion with Bumper-Sticker Chaser. Try
again. If you have a point to make, make it. I will then again use
mirror-image application, and we'll see if your ideology holds up under
turnabout.
>>>>They could have just kept their legs closed.. right lefty... two play -
>>>>two pay!!!!! <----- weeeeeeeeee its fun being an anti feminist!
>>>So could HE. She's raising the kid partially because he dropped his
>>>drawers. Two, two, two, two, two...
>>And on which side is our laws based upon the constitutional lever of
> Equal
>>Protection?
>>When *he* fails to act in a bilaterally agreeable manner The Law declares
>>him a scoundrel and imposes any number of measures against him, a fair
>>portion of which are of dubious constitutionality.
>>When *she* fails to act in a bilaterally agreeable manner The Law roundly
>>ignores her and tells him to go cry in his beer.
>>That's the reality. Rationalize this, now.
I notice you were silent on this. Articles of Faith haven't got much
substance in the clinch, have they?
>>>>if they did.. guess who has the most spending power in NORTH AMERICA...
>>>>it's NOT MEN - thats for damn sure!
>>>Because the women are spending every dime they have on their children,
>>>you think? I sure do.
>>Then you would be wrong. Women do not, as a class, spend the majority of
>>their monies on children-stuff, although a majority of children-stuff is
>>bought by women.
>>Is this confusing to you? Can you not see how this could be?
>>Get a 9th-grader to help you with the Venn Diagrams.
>Mr. Williams, I understood your point with ease. Since you felt it
>necessary to try the pre-emptive strike technique of argument, I'll
>let you just sit on your bias, which gets broader the longer you sit
>on it. Have a nice day.
I have no idea what "bias" you are talking about, unless it is one based
more upon the quantifiable than the emotional.
Our much-esteemed Census Bureau reports that women have more disposable
income than men. By a fairly hefty margin, if I recall correctly. If you'd
care to check with any of the popular press outlets which occassionaly
report on such things, women's purchasing is not spent mainly on children
(I'll take as read that your earlier statements in re: "Because the women
are spending every dime they have on their children" was hyperbolic).
Listen, toots, make your point if you have one, and leave the faux-martyrdom
in the cloak room, or expect to be called on it.
Easy.
Sen...@no.mail
Andy Taylor <1@2.3> wrote:
>Sen...@No.mail wrote:
>>
>> har...@bcsupernet.com (Meaghan Walker) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <54md6k$j...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.com
>> >says...
>> >> In <326d1285...@news.compuserve.com> 10174...@compuserve.com
>> >> (James Sindberg) writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >My computer downloaded this message from
>> >> >lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) who wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >;In <3266FE...@foto.infi.net> Leigh <TZ...@foto.infi.net>
>> >> >writes:
>> >> >;>
>> >> >;>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>> >> >;>>
>> >> >;>> In <325FAE...@foto.infi.net> Leigh <TZ...@foto.infi.net>
>> >> >writes:
<snipped!>
>> >They could have just kept their legs closed.. right lefty... two play -
>> >two pay!!!!! <----- weeeeeeeeee its fun being an anti feminist!
>>
>> So could HE. She's raising the kid partially because he dropped his
>> drawers. Two, two, two, two, two...
>So let him raise them. Then she can't complain.
Sure she can. It's her kid too. Maybe he doesn't want to raise the
kid.
Sen...@no.mail
Ross Williams <rossw...@gnn.com> wrote:
>In article <54ohnt$o...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> SendMe wrote:
>>Ross Williams <rossw...@gnn.com> wrote:
>>>In article <54o1sn$2...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com> SendMe wrote:
>>>>har...@bcsupernet.com (Meaghan Walker) wrote:
>>>>>Yeh - but you could keep your legs closed. That solves a lot of
>>>>>problems... If two play and two pay - thats the price she has to pay
>> for
>>>>>having sex.. right LEFTY??? Keep your panties on, all day and all night
>>>>>long : thats how to avoid the problems of not wanting to become a
>>>>>parent.. right LEFTY!!!!
>>>>
>>>>Two ,two, two, two, two, both, both, both, ... If two play and TWO
>>>>pay. He doesn't just walk off and say "I didn't want it anyway."
>>
>>>Is your point that this happens? or is your point that this happens
>>>*exclusively*?
>>
>>It goes to show you the IQ isn't everything. He still didn't get it.
>What I don't get is Baseless Assertion with Bumper-Sticker Chaser. Try
>again. If you have a point to make, make it. I will then again use
>mirror-image application, and we'll see if your ideology holds up under
>turnabout.
>>>>>They could have just kept their legs closed.. right lefty... two play -
>>>>>two pay!!!!! <----- weeeeeeeeee its fun being an anti feminist!
>>>>So could HE. She's raising the kid partially because he dropped his
>>>>drawers. Two, two, two, two, two...
>>>And on which side is our laws based upon the constitutional lever of
>> Equal
>>>Protection?
>>>When *he* fails to act in a bilaterally agreeable manner The Law declares
>>>him a scoundrel and imposes any number of measures against him, a fair
>>>portion of which are of dubious constitutionality.
>>>When *she* fails to act in a bilaterally agreeable manner The Law roundly
>>>ignores her and tells him to go cry in his beer.
>>>That's the reality. Rationalize this, now.
>I notice you were silent on this. Articles of Faith haven't got much
>substance in the clinch, have they?
You misread the silence. When you say something worth debating, I
might jump in. I don't take orders however. And I saw nothing there
that moved me to write.
>>>>>if they did.. guess who has the most spending power in NORTH AMERICA...
>>>>>it's NOT MEN - thats for damn sure!
>>>>Because the women are spending every dime they have on their children,
>>>>you think? I sure do.
>>>Then you would be wrong. Women do not, as a class, spend the majority of
>>>their monies on children-stuff, although a majority of children-stuff is
>>>bought by women.
My husband never bought his own clothes, food, or even computer paper.
Nothing but the occasional tool, and even those I usually bought, so I
can see where the women might do more spending. I spent for the whole
family, from clothing to toilet paper, toys to milk, lawn mower to
underwear. It does not follow that the women are spending excessively
nor selfishly.
>>>Is this confusing to you? Can you not see how this could be?
>>>Get a 9th-grader to help you with the Venn Diagrams.
>>Mr. Williams, I understood your point with ease. Since you felt it
>>necessary to try the pre-emptive strike technique of argument, I'll
>>let you just sit on your bias, which gets broader the longer you sit
>>on it. Have a nice day.
>I have no idea what "bias" you are talking about, unless it is one based
>more upon the quantifiable than the emotional.
>Our much-esteemed
You don't consider this debateable?
>Census Bureau reports that women have more disposable
>income than men. By a fairly hefty margin, if I recall correctly. If you'd
>care to check with any of the popular press outlets which occassionaly
>report on such things, women's purchasing is not spent mainly on children
>(I'll take as read that your earlier statements in re: "Because the women
>are spending every dime they have on their children" was hyperbolic).
Yeah, so? Every spare dime, how's that? *I* do.
>Listen, toots, make your point if you have one, and leave the faux-martyrdom
>in the cloak room, or expect to be called on it.
Angelpuss. 'Make you a deal, if you'll check your
faux-condescension....
Ross Williams
In article <54qi0m$5...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> SendMe wrote:
>Ross Williams <rossw...@gnn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>if they did.. guess who has the most spending power in NORTH
> AMERICA...
>>>>>>it's NOT MEN - thats for damn sure!
>>>>>Because the women are spending every dime they have on their children,
>>>>>you think? I sure do.
>>>>Then you would be wrong. Women do not, as a class, spend the majority
> of
>>>>their monies on children-stuff, although a majority of children-stuff
> is
>>>>bought by women.
>
>My husband never bought his own clothes, food, or even computer paper.
>Nothing but the occasional tool, and even those I usually bought, so I
>can see where the women might do more spending. I spent for the whole
>family, from clothing to toilet paper, toys to milk, lawn mower to
>underwear. It does not follow that the women are spending excessively
>nor selfishly.
Find anyone saying that "women are spending excessively [or] selfishly."
If you would care to reread, I think you'll find that the assertion was made
that "who has the most spending power in NORTH AMERICA... it's NOT MEN -
thats for damn sure!" Thus implying women.
Your heart is for feeling, your brain is for thinking. Not the other way
around. Leave the presumptive value judgments alone. I know of no one,
save yourself, who made any.
>>Listen, toots, make your point if you have one, and leave
> thefaux-martyrdom
>>in the cloak room, or expect to be called on it.
>
>Angelpuss. 'Make you a deal, if you'll check your
>faux-condescension....
My condescension is quite real.
Ross Williams
In article <54qr5j$g...@amanda.dorsai.org> Alan Madsen wrote:
>Ross Williams (rossw...@gnn.com) wrote:
>: >It goes to show you the IQ isn't everything. He still didn't get it.
>
>: What I don't get is Baseless Assertion with Bumper-Sticker Chaser. Try
>: again. If you have a point to make, make it. I will then again use
>: mirror-image application, and we'll see if your ideology holds up under
>: turnabout.
><snip>
>
>
>typical... the male circumstance is not mirror image to the
>female circumstance...
>
>ross, go find a book on human physiology and look at the pic-
>tures...
Alan, dear cephalia-less Alan. The constitution does not allow unequal
application of the laws based upon physiology.
Remember? Melanin and Jim Crow? Vulva and VMI?
Am I going too fast for anyone here?
Ross Williams
In article <54qv7u$b...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> SendMe wrote:
>Andy Taylor <1@2.3> wrote:
>>Sen...@No.mail wrote:
>>> >two pay!!!!! <----- weeeeeeeeee its fun being an anti feminist!
>>>
>>> So could HE. She's raising the kid partially because he dropped his
>>> drawers. Two, two, two, two, two...
>>So let him raise them. Then she can't complain.
>
>Sure she can. It's her kid too. Maybe he doesn't want to raise the
>kid.
"Maybe"? Come ON. You can do better than basing your ideology on a
'maybe', cancha?
Unless it's a religion you're talking about, that is.
Sen...@no.mail
Ross Williams <rossw...@gnn.com> wrote:
>In article <54qi0m$5...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> SendMe wrote:
>>Ross Williams <rossw...@gnn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>if they did.. guess who has the most spending power in NORTH
>>>>>>> AMERICA...it's NOT MEN - thats for damn sure!
>>>>>>Because the women are spending every dime they have on their children,
>>>>>>you think? I sure do.
>>>>>>Then you would be wrong. Women do not, as a class, spend the majority
>>>>>>L of their monies on children-stuff, although a majority of children-stuff
>>>>>>> is bought by women.
>>
>>My husband never bought his own clothes, food, or even computer paper.
>>Nothing but the occasional tool, and even those I usually bought, so I
>>can see where the women might do more spending. I spent for the whole
>>family, from clothing to toilet paper, toys to milk, lawn mower to
>>underwear. It does not follow that the women are spending excessively
>>nor selfishly.
>Find anyone saying that "women are spending excessively [or] selfishly."
>If you would care to reread, I think you'll find that the assertion was made
>that "who has the most spending power in NORTH AMERICA... it's NOT MEN -
>thats for damn sure!" Thus implying women.
I thought she meant pets again.
You think Meggin was making a point about spending power when she was
comparing dollars spent to dollars earned? How naive. She was
attempting to bag on women, to imply that they are spending men's
money and that some judgment was to be drawn from that.
>>>Listen, toots, make your point if you have one, and leave
>>> thefaux-martyrdom in the cloak room, or expect to be called on it.
>>
>>Angelpuss. 'Make you a deal, if you'll check your
>>faux-condescension....
>My condescension is quite real.
That would require your being superior. I think it fails the test,
particularly in arguments for equality.
Barbara O'Keeffe
Well Ross,
I'm a woman and during the years my daughter was growing up I spent
one hell of a lot of money keeping a roof over her head, food on the
table, clothes on her back, shoes on her feet (hell, the bills for
atheletic shoes alone would have paid for my first car - clunker that it
was), orthodontia, medical bills, after school activities, prom dresses,
etc., etc., etc. I'm still wearing the same pair of Nikes I bought in
1984 - care to guess how many pairs Megan went through in that time.
But you are correct - I did the spending. My husband never writes the
checks - - I'm sure each time the bank sees a check come through they
have a special meeting just to remind each other that there really is a
person behind that second name on the checking account.
Oh, let me guess. Your going to count his income as going for
necessities and mine as going for 'extras' therefore, I'm the one with
extra the disposable income. Is that it? Bull. It all goes in one pot
and hopefully there are a couple of dimes left over at the end of the
month for dinner out.
Barb
ron
Actually FATHERS RIGHTS are improving as men realize that and
FIGHT for their childrens right to be involved with BOTH parents.
Men can prevail and win custody because Women often THINK they have a
superior right to the children simply because they birthed them.Women
now lose custody as a result of their interference with visitation.
Currently most custody changes are from trying to Minimize the contact
between the NCP and the child.
isa...@midwest.net
Virginia Krenn
On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Ross Williams wrote:
> Your heart is for feeling, your brain is for thinking. Not the other way
> around. Leave the presumptive value judgments alone.
Not so, Ross. The heart is nothing more than a pump. You'll have to find
some other part of the body to attribute the process of "feeling" to.
And, of course, I'm not speaking of the *sense* of feel. Although some
feelings may be sensible and others not. 8-)
G. Mark Stewart
Virginia Krenn (asd...@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu) wrote:
See, Ross? SEE!?!
It's a damn good thing we've got Virginia to set this guy RIGHT!
Sammich?
Lillith
GMS writes:
> The personal case history stuff really doesn't do anything except make
> a claim about your personal case history -- i. e., you may be perceived
> as protesting too much.
I would have to agree that there are times that personal stories would
be perceived as protesting too much but there are times that a personal
story refutes the theory that ALL women and ALL men are equal in ALL
things.
As it has been pointed out, ad nauseum, the laws are the laws but
reality is decidedly different.
Many times personal accounts have been twisted into what many have
called "victimization" stories when the reality is much different. The
Net, unfortunately, does not allow for readers to understand inflections
but capital letters do usually mean a louder tone of "voice."
Unless we all decide to meet face to face we will never know the true
meanings of most any of these posts.
L.
G. Mark Stewart
Lillith (Lil...@usa.net) wrote:
: GMS writes:
: > The personal case history stuff really doesn't do anything except make
: > a claim about your personal case history -- i. e., you may be perceived
: > as protesting too much.
: I would have to agree that there are times that personal stories would
: be perceived as protesting too much but there are times that a personal
: story refutes the theory that ALL women and ALL men are equal in ALL
: things.
The problem is that folks are addressing THAT statement and NOT the
statements that have been made.
Besides which, even if an occasional poster makes that claim, the
folks I assume others are interested in replying to are the ones with
IQ over 40 who are dealing with "the representative case" rather than
any claims of any groups being "all" <anything>.
: As it has been pointed out, ad nauseum, the laws are the laws but
: reality is decidedly different.
: Many times personal accounts have been twisted into what many have
: called "victimization" stories when the reality is much different. The
: Net, unfortunately, does not allow for readers to understand inflections
: but capital letters do usually mean a louder tone of "voice."
: Unless we all decide to meet face to face we will never know the true
: meanings of most any of these posts.
: L.
G. Mark Stewart
Barbara O'Keeffe (boke...@sirinet.net) wrote:
: Well Ross,
: I'm a woman and during the years my daughter was growing up I spent
: one hell of a lot of money keeping a roof over her head, food on the
: table, clothes on her back, shoes on her feet (hell, the bills for
: atheletic shoes alone would have paid for my first car - clunker that it
: was), orthodontia, medical bills, after school activities, prom dresses,
: etc., etc., etc. I'm still wearing the same pair of Nikes I bought in
: 1984 - care to guess how many pairs Megan went through in that time.
: But you are correct - I did the spending. My husband never writes the
: checks - - I'm sure each time the bank sees a check come through they
: have a special meeting just to remind each other that there really is a
: person behind that second name on the checking account.
Barb, it may distress you to have a general situation questioned in which
you have a part, but note that Barb is not being attacked, but rather
an average situation which, although it may not represent you, still may
be a fact.
You folks will have to distinguish between what general contention you're
trying to prove or disprove and the anecdotal evidence that is only good
to refute a claim about EVERY case.
The personal case history stuff really doesn't do anything except make
a claim about your personal case history -- i. e., you may be perceived
as protesting too much.
G. Mark Stewart
: : In article <54ohnt$o...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> SendMe wrote:
: : >Ross Williams <rossw...@gnn.com> wrote:
: : >>In article <54o1sn$2...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com> SendMe wrote:
: : >>>har...@bcsupernet.com (Meaghan Walker) wrote:
: : >>>>Yeh - but you could keep your legs closed. That solves a lot of
: : >>>>problems... If two play and two pay - thats the price she has to pay
: : > for
: : >>>>having sex.. right LEFTY??? Keep your panties on, all day and all night
: : >>>>long : thats how to avoid the problems of not wanting to become a
: : >>>>parent.. right LEFTY!!!!
: : >>>
: : >>>Two ,two, two, two, two, both, both, both, ... If two play and TWO
: : >>>pay. He doesn't just walk off and say "I didn't want it anyway."
: : >
: : >>Is your point that this happens? or is your point that this happens
: : >>*exclusively*?
: : >
: : >It goes to show you the IQ isn't everything. He still didn't get it.
: : What I don't get is Baseless Assertion with Bumper-Sticker Chaser. Try
: : again. If you have a point to make, make it. I will then again use
: : mirror-image application, and we'll see if your ideology holds up under
: : turnabout.
: <snip>
: typical... the male circumstance is not mirror image to the
: female circumstance...
: ross, go find a book on human physiology and look at the pic-
: tures...
Alan, for a long time people have been claiming that biology is not
destiny.
If you claim that rights can be determined by physiology, you're going
to open quite a can of worms I'm not sure you're prepared to deal with.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <55076c$2...@brownfox.svs.com> gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark
----
Gee, I rather enjoyed Barbs post; I though it captured the
idea that most moms already know, i.e. that they are the ones
who spend the money because they are given that responsibility
as "mom". Most men I have met have no desire to shop or spend
for family needs; to "blame" women because they spend more
than they "make", in that respect, becomes a tad ridiculous, as
this thankless job is just another part of motherhood, assumed.
As for "anecdotal" accounts, they are not generally my favorite
source of information, but I think women everywhere will iden-
tify with Barb's account.
Lefty
Barbara O'Keeffe
Thanks for explaing it to him. You know sometimes I marvel at people
who can't
see that sometimes 'anecdotal' accounts are just one person's reporting
of what
everyone sees! But I forgot - moms aren't suppose to "know" what is
going on in the world.
We just clean up all of the messes! ;-)
Barb
>
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <5506uc$2...@brownfox.svs.com> gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark
-----
I'm afraid Alan is correct. Although men and women share a humanity
that allows for equality; our biology does limit us in some ways.
To ignore those differences is ridiculous; those who drafted the
Constitution were much wiser than you or I since they knew that we
should not be pre-determined by either the things that make us "the
same" nor by the things that make us "different". A man....a woman
each of us bleed and share common ground; each of us have much to
add to the glory of the other; each of us may have some few dif-
ferences that provides unique contribution. No, biology is not
"destiny", but it does provide some few reasons that the different
genders are dis-similarly situated. That is allowed in a society
where there are two genders, each to be valued for their contribu-
tions that are similar AND for their contributions that are unique.
Lefty
Ross Williams
Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >Alan, for a long time people have been claiming that biology is not
: >destiny.
: >
: >If you claim that rights can be determined by physiology, you're going
: >to open quite a can of worms I'm not sure you're prepared to deal
: with.
: I'm afraid Alan is correct. Although men and women share a humanity
: that allows for equality; our biology does limit us in some ways.
From flying sans mechanical intervention springs to mind. One of the
limitations selectively imposed by biology should not be upon the ability
to think.
: To ignore those differences is ridiculous; those who drafted the
: Constitution were much wiser than you or I since they knew that we
: should not be pre-determined by either the things that make us "the
: same" nor by the things that make us "different". A man....a woman
So now you're saying that Alan's wrong.
: each of us bleed and share common ground; each of us have much to
: add to the glory of the other; each of us may have some few dif-
: ferences that provides unique contribution. No, biology is not
: "destiny", but it does provide some few reasons that the different
: genders are dis-similarly situated. That is allowed in a society
: where there are two genders,
Oh, well, in that case, you'd best hie thine butt into the kitchen and
rustle me up some grub. Grab a beer while you're up, too. I'd get my
wife to do it, but she's too busy being equal to me. You appear, instead,
to be rationalizing social power differentials based upon inate biology.
And if we're going in that direction, power is power, and it exists
manifest in an individual or group who can acquire it by whatever means
are expedient at the time. A neo-machiavellian means-justified end, as it
were. "If I can take it it belongs to me."
So where's my grub?
: each to be valued for their contribu-
: tions that are similar AND for their contributions that are unique.
But tell you what, Carol: since I think Alan is inately wrong (again) and
that you were merely expounding off the top of your head (again), I'll let
you off the hook on a condition:
Constitutionally justify disparate treatment based upon biology -- not
chronology -- and be sure to work in a suitable exception to equal
treatment under the laws.
And Alan can rustle my grub. In an apron.
-rw
Marg Petersen
In article <556kba$m...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <554vj9$1...@explorer.csc.com> rwil...@csc.com (Ross Williams)
>writes:
>>Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>: >Alan, for a long time people have been claiming that biology is not
>>: >destiny.
>>: >
>>: >If you claim that rights can be determined by physiology, you're
>going>: >to open quite a can of worms I'm not sure you're prepared to
>deal>: with.
>>: -----
>>: I'm afraid Alan is correct. Although men and women share a
> humanity that allows for equality; our biology does limit us in
> some ways.
>>
>>From flying sans mechanical intervention springs to mind. One of the
>>limitations selectively imposed by biology should not be upon the
>ability>to think.
>
> It isn't, at least, not in my case :]
Nor in mine, although there seem to be some who dispute this. :-)
>>: To ignore those differences is ridiculous; those who drafted the
>>: Constitution were much wiser than you or I since they knew that
> we should not be pre-determined by either the things that make
> us "the same" nor by the things that make us "different". A
> man....a woman
>>
>>So now you're saying that Alan's wrong.
>>
> ------
> Not at all; I don't think what Alan has said contradicts my
> own views. Equal protection under the law may simply not be
> what you seem to think it is.
> -------
Or a few others. :-)
>>: each of us bleed and share common ground; each of us have much
> to add to the glory of the other; each of us may have some few
> differences that provides unique contribution. No, biology is
> not "destiny", but it does provide some few reasons that the
> different genders are dis-similarly situated. That is allowed
> in a society where there are two genders,
>>
>-----
>
>>Oh, well, in that case, you'd best hie thine butt into the kitchen and
>>rustle me up some grub.
>
> -------
> ...and just why would I do that? In case you hadn't noticed
> my equality doesn't depend on you, or what you think of the
> constitution. As for "grub", I prefer cuisine, and that
> shared with someone who doesn't give me indigestion.
> --------
Nor does it answer the question, "just WHY should his need for
*grub* be YOUR (or MY) responsibility. Are not men capable of
"rustling grub" (or even haute cuisine should they have the desire
and skills to do so)? My husband just last night made ME dinner.
Now this is not an earth shattering event *except* for the fact
that he hasn't done it much in our married life. He has mostly
left that chore to me. However, with me working almost as many
hours outside the home as HE does now, he decided that I *deserved*
to have dinner made for me, hot and ready for me when I came in the
door. Believe me, it was *extremely appreciated! :-)
> You appear, instead,>to be rationalizing social power differentials
>based upon inate biology.>And if we're going in that direction, power
>is power, and it exists>manifest in an individual or group who can
>acquire it by whatever means>are expedient at the time. A
>neo-machiavellian means-justified end, as it>were. "If I can take it
>it belongs to me."
>>
>>So where's my grub?
>
> --------
> It's wrapped up in the 14th amendment nice and tight. It looks
> like the only way you'll get it is by an overthrow of the govt.
> and even if the govt. falls your food won't be served by the likes
> of me who'd much rather die on her feet than live on her knees.
Very well said! Go back to a so-called *simpler* time? I'd rather die,
thank you very much!
> Lefty
>>
>>: each to be valued for their contribu-
>>: tions that are similar AND for their contributions that are
>unique.
>>
>>But tell you what, Carol: since I think Alan is inately wrong (again)
>and
>>that you were merely expounding off the top of your head (again), I'll
>let
>>you off the hook on a condition:
>>
>>Constitutionally justify disparate treatment based upon biology -- not
>>chronology -- and be sure to work in a suitable exception to equal
>>treatment under the laws.
>>
>>And Alan can rustle my grub. In an apron.
>>
>>
>>-rw
>
I would leave the "rustling of the grub" to those who both wish
to do it and who have the skills to do it. I wouldn't want to
be poisoned. :-)
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <554vj9$1...@explorer.csc.com> rwil...@csc.com (Ross Williams)
writes:
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >Alan, for a long time people have been claiming that biology is not
>: >destiny.
>: >
>: >If you claim that rights can be determined by physiology, you're
going>: >to open quite a can of worms I'm not sure you're prepared to
deal>: with.
>: -----
>: I'm afraid Alan is correct. Although men and women share a
humanity that allows for equality; our biology does limit us in
some ways.
>
>From flying sans mechanical intervention springs to mind. One of the
>limitations selectively imposed by biology should not be upon the
ability>to think.
---------
It isn't, at least, not in my case :]
>
>: To ignore those differences is ridiculous; those who drafted the
>: Constitution were much wiser than you or I since they knew that
we should not be pre-determined by either the things that make
us "the same" nor by the things that make us "different". A
man....a woman
>
>So now you're saying that Alan's wrong.
>
------
Not at all; I don't think what Alan has said contradicts my
own views. Equal protection under the law may simply not be
what you seem to think it is.
-------
>: each of us bleed and share common ground; each of us have much
to add to the glory of the other; each of us may have some few
differences that provides unique contribution. No, biology is
not "destiny", but it does provide some few reasons that the
different genders are dis-similarly situated. That is allowed
in a society where there are two genders,
>
-----
>Oh, well, in that case, you'd best hie thine butt into the kitchen and
>rustle me up some grub.
-------
...and just why would I do that? In case you hadn't noticed
my equality doesn't depend on you, or what you think of the
constitution. As for "grub", I prefer cuisine, and that
shared with someone who doesn't give me indigestion.
--------
You appear, instead,>to be rationalizing social power differentials
based upon inate biology.>And if we're going in that direction, power
is power, and it exists>manifest in an individual or group who can
acquire it by whatever means>are expedient at the time. A
neo-machiavellian means-justified end, as it>were. "If I can take it
it belongs to me."
>
>So where's my grub?
--------
It's wrapped up in the 14th amendment nice and tight. It looks
like the only way you'll get it is by an overthrow of the govt.
and even if the govt. falls your food won't be served by the likes
of me who'd much rather die on her feet than live on her knees.
Lefty
Ross Williams
: writes:
: >: I'm afraid Alan is correct. Although men and women share a
: some ways.
: >
: >From flying sans mechanical intervention springs to mind. One of the
: >limitations selectively imposed by biology should not be upon the
: ability>to think.
: It isn't, at least, not in my case :]
Well, we have only your objection to the suggestion, and little else.
You've given no positive evidence that you *can* think insofar as you have
neatly avoided answering the question.
: You appear, instead,>to be rationalizing social power differentials
: based upon inate biology.>And if we're going in that direction, power
: is power, and it exists>manifest in an individual or group who can
: acquire it by whatever means>are expedient at the time. A
: neo-machiavellian means-justified end, as it>were. "If I can take it
: it belongs to me."
Remember me saying this?
Do we need to get into a discussion of power theory, now? How it can be
imposed or cooperatively assigned? How imposed power is brute force and
cooperative power is, in this case, maintained by legal and lawful
structure?
Do we need to do that?
Do I need to give you a refresher course on constitutional law which, from
your description, you should know better than I? Do you need to be
tutored in Remedial Jim Crow Fallacy?
Here is the question again.
: >Constitutionally justify disparate treatment based upon biology -- not
: >chronology -- and be sure to work in a suitable exception to equal
: >treatment under the laws.
Answer, please.
Keep in mind that if you can justify disparate constitutional treatment of
"equal" citizens based upon their gender (in this case), you are also
justifying continued disparity based upon increasingly tenuous inate
traits -- women are generally smaller and weaker than men, ergo they do
not deserve the "right" to compete for physical jobs (which tend to pay
better); women show consistently less acuity in abstract reasoning than
men, ergo no engineering admission for women at college...
Are you willing to go down that road? Even a step?
Answer the fucking question.
-rw
Ross Williams
Marg Petersen (god...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
: Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >>From flying sans mechanical intervention springs to mind. One of the
: >>limitations selectively imposed by biology should not be upon the
: >ability>to think.
: > It isn't, at least, not in my case :]
: Nor in mine, although there seem to be some who dispute this. :-)
Naivete, despite the shovel-fulls of sincerity tossed after it, does not
subsitute.
: >>Oh, well, in that case, you'd best hie thine butt into the kitchen and
: >>rustle me up some grub.
: >
: > ...and just why would I do that? In case you hadn't noticed
: > my equality doesn't depend on you, or what you think of the
: > constitution. As for "grub", I prefer cuisine, and that
: > shared with someone who doesn't give me indigestion.
: Nor does it answer the question, "just WHY should his need for
: *grub* be YOUR (or MY) responsibility. Are not men capable of
: "rustling grub"
Try to pay attention, here, Miss Deliberately Dense.
This part of the discussion is centered upon allowing differential
treatment under our constitutional system by virtue of gender.
I personally consider such to be sexist and ludicrous, not to mention
unconstitutional. But be that as it may, Miss Law Student over there and
Mr Sniffing Disapproval standing next to her are all in favor of it.
So fine. Let's play that game.
We are justified, in this superficially expedient thought experiment of
yours, in using inate sexual characteristics to support lawful disparity
in the treatment of our fellow citizens.
In case you hadn't noticed, a sexual characteristic of male-ness is
greater size and strength, fractionally, on average compared to the
average female.
Greater size and strength would imply to most who have paid attention to
life that force of will might be exerted.
In which case, a practical extension of justifying inate gender
differences to force of law would be that if I, through physical force,
can force you to rustle me up some grub, I have the full power and
authority of our constitutional government behind me.
My challenge is: justify disparate treatment of citizens by dint of gender
and then go get me a fucking beer; or drop it.
I don't know why this has to be so difficult for you to understand.
: >>So where's my grub?
: >
: > It's wrapped up in the 14th amendment nice and tight. It looks
: > like the only way you'll get it is by an overthrow of the govt.
: > and even if the govt. falls your food won't be served by the likes
: > of me who'd much rather die on her feet than live on her knees.
: Very well said! Go back to a so-called *simpler* time? I'd rather die,
: thank you very much!
What was very well said?
Anything that Carol stated is wrapped up in a nice cocoon of expedient
rationalization.
: >>Constitutionally justify disparate treatment based upon biology -- not
: >>chronology -- and be sure to work in a suitable exception to equal
: >>treatment under the laws.
: I would leave the "rustling of the grub" to those who both wish
: to do it and who have the skills to do it. I wouldn't want to
: be poisoned. :-)
If you're going to continue to rationalize treating men differently from
women because men are not women, then the rustling of the grub will
eventually be done by those who are made to do it.
I know where I'd place *my* bets. Wench.
-rw
Marg Petersen
In article <55acri$j...@explorer.csc.com>,
Ross Williams <rwil...@csc.com> wrote:
>Marg Petersen (god...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
>: Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>: >>From flying sans mechanical intervention springs to mind. One of the
>: >>limitations selectively imposed by biology should not be upon the
>: >ability>to think.
>: > It isn't, at least, not in my case :]
>
>: Nor in mine, although there seem to be some who dispute this. :-)
>
>subsitute.
OOooooh, I haven't been called naive for such a long time. It's
almost titilating! :-)
>: >>Oh, well, in that case, you'd best hie thine butt into the kitchen and
>: >>rustle me up some grub.
>: >
>: > ...and just why would I do that? In case you hadn't noticed
>: > my equality doesn't depend on you, or what you think of the
>: > constitution. As for "grub", I prefer cuisine, and that
>: > shared with someone who doesn't give me indigestion.
>
>: Nor does it answer the question, "just WHY should his need for
>: *grub* be YOUR (or MY) responsibility. Are not men capable of
>: "rustling grub"
>
>Try to pay attention, here, Miss Deliberately Dense.
:-) You didn't answer the question or do you believe that men
are NOT capable of rustling grub?
>This part of the discussion is centered upon allowing differential
>treatment under our constitutional system by virtue of gender.
ONLY where that *differential* treatment is based upon real and
proven differences in the genders.
>I personally consider such to be sexist and ludicrous, not to mention
>unconstitutional. But be that as it may, Miss Law Student over there and
>Mr Sniffing Disapproval standing next to her are all in favor of it.
>
>So fine. Let's play that game.
>
>We are justified, in this superficially expedient thought experiment of
>yours, in using inate sexual characteristics to support lawful disparity
>in the treatment of our fellow citizens.
Okay, so far.
>In case you hadn't noticed, a sexual characteristic of male-ness is
>greater size and strength, fractionally, on average compared to the
>average female.
Not always and not easily proven.
>Greater size and strength would imply to most who have paid attention to
>life that force of will might be exerted.
Ah, but force of will and force by brute strength are not the same.
>In which case, a practical extension of justifying inate gender
>differences to force of law would be that if I, through physical force,
>can force you to rustle me up some grub, I have the full power and
>authority of our constitutional government behind me.
I'd like to see you try. :-)
>My challenge is: justify disparate treatment of citizens by dint of gender
>and then go get me a fucking beer; or drop it.
It can be *proven* that I CAN bear and give birth to a child.
Can YOU prove that YOU can? On the other hand, I CAN prove that
you are capable of getting your own fucking beer.
>I don't know why this has to be so difficult for you to understand.
I know exactly what you are saying. I simply disagree with it.
>: >>So where's my grub?
>: >
>: > It's wrapped up in the 14th amendment nice and tight. It looks
>: > like the only way you'll get it is by an overthrow of the govt.
>: > and even if the govt. falls your food won't be served by the likes
>: > of me who'd much rather die on her feet than live on her knees.
>
>: Very well said! Go back to a so-called *simpler* time? I'd rather die,
>: thank you very much!
>
>What was very well said?
Having a problem with reading are we? Look again.
>Anything that Carol stated is wrapped up in a nice cocoon of expedient
>rationalization.
Sheeesh! If a man says such a thing (which one in particular did in
historical times), you would probably pay attention. When a women
says the same thing, you what? Don't understand? Poor baby.
>: >>Constitutionally justify disparate treatment based upon biology -- not
>: >>chronology -- and be sure to work in a suitable exception to equal
>: >>treatment under the laws.
>
>: I would leave the "rustling of the grub" to those who both wish
>: to do it and who have the skills to do it. I wouldn't want to
>: be poisoned. :-)
>
>If you're going to continue to rationalize treating men differently from
>women because men are not women, then the rustling of the grub will
>eventually be done by those who are made to do it.
Well now, wanta try? Your problem is that with your hypothesis
someone has to be *made* to something. What we have been discussing
is the capabilities of one sex that another simply does not have,
no matter how you (or anyone else) might wish to have it.
>I know where I'd place *my* bets. Wench.
>-rw
Ah, another *titillating* bit. :-) And you know something, BABE,
you just might be wrong!
Stephanie Smith
In article <55b4ra$e...@kira.peak.org>, god...@kira.peak.org says...
>
>In article <55acri$j...@explorer.csc.com>,
>Ross Williams <rwil...@csc.com> wrote:
>>Marg Petersen (god...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
>>: Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>This part of the discussion is centered upon allowing differential
>>treatment under our constitutional system by virtue of gender.
>
>ONLY where that *differential* treatment is based upon real and
>proven differences in the genders.
>
>>I personally consider such to be sexist and ludicrous, not to mention
>>unconstitutional. But be that as it may, Miss Law Student over there
and
>>Mr Sniffing Disapproval standing next to her are all in favor of it.
The question is: what differences in the sexes require different
treatment, and what specific different treatment are we talking about?
>>So fine. Let's play that game.
>>We are justified, in this superficially expedient thought experiment of
>>yours, in using inate sexual characteristics to support lawful
disparity
>>in the treatment of our fellow citizens.
>Okay, so far.
The 14th amendment states: "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction _the equal protection of the laws_."
(emphasis added.)
The meaning, obviously, being that a state (or the fed gov't, under the
5th amendment), cannot pass laws treating women and men differently (and
same for other orgs which can be considered state actors).
The problem is that while this is nearly uniform for race based
differences (AA aside for now) -- the SC has held that there is almost no
justification for a race-based distinctions, since there is no legitimate
distinction that is likely to depend on race, so one who wants to uphold
such a distinction must pass a very high hurdle is showing compelling
need for the distinction -- it is not so for sex differences. Rather
than the strict scrutiny standard applied to race, sex distinctions get
an "intermediate scrutiny" standard, since the Court believed both that
there were legitimate sex-based differences, and because the 14th
amendment was passed primarily to deal with race discrimination.
However:
>>In case you hadn't noticed, a sexual characteristic of male-ness is
>>greater size and strength, fractionally, on average compared to the
>>average female.
>Not always and not easily proven.
Easily proven perhaps, but "on average" does not necessarily amount to an
actual difference between people based on sex. For example, a statute
setting a higher drinking age for men than women was struck down, despite
the fact that on average women between 18-21 were in far less drinking
related accidents, the primary motivation for the raised drinking age.
>>Greater size and strength would imply to most who have paid attention
to
>>life that force of will might be exerted.
>
>Ah, but force of will and force by brute strength are not the same.
Also, what does this have to do with a law?
>>In which case, a practical extension of justifying inate gender
>>differences to force of law would be that if I, through physical force,
>>can force you to rustle me up some grub, I have the full power and
>>authority of our constitutional government behind me.
>
>I'd like to see you try. :-)
But actually, assuming the goal of gov't is to protect its citizens
(which laws against crime indicates it is), this would argue in favor of
laws protecting women more than men. How does allowing all who can
physically force their will on others to do so have anything to do with
equal protection? In fact, states are certainly free to get rid of laws
making this a crime, but I don't see that happening.
>>My challenge is: justify disparate treatment of citizens by dint of
gender
>>and then go get me a fucking beer; or drop it.
>
>It can be *proven* that I CAN bear and give birth to a child.
>Can YOU prove that YOU can? On the other hand, I CAN prove that
>you are capable of getting your own fucking beer.
What distinctions in the *laws* are justified by this difference?
Differences in paternity and maternity leave aren't, IMO. Leave for
childbirth is already treated as disability, so is not a sex issue that I
can see. In fact, this could be dangerous, since it could justify
allowing discrimination against women based on the possibility of harming
a fetus or later-conceived child, even though many women choose not to
have children.
Stephanie
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <55acri$j...@explorer.csc.com> rwil...@csc.com (Ross Williams)
writes:
>
(edit)
>If you're going to continue to rationalize treating men differently
from>women because men are not women, then the rustling of the grub
will>eventually be done by those who are made to do it.
>
>I know where I'd place *my* bets. Wench.
>
>-rw
------
Women tend to "rustle" grub, but things are changing just a bit;
many of them "rustle" for money, and that sector is growing; women
who are "rustling" for free are becoming fewer and farther between.
One still cannot enforce laws that discriminate where folks are
similarly situated. That's what's great about America.
As for wenches.....I was one ....for Halloween; it was great! It
gave me a good opportunity to both bare my assets and give in to
my submissive side; diversity in all things is rather healthy!
Lefty
Ross Williams
Marg Petersen (god...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
: Ross Williams <rwil...@csc.com> wrote:
: >Try to pay attention, here, Miss Deliberately Dense.
: :-) You didn't answer the question or do you believe that men
: are NOT capable of rustling grub?
Pertinence? [There is none, don't waste your time.]
: >This part of the discussion is centered upon allowing differential
: >treatment under our constitutional system by virtue of gender.
: ONLY where that *differential* treatment is based upon real and
: proven differences in the genders.
Blacks are the ONLY people who get sickle-cell anemia; people of
hebraic-descent are the ONLY ones to get Tay-Sachs.
Are you suggesting, then, that we allow health insurance carriers to deny
medical insurance coverage due to these real and proven differences?
: >So fine. Let's play that game.
: >We are justified, in this superficially expedient thought experiment of
: >yours, in using inate sexual characteristics to support lawful disparity
: >in the treatment of our fellow citizens.
: Okay, so far.
I had a flashback to George Wallace standing on the steps to Alabama State
University.
Could someone tell me why?
: >In case you hadn't noticed, a sexual characteristic of male-ness is
: >greater size and strength, fractionally, on average compared to the
: >average female.
: Not always and not easily proven.
Scuse you? It's inCREDibly easily proven. Medical dosage charts are
based upon such; military physical conditioning requirements are based
upon such.
: >Greater size and strength would imply to most who have paid attention to
: >life that force of will might be exerted.
: Ah, but force of will and force by brute strength are not the same.
Compulsion is compulsion. Do we really need to get into power theory?
: >In which case, a practical extension of justifying inate gender
: >differences to force of law would be that if I, through physical force,
: >can force you to rustle me up some grub, I have the full power and
: >authority of our constitutional government behind me.
: >My challenge is: justify disparate treatment of citizens by dint of gender
: >and then go get me a fucking beer; or drop it.
: It can be *proven* that I CAN bear and give birth to a child.
: Can YOU prove that YOU can? On the other hand, I CAN prove that
: you are capable of getting your own fucking beer.
You are capable of being a parent. I shall stipulate this; keep your
proof to yourself. I also am capable of being a parent, send me your
snail address and I'll send you last year's family photo of me, my wife,
two sons and, if you observe the little woman, you'll notice she ain't so
little -- there's a daughter under there somewhere.
However, under color of law, my wife is the only one of the two people in
the photo provably capable of being parents who has any right to
unilateraly decide, after the fact of conception or after the fact of
birth, her own responsibility for actually *being* a parent.
This is acceptable to you, Mr Wallace?
Effectively, the law declares that a woman has rights to alter heretofore
immutable reproductive imperative, and can, through that auspice, compel
a male to a responsibility that she is under no obligation to accept
herself. Biology is now destiny. With the full blessing of the law.
Fine. Let me twist your arm, knock you down a few times and drag you to
the kitchen until you learn where the beer is. I can use biology to
compel, as well.
What is it called when I compel? That's exactly what it's called when you
do it.
: >I don't know why this has to be so difficult for you to understand.
: I know exactly what you are saying. I simply disagree with it.
"I got mine; y'all can rot in hell."
: >Anything that Carol stated is wrapped up in a nice cocoon of expedient
: >rationalization.
: Sheeesh! If a man says such a thing (which one in particular did in
: historical times), you would probably pay attention. When a women
: says the same thing, you what? Don't understand? Poor baby.
Scuse you again? You are assuming much, substantiating only through tug
of emotion. I put up with self-serving horseshit from any quarter with
the same degree of denunciation.
: >: >>Constitutionally justify disparate treatment based upon biology -- not
: >: >>chronology -- and be sure to work in a suitable exception to equal
: >: >>treatment under the laws.
: >
: >: I would leave the "rustling of the grub" to those who both wish
: >: to do it and who have the skills to do it. I wouldn't want to
: >: be poisoned. :-)
: >
: >If you're going to continue to rationalize treating men differently from
: >women because men are not women, then the rustling of the grub will
: >eventually be done by those who are made to do it.
: Well now, wanta try? Your problem is that with your hypothesis
: someone has to be *made* to something. What we have been discussing
: is the capabilities of one sex that another simply does not have,
: no matter how you (or anyone else) might wish to have it.
I beg your pardon? Men are not capable of reproducing? They are
incapable of being called "parent"? Then you have even less of an
argument than you are fronting.
Here's the synopsis:
Women are capable of being a parent;
Men are capable of being a parent;
Women are lawfully allowed to alter biological destiny, after two crucial
junctures, and deny their parental responsibility;
Men are not so allowed by law to alter their own parental responsibility.
The only capabilities "of one sex that another simply does not have" are
those which are granted by law and, as such, are entirely circular in
design. "It is this because we define it as this. So you can't deny
'this'." In so doing, the definition is in direct conflict with the
constitutional decree of equal treatment UNDER THE LAW. It really matters
little that women are the only people with wombs; the right to control
one's own reproduction belongs to everyone in equal LAWFUL regard. If one
is given a post-event right to control a thing, then everyone must be
given that right.
Declarations to the contrary are a self-serving, incomplete definition
created by political expedience to serve political ends. As such it is
entirely alterable.
-rw
Ross Williams
Stephanie Smith (us01...@interramp.com) wrote:
: In article <55b4ra$e...@kira.peak.org>, god...@kira.peak.org says...
: >Ross Williams <rwil...@csc.com> wrote:
: >>Marg Petersen (god...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
: >>: Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >>unconstitutional. But be that as it may, Miss Law Student over there
: The question is: what differences in the sexes require different
: treatment, and what specific different treatment are we talking about?
The differences: a woman is capable of being a mother; a man is capable of
being a father. Current differential treatment: mothers are allowed to
effect post-conception denial of motherhood; fathers are not allowed to
effect post-conception denial of fatherhood.
: >>So fine. Let's play that game.
: >>We are justified, in this superficially expedient thought experiment of
: >>yours, in using inate sexual characteristics to support lawful
: disparity
: >>in the treatment of our fellow citizens.
: >Okay, so far.
: The 14th amendment states: "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of
: life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
: person within its jurisdiction _the equal protection of the laws_."
: (emphasis added.)
: The meaning, obviously, being that a state (or the fed gov't, under the
: 5th amendment), cannot pass laws treating women and men differently (and
: same for other orgs which can be considered state actors).
I'll say "Okay, so far" unless Marg has a copyright upon it.
: The problem is that while this is nearly uniform for race based
: differences (AA aside for now) -- the SC has held that there is almost no
: justification for a race-based distinctions, since there is no legitimate
: distinction that is likely to depend on race, so one who wants to uphold
: such a distinction must pass a very high hurdle is showing compelling
: need for the distinction -- it is not so for sex differences. Rather
: than the strict scrutiny standard applied to race, sex distinctions get
: an "intermediate scrutiny" standard, since the Court believed both that
: there were legitimate sex-based differences, and because the 14th
: amendment was passed primarily to deal with race discrimination.
Uh-huh. One of those early "legitimate" differences is that woman's place
is in the home with the youngsters. I really should go back and get that
cite; it keeps coming up again and again.
: However:
: >>In case you hadn't noticed, a sexual characteristic of male-ness is
: >>greater size and strength, fractionally, on average compared to the
: >>average female.
: >Not always and not easily proven.
: Easily proven perhaps, but "on average" does not necessarily amount to an
: actual difference between people based on sex. For example, a statute
: setting a higher drinking age for men than women was struck down, despite
: the fact that on average women between 18-21 were in far less drinking
: related accidents, the primary motivation for the raised drinking age.
: >>Greater size and strength would imply to most who have paid attention
: to
: >>life that force of will might be exerted.
: >
: >Ah, but force of will and force by brute strength are not the same.
: Also, what does this have to do with a law?
We are in the business of rationalizing state authority of gender-based
differences. A law effecting such would be the next logical step.
Unless we really *don't* want to rationalize state authority of
gender-based differences. Which is personally preferable, but then it
would preclude much of the contentious denial of the validity of c4m.
: >>In which case, a practical extension of justifying inate gender
: >>differences to force of law would be that if I, through physical force,
: >>can force you to rustle me up some grub, I have the full power and
: >>authority of our constitutional government behind me.
: >
: >I'd like to see you try. :-)
: But actually, assuming the goal of gov't is to protect its citizens
: (which laws against crime indicates it is), this would argue in favor of
: laws protecting women more than men. How does allowing all who can
How so? Men are several times more likely to be on the short end of the
physical compulsion of others.
: physically force their will on others to do so have anything to do with
: equal protection? In fact, states are certainly free to get rid of laws
: making this a crime, but I don't see that happening.
Neither do I. Emotional merde infuses our laws, and people are far too
comfortable with that.
: >>My challenge is: justify disparate treatment of citizens by dint of
: gender
: >>and then go get me a fucking beer; or drop it.
: >
: >It can be *proven* that I CAN bear and give birth to a child.
: >Can YOU prove that YOU can? On the other hand, I CAN prove that
: >you are capable of getting your own fucking beer.
: What distinctions in the *laws* are justified by this difference?
None, in the *law*. Even when the telling difference in parenthood is
leadingly phrased to be made contingent upon actually giving birth vice
not. That is my point that seems so elusive to others. And which is
constitutionally supportible, even while Carol invokes it herself to deny
the point. Equal treatment UNDER THE LAW.
There are definitely practical considerations to be acknowledged as widely
differential in this gender issue as with any other, but those are
irrelevant when concerning oneself with the *law* and the allowances the
law creates. If anyone wants to start bringing up any of those practical
considerations, please do so. Those considerations, however, are not
properly considered to be a defense of denial of equal treatment UNDER THE
LAW.
: Differences in paternity and maternity leave aren't, IMO. Leave for
: childbirth is already treated as disability, so is not a sex issue that I
Defining such leave as "disability" is patently absurd and more than a
little insulting. Pregnancy and its aftermath are putatively voluntary
activities, as is drinking to excess. Yet I do not get disability pay on
the morning after the Cubs win the World Series.
But this is off the subject and merely a matter of semantics. As far as I
am concerned.
The *law* has an obligation to grant each citizen the same deal. If there
are practical exigencies which interfere with a rote equality, the *law*
has a duty to do the best it can under the circumstances to effect the
same deal. The *law* NEVER has the option of tossing up its hands and
saying, "This is just too tough for me to handle." The only entity(ies)
which it may be said to be too tough for are individuals who do not wish
to think about the subject for any number of subjective, superficial or
insentience reasons. Individuals who suggest the *law* ignore groups of
people for the sake of expedience or the sake of politics are suited only
to legitimizing despotism and have no place in a democracy.
Sorry if my own idealism is insulting to anyone.
-rw
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <55aalb$c...@explorer.csc.com> rwil...@csc.com (Ross Williams)
writes:
>
edit:
>Here is the question again.
>
>: >Constitutionally justify disparate treatment based upon biology --
not: >chronology -- and be sure to work in a suitable exception to
equal >treatment under the laws.
>
>Answer, please.
-----
Well, I thought I had, but I'll try again. Per the 14th amendment
we may treat people differently where they are not "similarly
situated"....that has been defined by case law, and, I imagine,
will continue to be defined by case law. Also (and perhaps the
more important part, is that we may NOT treat people differently
where the ARE similarly situated. In issues of gestation it has
already been determined that women are NOT similarly situated. In
issues regarding muscle mass some women are, in fact, similarly
situated, and not all men are as strong as some women. Therefore,
where women are able to compete in jobs having strength requirement
they should be allowed to do so, knowing they may not (like some
men) meet the requirement.
-------
>
>Keep in mind that if you can justify disparate constitutional
treatment of>"equal" citizens based upon their gender (in this case),
you are also>justifying continued disparity based upon increasingly
tenuous inate>traits -- women are generally smaller and weaker than
men, ergo they donot deserve the "right" to compete for physical jobs
(which tend to pay>better); women show consistently less acuity in
abstract reasoning than>men, ergo no engineering admission for women at
college...
------
Except that to show dis-similarity you would have to show that all
women are not as strong as all men...I don't think you can do that.
The fact remains that all women gestate; no men do. this creates
exactly the situation that is ripe for 14th amendment protections.
-------
>
>Are you willing to go down that road? Even a step?
-----
Sure....I'm only afraid of slippery slopes when it applies to
speech. :]
>
>Answer the fucking question.
>
-----
Did you ask a question about fucking? I thought it was about
equal protection under the law. :]
>-rw
Marg Petersen
In article <55d3d6$g...@explorer.csc.com>,
Bearing a child and being a parent are NOT the same no matter how
much you would like it to be.
>However, under color of law, my wife is the only one of the two people in
>the photo provably capable of being parents who has any right to
>unilateraly decide, after the fact of conception or after the fact of
>birth, her own responsibility for actually *being* a parent.
Yes, she is, because it is in HER body that will be carrying (or
not carrying) the fetus. Not yours, nor anyone else's body.
>This is acceptable to you, Mr Wallace?
Yes, it most definitely is.
>Effectively, the law declares that a woman has rights to alter heretofore
>immutable reproductive imperative, and can, through that auspice, compel
>a male to a responsibility that she is under no obligation to accept
>herself. Biology is now destiny. With the full blessing of the law.
IF a child is born, BOTH parents have the responsibility to contribute
to its support. If no child is born, no responsibilities to support.
>Fine. Let me twist your arm, knock you down a few times and drag you to
>the kitchen until you learn where the beer is. I can use biology to
>compel, as well.
And I have suggested that you would have MUCH difficulty doing so.
>What is it called when I compel? That's exactly what it's called when you
>do it.
I fail to see any similarity between a woman carrying (or not) a
child, and YOU insisting (forcing, compelling) someone to get you
a beer.
>: >I don't know why this has to be so difficult for you to understand.
>
>: I know exactly what you are saying. I simply disagree with it.
>
>"I got mine; y'all can rot in hell."
No, not at all. It's more like "if you haven't got a womb, you
don't get to decide."
>: >Anything that Carol stated is wrapped up in a nice cocoon of expedient
>: >rationalization.
>
>: Sheeesh! If a man says such a thing (which one in particular did in
>: historical times), you would probably pay attention. When a women
>: says the same thing, you what? Don't understand? Poor baby.
>
>Scuse you again? You are assuming much, substantiating only through tug
>of emotion. I put up with self-serving horseshit from any quarter with
>the same degree of denunciation.
>
>: >: >>Constitutionally justify disparate treatment based upon biology -- not
>: >: >>chronology -- and be sure to work in a suitable exception to equal
>: >: >>treatment under the laws.
>: >
>: >: I would leave the "rustling of the grub" to those who both wish
>: >: to do it and who have the skills to do it. I wouldn't want to
>: >: be poisoned. :-)
>: >
>: >If you're going to continue to rationalize treating men differently from
>: >women because men are not women, then the rustling of the grub will
>: >eventually be done by those who are made to do it.
>
>: Well now, wanta try? Your problem is that with your hypothesis
>: someone has to be *made* to something. What we have been discussing
>: is the capabilities of one sex that another simply does not have,
>: no matter how you (or anyone else) might wish to have it.
>
>I beg your pardon? Men are not capable of reproducing? They are
>incapable of being called "parent"? Then you have even less of an
>argument than you are fronting.
Both sexes are capable of *parenting*; both sexes are NOT capable
of carrying or giving birth.
>Here's the synopsis:
>
>Women are capable of being a parent;
>
>Men are capable of being a parent;
>
>Women are lawfully allowed to alter biological destiny, after two crucial
>junctures, and deny their parental responsibility;
Because with one solution, there is NO child to parent.
>Men are not so allowed by law to alter their own parental responsibility.
Correct, but *only* IF there IS a child to parent. So too are women,
IF there is a child to parent.
>The only capabilities "of one sex that another simply does not have" are
>those which are granted by law and, as such, are entirely circular in
>design. "It is this because we define it as this. So you can't deny
>'this'." In so doing, the definition is in direct conflict with the
>constitutional decree of equal treatment UNDER THE LAW. It really matters
>little that women are the only people with wombs; the right to control
>one's own reproduction belongs to everyone in equal LAWFUL regard. If one
>is given a post-event right to control a thing, then everyone must be
>given that right.
So, get a womb.
>Declarations to the contrary are a self-serving, incomplete definition
>created by political expedience to serve political ends. As such it is
>entirely alterable.
>
>-rw
Marg
Stephanie Smith
In article <55d752$t...@explorer.csc.com>, rwil...@csc.com says...
>
>Stephanie Smith (us01...@interramp.com) wrote:
>: In article <55b4ra$e...@kira.peak.org>, god...@kira.peak.org says...
>: >Ross Williams <rwil...@csc.com> wrote:
>: >>Marg Petersen (god...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
>: >>: Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>: The question is: what differences in the sexes require different
>: treatment, and what specific different treatment are we talking about?
>
>The differences: a woman is capable of being a mother; a man is capable
of
>being a father.
But I asked, for those proposing different treatment, what differences
require such treatment *under the law*? I don't think these difference
require different treatment at all, and unless I am misreading you, I
don't think you do either. So, for those who do (or you) the question
stands.
>Current differential treatment: mothers are allowed to
>effect post-conception denial of motherhood; fathers are not allowed to
>effect post-conception denial of fatherhood.
Women are not technically mothers until the kid is born. I actually
support c4m, but just don't think it is an equal protection issue (due
process I'll buy, but put that aside for now).
The law is sex neutral -- and it is admitted that men have an interest in
choosing abortion or not, just that the woman's interest in that, plus
her interest in determining whether to be pregnant/undergo an operation
as well outweighs it. My problem is in defining parenthood based on
genetics alone, when it is now possible to base it on choice, but if we
assume that parenthood is based on genetics (which it mostly is, though
not entirely), there is no violation of equal protection (no distinction
based on sex, just on person whose body is involved).
No need. I never said I agreed with this decision. I think it is
offensive and sex distinctions should be treated as race distinctions.
And note that it was the conservative justices who opposed strict
scrutiny.
>: However:
>
>: >>In case you hadn't noticed, a sexual characteristic of male-ness is
>: >>greater size and strength, fractionally, on average compared to the
>: >>average female.
>
>: >Not always and not easily proven.
>
>: Easily proven perhaps, but "on average" does not necessarily amount to
an
>: actual difference between people based on sex. For example, a statute
>: setting a higher drinking age for men than women was struck down,
despite
>: the fact that on average women between 18-21 were in far less drinking
>: related accidents, the primary motivation for the raised drinking age.
>
>: >>Greater size and strength would imply to most who have paid
attention
>: to
>: >>life that force of will might be exerted.
>: >
>: >Ah, but force of will and force by brute strength are not the same.
>
>: Also, what does this have to do with a law?
>
>We are in the business of rationalizing state authority of gender-based
>differences. A law effecting such would be the next logical step.
I do not wish to rationalize state authority of sex based differences.
But I certainly don't see how effectuating such would be the next logical
step. If you want to allow those who are physically stronger (more men
than women) to push around others, the obvious approach would be no law.
The purpose of laws against violence would seem to be to prevent the
weaker from being pushed about. So why would you have a law saying only
the stronger could push the weaker around. Am I missing something?
>Unless we really *don't* want to rationalize state authority of
>gender-based differences. Which is personally preferable, but then it
>would preclude much of the contentious denial of the validity of c4m.
Well, like I said, I don't think c4m has anything to do with equal
protection. Its absence (the current situations) is certainly not
required by equal protection. The argument that equal protection means
that laws must be passed to equalize natural differences, or that neutral
laws are not allowed due to equal protection is nonsence (if anyone has
argued that).
>: >>In which case, a practical extension of justifying inate gender
>: >>differences to force of law would be that if I, through physical
force,
>: >>can force you to rustle me up some grub, I have the full power and
>: >>authority of our constitutional government behind me.
>: >
>: >I'd like to see you try. :-)
>
>: But actually, assuming the goal of gov't is to protect its citizens
>: (which laws against crime indicates it is), this would argue in favor
of
>: laws protecting women more than men. How does allowing all who can
>
>How so? Men are several times more likely to be on the short end of the
>physical compulsion of others.
Only under your argument, which is that men are stronger than women so
the natural situation is that they would be able to push them around. In
fact, your objection here points out why this is not the sort of
difference that is relevant to the law -- one man is just as likely to be
able to push around another man as to be able to push around a woman
(especially since weapons can equalize difference in strength).
>: physically force their will on others to do so have anything to do
with
>: equal protection? In fact, states are certainly free to get rid of
laws
>: making this a crime, but I don't see that happening.
>
>Neither do I. Emotional merde infuses our laws, and people are far too
>comfortable with that.
We agree. But I do think that protecting people from physical force of
others is a legitimate exercise of state power. I just don't think it
should impose morality (one reason why I support c4m).
>: >>My challenge is: justify disparate treatment of citizens by dint of
>: gender
>: >>and then go get me a fucking beer; or drop it.
>: >
>: >It can be *proven* that I CAN bear and give birth to a child.
>: >Can YOU prove that YOU can? On the other hand, I CAN prove that
>: >you are capable of getting your own fucking beer.
>
>: What distinctions in the *laws* are justified by this difference?
>
>None, in the *law*.
Agree. But aren't Lefty and Marg claiming that some are? I would like
to know what, especially since I think such distinctions are just as
likely to harm women as benefit them.
>Even when the telling difference in parenthood is
>leadingly phrased to be made contingent upon actually giving birth vice
>not.
But one simply isn't a parent before a child is born. I think a better
way to phrase you argument is that women can't be parents unless they
choose to, so the same should be true for men. But I think this is more
of a due process/right to privacy argument. (Or even a policy argument.)
>That is my point that seems so elusive to others. And which is
>constitutionally supportible, even while Carol invokes it herself to
deny
>the point. Equal treatment UNDER THE LAW.
>
>There are definitely practical considerations to be acknowledged as
widely
>differential in this gender issue as with any other, but those are
>irrelevant when concerning oneself with the *law* and the allowances the
>law creates. If anyone wants to start bringing up any of those
practical
>considerations, please do so. Those considerations, however, are not
>properly considered to be a defense of denial of equal treatment UNDER
THE
>LAW.
>
>: Differences in paternity and maternity leave aren't, IMO. Leave for
>: childbirth is already treated as disability, so is not a sex issue
that I
>
>Defining such leave as "disability" is patently absurd and more than a
>little insulting. Pregnancy and its aftermath are putatively voluntary
>activities, as is drinking to excess. Yet I do not get disability pay
on
>the morning after the Cubs win the World Series.
If you get injured due to a risk you incur voluntarily, you can generally
get disability. If you get injured due to being drunk, you could
probably get disability. My objection to the way this is done (with
pregnancy) is that it usually gets tacked on to leave whether or not the
medical justification actually exists. But at any rate, I might
actually agree with you here, but this was more a question for someone
advocating such distinctions (Marg or Lefty perhaps).
And if the Cubs won the World Series, I bet you could get at least a sick
day. A suspicious number of people were absent from my office after the
Bulls won the Championship last summer, and that's hardly of the same
magnitude anymore. :-)
>But this is off the subject and merely a matter of semantics. As far as
I
>am concerned.
>
>The *law* has an obligation to grant each citizen the same deal.
Only if the *law* gets involved in the first place. The law need not
correct for natural differences, whether they are due to sex or not. But
if the law does get involved, it should treat people neutrally.
>If there
>are practical exigencies which interfere with a rote equality, the *law*
>has a duty to do the best it can under the circumstances to effect the
>same deal. The *law* NEVER has the option of tossing up its hands and
>saying, "This is just too tough for me to handle."
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but this sounds a bit too much like
equality of outcome to me. If stupid people are incapable of succeeding
to the extent that intelligent people can (to use a simplistic example),
obviously the law need not get involved to correct for that. Laws are
never *required*, they just must be fair if they exist. Abortion is the
absence of a law.
Stephanie
>The only entity(ies)
>which it may be said to be too tough for are individuals who do not wish
>to think about the subject for any number of subjective, superficial or
>insentience reasons Individuals who suggest the *law* ignore groups of
Ross Williams
In article <55eh50$2...@usenet4.interramp.com> Stephanie Smith wrote:
>In article <55d752$t...@explorer.csc.com>, rwil...@csc.com says...
>>Stephanie Smith (us01...@interramp.com) wrote:
>>: In article <55b4ra$e...@kira.peak.org>, god...@kira.peak.org says...
>>: >Ross Williams <rwil...@csc.com> wrote:
>>: >>Marg Petersen (god...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
>>: >>: Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>: The question is: what differences in the sexes require different
>>: treatment, and what specific different treatment are we talking about?
>>
>>The differences: a woman is capable of being a mother; a man is capable
>of
>>being a father.
>
>But I asked, for those proposing different treatment, what differences
>require such treatment *under the law*? I don't think these difference
>require different treatment at all, and unless I am misreading you, I
>don't think you do either. So, for those who do (or you) the question
>stands.
You are not misreading.
>>Current differential treatment: mothers are allowed to
>>effect post-conception denial of motherhood; fathers are not allowed to
>>effect post-conception denial of fatherhood.
>
>Women are not technically mothers until the kid is born.
I get so tired of saying "putative mothers, ~~ fathers". Sounds kinda
dirty.
>I actually
>support c4m, but just don't think it is an equal protection issue (due
>process I'll buy, but put that aside for now).
Why wouldn't it be an equal protection issue? The specific right granted
women is a right to reproductive privacy manifest in abortion. Men do not
have a right to reproductive privacy manifest in ANYthing --
post-conception. Crafting the law to rough equality in any specific
instance is (or I'd think would be) considered equal protection on top of
the specific constitutional justification it's being rendered *for*.
>The law is sex neutral
It should be, yes.
>-- and it is admitted that men have an interest in
>choosing abortion or not, just that the woman's interest in that, plus
>her interest in determining whether to be pregnant/undergo an operation
>as well outweighs it.
Men, interest, yes. Women's specific interest greater, will stipulate.
>My problem is in defining parenthood based on
>genetics alone, when it is now possible to base it on choice, but if we
>assume that parenthood is based on genetics (which it mostly is, though
>not entirely), there is no violation of equal protection (no distinction
>based on sex, just on person whose body is involved).
This I do not understand.
>>: The 14th amendment states: "[N]or shall any State deprive any person
>of
>>: life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
>any
>>: person within its jurisdiction _the equal protection of the laws_."
>>: (emphasis added.)
>>
>>: The meaning, obviously, being that a state (or the fed gov't, under
>the
>>: 5th amendment), cannot pass laws treating women and men differently
>(and
>>: same for other orgs which can be considered state actors).
>>
>>Uh-huh. One of those early "legitimate" differences is that woman's
>place
>>is in the home with the youngsters. I really should go back and get
>that
>>cite; it keeps coming up again and again.
>
>No need. I never said I agreed with this decision. I think it is
I still want it. Personal reasons.
>offensive and sex distinctions should be treated as race distinctions.
>And note that it was the conservative justices who opposed strict
>scrutiny.
>>We are in the business of rationalizing state authority of gender-based
>>differences. A law effecting such would be the next logical step.
>
>I do not wish to rationalize state authority of sex based differences.
>But I certainly don't see how effectuating such would be the next logical
>step. If you want to allow those who are physically stronger (more men
>than women) to push around others, the obvious approach would be no law.
Reductio ad absurdum construction to (attempt to) show the invalidity of
declaring "I can get something you can't; I'm better than you-ou." It seems
to have sailed over their heads, which indicates they are incapable of
reasoning in the abstract.
>>Unless we really *don't* want to rationalize state authority of
>>gender-based differences. Which is personally preferable, but then it
>>would preclude much of the contentious denial of the validity of c4m.
>
>Well, like I said, I don't think c4m has anything to do with equal
>protection. Its absence (the current situations) is certainly not
>required by equal protection.
And allowing blacks at the lunch counter wasn't required by equal
protection, either, until it was. I don't buy the Carol Ann argument of,
"The High Nine haven't stated *this*, so *this* is an invalid constitutional
argument." People who use that argument tend to be machiavellian putzes: "I
got mine, you don't need yours."
>The argument that equal protection means
>that laws must be passed to equalize natural differences, or that neutral
>laws are not allowed due to equal protection is nonsence (if anyone has
>argued that).
>
>>: But actually, assuming the goal of gov't is to protect its citizens
>>: (which laws against crime indicates it is), this would argue in favor
>of
>>: laws protecting women more than men. How does allowing all who can
>>
>>How so? Men are several times more likely to be on the short end of the
>>physical compulsion of others.
>
>Only under your argument, which is that men are stronger than women so
No. Men are victimized by violent crime far more often than women are.
That's FBI stats.
>We agree. But I do think that protecting people from physical force of
>others is a legitimate exercise of state power. I just don't think it
>should impose morality (one reason why I support c4m).
Okay; that's the back door, but you're in. Whew!
>>: >It can be *proven* that I CAN bear and give birth to a child.
>>: >Can YOU prove that YOU can? On the other hand, I CAN prove that
>>: >you are capable of getting your own fucking beer.
>>
>>: What distinctions in the *laws* are justified by this difference?
>>
>>None, in the *law*.
>
>Agree. But aren't Lefty and Marg claiming that some are? I would like
>to know what, especially since I think such distinctions are just as
>likely to harm women as benefit them.
"What" seems to be centered upon a reverential placing of their uterii.
I also would like to know why they are willing to allow themselves to become
objectified in such a way, especially since Carol has *always* objected to
previous attempts at female objectification. My guess is that Marg would as
well, but I don't know.
I find it politically convenient, which is to say hypocritical, of
individuals who object to gender-based treatment because of the special
characteristics of that gender (and we are of course referring to
bun-ovening) when that treatment insinuates itself into immediate desires of
the woman, but when the immediate desire is that a special priviledge be
granted, or special dispensation be issued, up the flagpole goes that
uterus, and heaven help the guy who says "Well, that's pretty disgusting."
But I'd suggest that if they are really that keen on having their uterii
justifying disparate treatment, then they'd best get away from the computer,
work only in chinese laundries (or other such unautomated places) etc until
after menopause. That which is revered, in order to not invalidate the
lawful warranty we assume it to have, must be protected. Due vigilence, and
all that.
>>Even when the telling difference in parenthood is
>>leadingly phrased to be made contingent upon actually giving birth vice
>>not.
>
>But one simply isn't a parent before a child is born. I think a better
>way to phrase you argument is that women can't be parents unless they
>choose to, so the same should be true for men. But I think this is more
>of a due process/right to privacy argument. (Or even a policy argument.)
Which, since women already have this, sorta extends it to equal protection.
>>The *law* has an obligation to grant each citizen the same deal.
>
>Only if the *law* gets involved in the first place.
The law is involved.
>The law need not
>correct for natural differences, whether they are due to sex or not.
Ever hear of the Americans With Disabilities Act?
>But
>if the law does get involved, it should treat people neutrally.
Aye. And it dunna.
>>If there
>>are practical exigencies which interfere with a rote equality, the *law*
>>has a duty to do the best it can under the circumstances to effect the
>>same deal. The *law* NEVER has the option of tossing up its hands and
>>saying, "This is just too tough for me to handle."
>
>Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but this sounds a bit too much like
>equality of outcome to me.
I don't think the outcome will be equal at all. I personally believe that
if men were allowed to lawfully turn their backs on womb-contents, there'd
be many more than 1.5 million per year doing so. Which I would find
appalling, personally. But I also find those 1.5 million abortion each year
appalling as well, and no one sees me arguing that we should eliminate the
option.
>If stupid people are incapable of succeeding
>to the extent that intelligent people can (to use a simplistic example),
>obviously the law need not get involved to correct for that. Laws are
>never *required*, they just must be fair if they exist.
Absolutely.
>Abortion is the
>absence of a law.
Are we sure about this?
>Stephanie
>
>
>
>>The only entity(ies)
>>which it may be said to be too tough for are individuals who do not wish
>>to think about the subject for any number of subjective, superficial or
>>insentience reasons Individuals who suggest the *law* ignore groups of
>>people for the sake of expedience or the sake of politics are suited
>only
>>to legitimizing despotism and have no place in a democracy.
>>
>>Sorry if my own idealism is insulting to anyone.
>>
>>-rw
-rw (the one and only - limited supply, act now)
Ross Williams
In article <55dnbc$4...@kira.peak.org> Marg Petersen wrote:
>Ross Williams <rwil...@csc.com> wrote:
>>Marg Petersen (god...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
>>: Ross Williams <rwil...@csc.com> wrote:
>>You are capable of being a parent. I shall stipulate this; keep your
>>proof to yourself. I also am capable of being a parent, send me your
>>snail address and I'll send you last year's family photo of me, my wife,
>>two sons and, if you observe the little woman, you'll notice she ain't so
>>little -- there's a daughter under there somewhere.
>
>Bearing a child and being a parent are NOT the same no matter how
>much you would like it to be.
And peaches are not the same as basketballs either, no matter them both
being mostly round and mostly orange.
The ability of a woman to choose abortion is a specific manifestation of her
right to privacy delineating her parental status -- no matter how much you
protest. To allow women such and to prevent men from availing themselves of
such privacy in their own lives is a stench in the nostrils of anyone who
thinks the Constitution is more than toilet paper.
>>However, under color of law, my wife is the only one of the two people in
>>the photo provably capable of being parents who has any right to
>>unilateraly decide, after the fact of conception or after the fact of
>>birth, her own responsibility for actually *being* a parent.
>
>Yes, she is, because it is in HER body that will be carrying (or
>not carrying) the fetus. Not yours, nor anyone else's body.
... and as I said before: if you want to claim the medical procedure of
induced abortion as yours and your alone, be my guest. That is not what I'm
talking about, and if you'd been paying attention to what anyone has been
saying instead of, oh I dunno, indulging your self-serving emotions, you
might have understood that.
>>This is acceptable to you, Mr Wallace?
>
>Yes, it most definitely is.
Then you are a bigot.
>>Effectively, the law declares that a woman has rights to alter heretofore
>>immutable reproductive imperative, and can, through that auspice, compel
>>a male to a responsibility that she is under no obligation to accept
>>herself. Biology is now destiny. With the full blessing of the law.
>
>IF a child is born, BOTH parents have the responsibility to contribute
>to its support. If no child is born, no responsibilities to support.
This is patently false. The woman *still*, under circumstances of live
birth, *still* she need bear no legal and financial responsibility for the
child.
>>What is it called when I compel? That's exactly what it's called when you
>>do it.
>
>I fail to see any similarity between a woman carrying (or not) a
>child, and YOU insisting (forcing, compelling) someone to get you
>a beer.
Then you are being deliberately dense. I may have mentioned that.
>>: >I don't know why this has to be so difficult for you to understand.
>>
>>: I know exactly what you are saying. I simply disagree with it.
>>
>>"I got mine; y'all can rot in hell."
>
>No, not at all. It's more like "if you haven't got a womb, you
>don't get to decide."
I don't get to decide *what*? There are certain things that would be
inappropriate for me to decide. I am not laying claim to those.
Pay attention.
>>: Well now, wanta try? Your problem is that with your hypothesis
>>: someone has to be *made* to something. What we have been discussing
>>: is the capabilities of one sex that another simply does not have,
>>: no matter how you (or anyone else) might wish to have it.
>>
>>I beg your pardon? Men are not capable of reproducing? They are
>>incapable of being called "parent"? Then you have even less of an
>>argument than you are fronting.
>
>Both sexes are capable of *parenting*; both sexes are NOT capable
>of carrying or giving birth.
Point?
>>Here's the synopsis:
>>
>>Women are capable of being a parent;
>>
>>Men are capable of being a parent;
>>
>>Women are lawfully allowed to alter biological destiny, after two crucial
>>junctures, and deny their parental responsibility;
>>
>>Men are not so allowed by law to alter their own parental responsibility.
>
>Correct, but *only* IF there IS a child to parent. So too are women,
>IF there is a child to parent.
BZZZZT. We have a lovely parting gift for you, Ms Petersen.
And you can drop your salute.
>>The only capabilities "of one sex that another simply does not have" are
>>those which are granted by law and, as such, are entirely circular in
>>design. "It is this because we define it as this. So you can't deny
>>'this'." In so doing, the definition is in direct conflict with the
>>constitutional decree of equal treatment UNDER THE LAW. It really matters
>>little that women are the only people with wombs; the right to control
>>one's own reproduction belongs to everyone in equal LAWFUL regard. If one
>>is given a post-event right to control a thing, then everyone must be
>>given that right.
>
>So, get a womb.
I shouldn't need a womb in order to be granted equality. This ain't Animal
Farm, toots. Soem animals are not more equal than others.
>>Declarations to the contrary are a self-serving, incomplete definition
>>created by political expedience to serve political ends. As such it is
>>entirely alterable.
Marg Petersen
In article <55jjmh$j...@news-c1.gnn.com>,
Ross Williams <rossw...@gnn.com> wrote:
>
>In article <55dnbc$4...@kira.peak.org> Marg Petersen wrote:
>>Ross Williams <rwil...@csc.com> wrote:
>>>Marg Petersen (god...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
>>>: Ross Williams <rwil...@csc.com> wrote:
>
>>>You are capable of being a parent. I shall stipulate this; keep your
>>>proof to yourself. I also am capable of being a parent, send me your
>>>snail address and I'll send you last year's family photo of me, my wife,
>>>two sons and, if you observe the little woman, you'll notice she ain't so
>>>little -- there's a daughter under there somewhere.
>>
>>Bearing a child and being a parent are NOT the same no matter how
>>much you would like it to be.
>
>And peaches are not the same as basketballs either, no matter them both
>being mostly round and mostly orange.
>
>The ability of a woman to choose abortion is a specific manifestation of her
>right to privacy delineating her parental status -- no matter how much you
>protest. To allow women such and to prevent men from availing themselves of
>such privacy in their own lives is a stench in the nostrils of anyone who
>thinks the Constitution is more than toilet paper.
Abortion is available to *anyone* who feels the need to have one.
The law is not gender specific. Nor is the Constitution.
>>>However, under color of law, my wife is the only one of the two people in
>>>the photo provably capable of being parents who has any right to
>>>unilateraly decide, after the fact of conception or after the fact of
>>>birth, her own responsibility for actually *being* a parent.
>>
>>Yes, she is, because it is in HER body that will be carrying (or
>>not carrying) the fetus. Not yours, nor anyone else's body.
>
>... and as I said before: if you want to claim the medical procedure of
>induced abortion as yours and your alone, be my guest. That is not what I'm
>talking about, and if you'd been paying attention to what anyone has been
>saying instead of, oh I dunno, indulging your self-serving emotions, you
>might have understood that.
I would say that it is you who are indulging in self-serving emotions,
myself. But then, we ALL know that men don't have them? Don't we? :-)
(The above was sarcasm for the sarcasm impaired.) And I find it
particularly annoying (although not entirely unexpected) that you would
resort to implications that *I*, a female* am indulging in emotion,
when you (supposedly) are the oh, so logical one. Hahahahah. :-)
>>>This is acceptable to you, Mr Wallace?
>>
>>Yes, it most definitely is.
>Then you are a bigot.
High praise from you, indeed.
>>>Effectively, the law declares that a woman has rights to alter heretofore
>>>immutable reproductive imperative, and can, through that auspice, compel
>>>a male to a responsibility that she is under no obligation to accept
>>>herself. Biology is now destiny. With the full blessing of the law.
>>
>>IF a child is born, BOTH parents have the responsibility to contribute
>>to its support. If no child is born, no responsibilities to support.
>
>This is patently false. The woman *still*, under circumstances of live
>birth, *still* she need bear no legal and financial responsibility for the
>child.
Sorry, you are wrong. Any woman who bears a child HAS legal and
financial responsibilities to that child. Even in the case of
adoption, there is a legal responsibilitiy to FIND an adoptive
parent. She can't just put it in the dumpster, dear. Not without
incurring legal ramifications. That YOU don't see that as a
responsibility is your problem.
>>>What is it called when I compel? That's exactly what it's called when you
>>>do it.
>>
>>I fail to see any similarity between a woman carrying (or not) a
>>child, and YOU insisting (forcing, compelling) someone to get you
>>a beer.
>
>Then you are being deliberately dense. I may have mentioned that.
Sure, you have. So why do you bother speaking with the dense?
>>>: >I don't know why this has to be so difficult for you to understand.
>>>
>>>: I know exactly what you are saying. I simply disagree with it.
>>>
>>>"I got mine; y'all can rot in hell."
>>
>>No, not at all. It's more like "if you haven't got a womb, you
>>don't get to decide."
>
>I don't get to decide *what*? There are certain things that would be
>inappropriate for me to decide. I am not laying claim to those.
You get to decide NOTHING with regards to that child being born or
not or whether you will contribute to its support or not. Sorry,
tough noogie rule.
>Pay attention.
Oh, how dismissive of you, you big bully you. :-) I could suggest
that YOU pay attention, but you know, I don't think it will help you
at all. Paying attention is NOT your strong suit.
>>>: Well now, wanta try? Your problem is that with your hypothesis
>>>: someone has to be *made* to something. What we have been discussing
>>>: is the capabilities of one sex that another simply does not have,
>>>: no matter how you (or anyone else) might wish to have it.
>>>
>>>I beg your pardon? Men are not capable of reproducing? They are
>>>incapable of being called "parent"? Then you have even less of an
>>>argument than you are fronting.
>>
>>Both sexes are capable of *parenting*; both sexes are NOT capable
>>of carrying or giving birth.
>
>Point?
Point is that YOU don't then get to decide if you WILL be responsible
for the support of that child since you already had your choices way
before there even WAS a child and you refused to make them then. Your
tough luck. Tough Noogie Rule once again.
>>>Here's the synopsis:
>>>
>>>Women are capable of being a parent;
>>>
>>>Men are capable of being a parent;
>>>
>>>Women are lawfully allowed to alter biological destiny, after two crucial
>>>junctures, and deny their parental responsibility;
>>>
>>>Men are not so allowed by law to alter their own parental responsibility.
>>
>>Correct, but *only* IF there IS a child to parent. So too are women,
>>IF there is a child to parent.
>
>BZZZZT. We have a lovely parting gift for you, Ms Petersen.
My NAME is MARG. No bloody MRS, MR. OR MS thank you! :-)
>And you can drop your salute.
? And this means?
>>>The only capabilities "of one sex that another simply does not have" are
>>>those which are granted by law and, as such, are entirely circular in
>>>design. "It is this because we define it as this. So you can't deny
>>>'this'." In so doing, the definition is in direct conflict with the
>>>constitutional decree of equal treatment UNDER THE LAW. It really matters
>>>little that women are the only people with wombs; the right to control
>>>one's own reproduction belongs to everyone in equal LAWFUL regard. If one
>>>is given a post-event right to control a thing, then everyone must be
>>>given that right.
>>
>>So, get a womb.
>
>I shouldn't need a womb in order to be granted equality. This ain't Animal
>Farm, toots. Soem animals are not more equal than others.
Sorry, you already have equality, at least wherein it is *reasonable*
to have. You want to bear a child, get stretch marks, give birth *and*
raise it; get a womb.
>>>Declarations to the contrary are a self-serving, incomplete definition
>>>created by political expedience to serve political ends. As such it is
>>>entirely alterable.
>
>
>-rw (the one and only - limited supply, act now)
>
Ah, if only that were true. :-)
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <55jjmh$j...@news-c1.gnn.com> Ross Williams <rossw...@gnn.com>
writes:
(in response to Marg)
>
>>>The only capabilities "of one sex that another simply does not have"
are>>>those which are granted by law and, as such, are entirely
circular in>>>design. "It is this because we define it as this. So
you can't deny>>>'this'." In so doing, the definition is in direct
conflict with the>>>constitutional decree of equal treatment UNDER THE
LAW. It really matters>>>little that women are the only people with
wombs; the right to control>>>one's own reproduction belongs to
everyone in equal LAWFUL regard. If one>>is given a post-event right
to control a thing, then everyone must be>>>given that right.
>>
>>So, get a womb.
>
>I shouldn't need a womb in order to be granted equality. This ain't
Animal >Farm, toots. Soem animals are not more equal than others.
-----
You are, as usual, simply wrong. Many, many animals, in nature,
are given more than others...isn't it black widow spider females
that copulate with their "partners" and then eat them? Nature is
not particularly interested in equality, and men who think they
deserve EXTRA RIGHTS simply because women gestate (and/or abort)
and they can't, are rather like fish who would like to chop off the
wings of water birds because they can fly. It simply doesn't work.
As far as your referral to this worthy postor as "toots"....I
should like to call you....tooters, but I simply don't have the
balls for it! (of course, according to that newly published
article in playboy, it would appear that having all that testoster-
one wouldn't be that great for my evolution, anyway :]
Lefty
>
Ross Williams
: writes:
: >Here is the question again.
: >
: >: >Constitutionally justify disparate treatment based upon biology --
: not: >chronology -- and be sure to work in a suitable exception to
: equal >treatment under the laws.
: >
: Well, I thought I had, but I'll try again. Per the 14th amendment
: we may treat people differently where they are not "similarly
: situated"....that has been defined by case law, and, I imagine,
: will continue to be defined by case law. Also (and perhaps the
: more important part, is that we may NOT treat people differently
: where the ARE similarly situated. In issues of gestation it has
: already been determined that women are NOT similarly situated. In
: issues regarding muscle mass some women are, in fact, similarly
: situated, and not all men are as strong as some women. Therefore,
: where women are able to compete in jobs having strength requirement
: they should be allowed to do so, knowing they may not (like some
: men) meet the requirement.
You are making the argument for a disporportionate representation of the
woman's wishes in the decision over abortion; you are NOT making an
argument for a disporportionate representation of the woman's wishes in
reproduction.
I am conceding the former.
Answer the latter.
: >Keep in mind that if you can justify disparate constitutional
: treatment of>"equal" citizens based upon their gender (in this case),
: you are also>justifying continued disparity based upon increasingly
: tenuous inate>traits -- women are generally smaller and weaker than
: men, ergo they donot deserve the "right" to compete for physical jobs
: (which tend to pay>better); women show consistently less acuity in
: abstract reasoning than>men, ergo no engineering admission for women at
: college...
: Except that to show dis-similarity you would have to show that all
: women are not as strong as all men...I don't think you can do that.
: The fact remains that all women gestate; no men do. this creates
: exactly the situation that is ripe for 14th amendment protections.
You haven't shown that every woman is more parental than every man. Yet
every woman is given superior rights to reproduction.
It seems to me that I, similarly, shouldn't need to demonstrate every
man's superior strength in order to qualify for state protection of Men's
Brute Whim.
: >Are you willing to go down that road? Even a step?
: Sure....I'm only afraid of slippery slopes when it applies to
: speech. :]
You're in need of traction, there, Carol.
-rw
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <55kudg$k...@explorer.csc.com> rwil...@csc.com (Ross Williams)
writes:
------
That seems pretty straigt forward to me. Both genders, each
having their own unique and dis-similar reproductive roles
(given by nature) have different times when the acquire input
in the process. For example, if no men were willing to contri-
bute sperm, women would be unable to gestate at all. That is
the point in time when men, by their own reproductive capacity,
have the ability to decide whether or not they want to risk
procreation. For women, they may decide then or after concept-
ion because the fetal material is placed (by the man) within
the woman. That gives her (by nature or law, or science) an
added time period to abort (that is another part of her dis-
similar situation). One cannot use the argument that places
women in a dis-similar situation to give men extra rights....
it's just not done!
Morover, women's "wishes" have nothing to do with it, biology
does.
---------------
>
>: >Keep in mind that if you can justify disparate constitutional
>: treatment of>"equal" citizens based upon their gender (in this
case),>: you are also>justifying continued disparity based upon
increasingly>: tenuous inate>traits -- women are generally smaller and
weaker than>: men, ergo they donot deserve the "right" to compete for
physical jobs>: (which tend to pay>better); women show consistently
less acuity in>: abstract reasoning than>men, ergo no engineering
admission for women at>: college...
------
Ah, but that is where you are simply wrong. Where it is possible
for folks to BE similarly situated, i.e. in contests of upper arm
strength, it is not acceptable to deny them that right. In issues
of arm strength, for example, you can find many women who are, in
fact, stronger than many men....this will not make women "dis-simi
lar at all; it simply makes them have to compete. How many men do
you know that can compete with women in giving birth, aside from
Arnold S. ? It is not possible to equate the rights between a
gestating person and her non-gestating partner; the two are indeed
quite different.
>You haven't shown that every woman is more parental than every man.
Yet>every woman is given superior rights to reproduction.
------
But we are not talking about being a good parent; we are talking
about genetic material which can be proven by a simple blood test.
If we are to test biological parents on their parenting skills we
shall have to go to Mars to find someone worthy :] Fact is, all
biological mothers and fathers ARE SUCH; I didn't make them;
you didn't make them; they each chose to risk what 'er they had
to risk.
------
>
>It seems to me that I, similarly, shouldn't need to demonstrate every
>man's superior strength in order to qualify for state protection of
Men's>Brute Whim.
-----
Actually, you needn't worry; prop 209 will do that for you
since it's slated to pass. Of course, I expect a few women
(one or two) will be holding it up in court for a bit.
-----
>
>: >Are you willing to go down that road? Even a step?
-----
Slippery slopes don't scare me; I traverse the big boys, moguls
and all.
------
>
>
>You're in need of traction, there, Carol.
>
>-rw
-----
hehehehe....well, prop. 209 will slow me down, but only a tad!
Lefty
Stephanie Smith
In article <55m8qo$d...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>In <55kudg$k...@explorer.csc.com> rwil...@csc.com (Ross Williams)
>writes:
>>
>>Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>: In <55aalb$c...@explorer.csc.com> rwil...@csc.com (Ross Williams)
>>: writes: >: >Here is the question again.
>>: >
>>: >: >Constitutionally justify disparate treatment based upon biology
>--
>>: not: >chronology -- and be sure to work in a suitable exception to
>>: equal >treatment under the laws.
>>: >
>>: >Answer, please.
>>
>>: Well, I thought I had, but I'll try again. Per the 14th
> amendment
>>: we may treat people differently where they are not "similarly
>>: situated"....that has been defined by case law, and, I imagine,
>>: will continue to be defined by case law. Also (and perhaps the
>>: more important part, is that we may NOT treat people differently
>>: where the ARE similarly situated. In issues of gestation it has
>>: already been determined that women are NOT similarly situated.
> In issues regarding muscle mass some women are, in fact,
> similarly situated, and not all men are as strong as some women.
> Therefore, where women are able to compete in jobs having
> strength requirement they should be allowed to do so, knowing
> they may not (like some men) meet the requirement.
Or more simply, when strength is the issue, many men may not qualify and
many women may. Thus, there is no reason to base the distinction on sex.
If strength is the issue, base it on strength. If a difference is merely
a difference *on average*, it does not justify a law.
>>You are making the argument for a disporportionate representation of
>the>woman's wishes in the decision over abortion; you are NOT making an
>>argument for a disporportionate representation of the woman's wishes
>in>reproduction.
>>
>>I am conceding the former.
>>
>>Answer the latter.
>
> ------
> That seems pretty straigt forward to me. Both genders, each
> having their own unique and dis-similar reproductive roles
> (given by nature) have different times when the acquire input
> in the process. For example, if no men were willing to contri-
> bute sperm, women would be unable to gestate at all. That is
> the point in time when men, by their own reproductive capacity,
> have the ability to decide whether or not they want to risk
> procreation. For women, they may decide then or after concept-
> ion because the fetal material is placed (by the man) within
> the woman. That gives her (by nature or law, or science) an
> added time period to abort (that is another part of her dis-
> similar situation). One cannot use the argument that places
> women in a dis-similar situation to give men extra rights....
> it's just not done!
Actually, Lefty, I just don't see this as an equal protection issue.
Where is the state action that treats the sexes differently? Abortion is
not *permitted* by the state. Instead, it may not be entirely prohibited
by the state. The state's interest in restricting abortion does not
outweigh the woman's interests in (a) choosing whether to become a parent
(the Griswold theory); and (b) her own bodily integrity *until*
viability.
The issue for men takes a different form. Prior to conception, it is the
same as the woman's, and his right to choose not to be a parent outweighs
the state's claimed interest in preventing the use of BC (Griswold
again). During pregnancy, his interest is outweighed by the woman's
equal interest in choosing whether or not to be a parent *plus* her
interest in determining whether to be pregnant/have an operation. So the
only argument available is that after birth his interest in choosing
whether to be a parent or not (legally speaking) is not outweighed by the
state's claimed interest in requiring genetic fathers to support their
children whenever possible. (And obviously c4m would have to allow the
same choice for women assuming that the father wanted to raise the
child.)
Since men and women are treated the same whenever similarly situated,
there is no difference based on sex, so no equal protection violation,
whatever the conclusion on the c4m issue.
> Morover, women's "wishes" have nothing to do with it, biology
> does.
> ---------------
It's not even biology (except that obviously the woman's interests are
greater when her body is involved *plus* she shares the
parenthood/non-parenthood issue -- this has been decided by the SC).
Instead, it is the question of whether you can separate biological
parenthood from legal parenthood. Of course you can, but most people
seem to want to do this as little as possible. Also, most people do not
want abortion to be a real choice, but a option reserved for the most
extreme circumstances. And some think even non-abortion attempts to
exercise control over fertility are wrong and should be discouraged
(speaking of which, I *really* hope the R candidate for Senate from my
state loses). We are not yet in a society which thinks children and
parenthood should be considered choice rather than merely fate or
circumstance. Personally, I think this is bad for all concerned,
particularly women and children, which is why I fight this battle, but
realistically I think society doesn't want to.
But the point is I think you are confusing the issue with the
similarly-situated/non-similarly-situated women v. men argument. I'm not
convinced there are situations where men and women are "not similarly
situated" merely by virtue of sex (though I'm willing to listen to an
argument, and yes I realize I am disagreeing with the SC, it's happened
before :-). The fact is just that a person who has to go through the
operation/pregnancy is not similarly situated to a person who doesn't.
Even if the person who would become the legal parent on birth (in
conjunction with the pregnant person or not) were a woman, the situation
as far as choice would remain the same.
The result of this doesn't doom c4m, IMO, it just changes the course of
the argument -- weigh the man's interest in deciding whether or not he
becomes a parent if BC fails/he's tricked with the state's interests
which are present here. One premise that I would include is that in all
likelihood the child would have at least one parent who made the decision
to have him/her knowing the situation. Also, the state's interests might
be different if it had to provide support itself to prevent the child
from starving.
Thus, the issue is whether legal parenthood can be taken away despite the
existence of biological parenthood, even when the women chooses
biological parenthood, thus creating the child. I don't think this is a
particularly great solution for men anyway -- they are still biological
parents which you would think would have some impact. But it does give
them a choice. The result is the pretense that both abortion/c4m are
real choices, which they are for some, but not others. I still think
this is fairer (and better for society in the long run, since it moves
toward my parenthood as a choice only goal), but it's obviously not
always true.
The only women it could potentially be unfair to are those who become
pregnant accidently and are morally opposed to abortion and could not
give up a child for adoption and are incapable of supporting a child on
their own (ignore the very few examples where they may not realize they
are pregnant until too late for abortion). And the last qualification is
possibly alleviated if state aid is available.
Part of the argument is over to what extent the above woman is really who
we are talking about.
[snip]
>>You haven't shown that every woman is more parental than every man.
>Yet>every woman is given superior rights to reproduction.
Well, in any case beyond that of choosing an abortion or not, this would
simply be wrong as a matter of law/equal protection, IMO, and I hope
Lefty's as well. (I don't know that she's said anything to disprove
that.) But it is currently the case -- one example at least is that
unmarried fathers are treated much less favorably than unmarried mothers.
> ------
> But we are not talking about being a good parent; we are talking
> about genetic material which can be proven by a simple blood test.
> If we are to test biological parents on their parenting skills we
> shall have to go to Mars to find someone worthy :] Fact is, all
> biological mothers and fathers ARE SUCH; I didn't make them;
> you didn't make them; they each chose to risk what 'er they had
> to risk.
> ------
Right, but the implications of being a biological parent are in part at
least determined by the state. And one of the things that bugs me is
that the state gets a lot more involved if the parents aren't married.
My father didn't have to give me a cent for college, whereas an unmarried
father has to pay for college. And it goes well beyond that.
Stephanie
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <55mlcs$d...@usenet11.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
(Stephanie Smith) writes:
>
(edit)
>Instead, it is the question of whether you can separate biological
>parenthood from legal parenthood. Of course you can, but most people
>seem to want to do this as little as possible. Also, most people do
not >want abortion to be a real choice, but a option reserved for the
most >extreme circumstances. And some think even non-abortion attempts
to >exercise control over fertility are wrong and should be discouraged
>(speaking of which, I *really* hope the R candidate for Senate from my
>state loses). We are not yet in a society which thinks children and
>parenthood should be considered choice rather than merely fate or
>circumstance. Personally, I think this is bad for all concerned,
>particularly women and children, which is why I fight this battle, but
realistically I think society doesn't want to.
------
I appreciate your motivation, but I don't agree with your
conclusions. You see, biology may not be "destiny", but it certainly
sets limits on all of us. I, for example, would like to be taller, but
it's not going to happen in this lifetime. Fairness and equity can
only take place within our biological conditions, coupled with
scientific and technological advances. Biological parenthood is a sort
of defacto fate, but it's only one form of legal parenthood, and it
gives children the right (per the states) to have their needs met.
Should there be better ways to make sure children are cared for, we
could certainly ADD to the definition, and bring in parents under a
system of contract or adoption.
-------
>
>But the point is I think you are confusing the issue with the
>similarly-situated/non-similarly-situated women v. men argument. I'm
not >convinced there are situations where men and women are "not
similarly >situated" merely by virtue of sex (though I'm willing to
listen to an >argument, and yes I realize I am disagreeing with the SC,
it's happened >before :-). The fact is just that a person who has to
go through the >operation/pregnancy is not similarly situated to a
person who doesn't.
--------
I can't really imagine two people with more dis-similar interests.
One of them has life within her body and a worry about financial
and familial; one is only worried about his finacial
responsibility. Every time a woman gets pregnant she risks her
health and her life. I know, my sister almost died giving birth.
I do agree with the court on this issue; I don't always agree :]
It's funny; I see pregnancy as the main issue that does make men
and women dis-similar. In most other respects, I think we are
pretty much the same with the same needs and desires as humans.
---------
>Thus, the issue is whether legal parenthood can be taken away despite
the existence of biological parenthood, even when the women chooses
>biological parenthood, thus creating the child. I don't think this is
a >particularly great solution for men anyway -- they are still
biological >parents which you would think would have some impact. But
it does give >them a choice. The result is the pretense that both
abortion/c4m are real choices, which they are for some, but not others.
I still think >this is fairer (and better for society in the long run,
since it moves >toward my parenthood as a choice only goal), but it's
obviously not >always true.
Article Unavailable
Stephanie Smith
In article <55pbno$9...@usenet11.interramp.com>, us01...@interramp.com
says...
>
>In article <55njn4$3...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
>says...
Sorry to follow up my own post, but looking over this again, I realized
that you had misunderstood something I said, and wanted to clarify.
>>>But the point is I think you are confusing the issue with the
>>>similarly-situated/non-similarly-situated women v. men argument. I'm
>>not >convinced there are situations where men and women are "not
>>similarly >situated" merely by virtue of sex (though I'm willing to
>>listen to an >argument, and yes I realize I am disagreeing with the SC,
>>it's happened >before :-).
How I am disagreeing with the court is that men are women are
sufficiently different in a way that may require legal distinctions based
on sex significantly more often than blacks and whites, for example
(which would be never, IMO). I want a difference (if you have one in
mind) that requires the law to treat men and women differently (as it
does wrt the draft, for example, or would with state-supported single sex
schools). Fair warning: This has *nothing* to do with c4m, IMO.
>>The fact is just that a person who has to
>>go through the >operation/pregnancy is not similarly situated to a
>>person who doesn't.
With the exception of that idiotic decision permitting states to punish
underage men, and not women, for statutory rape, the possibility of
pregnancy has *not* been treated as a difference which makes *men and
women* as opposed to merely *pregnant and non-pregnant people* not
similarly situated. This is important, since most women at any given
time fall in the non-pregnant category. Can *women* be discriminated
against in obtaining jobs which may be potentially dangerous for a fetus
or future fetus? I hope your opinion would be that they can't be. Thus,
it's the fact of pregnancy, and not the fact that someone is a woman and
thus may become pregnant which is the relevant difference, and as with
the height example, distinctions based on *sex* are not justified for
this reason.
>> --------
>> I can't really imagine two people with more dis-similar interests.
>> One of them has life within her body and a worry about financial
>> and familial; one is only worried about his finacial
>> responsibility.
This dissimilarity does not apply to men and women, but to pregnant and
non-pregnant people. And really the familial responsibility/concern
should be considered to apply to both as well.
>> Every time a woman gets pregnant she risks her
>> health and her life. I know, my sister almost died giving birth.
I don't disagree (I'm pro-choice, remember), but do you see this as
relevant to the claim that the law can distinguish between men and women
based on sex (and not pregnant status)? Why?
>> I do agree with the court on this issue; I don't always agree :]
>> It's funny; I see pregnancy as the main issue that does make men
>> and women dis-similar. In most other respects, I think we are
>> pretty much the same with the same needs and desires as humans.
>> ---------
Given my clarification above, do you still argue this? What laws
distinguishing men and women *due to sex* are justified for this reason?
What about the fact that many women never become pregnant and may be
incapable of doing so?
Stephanie
Stephanie Smith
>(Stephanie Smith) writes:
>>
>(edit)
>
>>Instead, it is the question of whether you can separate biological
>>parenthood from legal parenthood. Of course you can, but most people
>>seem to want to do this as little as possible. Also, most people do
>not >want abortion to be a real choice, but a option reserved for the
>most >extreme circumstances. And some think even non-abortion attempts
>to >exercise control over fertility are wrong and should be discouraged
>>(speaking of which, I *really* hope the R candidate for Senate from my
>>state loses). We are not yet in a society which thinks children and
>>parenthood should be considered choice rather than merely fate or
>>circumstance. Personally, I think this is bad for all concerned,
>>particularly women and children, which is why I fight this battle, but
>realistically I think society doesn't want to.
>
> ------
> I appreciate your motivation, but I don't agree with your
>conclusions.
I know. Probably same here. I did not post in order to rehash the same
old arguments, but in the hope to actually enter into a discussion, as
well as to clarify the arguments, since I thought the two of you were
talking past each other. Personally, I think you can hold either
position in good faith (without sexist/thoughtless motivation), but no
one on either side seems to agree with me. I just hate it when it goes
into the "punishment for sex" rational (which you weren't doing), since
it is so similar to the pathetic anti-abortion arguments you see a lot.
Btw, the polls were quite accurate, and the R candidate for Senate lost,
thank goodness!
>You see, biology may not be "destiny", but it certainly
>sets limits on all of us. I, for example, would like to be taller, but
>it's not going to happen in this lifetime.
Agree (and same here). But I don't think that biology necessarily sets
the limits here. (As explained below...)
>Fairness and equity can
>only take place within our biological conditions, coupled with
>scientific and technological advances.
Right. But this by no means requires the law to impose "fairness and
equity" where it does not exist. For example, some jobs may be better
performed by taller people. In those cases it is okay to discriminate
based on tallness. (I'm not sure if this is relevant, but it's a
principle to keep in mind.)
>Biological parenthood is a sort
>of defacto fate, but it's only one form of legal parenthood, and it
>gives children the right (per the states) to have their needs met.
But the thing to realize here, is that the impact of biological
parenthood is determined by the state. The state could simply pass no
laws imposing duties on biological parents at all. In fact, the clear
purpose of most of the laws is to allow the state to recover from the
parents in the case that state money is spend on the child. Generally,
we must rely on the natural desire of most parents to care for their
children properly.
When you talk about paying money, separate from actually acting as a
parent, you are really just requiring a sort of damages. Calling it
"parenthood" is inaccurate.
Now I understand that you want to say that biological parenthood just is,
but that brings no responsibilities without state laws creating legal
parental responsibilities. IOW, in the absence of state laws (the
natural situation), you already have c4m.
>Should there be better ways to make sure children are cared for, we
>could certainly ADD to the definition, and bring in parents under a
>system of contract or adoption.
Which we do. But some of these definitions already exclude biological
parents in some cases, so it is not solely an addition.
But as I understand it, your argument relies on the fear that under c4m
some children would not be adequately cared for. Since the absence of
c4m requires only financial support, you are arguing that with c4m, more
women will have children that they plus the legal father, if any, are
unable to support financially (due to fewer legal fathers). I think this
is somewhat debatable -- perhaps if given a real choice that includes the
opportunity to really be a father to the child just as many men will pay
as we are able to collect from now. Also, perhaps fewer women would
choose to have children they were unable to support with their own
ability and without a voluntary partner. (Since, even prior to abortion,
pregnancy is usually preventable.)
However, you agree with the sentiments of society on this issue, I'll
admit that. I just think it is sick that people would have children as
anything but the product of a choice, and that thus our policy (including
the c4m issue) should reflect this. But for some reason people find this
upsetting (the whole BC is bad for women argument, for example).
> -------
>>
>>But the point is I think you are confusing the issue with the
>>similarly-situated/non-similarly-situated women v. men argument. I'm
>not >convinced there are situations where men and women are "not
>similarly >situated" merely by virtue of sex (though I'm willing to
>listen to an >argument, and yes I realize I am disagreeing with the SC,
>it's happened >before :-). The fact is just that a person who has to
>go through the >operation/pregnancy is not similarly situated to a
>person who doesn't.
>
> --------
> I can't really imagine two people with more dis-similar interests.
> One of them has life within her body and a worry about financial
> and familial; one is only worried about his finacial
> responsibility. Every time a woman gets pregnant she risks her
> health and her life. I know, my sister almost died giving birth.
> I do agree with the court on this issue; I don't always agree :]
> It's funny; I see pregnancy as the main issue that does make men
> and women dis-similar. In most other respects, I think we are
> pretty much the same with the same needs and desires as humans.
> ---------
I'm not sure if you were arguing against what I said or not. Generally,
this agrees with what I said. My problem is with saying that pregnancy
makes men and women not similarly situated. In fact, its only effect is
to make pregnant and non-pregnant people not similarly situated. Many
women are not pregnant at any given time (most, in fact) and many women
never become pregnant or are even incapable of becoming pregnant.
Pregnancy is not a reason to distinguish between men and women on the
basis of sex. See the difference? (This distinction has nothing to do
with c4m, but the question I asked before, and which I am actually more
interested in right now -- what differences in treatment are justified
based on sex IYO?)
>>Thus, the issue is whether legal parenthood can be taken away despite
>the existence of biological parenthood, even when the women chooses
>>biological parenthood, thus creating the child. I don't think this is
>a >particularly great solution for men anyway -- they are still
>biological >parents which you would think would have some impact. But
>it does give >them a choice. The result is the pretense that both
>abortion/c4m are real choices, which they are for some, but not others.
> I still think >this is fairer (and better for society in the long run,
>since it moves >toward my parenthood as a choice only goal), but it's
>obviously not >always true.
>
> --------
> I am totally supportive of giving men all the "choice" they can
> handle in the realm of birth control. C4M is simply not going to
> happen. Your arguments are some of the better ones I've heard but
> the biology involved has dramatic impact and is the primary source
> of responsibility. That's simply how most people view it.
> --------
Most people also think gays shouldn't have the right to get married. I
don't see that as a convincing argument. I just don't see biology alone
as a reason to say one person has a responsibility to support another.
For example, my sister and I have a biological relationship. And I would
certainly feel responsible to support her if she needed it. But I don't
see that responsibility as coming from the biological relationship, but
from the familial relationship, which would be the same if she had no
blood relationship. If I had never met her, I would probably not feel
the same way, biology or not, though who knows.
The "biology is God" argument bugs me due to the attitude of the Illinois
SC judge in the Baby Richard decision (which, painfully, I agree was
legally correct) that adoptive parents are not *real* parents, and
certainly not entitled to the respect as parents as those who have the
biological connection.
The better argument in favor of responsibility of biological parents is
that you are responsible for creating someone and putting them in the
position that they need support. But, if we accept that children are the
result of choice -- by *far* the best result for society -- the fair
result would be to put the responsibility on those who made the choice.
My concern is that society should start treating parenthood as a chosen
thing -- I think that would help it become a reality. (This relates to
the welfare reform argument as well, of course.) The lack of care with
which people currently become parents (reflected in the treatment and
neglect of children you see so often) is one of the biggest disasters of
our times, IMO, and completely inexcusable given how preventable this is
if people bothered to try (BC). But they don't, in part (IMO) because it
is acceptable to view having children as something that just happens to
you.
>>The only women it could potentially be unfair to are those who become
>>pregnant accidently and are morally opposed to abortion and could not
>>give up a child for adoption and are incapable of supporting a child
>on >their own (ignore the very few examples where they may not realize
>they >are pregnant until too late for abortion). And the last
>qualification is >possibly alleviated if state aid is available.
>>
>>Part of the argument is over to what extent the above woman is really
>who >we are talking about.
>
> ----------
> Not really. The "reasons" women use to abort or not abort pale in
> irrelevance compared to the rights they have to make determinations
> over their own bodies. Ultimately, it doesn't matter why they
> carry or abort.
Article Unavailable
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <55pbno$9...@usenet11.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
------
We are in total agreement on that issue; there is no reason to
punish for sex. I don't view payment of child support as a form
of "punishment". Even when NCPs declare bankruptcy, the payment
of support cannot be discharged because it is not even considered
debt....it's considered an ongoing responsibility.
-------
>
>Btw, the polls were quite accurate, and the R candidate for Senate
lost, thank goodness!
-----
I must confess, I did not follow that particular campaign; I was
more interested in the results of more local races. My candidates
didn't fare too well. :[ ....I guess I'll live to fight another
day.
------
>
>>You see, biology may not be "destiny", but it certainly>sets limits
on all of us. I, for example, would like to be taller, bu>>it's not
going to happen in this lifetime.
>
>Agree (and same here). But I don't think that biology necessarily
sets the limits here. (As explained below...)
>
>>Fairness and equity can>>only take place within our biological
conditions, coupled with>scientific and technological advances.
>
>Right. But this by no means requires the law to impose "fairness and
>equity" where it does not exist. For example, some jobs may be better
performed by taller people. In those cases it is okay to discriminate
>based on tallness. (I'm not sure if this is relevant, but it's a
>principle to keep in mind.)
-----
Actually, you are not correct. In jobs where height may be
important, there are generally inexpensive ways to remedy that.
Short men compensate; so can shorter women. Ladders and step
stools and other modern conveniences (technology) allow for short
folk to have jobs that used to be filled only by tall men. If
there is a job I simply can't do because of my height, and there
is no way to remedy the problem, I shouldn't have that job.
-------
>
>>Biological parenthood is a sort>>of defacto fate, but it's only one
form of legal parenthood, and it>>gives children the right (per the
states) to have their needs met.
>
>But the thing to realize here, is that the impact of biological
>parenthood is determined by the state. The state could simply pass no
>laws imposing duties on biological parents at all. In fact, the clear
>purpose of most of the laws is to allow the state to recover from the
>parents in the case that state money is spend on the child. Generally,
>we must rely on the natural desire of most parents to care for their
>children properly.
------
Before "the state" interceded, biological parenthood was implied
by the community. Where the father was known, it was the "village"
that made the father provide meat from his hunting for his family,
or to be ostracized from the village; this biological parenthood
thing is strong stuff, not to be confused with mere law alone. It's
primal from biblical times (and I imagine even cave times) ...this
one "begat" this one, etc. Our children are indeed the natural
objects of our bounty whether you choose to see that or not.
------
>
>When you talk about paying money, separate from actually acting as a
>parent, you are really just requiring a sort of damages. Calling it
>"parenthood" is inaccurate.
-----
I don't really care much what we CALL it. Parents are parents as
established by their DNA. Hell, we could call these folks DNA--
designated co-contributers if it is more politically correct; it
won't really matter. Pay, they must.
------
>
>Now I understand that you want to say that biological parenthood just
is, >but that brings no responsibilities without state laws creating
legal >parental responsibilities. IOW, in the absence of state laws
(the >natural situation), you already have c4m.
-----
Well, in the "natural situation", the survival of the fittest is
very popular as well; we wouldn't need to punishe rape, for exam-
ple since might would equal right. Children, the most defenseless
amongst us, would simply die if parents didn't want them...after
all, fathers and mothers could both just walk away. I think
society might be a tad offended by that.
------
>
>>Should there be better ways to make sure children are cared for, we
>>could certainly ADD to the definition, and bring in parents under a
>>system of contract or adoption.
>
>Which we do. But some of these definitions already exclude biological
>parents in some cases, so it is not solely an addition.
>
>But as I understand it, your argument relies on the fear that under
c4m >some children would not be adequately cared for. Since the
absence of >c4m requires only financial support, you are arguing that
with c4m, more >women will have children that they plus the legal
father, if any, are >unable to support financially (due to fewer legal
fathers). I think this >is somewhat debatable -- perhaps if given a
real choice that includes the >opportunity to really be a father to the
child just as many men will pay >as we are able to collect from now.
Also, perhaps fewer women would >choose to have children they were
unable to support with their own >ability and without a voluntary
partner. (Since, even prior to abortion, >pregnancy is usually
preventable.)
-----
What I'm saying (that has NOT be ajudicated) is that denial of
child support to a woman who is still pregnant places an "undue"
burden upon her to encourage abortion; I'm not sure, in the state
of mind we have now, collectively, about abortion, that this would
be an acceptable alternative, and some women will bear children
with or without that support which will plunge some of these
children into poverty.
-----
>
>However, you agree with the sentiments of society on this issue, I'll
>admit that. I just think it is sick that people would have children
as >anything but the product of a choice, and that thus our policy
(including >the c4m issue) should reflect this. But for some reason
people find this >upsetting (the whole BC is bad for women argument,
for example).
>
>> -------
I do agree with the majority on this issue. I also agree that
in a perfect world, all children would be wanted children. This
is not always possible. I suppose, if each person reproduced
asexually, that the choice would seem more equitable. I still
support better BC for men....I think this would place men in a
position of power. Women who wanted to get pregnant would not
be able to do so without the man's willing participation in that
exact agenda. I think that when men have this better form of
birth control, that there will be some angry women....and I say
to that...."tough noogies".
------------
-----
>Pregnancy is not a reason to distinguish between men and women on the
>basis of sex. See the difference? (This distinction has nothing to
do >with c4m, but the question I asked before, and which I am actually
more >interested in right now -- what differences in treatment are
justified >based on sex IYO?)
------
I must stifle the urge to smile here. I'm sorry...Gestation is
a definite gender-based difference, unless you can show me men
who gestate. Your attempt to show that apples can BE apples or
oranges simply doesn't work. Attempting to take gestation from
the gender arena in order to give it some "lesser" form of review
won't work.
---------
>
>>>Thus, the issue is whether legal parenthood can be taken away
despite>the existence of biological parenthood, even when the women
chooses >>biological parenthood, thus creating the child. I don't
think this is>a >particularly great solution for men anyway -- they are
still>>biological >parents which you would think would have some
impact. But>>it does give >them a choice. The result is the pretense
that both>>abortion/c4m are real choices, which they are for some, but
not others.>> I still think >this is fairer (and better for society in
the long run,>>since it moves >toward my parenthood as a choice only
goal), but it's>>obviously not >always true.
>>
>> --------
>> I am totally supportive of giving men all the "choice" they can
>> handle in the realm of birth control. C4M is simply not going to
>> happen. Your arguments are some of the better ones I've heard
but the biology involved has dramatic impact and is the primary
source of responsibility. That's simply how most people view it.
>> --------
>
>Most people also think gays shouldn't have the right to get married.
I >don't see that as a convincing argument. I just don't see biology
alone >as a reason to say one person has a responsibility to support
another.
-----
I agree that gays should have the right to marry; This is a
difficult issue frought with "slippery-slope" arguments of another
sort. Perhaps we could discuss this sometime; we'd have some
fun with it since we both agree. Parenthood is primal; there are
many differences between primal needs of society and the rights of
a small percentage of society. Those who co-create a child must
remain responsible.
------
>For example, my sister and I have a biological relationship. And I
would >certainly feel responsible to support her if she needed it. But
I don't >see that responsibility as coming from the biological
relationship, but >from the familial relationship, which would be the
same if she had no >blood relationship. If I had never met her, I
would probably not feel >the same way, biology or not, though who
knows.
>
>The "biology is God" argument bugs me due to the attitude of the
Illinois >SC judge in the Baby Richard decision (which, painfully, I
agree was >legally correct) that adoptive parents are not *real*
parents, and >certainly not entitled to the respect as parents as those
who have the >biological connection.
>
>The better argument in favor of responsibility of biological parents
is >that you are responsible for creating someone and putting them in
the >position that they need support. But, if we accept that children
are the >result of choice -- by *far* the best result for society --
the fair >result would be to put the responsibility on those who made
the choice.
------
You and I must agree to disagree about who makes that choice; we
will only be repetitive. The choice to "risk" was made by both;
once a woman is pregnant her "choice" is limited by 1) her health,
2) her morality, 3) the law, and 4) by others i.e. parents who may
prevent her from making that choice. Burden is burden and men must
accept theirs.
--------
>My concern is that society should start treating parenthood as a
chosen >thing -- I think that would help it become a reality. (This
relates to >the welfare reform argument as well, of course.) The lack
of care with >which people currently become parents (reflected in the
treatment and >neglect of children you see so often) is one of the
biggest disasters of >our times, IMO, and completely inexcusable given
how preventable this is >if people bothered to try (BC). But they
don't, in part (IMO) because it >is acceptable to view having children
as something that just happens to >you.
-----
Most pregnancies remain unplanned. It is a natural part of life in
an effort for life to sustain itself. My first pregnancy was
unplanned, but not for lack of thought; we were told, by a doctor,
that pregnancy was unlikely (because of a medical reason); I was
pregnant three weeks after my marriage. The best "laid" plans of
mice and....women :] Excuse my pun. My second child was planned.
------
>
>>>The only women it could potentially be unfair to are those who
become >pregnant accidently and are morally opposed to abortion and
could not >>give up a child for adoption and are incapable of
supporting a child>on >their own (ignore the very few examples where
they may not realize>>they >are pregnant until too late for abortion).
And the last>qualification is >possibly alleviated if state aid is
available.
-----
Well, that's quite a number of "unfairnesses"....there
are many women who become pregnant by accident (of course we will
never know who these women are since anyone can claim mistake);
there are also many women who are morally opposed to abortion, and
each parent has the right to parent his/her own biological child.
Your dream law would become one where the exceptions ate up the law
itself, and it's the type of law that would not be possible to
implement based upon your exclusions and exceptions.
-------
Alsok, C4M is always unfair to children; they didn't scheme and
plan to get here. They didn't lie to trap a father; they didn't
have a choice to self abort, as the product of being unwanted.
------
>>>
>>>Part of the argument is over to what extent the above woman is
really>>who >we are talking about.
>>
>> ----------
>> Not really. The "reasons" women use to abort or not abort pale
in irrelevance compared to the rights they have to make
determinations over their own bodies. Ultimately, it doesn't
matter why they carry or abort.
>
>As to abortion, this is true. What you are ignoring is that the
current >argument has nothing to do with the right to choose (or not)
abortion. >C4m is fair if you think of having a child as already the
choice of the >woman as a matter of fact.
------
I don't believe that....a choice that is foist upon one person by
the actions of two is not much of a choice, especially when it is
burdened by law, health and personal morality.
Article Unavailable
Stephanie Smith
In article <55q8ip$1...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>In <55pbno$9...@usenet11.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
>(Stephanie Smith) writes:
>>
>>In article <55njn4$3...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
>>says...
>>>
>>>In <55mlcs$d...@usenet11.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
>>>(Stephanie Smith) writes:
[snip where we agree -- that includes the "tall" thing, since I don't see
your response as at all inconsistant with my initial point]
>>Now I understand that you want to say that biological parenthood just
>is, >but that brings no responsibilities without state laws creating
>legal >parental responsibilities. IOW, in the absence of state laws
>(the >natural situation), you already have c4m.
>
> -----
> Well, in the "natural situation", the survival of the fittest is
> very popular as well; we wouldn't need to punishe rape, for exam-
> ple since might would equal right. Children, the most defenseless
> amongst us, would simply die if parents didn't want them...after
> all, fathers and mothers could both just walk away. I think
> society might be a tad offended by that.
> ------
Yep. I certainly am not advocating the natural situation, just pointing
out that c4m is really the absence of a law, rather than a new law. But
I think you overstate, since the vast majority of people don't walk away
because they wanted their children and feel responsible for them, not
because of the law. If we had to rely on the law here, we'd be in sad
shape. In fact, parents can just walk away (though it's criminal), the
state won't force someone to keep custody of a child, since it can't
force them to care for him/her properly, and thus it would be dangerous
to the child.
Really, the closer being a parent and wanting the child correspond (as
well as being capable of taking care of the child), the better of our
society is. That's why I would prefer to base parenthood on choice, and
get rid of the "I couldn't help it" cop out.
> -----
> What I'm saying (that has NOT be ajudicated) is that denial of
> child support to a woman who is still pregnant places an "undue"
> burden upon her to encourage abortion; I'm not sure, in the state
> of mind we have now, collectively, about abortion, that this would
> be an acceptable alternative, and some women will bear children
> with or without that support which will plunge some of these
> children into poverty.
> -----
Legally, I think you are wrong. Otherwise taking away welfare would also
be an "undue burden". The absence of a law can't be an undue burden --
the undue burden must be state action. Otherwise, you are exactly right,
and that is why c4m is doomed (at least until people become more rational
about abortion and more importantly the concept of controlling
fertility). The last sentance (like the same argument wrt welfare
reform) implies that women are irrational and irresponsible. Maybe short
term greater hardship is worth it if it encourages greater responsibility
(and less hardship) in the long run. At least that appears to be the
mood of society (as judged by sentiments about welfare reform). I'm not
sure how I feel, but I am becoming increasingly impatient with the
current situation. (C4m is very similar to the welfare issue, IMO, just
replace the American taxpayers with the unwilling father and increase the
burden enormously. It is the whole requiring others to finance your
independent decisions aspect of it that irritates me, since I think most
people would never dream of doing so, it is only the most irresponsible.
Obviously most "welfare" is not of that sort and I have no objections to
that. We certainly need a safety net, IMO.)
[snip]
> I do agree with the majority on this issue. I also agree that
> in a perfect world, all children would be wanted children. This
> is not always possible. I suppose, if each person reproduced
> asexually, that the choice would seem more equitable. I still
> support better BC for men....I think this would place men in a
> position of power. Women who wanted to get pregnant would not
> be able to do so without the man's willing participation in that
> exact agenda. I think that when men have this better form of
> birth control, that there will be some angry women....and I say
> to that...."tough noogies".
> ------------
Obviously the best solution.
[snip]
>>Pregnancy is not a reason to distinguish between men and women on the
>>basis of sex. See the difference? (This distinction has nothing to
>do >with c4m, but the question I asked before, and which I am actually
>more >interested in right now -- what differences in treatment are
>justified >based on sex IYO?)
>
> ------
> I must stifle the urge to smile here. I'm sorry...Gestation is
> a definite gender-based difference, unless you can show me men
> who gestate. Your attempt to show that apples can BE apples or
> oranges simply doesn't work. Attempting to take gestation from
> the gender arena in order to give it some "lesser" form of review
> won't work.
> ---------
I tried to explain this better in a separate post, but I'll try again.
This has nothing to do with standard of scrutiny. (Besides, if you want
distinctions, which I don't but I think you do, you would want a lesser
scrutiny.)
Instead, I am just trying to make you see the danger of discriminating
between men and women based on sex due to the possibility of pregnancy.
Many of the distinctions this seems to justify harm women, which is
especially unfair since most of the women affected are not pregnant. You
don't need this argument to argue against c4m, since it's simply
irrelevant. The current situation (at least the part you are arguing in
favor of) does not distinguish between men and women based on sex. At
least think about it and give me some specific examples of laws that
treat men and women (as men and women) differently based on the
distinction that women may be or may become pregnant.
Maybe I'm just afraid that your obsession with pregnant women (who at
least have some choice over their situation) will result in more
discrimination against non-pregnant women, who can't help being women.
[snip]
>>Most people also think gays shouldn't have the right to get married.
>I >don't see that as a convincing argument. I just don't see biology
>alone >as a reason to say one person has a responsibility to support
>another.
>
> -----
> I agree that gays should have the right to marry; This is a
> difficult issue frought with "slippery-slope" arguments of another
> sort. Perhaps we could discuss this sometime; we'd have some
> fun with it since we both agree.
Anything but this -- that's why I'm trying to focus on the newer argument
(justifiable reasons, if any, for distinguishing between men and women),
and glossing over the c4m stuff. You know what I think, I know what you
think on that issue, so leave it at that.
> Parenthood is primal; there are
> many differences between primal needs of society and the rights of
> a small percentage of society. Those who co-create a child must
> remain responsible.
> ------
Article Unavailable
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <55pfkg$9...@usenet11.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
(Stephanie Smith) writes:
>
>In article <55pbno$9...@usenet11.interramp.com>, us01...@interramp.com
>says...
>>
>>In article <55njn4$3...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
>>says...
>
>Sorry to follow up my own post, but looking over this again, I
realized >that you had misunderstood something I said, and wanted to
clarify.
>
>>>>But the point is I think you are confusing the issue with the
>>>>similarly-situated/non-similarly-situated women v. men argument.
I'm>>not >convinced there are situations where men and women are "not
>>>similarly >situated" merely by virtue of sex (though I'm willing to
>>>listen to an >argument, and yes I realize I am disagreeing with the
SC,>>>it's happened >before :-).
>
>How I am disagreeing with the court is that men are women are
>sufficiently different in a way that may require legal distinctions
based >on sex significantly more often than blacks and whites, for
example >(which would be never, IMO). I want a difference (if you have
one in >mind) that requires the law to treat men and women differently
(as it >does wrt the draft, for example, or would with state-supported
single sex >schools). Fair warning: This has *nothing* to do with c4m,
IMO.
>
>>>The fact is just that a person who has to
>>>go through the >operation/pregnancy is not similarly situated to a
>>>person who doesn't.
>
>With the exception of that idiotic decision permitting states to
punish >underage men, and not women, for statutory rape, the
possibility of >pregnancy has *not* been treated as a difference which
makes *men and >women* as opposed to merely *pregnant and non-pregnant
people* not >similarly situated. This is important, since most women
at any given >time fall in the non-pregnant category. Can *women* be
discriminated >against in obtaining jobs which may be potentially
dangerous for a fetus >or future fetus? I hope your opinion would be
that they can't be. Thus, >it's the fact of pregnancy, and not the
fact that someone is a woman and >thus may become pregnant which is the
relevant difference, and as with >the height example, distinctions
based on *sex* are not justified for >this reason.
>
>>> --------
>>> I can't really imagine two people with more dis-similar
interests.
>>> One of them has life within her body and a worry about financial
>>> and familial; one is only worried about his finacial
>>> responsibility.
>
>This dissimilarity does not apply to men and women, but to pregnant
and
>non-pregnant people. And really the familial responsibility/concern
>should be considered to apply to both as well.
>
>>> Every time a woman gets pregnant she risks her
>>> health and her life. I know, my sister almost died giving
birth.
>
>I don't disagree (I'm pro-choice, remember), but do you see this as
>relevant to the claim that the law can distinguish between men and
women >based on sex (and not pregnant status)? Why?
>
>>> I do agree with the court on this issue; I don't aArticle Unavailable
Stephanie Smith
In article <55rpab$c...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
says...
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <55rn4o$s...@usenet4.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com (Stephanie
Smith) writes:
>
>In article <55q8ip$1...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
>says...
>>
>>In <55pbno$9...@usenet11.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
>>(Stephanie Smith) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <55njn4$3...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
>>>says...
>>>>
>>>>In <55mlcs$d...@usenet11.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
>>>>(Stephanie Smith) writes:
>
>[snip where we agree -- that includes the "tall" thing, since I don't
see
>your response as at all inconsistant with my initial point]
>
>>>Now I understand that you want to say that biological parenthood
just>is, >but that brings no responsibilities without state laws
creating>>legal >parental responsibilities. IOW, in the absence of
state laws>>(the >natural situation), you already have c4m.
>>
>> -----
>> Well, in the "natural situation", the survival of the fittest is
>> very popular as well; we wouldn't need to punishe rape, for
example since might would equal right. Children, the most
defenseless
>> amongst us, would simply die if parents didn't want them...after
>> all, fathers and mothers could both just walk away. I think
>> society might be a tad offended by that.
>> ------
>
>Yep. I certainly am not advocating the natural situation, just
pointing >out that c4m is really the absence of a law, rather than a
new law. But >I think you overstate, since the vast majority of people
don't walk away >because they wanted their children and feel
responsible for them, not >because of the law. If we had to rely on
the law here, we'd be in sad >shape. In fact, parents can just walk
away (though it's criminal), the >state won't force someone to keep
custody of a child, since it can't >force them to care for him/her
properly, and thus it would be dangerous >to the child.
------
.....and, now that welfare as we know it will soon end, we will see
many mothers walk, similar to the way fathers have walked. Orphan-
ages will be more needed than ever.
-------
>
>Really, the closer being a parent and wanting the child correspond (as
>well as being capable of taking care of the child), the better of our
>society is. That's why I would prefer to base parenthood on choice,
and >get rid of the "I couldn't help it" cop out.
>
>> -----
>> What I'm saying (that has NOT be ajudicated) is that denial of
>> child support to a woman who is still pregnant places an "undue"
>> burden upon her to encourage abortion; I'm not sure, in the
state of mind we have now, collectively, about abortion, that
this would be an acceptable alternative, and some women will
bear children with or without that support which will plunge
some of these >> children into poverty.
>> -----
>
>Legally, I think you are wrong. Otherwise taking away welfare would
also >be an "undue burden".
-----
Welfare is not really a "right" or "entitlement" until AFTER it has
been started. This HAS been adjudicated, but I'd have to look up
the cases.
------
The absence of a law can't be an undue burden >the undue burden must
be state action. Otherwise, you are exactly right, >and that is why
c4m is doomed (at least until people become more rational >about
abortion and more importantly the concept of controlling >fertility).
The last sentance (like the same argument wrt welfare reform) implies
that women are irrational and irresponsible. Maybe short >term greater
hardship is worth it if it encourages greater responsibility >(and less
hardship) in the long run. At least that appears to be the >mood of
society (as judged by sentiments about welfare reform). I'm not
>sure how I feel, but I am becoming increasingly impatient with the
>current situation. (C4m is very similar to the welfare issue, IMO,
just >replace the American taxpayers with the unwilling father and
increase the >burden enormously. It is the whole requiring others to
finance your >independent decisions aspect of it that irritates me,
since I think most >people would never dream of doing so, it is only
the most irresponsible. >Obviously most "welfare" is not of that sort
and I have no objections to >that. We certainly need a safety net,
IMO.)
-----
Short-term hardship to one gender over the other is a denial of
equal protection, especially when you take the obligations of two
and try to shift those obligations to one, a bit different from
denial of welfare. I do not see having a baby as an "independent"
decision and never will, since there are two co-creators who each
made a choice to risk childbirth, each with their eyes open.
------
-----
Just how do you think my distinctions regarding gestation relate to
non-pregnant women? What discrimination do you foresee?
-----
>
>[snip]
>
>>>Most people also think gays shouldn't have the right to get married.
>>I >don't see that as a convincing argument. I just don't see biology
>>alone >as a reason to say one person has a responsibility to support
>>another.
>>
>> -----
>> I agree that gays should have the right to marry; This is a
>> difficult issue frought with "slippery-slope" arguments of
another sort. Perhaps we could discuss this sometime; we'd have
some fun with it since we both agree.
>
>Anything but this -- that's why I'm trying to focus on the newer
argument >(justifiable reasons, if any, for distinguishing between men
and women), >and glossing over the c4m stuff. You know what I think, I
know what you >think on that issue, so leave it at that.
>
>> Parenthood is primal; there are many differences between primal
needs of society and the rights of a small percentage of
society. Those who co-create a child must
>> remain responsible.
>> ------
>
>We simply disagree. I don't like primal, though, I like rational, so
>maybe that explains it. :-) (As for the morality point, though, I
don't >think that someone's individual morality gives them the right to
burden >others.) (Of course, I also think that all women should live
their lives >by the rules I do, though I wouldn't legally enforce that,
of course, so >I'm being a bit hypocritical. But I admit I find it
hard to sympathize >with your hypothetical woman, since I think her
behavior/actions aren't >worthy of respect and I just can't relate.
The way for women to achieve >equality is not to ask for involuntary
aid from others, but to take >control of their own lives as best they
can.)
-------
Primal rights (or primary rights) may certainly be as rational as
it is primal. These women are not asking for anything more than
a financial contribution for what it took two to make. She could
not have had the baby without him. The "aid" is not really "aid"
but rather, "obligation" to which the child is clearly entitled.
Women certainly need to take control of their own lives, and I
have always encouraged that, but that hardly means that they should
accept liability for that which is shared.
--------
>
>>>My concern is that society should start treating parenthood as a
>>chosen >thing -- I think that would help it become a reality. (This
>>relates to >the welfare reform argument as well, of course.) The
lack>of care with >which people currently become parents (reflected in
the>>treatment and >neglect of children you see so often) is one of the
>>biggest disasters of >our times, IMO, and completely inexcusable
given>>how preventable this is >if people bothered to try (BC). But
they>>don't, in part (IMO) because it >is acceptable to view having
children>>as something that just happens to >you.
>>
>> -----
Making childhood a "chosen thing" rather than an accepted risk,
does only one thing; it makes the woman responsible. We see
right thru that!
>> Most pregnancies remain unplanned. It is a natural part of life
in an effort for life to sustain itself.
>
>Not really. Most people manage to remain childless despite sexual
>relationships. It's not that unusual. It is only within marriage
that >this tends to relax which leads you to wonder how hard they tried
to >prevent it. BC is very effective if used correctly, and most
>industrialized countries manage to do far better than the US. We
should >not just accept it as the natural course of society, when
things are >perfectly possible to be far better if we just expect
people to exercise >minimal control over their own lives. (No comment
on your story meant, >which I think is different and not what I'm
railing against.)
>
>[snip]
>
>
>> ------
>> Well, it is my personal opinion that parents should do what they
>> can do to educate their children. I suppose we should determine
>> exactly what that means, whether two years of college or nothing.
>> When we were more of a "farming" society, children learned their
>> livlihood from their parents; in some societies, the last names
>> of parents came from what they did, i.e. "shoemaker" We must
>> have more conversation about what we "owe" our progeny.
>
>
>This is an interesting topic, IMO, but I think the concept of placing
>levels of financial burden on even married parents (if you are
advocating >that) will never go over in society as it is. Also, this
leads to the >conclusion that children of rich parents are guaranteed
more than those >of poor parents, which I find extremely unfair (though
it isn't that >different that the current reality). So what
requirements would you >impose if any? If parents must pay for 4 years
of college, wouldn't you >also have to guarantee that for children
whose parents can't afford it?
>
>Stephanie
------
Well, it would appear that our Prez. wants to promise two years of
college to every young American. That seems to reinforce the idea
that if parents cant pay (or perhaps even "won't pay) children will
still get that degree of education at taxpayer expense.
Lefty
>
Eric Joslyn
In <55q8ip$1...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) writes:
Note: major editing was performed.
Snip, snip...
> ------
> Before "the state" interceded, biological parenthood was implied
> by the community. Where the father was known, it was the "village"
> that made the father provide meat from his hunting for his family,
> or to be ostracized from the village; this biological parenthood
> thing is strong stuff, not to be confused with mere law alone. It's
> primal from biblical times (and I imagine even cave times) ...this
> one "begat" this one, etc. Our children are indeed the natural
> objects of our bounty whether you choose to see that or not.
> ------
The responsibility was not simply one way. If a father was required to provide
meat, the mother was required to provide sex and/or other domestic services.
Snip, snip...
-----
> I don't really care much what we CALL it. Parents are parents as
> established by their DNA. Hell, we could call these folks DNA--
> designated co-contributers if it is more politically correct; it
> won't really matter. Pay, they must.
> ------
Except when modern society provides women with the choices of abortion, as
well as putting a child up for adoption. (both choices are unavailable for men) In these cases women are allowed to default.
Snip, snip...
> -----
> Well, in the "natural situation", the survival of the fittest is
> very popular as well; we wouldn't need to punishe rape, for exam-
> ple since might would equal right. Children, the most defenseless
> amongst us, would simply die if parents didn't want them...after
> all, fathers and mothers could both just walk away. I think
> society might be a tad offended by that.
> ------
I am offended when women walk away from their fetuses by having them aborted. I am also offended when women walk away from their domestic responsibilities to their husbands and take the children.
> -----
> What I'm saying (that has NOT be ajudicated) is that denial of
> child support to a woman who is still pregnant places an "undue"
> burden upon her to encourage abortion; I'm not sure, in the state
> of mind we have now, collectively, about abortion, that this would
> be an acceptable alternative, and some women will bear children
> with or without that support which will plunge some of these
> children into poverty.
> -----
It is not criminal to allow children to grown up in poverty. Poverty can give
people the motivation to achieve great things. The real crime is allowing
children to grow up without an extended community, or in an unsafe or
criminal atmosphere.
It is criminal to allow women to have children in such conditions.
Snip, snip...
> ------
> You and I must agree to disagree about who makes that choice; we
> will only be repetitive. The choice to "risk" was made by both;
> once a woman is pregnant her "choice" is limited by 1) her health,
> 2) her morality, 3) the law, and 4) by others i.e. parents who may
> prevent her from making that choice. Burden is burden and men must
> accept theirs.
> --------
People can be held responsible only to the extent that they have decision
making power. When a couple risks unprotected sex, they are both responsible
for the woman's pregnancy. However, when a woman "chooses" to have a child
she alone is responsible for that child. The man has no decision making power and
cannot be held responsible for the child. Similarly, if a woman decides to keep a
child and not put it up for adoption, she alone is responsible. The father has no
voice in the matter and therefore is not responsible for the child. The woman is
the only one with choice.
Snip, snip...
> ------
> I don't believe that....a choice that is foist upon one person by
> the actions of two is not much of a choice, especially when it is
> burdened by law, health and personal morality.
> -------
If the choice is not important, then why is the ProChoice movement fighting so
hard for women's right to choose?
Look at it from the man's point of view. The responsibility for the actions of two
is foisted upon him. *He doesn't even get a choice*
> Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <5638ub$9...@usenet4.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com (Stephanie
Smith) writes:
>
>Look -- I realize you are right as far as the practicality of c4m.
It's>not going to be the law any time soon. But realize why. Not for
any>pro-women reasons, but because we live in a society which wants to
>delude itself into thinking there would be no need for welfare if men
>just paid for their kids (ignoring that the fathers of most children
>receiving AFDC probably can't pay anything much).
-----
I think you underestimate the importance of personal responsibility
in the day to day actions we all take. C4M is a theory that re-
quires us to look the other way, i.e. to say, "boys will be boys".
If I plant a seed pod that takes over my neighbor's yard, "I" am
responsible. It's a simple concept, yet one that seems difficult
for c4mers to understand. Pa and Ma BOTH plant that seed, and
neither can manage it alone. Payment of CS is gender neutral, and
the courts will not turn and pretend that women alone make babies.
That would be much like a return to the science of spontaneous gen-
eration, or the "virgin birth".
-------
Also, many many>people still reject the notion that women should be
able to choose >whether or not to have children (for very sexist
reasons). Read the>abortion ng for a while. The Republican candidate
for Senate from my>state (who lost, but defeated a better backed
candidate in the primary>due in part to strong Christian Coalition
support) is not only opposed>to abortion for *any* reason, but also to
BC.
-----
That surprises you? It doesn't, me. Patriarchy dies hard, and
there are many, many men (and some women) who desire that control
back again. However, I'm not worried, science and technology can
win out over ignorance, and almost has. Even now, women have the
ability to abort absent paternalistic support. Roe v Wade only
made it safer; it never promised absolute rights over ones body.
Women can guarantee that this happens by making sure they continue
to have the "ability" to abort and use BC. I'm also not worried
about the make up of the court for the next few years :]
------
That's right, to BC!>Seems it's bad for women. After all, if women
can control their>fertility, we might expect them to be able to go out
and have jobs and>all, and not just sit at home constantly pregnant.
After all, women>are only really happy when at home with kids and being
supported by a>man, right?
------
Women can choose to do what they will. Women make up over 50% of
those eligible to vote. It is not likely that they will vote into
office those who seek to take away their rights. Of course, it
takes some people longer than others to determine exactly WHO those
people are. Bob Dole's impressions of Newt, Rush, and Buchannan
gave him dead away; those in Congress were a bit more difficult to
pin down. As far as your comment above, I see it as so much
"fluff" to hide behind. C4m is not about liberating women from the
dismal life of motherhood :] It's about fucking and running.
--------
>
>Anyway, sorry for the rant, but the reactionary nature behind much of
>this just drives me nuts. This relates, I think, to fundamental
conflict>wrt employment and divorce and custody law. To the extent
that women ask>for special rights due to the responsibility of
children, they will never>have full equality.
------
I think that women must find better ways of bringing men into the
process of parenting. It's good when a father takes an active role
in his child's life and does the mundane day-to-day caretaking,
like mom. Women do need to let go a bit. I don't think anyone can
ever be fully "equal" to anyone else; we are all different with
different flaws and gifts; the best we can hope for is equal
opportunity.
--------
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>
>I disagree on so many levels. First, this shows a misunderstanding of
>the reform laws or what even Republican controlled states have done.
>The Wisconsin plan projects an *increased* state expenditure
initially.>Also, if people were so willing to just "walk", maybe they
would give up>the child at infancy (when adoption is an option) or not
have the child>in the first place. Also, the implication that men are
more willing to>walk than women is unfair, IMO. They are not in the
same position. Of>course you would be more willing to "walk" if you
had no real rights to>the child, no real relationship with him/her, if
your involvement would>reduce the money given to the child (from the
gov't), and if it was>never your decision/desire to have the child.
And huge numbers of women>walk already. However, there are no decent
solutions here. The current >situation is horrible and ought to be
changed.
>
>[snip]
------
Facts are facts; men walk. Women generally have a bond with their
children that keeps them there. If that bond is stretched to the
limits women will also walk. Life is seldom fair, and people who
abandon their chidren (men or women) do not have my respect. Even
if the state ends up caring for those kids, the state can hand them
the bill for that care, and if there is money, the state is enti-
tiled to reimbursement.
-------
>(edit language on undue burden)
>
The absence of a law can't be an undue burden >the undue burden
must>be state action. Otherwise, you are exactly right, >and that is
why>>c4m is doomed (at least until people become more rational >about
>>abortion and more importantly the concept of controlling >fertility).
----
That was naughty; you know we disagree about "control of
fertility" both men and women have their own source of "control"
and with the advent of Norplant for men, they will have an
even greater ability to do just that.
-----
>>The last sentance (like the same argument wrt welfare reform) implies
>>that women are irrational and irresponsible. Maybe short >term
greater>>hardship is worth it if it encourages greater responsibility
>(and less>>hardship) in the long run.
-----
Short-term hardship may be a good plan if it effects the
co-creators
both....since both contributed to the making of the child. I
rather like the idea of putting both of them to work to support
their children. Now, THAT would encourage responsibility!
-----
At least that appears to be the >mood of>>society (as judged by
sentiments about welfare reform). I'm not >>>sure how I feel, but I am
becoming increasingly impatient with the >>current situation. (C4m is
very similar to the welfare issue, IMO,>>just >replace the American
taxpayers with the unwilling father and>>increase the >burden
enormously.
------
No it doesn't. Society didn't "act" to co-create the child; the
father DID. Seems you are still trying to make apple pie with
oranges. I can see that your arguments are quickly de-generating
into ones we've had before, so I'm going to skip quite a lot.
-------
(edit)
>>>Instead, I am just trying to make you see the danger of
discriminating>>between men and women based on sex due to the
possibility ofpregnancy. >Many of the distinctions this seems to
justify harm women,>>which is >especially unfair since most of the
women affected are not>pregnant. You >don't need this argument to
argue against c4m, since>>it's simply >irrelevant. The current
situation (at least the part you>>are arguing in >favor of) does not
distinguish between men and women>>based on sex. At >least think about
it and give me some specific>>examples of laws that treat men and women
(as men and women)>>differently based on the >distinction that women
may be or may become>>pregnant.
-----
Women who ARE gestating are dis-similar to potential fathers who
are NOT gestating; men cannot gestate. Gestation is a gender
difference that will prevail under the 14th amendment. The pos-
sibility of gestation cannot regulate any law that doesn't deal
with gestation, itself because not all women get pregnant, but
men NEVER get pregnant.
-------
>>>
>>>Maybe I'm just afraid that your obsession with pregnant women (who
at >least have some choice over their situation) will result in more
>>>discrimination against non-pregnant women, who can't help being
women.
>> -----
>> Just how do you think my distinctions regarding gestation relate
to non-pregnant women? What discrimination do you foresee?
>> -----
>
>I don't know what your distinctions are -- that's why I've asked about
>4 times now. How such distinctions in general would (again) -- one
>example is a company not allowing women to have jobs which could harm
>potential fetuses (with dangerous chemicals, for example).
>
>[snip -- guess you don't want to talk about anything but c4m]
-----
Are there companies where "dangerous chemicals" could cause harm
to a fetus without subjecting the human beings that work there to
the same harm, and is it reasonable to subject anyone to that kind
of danger. I don't know the answer to that one, do you? Since
much of the workforce is female, and females get pregnant, is it
reasonable to ask someone to subject themselves to that kind of
harm. I don't know? Equal opportunity is still different from
the concept of "equality".
-------
I also think that all women should live>>their lives >by the rules
I do, though I wouldn't legally enforce that,>>of course, so >I'm being
a bit hypocritical. But I admit I find it>>hard to sympathize >with
your hypothetical woman, since I think her>>behavior/actions aren't
>worthy of respect and I just can't relate. >>The way for women to
achieve >equality is not to ask for involuntary>>aid from others, but
to take >control of their own lives as best they>>can.)
-----
On that we agree....where we don't agree is the concept of "taking
control".....a woman who demands child support for his half of what
was created IS taking control; it's just not the type of control
you want her to take. You want her to assume responsibility for a
process that is impossible for one and made possible by two.
-------
>>
>> -------
>> Primal rights (or primary rights) may certainly be as rational as
>> it is primal.
>
>Okay, I misunderstood your meaning. Children's rights aren't
"primal",>then, though. All of our rights are equal. In fact, this
theory that>children's rights/interests should be considered above all
seems to be>doing badly at the polls. People want some kind of welfare
reform, >despite the threat of "poor kids", and (unfortunately) either
every or >all but one attempt to raise taxes for schools failed in my
metro area >this election day. Caring for/protecting children has
traditionally been >the responsibility of those who chose to bring the
children into the >world. This should remain the case.
------
I agree, however children's rights didn't suffer at the polls. We
will see what happens next. What suffered at the polls was the
welfare system, with which I have always disagreed.
------
>
>> These women are not asking for anything more than
>> a financial contribution for what it took two to make.
>
>And what would not have existed without her independant choice.
-----
Except that, again, she has no duty to make a choice about
her body, simply because you want her to abort. None!
-----
>
>>She could
>> not have had the baby without him.
>
>Sure she could have -- she could easily have gotten pregnant by
someone>else or a sperm bank. Remember, she wants the baby, despite
being unable>to support it (or unwilling) without coercing someone else
into helping>her. Selfish and irresponsible.
-----
The selfish and irresponsible actions were taken by both parties
when they failed to protect themselves against the possibility
of childbirth. You would like to burn the witch....I understand.
-------
>
>>The "aid" is not really "aid"
>> but rather, "obligation" to which the child is clearly entitled.
>
>Children are not entitled to a certain percentage of their parents'
>income.
>
>> Women certainly need to take control of their own lives, and I
>> have always encouraged that, but that hardly means that they
should accept liability for that which is shared.
>> --------
>
>They should accept liability for their own desires and choices. If a
>woman wants a child, she ought to either become able to support one
>herself (which would benefit her in other ways by not being a
dependant>victim) or find someone *willing* to support the child (and
who would>be much more likely to be a real father to that child, far
better for the>child) to help her. Unilaterally choosing to have a
child, regardless of>the result for the father, child, and society is
horribly selfish.
----
This conversation is again going nowhere; we must agree to
disagree. A selfish woman is no more and no less than a selfish
man. The fact that cannot be denied is that both made the child.
That you want "her" to take the lumps for that is obvious; women
just simply aren't going to buy it, nor are judges.
------
>
>Remember that the whole basis of support for children traditionally
has>been that it is voluntary -- people want to support their children.
-----
Not really. If you look at early English Common Law, you will find
a very strict set of guidelines for caring for ones progeny.....
Some people want to support children and some don't. Look at the
"spur posse"; they give points for the number of buns they can get
in the oven without any desire to pay support.
-------
The>fact that this is breaking down (encouraged by your gov't
involvment>theories) is what is bad for society and for kids. It is
far more>important for children that their parents love them and spend
time with>them than that they have an extra $50 per month (or even
more).
-----
I find your comment patronizing. Who are you to judge whether the
$50. means more? How can you see into every case? How do you know
if the child wants to see his drug-ridden ma/pa who is obligated
to pay the support? You don't. You can't. Judges, in their
wisdom, know that kids need support. That new pair of sneakers
might mean more to the kid than spending time...it may not; it
all depends on the individual circumstances; what we do know is
that support can be taken from both parents, and that it is within
the confines of the law to do just that.
------
And theonly way to accomplish that is to have parenthood based on
choice. Don't>expect someone who doesn't want a child to support it,
or we will have>many children for whom their support is not willingless
given. Terrible>for society, for the kids, and requiring gov't
involvment and expenditure>to ensure that kids are supported, something
that costs money to the>taxpayers. If a woman wants a kid, great. But
she should wait until>she can afford it or find someone to help her who
will do so >willingly.
------
Pillory the witch! She magically had this child all alone, by
herself....let's make her pay! Stone her....burn her....the harlot
the tramp, the selfish bitch! :]
------
>>
It's not that hard to make enough>money to live on, or even to support
a child on, for heaven's sake.>Plenty of men (and some women) support a
*family* on their income. And>plenty of responsible women don't have
the option to force another to>support them (whether it be a man or the
gov't) since their chosen>partner does not make enough. Why should
someone who acts selfishly be>entitled to more?
>
>[snip]
---------
I don't see the decision to abort or not as selfish either way....
You do. Therein lies the difference. The choice is also a burden
that the woman AND MAN accepted when they risked. Selfishness is
the refusal to support your children, pure and simple.
---------
>
>>>This is an interesting topic, IMO, but I think the concept of
placing >>>levels of financial burden on even married parents (if you
are>>advocating >that) will never go over in society as it is. Also,
this>leads to the >conclusion that children of rich parents are
guaranteed>>more than those >of poor parents, which I find extremely
unfair (thoug>>it isn't that >different that the current reality). So
what>>requirements would you >impose if any? If parents must pay for 4
years>>of college, wouldn't you >also have to guarantee that for
children>>whose parents can't afford it?
>
>>
>> ------
>> Well, it would appear that our Prez. wants to promise two years
of college to every young American. That seems to reinforce the
idea that if parents cant pay (or perhaps even "won't pay)
children will still get that degree of education at taxpayer
expense.
>
>You think college loans are unfair to the taxpayer if the parents can
>afford to pay for college? What you ignore is that the gov't
>(rightfully) is a bit hestitant to interfere with parents'
childrearing >choices or regulate how much money they spend on their
children (or to >attempt to figure out how much they could spend).
This seems obviously right to me (and most people, I suspect).
Unfortunately, this principle >seems to go out the window if the
parents aren't married. The best solution (IMO) would be requiring and
enforcing contracts prior to >marriage dealing with these issues (and
allowing similar contracts prior to sex).
-------
Contracts prior to sex would fail. Men would forget them; women
wouldn't sign them. Of course, we already know they would probably
be considered invalid as to being against public policy. As for
college loans, grants, etc. I think we should determine the fair
amount of education that children require and that parents who can
pay, should pay. I like the idea of giving all students a chance;
I also like the idea of a year of required work for each student to
perhaps pay part of his/her debt to the system. I don't know how
that would pan out. Wow, I'm getting tired....
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <5638ub$9...@usenet4.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com (Stephanie
Smith) writes:
>
>In article <55vdao$e...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
>says...>and on and on...
>
>I am soon going to stop the c4m discussion, since it seems rather
>pointless and for some reason gets me angry, which I hardly need,
since>my job contains enough needless conflict. I'd rather participate
in a>productive interchange.
-----
I know what you mean. My job gives me more than enough conflict as
well. Also, c4m is not a productive interchange, so I am as guilty
of the same "fol de rol".
------
------
>
>However, I feel about this much as I do when talking to someone who
>wants to outlaw very early term abortion -- like we are just from two
>different planets. Our premises/world views just seem to be too
>different to make sense to eachother. However, one thing -- you seem
to >love to portray my position as some plot against women, which you
"see>through". You may disagree with my conclusions, but why do you
have to>imply that my motives are bad?
-----
Any motive to reinstall the patriarchy, i.e. the rights of men to
control the lives of women, is a bad motive to me.
I genuinely believe that my position
>(that we should treat the decision to have a child as a choice) will
>ultimately be the best for women (far better than the current
situation)>and for society as a whole.
-----
Any "position" that takes the burden from two co-contributors and
attempts to shift that burden to one, will fail without giving
women a duty to abort. Legally, that's just the way it is. Women
aren't stupid enough to accept the father's share of the burden.
-------
>
>Also, I think the women we are talking about, rather than being the
>helpless victims you want to think they are, are completely in control
>of their fate.
-----
I don't think of women as "helpless victims" at all, nor do I find
them sole creators of a child who need to take sole responsibility.
------
They make their decisions, which are fine, but they>should not then
require others to pay for them.
-----
If a woman and man make a "decision" to have sex, both have ac-
cepted the attendant risks at that moment. She would not be
requiring anyone to pay for anything that wasn't in the implied
sexual contract.
------
The rest of us manage>to live by the basic rules of society, but they
seem to have the >arrogance to think they can disregard them. I'm not
requiring anything from them that the vast majority of women I know
(and myself) simply assume is right as far as what they would do if in
the same situation.
------
Nor am I.
------
>Not to mention that what you want is to have the law support
>irresponsibility and place the cost on someone other than the one tha
>makes the choice -- a completely irrational economic incentive which
is >likely to lead to bad results (wholly apart from the unfairness).
And >you seem to have no concern for connecting rights and
responsibilities.
-----
Rights and duties are determined whenever people take action. You
and I simply differ about when those rights and duties begin; I
contend that they begin upon the act of risk; you want to shift
that burden to the person who houses the child. Interesting, but
no cigar.
------
>
>As for the co-creater BS -- the men we are talking about have most
likely>done nothing that most of us haven't done (had sex).
This is true for the girl as well as the guy.
Allow me to explain. The King of Siam (Anna and the King) was ask-
ing the king to explain "polygamy" and the reasoning as to why men
were "allowed" to have more than one wife...his musical answer (I
believe from Rodgers and Hammerstein) went: "A woman is like a
blossom, with honey for just one man....a man is like a honey bee
who must gather all he can....to fly from blossom to blossom, a
honey bee must be free, but blossom must not EVER fly from bee,
to bee, to bee". Now, I am trying to explain here, why I see the
motives for c4m as "bad". It is not bad or wrong to give people
as many choices as possible, but it is bad to give one group of
people rights that must be balanced on the backs of another. It
is wrong to insist that men are free to have sex without the risks
but women must accept those risks. Both play, both pay. The
blossoms of the world are in revolt and find c4m or the "fuck and
run law" most revolting.
-------
Thus, why should>they have a greater burden without any greater
choice?
-----
They don't. Men and women are both burdened by any resulting
child. A woman must support her child as well.
-------
You might as well>make me give half my income to my neighbor's child.
After all, I risked>conception, and like the hypothetical man I have no
power over whether>my neighbor decides to have a kid. Remember BC is
not 100% effective.
-----
You mean you had sex with your neighbor? It's the "having sex"
part that makes a baby. Without it there IS no possibility of the
child, unless you go to a sperm bank. Having sex is not a "punish-
able" event, nor should it be, but it is certainly one laden with
possible responsibility.
------
>If you based this on whether the man used BC or not I would agree
with >you. However, there is no way to regulate that.
------
That's true; both risk whatever bc they are using. That's why
they accept the risk of childbirth, whatever the risk.
-------
The best thing for >society is a system which encourages people to do
all they can to not >bring children into the world that they (or the
willing partners >involved) can support. The current system does not --
rather it >encourages women (though only irresponsible women) to have a
child when >they want one, regardless of their ability to take care of
the child or >the desires of the father.
------
Each person must determine for himself or herself how much risk
they are willing to take in their own procreative lives. Once that
risk has been accepted, it's too late to go back. A woman who
decides she does not want an abortion is only making a physical
decision about her own body, and she has every right to do just
that. If she doesn't choose abortion over the howls and protests
of the potential father, he has already played his hand.
-------
That is bad for children and the whole >concept of how children are
cared for in this country (willing contribution by the family, gov't
involvment in only the rarest situations). It is also particularly
dangerous due to the huge >propaganda machine out there telling these
women that having a child will >make their lives meaningful, etc.
-----
From what I've seen, the "propaganda machine" is trying to tell
these women (I assume we are talking of poor women with little
self esteem) that it would be better for them to get an education
and find work than to procreate. As for govt'. involvement, it
is getting much less regarding welfare and much greater involving
collection of child support to which the child is entitled.
------
>
>And as for the "rights of the child" argument -- this is usually a tip
>off to a bad faith argument intended to use the emotional impact of
>"poor, helpless children" to take away rights from all of us. Most
>notably in the First Amendment realm. It is also illogical. If the
real >issue is the child's rights, there is *no* justification for
sperm donor >exception.
-----
You can pretend that to be the case if it makes you feel better,
but it simply isn't true. The first amendment has nothing at all
to do with collection of child support, unless you want to pretend
that fucking and running is some kind of "symbolic speech", and I
think the courts would play with you on that one, rather like a cat
with a mouse. As for "childrens rights", children do have many of
the same rights promised to the rest of us; many others are given,
not by the constitution, but by the state, which, thru the 10th
amendment has the "police powers" to make those laws that give the
kids those rights; the feds aren't likely to interfere with that,
and have, in fact, and will continue to bolster those rights thru
federal laws that will make it increasingly easier to collect
support.
(Or allowing mothers not to seek support from the father if
>state support is not required.) In both of those cases the child is
>deprived of the father's support, and you have stated before that the
>child has a "right" (IYO) to more than basic support -- rights are
>somehow dependant on parents' income (great equality there!).
-----
The states are free to make laws that give children the benefit of
their parents bounty if they so choose. It must be gender-neurtal
however.
-------
>
>Of course, in that case, there is also no justification for allowing
one >parent to not work, or make less than he/she could.
------
Sure there is. If mommy, for example, is breast feeding two young
ones, there's no reason to suggest that she should work at that
time. Likewise, if mother has stayed home with the six kids for
10 years, favored by both parents, a judge may be reluctant to have
her return to work before the youngest is raised; it all depends
upon how the state sees the roles of the parents, and the effect of
the divorce upon the family. As far as job selection goes, the
court has no right to demand that either parent take a certain type
of work to support the family. If a brain surgeon wants to sell
balloons, that's ok; of course if that surgeon has assets, the
court may take those assets based upon the old salary, AND may
accrue future support on the old salary regardless of her/his new
ability to pay.
-------
-------continued in part two
Lefty
Mask'd Intruder
On 10 Nov 1996 19:03:41 GMT, ejo...@seanet.com (Eric Joslyn) wrote:
:In <55q8ip$1...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) writes:
:
:Note: major editing was performed.
:
:Snip, snip...
:
:> ------
:> Before "the state" interceded, biological parenthood was implied
:> by the community. Where the father was known, it was the "village"
:> that made the father provide meat from his hunting for his family,
:> or to be ostracized from the village; this biological parenthood
:> thing is strong stuff, not to be confused with mere law alone. It's
:> primal from biblical times (and I imagine even cave times) ...this
:> one "begat" this one, etc. Our children are indeed the natural
:> objects of our bounty whether you choose to see that or not.
:> ------
:
:The responsibility was not simply one way. If a father was required to provide
:meat, the mother was required to provide sex and/or other domestic services.
Everything changes, doesn't it Lefty?
:
:Snip, snip...
:
: -----
:> I don't really care much what we CALL it. Parents are parents as
:> established by their DNA. Hell, we could call these folks DNA--
:> designated co-contributers if it is more politically correct; it
:> won't really matter. Pay, they must.
:> ------
:
:Except when modern society provides women with the choices of abortion, as
:well as putting a child up for adoption. (both choices are unavailable for men)
:In these cases women are allowed to default.
The fact that their is no accountablity for women in whatever they
decide is tragic. As Lefty suggested in other posts, that if
single men where to be given custody it may increase abortion as women
wouldn't want that to happen. Which would demonstrate just how
deeply the decision is made, to deny this child life because the
father might get them. Which, ironically, is a good reason for
abortion....as things are today. These women shouldn't be parents.
:
:Snip, snip...
:
:> -----
:> Well, in the "natural situation", the survival of the fittest is
:> very popular as well; we wouldn't need to punishe rape, for exam-
:> ple since might would equal right. Children, the most defenseless
:> amongst us, would simply die if parents didn't want them...after
:> all, fathers and mothers could both just walk away. I think
:> society might be a tad offended by that.
:> ------
:
:I am offended when women walk away from their fetuses by having them aborted.
:I am also offended when women walk away from their domestic responsibilities to
:their husbands and take the children.
:
:> -----
:> What I'm saying (that has NOT be ajudicated) is that denial of
:> child support to a woman who is still pregnant places an "undue"
:> burden upon her to encourage abortion; I'm not sure, in the state
:> of mind we have now, collectively, about abortion, that this would
:> be an acceptable alternative, and some women will bear children
:> with or without that support which will plunge some of these
:> children into poverty.
:> -----
:
:It is not criminal to allow children to grown up in poverty. Poverty can give
:people the motivation to achieve great things. The real crime is allowing
:children to grow up without an extended community, or in an unsafe or
:criminal atmosphere.
:
:It is criminal to allow women to have children in such conditions.
So the woman say I'm the father, she's going to have the baby, I'm
forced to pay support for her pregnancy. When the baby's born, if
it is not mine, by virtue of DNA testing, does she refund the moneys
she duped me out of? Or having supported the child as it was
developing and 'having established responsiblity by virtue of support'
would I then be 'legally' responsible if the true father is unknown,
as is the case with married situtations like this. when he's
responsible for the child by virtue of the marriage. Would I too,
like the husband, be forced to accept responiblity for a child that
isn't mine?
:
:Snip, snip...
:
:> ------
:> You and I must agree to disagree about who makes that choice; we
:> will only be repetitive. The choice to "risk" was made by both;
:> once a woman is pregnant her "choice" is limited by 1) her health,
:> 2) her morality, 3) the law, and 4) by others i.e. parents who may
:> prevent her from making that choice. Burden is burden and men must
:> accept theirs.
:> --------
:
:People can be held responsible only to the extent that they have decision
:making power. When a couple risks unprotected sex, they are both responsible
:for the woman's pregnancy. However, when a woman "chooses" to have a child
:she alone is responsible for that child. The man has no decision making power and
:cannot be held responsible for the child. Similarly, if a woman decides to keep a
:child and not put it up for adoption, she alone is responsible. The father has no
:voice in the matter and therefore is not responsible for the child. The woman is
:the only one with choice.
Responsilbity and accountablity for the choices made to give birth or
not is solely the woman's. This speel of yours, this "...choice to
"risk" was made by both; once a woman is pregnant her "choice" is
limited by 1) her health, 2) her morality, 3) the law, and 4) by
others i.e. parents who may....", is so much double talk. Both
don't make the choice, the woman does alone. If the 'act' is the
standard by which men are found responsible, then the standard must be
met by both, for BOTH, to have made the choice you claim. Women have
no responsiblity but what they choose for themselves and no
accountablity at all.
:
:Snip, snip...
:
:> ------
:> I don't believe that....a choice that is foist upon one person by
:> the actions of two is not much of a choice, especially when it is
:> burdened by law, health and personal morality.
:> -------
:
:If the choice is not important, then why is the ProChoice movement fighting so
:hard for women's right to choose?
:
:Look at it from the man's point of view. The responsibility for the actions of two
:is foisted upon him. *He doesn't even get a choice*
:
:
:> Lefty
:
Then I take it, if it's not much of a choice, you wouldn't mind giving
it up? Then we'll all be dealt the same hand, start with a level
playing field, everyone knowing 'you play, you pay' . I must admit,
sounds good to me....
"Just cos' you got the Blues don't mean you gotta sing....
Hey! Be yourself and do your thing...." Savoy Brown
"Everybody wants to go to heaven, but no body wants to die...."
I wish I knew..., Intruder
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <5658ud$e...@q.seanet.com> ejo...@seanet.com (Eric Joslyn) writes:
>
>In <55q8ip$1...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol
Ann Hemingway) writes:
>
>Note: major editing was performed.
>
>Snip, snip...
>
>> Before "the state" interceded, biological parenthood was implied
>> by the community. Where the father was known, it was the
"village" that made the father provide meat from his hunting for
his family, or to be ostracized from the village; this
biological parenthood thing is strong stuff, not to be confused
with mere law alone. It's primal from biblical times (and I
imagine even cave times) ...this one "begat" this one, etc. Our
children are indeed the natural objects of our bounty whether
you choose to see that or not.
>> ------
>
to provide meat, the mother was required to provide sex and/or other
domestic services.
-----
The mothers in various societies had more difficult tasks to per-
form, i.e. gathering, farming, cooking, utensil making, doctoring,
etc. Sex was expected of women, although that has changed in more
recent law. Today sex is only offered upon consent by both parties
-------
>
>Snip, snip...
>
> -----
>> I don't really care much what we CALL it. Parents are parents as
>> established by their DNA. Hell, we could call these folks DNA--
>> designated co-contributers if it is more politically correct; it
>> won't really matter. Pay, they must.
>> ------
>
>Except when modern society provides women with the choices of
abortion, as>well as putting a child up for adoption. (both choices
are unavailable for men) In these cases women are allowed to default.
>
>Snip, snip...
>
>> -----
>> Well, in the "natural situation", the survival of the fittest is
>> very popular as well; we wouldn't need to punishe rape, for
example since might would equal right. Children, the most
defenseless amongst us, would simply die if parents didn't want
them...after all, fathers and mothers could both just walk away.
I think society might be a tad offended by that.
>> ------
>
>I am offended when women walk away from their fetuses by having them
aborted. I am also offended when women walk away from their domestic
responsibilities to their husbands and take the children.
>
>> -----
Those things are not "the same" as not providing for one's children
but you certainly have every right to be offended by them. I doubt
that most of society would agree with your level of offense; in
fact, over 70% of the American public believes that women have the
right to choose. It appears that you are in the 30% that doesn't.
--------
>> What I'm saying (that has NOT be ajudicated) is that denial of
>> child support to a woman who is still pregnant places an "undue"
>> burden upon her to encourage abortion; I'm not sure, in the
state of mind we have now, collectively, about abortion, that
this would be an acceptable alternative, and some women will
bear children with or without that support which will plunge some
of these children into poverty.
>> -----
>
>It is not criminal to allow children to grown up in poverty. Poverty
can give people the motivation to achieve great things. The real crime
is allowing >children to grow up without an extended community, or in
an unsafe or>criminal atmosphere.
>
>It is criminal to allow women to have children in such conditions.
>
-----
Ah, but how can you prevent women from having children; don't
humans, after all, have the right to procreate? This idea
flies in the face of fundamental human rights!
>Snip, snip...
>
>> ------
>> You and I must agree to disagree about who makes that choice; we
>> will only be repetitive. The choice to "risk" was made by both;
>> once a woman is pregnant her "choice" is limited by 1) her
health, 2) her morality, 3) the law, and 4) by others i.e.
parents who may prevent her from making that choice. Burden is
burden and men must accept theirs.
>> --------
>
>People can be held responsible only to the extent that they have
decision making power. When a couple risks unprotected sex, they are
both responsible>for the woman's pregnancy. However, when a woman
"chooses" to have a child>she alone is responsible for that child. The
man has no decision making power and>cannot be held responsible for the
child. Similarly, if a woman decides to keep a>child and not put it up
for adoption, she alone is responsible. The father has no>voice in the
matter and therefore is not responsible for the child. The woman is
>the only one with choice.
>
>Snip, snip...
>
>> ------
>> I don't believe that....a choice that is foist upon one person by
>> the actions of two is not much of a choice, especially when it is
>> burdened by law, health and personal morality.
>> -------
>
>If the choice is not important, then why is the ProChoice movement
fighting so>hard for women's right to choose?
>
-----
For the same reason that I have previously mentioned, i.e. the
right to choose those procedures that effect the human body is
an important fundamental human right.
------
>Look at it from the man's point of view. The responsibility for the
actions of two>is foisted upon him. *He doesn't even get a choice*
>
>
------
Each man has the same right to agree to risk as each woman.
>> Lefty
>
Mask'd Intruder
On 11 Nov 1996 14:43:30 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:
:In <5638ub$9...@usenet4.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com (Stephanie
:Smith) writes:
:>
:>Look -- I realize you are right as far as the practicality of c4m.
:It's>not going to be the law any time soon. But realize why. Not for
:any>pro-women reasons, but because we live in a society which wants to
:>delude itself into thinking there would be no need for welfare if men
:>just paid for their kids (ignoring that the fathers of most children
:>receiving AFDC probably can't pay anything much).
:
: -----
: I think you underestimate the importance of personal responsibility
: in the day to day actions we all take. C4M is a theory that re-
: quires us to look the other way, i.e. to say, "boys will be boys".
: If I plant a seed pod that takes over my neighbor's yard, "I" am
: responsible. It's a simple concept, yet one that seems difficult
: for c4mers to understand. Pa and Ma BOTH plant that seed, and
: neither can manage it alone. Payment of CS is gender neutral, and
: the courts will not turn and pretend that women alone make babies.
: That would be much like a return to the science of spontaneous gen-
: eration, or the "virgin birth".
: -------
But in the real world, to what extent do these non-custodial mothers
forced to pay the meger support they've been ordered to pay? The
responsiblities you speak of are virtually nonexisitent. If you
plant a pod seed that takes over my yard or a tree that over hangs on
to my property, I can cut it back. It's not your responsiblity,
it's mine, as it is on my property. Men are held accountablity for
the 'act', they are held responsible for it. What are women
accountable for beside their own decisions? As you suggested in
other posts, these women shouldn't be parents to begin with, but don't
start a trend that would give fathers custody. She may just abort
to avoid that. Tell us what the will turn and pretend, that the
fathers are responsible, it is the fathers who are accountable?
Custody having nothing to do with it....
:
:
:
:
: Also, many many>people still reject the notion that women should be
:able to choose >whether or not to have children (for very sexist
:reasons). Read the>abortion ng for a while. The Republican candidate
:for Senate from my>state (who lost, but defeated a better backed
:candidate in the primary>due in part to strong Christian Coalition
:support) is not only opposed>to abortion for *any* reason, but also to
:BC.
:
: -----
: That surprises you? It doesn't, me. Patriarchy dies hard, and
: there are many, many men (and some women) who desire that control
: back again. However, I'm not worried, science and technology can
: win out over ignorance, and almost has. Even now, women have the
: ability to abort absent paternalistic support. Roe v Wade only
: made it safer; it never promised absolute rights over ones body.
: Women can guarantee that this happens by making sure they continue
: to have the "ability" to abort and use BC. I'm also not worried
: about the make up of the court for the next few years :]
: ------
Or there are those of us who want a standard that is applicable to
both, ie; 'the act', choice, ect. This is what I see is the most
important point that needs to be addressed. It isn't this
'patriarchy' that you claim, unless that is how you view women being
as accountable. If 'equality' in standards for accountablity can't
be accepted by feminist, how can 'equality' in anything? The makeup
of the courts doesn't bother you since you feel that wanting things
fair, how was it you put it....'if you want fair, go to the
fairgrounds'.... You still talk out of both sides of your face.
:
:
: That's right, to BC!>Seems it's bad for women. After all, if women
:can control their>fertility, we might expect them to be able to go out
:and have jobs and>all, and not just sit at home constantly pregnant.
:After all, women>are only really happy when at home with kids and being
:supported by a>man, right?
:
: ------
: Women can choose to do what they will. Women make up over 50% of
: those eligible to vote. It is not likely that they will vote into
: office those who seek to take away their rights. Of course, it
: takes some people longer than others to determine exactly WHO those
: people are. Bob Dole's impressions of Newt, Rush, and Buchannan
: gave him dead away; those in Congress were a bit more difficult to
: pin down. As far as your comment above, I see it as so much
: "fluff" to hide behind. C4m is not about liberating women from the
: dismal life of motherhood :] It's about fucking and running.
: --------
Or abortion. Which is the same for women. The difference is
when a women decides for herself that she wants the child, she can be
certain she will have custody. That the man will almost certainly
have a financial obligation to her for her personal decision. Of
course you view it differently when it is her choice to fuck and run,
than his....she aborts. She has no responsiblity accept what she
chooses. She isn't accountable for the 'act', men are. That
makes us accountable to her choice.....
:>
:>Anyway, sorry for the rant, but the reactionary nature behind much of
:>this just drives me nuts. This relates, I think, to fundamental
:conflict>wrt employment and divorce and custody law. To the extent
:that women ask>for special rights due to the responsibility of
:children, they will never>have full equality.
:
: ------
: I think that women must find better ways of bringing men into the
: process of parenting. It's good when a father takes an active role
: in his child's life and does the mundane day-to-day caretaking,
: like mom. Women do need to let go a bit. I don't think anyone can
: ever be fully "equal" to anyone else; we are all different with
: different flaws and gifts; the best we can hope for is equal
: opportunity.
: --------
Or 'equal' responsiblity and accountablity.... 'Equal' standards
for both.
:>
:>[snip]
:>
:>>
:>
:>I disagree on so many levels. First, this shows a misunderstanding of
:>the reform laws or what even Republican controlled states have done.
:>The Wisconsin plan projects an *increased* state expenditure
:initially.>Also, if people were so willing to just "walk", maybe they
:would give up>the child at infancy (when adoption is an option) or not
:have the child>in the first place. Also, the implication that men are
:more willing to>walk than women is unfair, IMO. They are not in the
:same position. Of>course you would be more willing to "walk" if you
:had no real rights to>the child, no real relationship with him/her, if
:your involvement would>reduce the money given to the child (from the
:gov't), and if it was>never your decision/desire to have the child.
:And huge numbers of women>walk already. However, there are no decent
:solutions here. The current >situation is horrible and ought to be
:changed.
:>
:>[snip]
:
: ------
: Facts are facts; men walk. Women generally have a bond with their
: children that keeps them there. If that bond is stretched to the
: limits women will also walk. Life is seldom fair, and people who
: abandon their chidren (men or women) do not have my respect. Even
: if the state ends up caring for those kids, the state can hand them
: the bill for that care, and if there is money, the state is enti-
: tiled to reimbursement.
: -------
Yes, both have walked away. Both have stayed. But your diatribe
on 'fair' is laughable..... You don't give a shit about fair
Lefty.... Anyone you do have respect for I would find suspect, by
the standards you've expressed to me.... More lip service for
'equality', more of the same ol', same ol'.....
:>(edit language on undue burden)
:
:>
: The absence of a law can't be an undue burden >the undue burden
:must>be state action. Otherwise, you are exactly right, >and that is
:why>>c4m is doomed (at least until people become more rational >about
:>>abortion and more importantly the concept of controlling >fertility).
:
: ----
: That was naughty; you know we disagree about "control of
: fertility" both men and women have their own source of "control"
: and with the advent of Norplant for men, they will have an
: even greater ability to do just that.
: -----
Or women can be held to the same standard you'd have imposed on men.
:
:
:
:>>The last sentance (like the same argument wrt welfare reform) implies
:>>that women are irrational and irresponsible. Maybe short >term
:greater>>hardship is worth it if it encourages greater responsibility
:>(and less>>hardship) in the long run.
:
: -----
: Short-term hardship may be a good plan if it effects the
: co-creators
: both....since both contributed to the making of the child. I
: rather like the idea of putting both of them to work to support
: their children. Now, THAT would encourage responsibility!
: -----
Or that the same standard of accountablity is applied to both. Men
are justifed in feeling left out of the process when a women is only
responsible when she choose to be. Abortion has removed
accountablity for women, men don't have that choice.
:
:
:
: At least that appears to be the >mood of>>society (as judged by
:sentiments about welfare reform). I'm not >>>sure how I feel, but I am
:becoming increasingly impatient with the >>current situation. (C4m is
:very similar to the welfare issue, IMO,>>just >replace the American
:taxpayers with the unwilling father and>>increase the >burden
:enormously.
:
: ------
: No it doesn't. Society didn't "act" to co-create the child; the
: father DID. Seems you are still trying to make apple pie with
: oranges. I can see that your arguments are quickly de-generating
: into ones we've had before, so I'm going to skip quite a lot.
: -------
As above, it is more about accoutablity to the choices women make,
compared to the the accountablity of mens choices. It is the womans
whim to take the responsiblity, when she choose. We deserve a
standard that both are accountable too.
:(edit)
:>>>Instead, I am just trying to make you see the danger of
:discriminating>>between men and women based on sex due to the
:possibility ofpregnancy. >Many of the distinctions this seems to
:justify harm women,>>which is >especially unfair since most of the
:women affected are not>pregnant. You >don't need this argument to
:argue against c4m, since>>it's simply >irrelevant. The current
:situation (at least the part you>>are arguing in >favor of) does not
:distinguish between men and women>>based on sex. At >least think about
:it and give me some specific>>examples of laws that treat men and women
:(as men and women)>>differently based on the >distinction that women
:may be or may become>>pregnant.
:
: -----
: Women who ARE gestating are dis-similar to potential fathers who
: are NOT gestating; men cannot gestate. Gestation is a gender
: difference that will prevail under the 14th amendment. The pos-
: sibility of gestation cannot regulate any law that doesn't deal
: with gestation, itself because not all women get pregnant, but
: men NEVER get pregnant.
: -------
But it can address the accountablity, the standard that ALL of us
should stand on. That is the point that feminist like yourself
choose to ignore. We each deserve the same standard of
accountablity.
:>>>
:>>>Maybe I'm just afraid that your obsession with pregnant women (who
:at >least have some choice over their situation) will result in more
:>>>discrimination against non-pregnant women, who can't help being
:women.
:>> -----
:>> Just how do you think my distinctions regarding gestation relate
: to non-pregnant women? What discrimination do you foresee?
:>> -----
:>
:>I don't know what your distinctions are -- that's why I've asked about
:>4 times now. How such distinctions in general would (again) -- one
:>example is a company not allowing women to have jobs which could harm
:>potential fetuses (with dangerous chemicals, for example).
:>
:>[snip -- guess you don't want to talk about anything but c4m]
:
: -----
: Are there companies where "dangerous chemicals" could cause harm
: to a fetus without subjecting the human beings that work there to
: the same harm, and is it reasonable to subject anyone to that kind
: of danger. I don't know the answer to that one, do you? Since
: much of the workforce is female, and females get pregnant, is it
: reasonable to ask someone to subject themselves to that kind of
: harm. I don't know? Equal opportunity is still different from
: the concept of "equality".
: -------
No, 'Equal opportunity is still different from the concept of
"equality" is BS. Equal opportunity is a direct result of the
feminist, the blacks, ect, needing 'equality' in the work place.
: I also think that all women should live>>their lives >by the rules
:I do, though I wouldn't legally enforce that,>>of course, so >I'm being
:a bit hypocritical. But I admit I find it>>hard to sympathize >with
:your hypothetical woman, since I think her>>behavior/actions aren't
:>worthy of respect and I just can't relate. >>The way for women to
:achieve >equality is not to ask for involuntary>>aid from others, but
:to take >control of their own lives as best they>>can.)
:
: -----
: On that we agree....where we don't agree is the concept of "taking
: control".....a woman who demands child support for his half of what
: was created IS taking control; it's just not the type of control
: you want her to take. You want her to assume responsibility for a
: process that is impossible for one and made possible by two.
: -------
Why can't you see that if men are accountable for the 'act' and women
are accountable to their whims, that men might feel just a bit out of
the loop. Why should we be accountable for the womans choice?
She isn't accountable to the 'act'. It's this doublestandard that
angers men, that we are at their whim. Where does your 'concept of
equality' do for this? I know, I know....if you want fair, go to the
fairgrounds.... Men deserve the same choices as women or women
need the same accountablity as men, 'equally'. The same standard
for both....
{snipped}
:>
:>> These women are not asking for anything more than
:>> a financial contribution for what it took two to make.
:>
:>And what would not have existed without her independant choice.
:
: -----
: Except that, again, she has no duty to make a choice about
: her body, simply because you want her to abort. None!
: -----
Exactly, she has no accountablity for the 'act', men do, at the womans
whim. This is what needs to be addressed.
:>
:>>She could
:>> not have had the baby without him.
:>
:>Sure she could have -- she could easily have gotten pregnant by
:someone>else or a sperm bank. Remember, she wants the baby, despite
:being unable>to support it (or unwilling) without coercing someone else
:into helping>her. Selfish and irresponsible.
:
: -----
: The selfish and irresponsible actions were taken by both parties
: when they failed to protect themselves against the possibility
: of childbirth. You would like to burn the witch....I understand.
: -------
Or is it to have her face the same standards you'd impose on men? I
know, you'd like to absolve the woman from any standard of
responsiblity that you can be imposed on a man.
:
:>
:>>The "aid" is not really "aid"
:>> but rather, "obligation" to which the child is clearly entitled.
:>
:>Children are not entitled to a certain percentage of their parents'
:>income.
:>
:>> Women certainly need to take control of their own lives, and I
:>> have always encouraged that, but that hardly means that they
: should accept liability for that which is shared.
:>> --------
:>
:>They should accept liability for their own desires and choices. If a
:>woman wants a child, she ought to either become able to support one
:>herself (which would benefit her in other ways by not being a
:dependant>victim) or find someone *willing* to support the child (and
:who would>be much more likely to be a real father to that child, far
:better for the>child) to help her. Unilaterally choosing to have a
:child, regardless of>the result for the father, child, and society is
:horribly selfish.
:
: ----
: This conversation is again going nowhere; we must agree to
: disagree. A selfish woman is no more and no less than a selfish
: man. The fact that cannot be denied is that both made the child.
: That you want "her" to take the lumps for that is obvious; women
: just simply aren't going to buy it, nor are judges.
: ------
No, your right Lefty.... not as things are today. Your
doublestandards are safe. But like abortion.....everything changes.
There will come a time when women will be forced to be just as
accountable as the man for the 'act' or men will have the right to
abort the responsiblity. To think that this will never happen is
stupid.... And it will be for 'equalities' sake.
:>
:>Remember that the whole basis of support for children traditionally
:has>been that it is voluntary -- people want to support their children.
:
: -----
: Not really. If you look at early English Common Law, you will find
: a very strict set of guidelines for caring for ones progeny.....
: Some people want to support children and some don't. Look at the
: "spur posse"; they give points for the number of buns they can get
: in the oven without any desire to pay support.
: -------
To look at English Common Law, the guidelines were setup so that the
first male child inherited most everything, the second male child a
little money, the third, very little money, ect. It was geared
toward the male children solely. The was no questions as to
responsiblity, no abortions, the women was subservient to here
husband, ect....women and female children were not accounted for.
Children out of wedlock was reason to ostracize the woman, being
nothing more than a whore. Now I don't really think you want to use
this as a standard, but I may be wrong....
:
: The>fact that this is breaking down (encouraged by your gov't
Or you could look at it the same way men do, she choose to have this
child according to her own whims alone. She isn't held liabel for
the 'act', she has no accountablity to anything but her personal
choice. Your response does nothing to address any situtation. To
imply that women don't base their decision on the fact they can force
the man to subsidize their decisions is ludicrous. We as men are
liabel for her personal decision, she isn't liabel or accountable to
the man in any respect. Especially for the children she aborted.
We need to take these questions out of the loop, we need the same
standard applied to both parents, both being responsible. Or both
with the option to abort the responsiblity.... I personally
don't care which, as long as it's the same for both. Most men would
agree....
:>>
:
: It's not that hard to make enough>money to live on, or even to support
:a child on, for heaven's sake.>Plenty of men (and some women) support a
:*family* on their income. And>plenty of responsible women don't have
:the option to force another to>support them (whether it be a man or the
:gov't) since their chosen>partner does not make enough. Why should
:someone who acts selfishly be>entitled to more?
:>
:>[snip]
:
: ---------
: I don't see the decision to abort or not as selfish either way....
: You do. Therein lies the difference. The choice is also a burden
: that the woman AND MAN accepted when they risked. Selfishness is
: the refusal to support your children, pure and simple.
: ---------
Hahahaha..... God!! Your logic.... The choice of abortion is
one of convenience alone, to fit her needs alone. If it weren't,
she would accept the responsiblity of her actions, just as you insist
a man must do, for his 'act'. The choice is not a burden, it is a
choice. To say that it's an 'equal' burden for both is stupid.
She isn't forced into parenthood at the mans whim, or denied
parenthood for that matter, as we decided it, for our lives alone.
To force parenthood on men without the same protections for men, as
you demand for yourself, is selfish. To bring a child into the
world because it is what you want alone, is selfish. If women were
as responsible, as accountable for their actions, as you demand men to
be, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If both were held to
the same standard of conduct and accountablity, what would men have to
say? As things are today, it is a purely selfish decision made by
women.....
{snipped for convenience.... : ) }
Stephanie Smith
In article <567e2i$d...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
says...
I'm deleting the c4m argument. I stand by what I've said in the past,
but I don't see any point in discussing it any more. I just wish you
could have tried to address my actual arguments without feeling a need to
misrepresent (once again, I have no position on whether anyone should
abort or not, and certainly never said that anyone is irresponsible for
not aborting). I am beginning to think that you really do just want
whatever benefits women, even if it means treating them like children,
but I will attempt to proceed as if you are arguing in good faith.
On to the sex discrimination/pregnancy argument:
>>>>Instead, I am just trying to make you see the danger of
>discriminating>>between men and women based on sex due to the
>possibility ofpregnancy. >Many of the distinctions this seems to
>justify harm women,>>which is >especially unfair since most of the
>women affected are not>pregnant. You >don't need this argument to
>argue against c4m, since>>it's simply >irrelevant. The current
>situation (at least the part you>>are arguing in >favor of) does not
>distinguish between men and women>>based on sex. At >least think about
>it and give me some specific>>examples of laws that treat men and women
>(as men and women)>>differently based on the >distinction that women
>may be or may become>>pregnant.
>
> -----
> Women who ARE gestating are dis-similar to potential fathers who
> are NOT gestating; men cannot gestate. Gestation is a gender
> difference that will prevail under the 14th amendment. The pos-
> sibility of gestation cannot regulate any law that doesn't deal
> with gestation, itself because not all women get pregnant, but
> men NEVER get pregnant.
> -------
Again, the sex discrimination point is irrelevant to the c4m argument,
particularly your side of it. All you have to say is that the person
whose body it is gets to decide whether to be pregnant or not. No sex
discrimination comes into play. In fact, all courts which have faced the
argument have held that abortion is not justified by a sex
discrimination/equality theory.
And yes, you certainly can distinguish between pregnant persons and
non-pregnant persons. This is because the SC has held that it *is not*
sex discrimination under the 14th amendment, and thus only analyzed under
a rational basis test.
>>>>Maybe I'm just afraid that your obsession with pregnant women (who
>at >least have some choice over their situation) will result in more
>>>>discrimination against non-pregnant women, who can't help being
>women.
>>> -----
>>> Just how do you think my distinctions regarding gestation relate
> to non-pregnant women? What discrimination do you foresee?
>>> -----
>>
>>I don't know what your distinctions are -- that's why I've asked about
>>4 times now. How such distinctions in general would (again) -- one
>>example is a company not allowing women to have jobs which could harm
>>potential fetuses (with dangerous chemicals, for example).
>>
>>[snip -- guess you don't want to talk about anything but c4m]
>
> -----
> Are there companies where "dangerous chemicals" could cause harm
> to a fetus without subjecting the human beings that work there to
> the same harm, and is it reasonable to subject anyone to that kind
> of danger. I don't know the answer to that one, do you?
Where have you been over the past 5 years? I certainly do know the
answer to it -- yes. This issue has been addressed by the courts, and
the fact that women can become pregnant does not permit discrimination
against *women* as a class. Good thing, though your argument would
indicate differently.
Since
> much of the workforce is female, and females get pregnant, is it
> reasonable to ask someone to subject themselves to that kind of
> harm.
Here your bias of "women as victim" comes into play. No one is
subjecting women to anything. This policy (like many limiting women's
opportunities in the workforce) was supposedly created to protect women
by *not* allowing them to work in such dangerous environments (and also
protecting the company, no doubt, who feared suits from parents with
damaged children). The question was whether prohibiting women from such
jobs was okay. (It's not.) Obviously, having a requirement for a job
that is potentially dangerous to fetuses is okay -- pregnant women don't
have to take the job.
[snip]
On to college loans/public schools, etc.:
>>You think college loans are unfair to the taxpayer if the parents can
>>afford to pay for college? What you ignore is that the gov't
>>(rightfully) is a bit hestitant to interfere with parents'
>childrearing >choices or regulate how much money they spend on their
>children (or to >attempt to figure out how much they could spend).
>This seems obviously right to me (and most people, I suspect).
>Unfortunately, this principle >seems to go out the window if the
>parents aren't married. The best solution (IMO) would be requiring and
>enforcing contracts prior to >marriage dealing with these issues (and
>allowing similar contracts prior to sex).
>
> -------
> Contracts prior to sex would fail. Men would forget them; women
> wouldn't sign them. Of course, we already know they would probably
> be considered invalid as to being against public policy.
One side note. I prefer this as a *new solution*. That would make them
enforceable and not contrary to public policy. If men forget them or
women don't sign them -- tough. The fallback rules. I just think men
should have all the options women do, and this would effectively give
them that if they choice to take advantage of it. It would also make
people think about these matters more before having sex. (And I really
don't want to talk about this any more, I realize you don't think women
should be held to their word, since they might make an agreement you
wouldn't.)
As for
> college loans, grants, etc. I think we should determine the fair
> amount of education that children require and that parents who can
> pay, should pay.
You didn't answer my question -- what about public school? Do you want
to charge parents for that too?
>I like the idea of giving all students a chance;
> I also like the idea of a year of required work for each student to
> perhaps pay part of his/her debt to the system. I don't know how
> that would pan out. Wow, I'm getting tired....
Stephanie
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <3287bd4...@news.sojourn.com> intr...@sojourn.com (Mask'd
Intruder) writes:
>
(edit)
>To look at English Common Law, the guidelines were setup so that the
>first male child inherited most everything, the second male child a
>little money, the third, very little money, ect. It was geared
>toward the male children solely. The was no questions as to
>responsiblity, no abortions, the women was subservient to here
>husband, ect....women and female children were not accounted for.
>Children out of wedlock was reason to ostracize the woman, being
>nothing more than a whore. Now I don't really think you want to use
>this as a standard, but I may be wrong....
-------
I realize very well that this is what patriarchs would like. I am
not deluded. The fact remains that women have the vote; it is not
likely that they will vote themselves back into that sort of sub-
serviance. The "standard" I was using was only to illustrate the
historical significance of giving to one's children....the natural
objects of ones bounty.
--------
------
Why on earth should she be "liable" to the man; her only respons-
ibility is to the child, same as yours. Sex implies no fiduciary
relationship between the father and the mother, only to the child.
------
Especially for the children she aborted.>We need to take these
questions out of the loop, we need the same>standard applied to both
parents, both being responsible. Or both>with the option to abort
the responsiblity.... I personally>don't care which, as long as
it's the same for both. Most men would>agree....
-------
No man has the right to regulate my body....Given that this is the
case coupled with obligation owed to a child, it would seem prudent
that men (because of nature) make their choices when they have the
choice to make. I don't care whether or not most men agree.
--------
>
>(edit)
>Hahahaha..... God!! Your logic.... The choice of abortion is
>one of convenience alone, to fit her needs alone. If it weren't,
>she would accept the responsiblity of her actions, just as you insist
>a man must do, for his 'act'. The choice is not a burden, it is a
>choice. To say that it's an 'equal' burden for both is stupid.
-------
Ah, but I never said the burden WAS equal; I said the risk was
assumed by both with both knowing the burdens of the "other" That
is a bit different than saying that both have equal burdens; They
each have very different burdens. Each person, in a contract,
accepts their own unique burdens; if I contract to paint your
house for $1,987. we have made a contract based upon unequal
burden. If, for example, you are Trump and make several million
a day, your burden is very, very small indeed. However, our con-
tract is still valid since we both accepted the risk fully knowing
the different burdens of the other.
Two play, two pay; it's 7:40; do you know where your children are?
Lefty
>
>
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <568qjr$3...@usenet10.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
(Stephanie Smith) writes:
>
>In article <567e2i$d...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
lef...@ix.netcom.co
>says...
>>
>>In <5638ub$9...@usenet4.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
(Stephanie
>>Smith) writes:
>
>I'm deleting the c4m argument. I stand by what I've said in the past,
>but I don't see any point in discussing it any more. I just wish you
>could have tried to address my actual arguments without feeling a need
to >misrepresent (once again, I have no position on whether anyone
should >abort or not, and certainly never said that anyone is
irresponsible for >not aborting). I am beginning to think that you
really do just want >whatever benefits women, even if it means treating
them like children, >but I will attempt to proceed as if you are
arguing in good faith.
-----
I have always argued in good faith whether or not we agree. I
don't see the collection of child support as anything other than
supporting the children one fathers....I don't see it as something
that treats women as children. Both play; both pay. It seems
fair to me.
------
>
>On to the sex discrimination/pregnancy argument:
>
>>>>>Instead, I am just trying to make you see the danger of
>>discriminating>>between men and women based on sex due to the
>>possibility of pregnancy. >Many of the distinctions this seems to
>>justify harm women,>>which is >especially unfair since most of the
>>women affected are not>pregnant.
------
The "distinctions" that justify the "dissimilar situation" are very
real, and need not relate at all to women who aren't pregnant. It
is not the "possibility of pregnancy" that separates us; it is the
fact that ONLY women can gestate that does so. Trying to pretend
the men and women may gestate in your "pregnant person" analysis is
ridiculous, IMO.
------
You >don't need this argument to>>argue against c4m, since>>it's
simply >irrelevant. The current>situation (at least the part you>>are
arguing in >favor of) does not>distinguish between men and women>>based
on sex. At >least think about>it and give me some specific>>examples
of laws that treat men and women>(as men and women)>>differently based
on the >distinction that women>may be or may become>>pregnant.
>>
>> -----
>> Women who ARE gestating are dis-similar to potential fathers who
>> are NOT gestating; men cannot gestate. Gestation is a gender
>> difference that will prevail under the 14th amendment. The pos-
>> sibility of gestation cannot regulate any law that doesn't deal
>> with gestation, itself because not all women get pregnant, but
>> men NEVER get pregnant.
>> -------
>
>Again, the sex discrimination point is irrelevant to the c4m argument,
>particularly your side of it. All you have to say is that the person
>whose body it is gets to decide whether to be pregnant or not. No sex
>discrimination comes into play. In fact, all courts which have faced
the >argument have held that abortion is not justified by a sex
>discrimination/equality theory.
------
There has never really been the need to use that theory since
it is obvious to most people that the issue of gestation does
separate the needs of the two genders. I think that perhaps
the issue was addressed in RvW, but simply by the use of gender
specific language.....the case holds that WOMEN have this right.
It doesn't say "people" who choose; it specifically refers to
women. If that language doesn't suggest gender specific holding, I
can't imagine anything else that would meet the qualifications of
the 14th amendment more.
>
-------
>(edit)
-----
Cite a case; I will read it and respond, if you like. A company
would, IMO not be able to discriminate against women as a class
simply because a woman might gestate, but rather only if she is,
in fact, gestating. I'm guessing that the courts would find that
discrimination against a person for a potential problem would not
hold; i.e. the company, at the very least, would have to find the
least restrictive means to address the problem, i.e. subject
female employees to monthly pregnancy tests; it would be interest-
ing for me to read one of those cases if you have the cite. Trying
to somehow belittle me by suggesting that I haven't kept up on my
reading is rather shallow of you, since you already know that much
of my time has been spent studying for exams and for the bar. Be-
sides, my legal interests don't reside in family law; I enjoy
criminal law, and intellectual property law; that is where most
of my "for fun" reading takes place. The only way I could have
seen the cases you don't mention, is in a law review journal, or
covered in the news. I don't recall this type of case.
----------
>
>Since
>> much of the workforce is female, and females get pregnant, is it
>> reasonable to ask someone to subject themselves to that kind of
>> harm.
>
>Here your bias of "women as victim" comes into play. No one is
>subjecting women to anything. This policy (like many limiting women's
>opportunities in the workforce) was supposedly created to protect
women >by *not* allowing them to work in such dangerous environments
(and also >protecting the company, no doubt, who feared suits from
parents with >damaged children). The question was whether prohibiting
women from such >jobs was okay. (It's not.) Obviously, having a
requirement for a job >that is potentially dangerous to fetuses is okay
-- pregnant women don't >have to take the job.
------
I would tend to agree with that; I would also tend to assert that
jobs that are dangerous enough to harm a fetus, are, likely as not,
dangerous enough to harm an adult as well, but I'd have to see the
case to determine that. .....and you're right, non-pregnant women
don't have to take those jobs. There ARE many less restrictive
ways to handle this even with the gender differences.
--------
-----
The reason your "new solution" won't work is because you have done
the same thing in your reasoning over and over again, i.e. any
contract that does not consider ALL of the parties isn't going to
be valid as against the injured party who was not considered. A
child STILL has the right to be supported by his parents. The
most you could gain from that type of contract (if society bought
into it at all) is that mother would, if she could, support the
child by herself. Any woman who signed would be a fool, since
both parties created the child.
-------
>You didn't answer my question -- what about public school? Do you
want >to charge parents for that too?
>
>>I like the idea of giving all students a chance;
>> I also like the idea of a year of required work for each student
to> perhaps pay part of his/her debt to the system. I don't know
how> that would pan out. Wow, I'm getting tired....
>
>Stephanie
------
You know, I really didn't properly address your question about
public schooling; I'm sorry, I was exhausted. Public schooling
for all children is not just a benefit to children and/or parents
it benefits us all. If we, as a society want to produce a bunch
of kids who run the streets in gangs and enter the world of crime
to support all their bad habits, i.e. drugs, all we need to do is
to provide some form of elitist education policy. The idea behind
"America" is that everyone has an opportunity....that's not a
promise of success, but it is a chance.
Lefty
>
Asmus Tietchens
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> In <5638ub$9...@usenet4.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com (Stephanie
> Smith) writes:
> >
> >In article <55vdao$e...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
> >says...
> >>
> >>In <55rn4o$s...@usenet4.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
> (Stephanie
> >>Smith) writes:
> >
> >and on and on...
> >
> >I am soon going to stop the c4m discussion, since it seems rather
> >pointless and for some reason gets me angry, which I hardly need,
> since>my job contains enough needless conflict. I'd rather participate
> in a>productive interchange.
> >However, I feel about this much as I do when talking to someone who
> >wants to outlaw very early term abortion -- like we are just from two
> >different planets. Our premises/world views just seem to be too
> >different to make sense to eachother. However, one thing -- you seem
> to >love to portray my position as some plot against women, which you
> "see>through". You may disagree with my conclusions, but why do you
> have to>imply that my motives are bad?
>
> -----
> Any motive to reinstall the patriarchy, i.e. the rights of men to
> control the lives of women, is a bad motive to me.
HOW IN THE BLOODY HELL DOES GRANTING MEN A CHOICE
CONTROL THE LIVES OF WOMEN??
In all your cracked messages I have NEVER seen you explain this
one stupid assumption.
> Any "position" that takes the burden from two co-contributors and
> attempts to shift that burden to one, will fail without giving
> women a duty to abort. Legally, that's just the way it is.
It's not a "duty" to abort. It's a tough, and FAIR choice.
Forcing child support is an UNFAIR practice.
Legally, the only way to justify forced child support is to outlaw
abortion, and I do not want that. I rather enjoy my liberation.
> Women
> aren't stupid enough to accept the father's share of the burden.
Speak for yourself, girlie. If I want the kid and he doesn't, then
that's life.
> If a woman and man make a "decision" to have sex, both have ac-
> cepted the attendant risks at that moment. She would not be
> requiring anyone to pay for anything that wasn't in the implied
> sexual contract.
For the last time, dammit, there is NO CONTRACT.
NONE. NADA. ZIP. He and I sign no papers when we screw.
When, and IF, we decide to have kids, it will be when we
BOTH decide we are good and ready to care for them.
> but women must accept those risks. Both play, both pay. The
> blossoms of the world are in revolt and find c4m or the "fuck and
> run law" most revolting.
No, I don't. Quit putting your half-baked opinions into my mouth.
You have never wanted equality from the beginning. You, in your
aggression and insecurity, want dominance. As long as I exist,
I will not allow you to have it. So nyeah.
Asmus Tietchens
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> In <3287bd4...@news.sojourn.com> intr...@sojourn.com (Mask'd
> Intruder) writes:
>
> >Or you could look at it the same way men do, she choose to have this
> >child according to her own whims alone. She isn't held liabel for
> >the 'act', she has no accountablity to anything but her personal
> >choice. Your response does nothing to address any situtation. To
> >imply that women don't base their decision on the fact they can force
> >the man to subsidize their decisions is ludicrous. We as men are
> >liabel for her personal decision, she isn't liabel or accountable to
> >the man in any respect.
>
> ------
> Why on earth should she be "liable" to the man; her only respons-
> ibility is to the child, same as yours. Sex implies no fiduciary
> relationship between the father and the mother, only to the child.
> ------
Likewise, why on earth would the man be liable to her?
But anyway:
Under forced-child-support law, what you now call her "responsibility
to the child" precludes the possibility of an abortion. Use logic for
once. Do you actually have a coherent morality, or do you change it
every paragraph?
There is no forced responsibility on either side of the fence.
The woman can abort, absolving responsibility- The man must be able to
do so as well. If a women can 'fuck and run', then so can a man.
> Especially for the children she aborted.>We need to take these
> questions out of the loop, we need the same>standard applied to both
> parents, both being responsible. Or both>with the option to abort
> the responsiblity.... I personally>don't care which, as long as
> it's the same for both. Most men would>agree....
>
> -------
> No man has the right to regulate my body....Given that this is the
> case coupled with obligation owed to a child, it would seem prudent
> that men (because of nature) make their choices when they have the
> choice to make. I don't care whether or not most men agree.
Likewise, they don't give a rats ass about you I'd bet. Some women,
you know, actually _like_ to have sex for sex's sake. If I accidentally
became pregnant and my SO didn't want to support the child, it's my own
idiotic descision to keep the baby. He shouldn't pay one cent if he
doesn't want to. Nor would I want him to against his will. Unlike
you in your boorishness, I do not believe in slavery.
> Each person, in a contract,
> accepts their own unique burdens; if I contract to paint your
> house for $1,987. we have made a contract based upon unequal
> burden. If, for example, you are Trump and make several million
> a day, your burden is very, very small indeed. However, our con-
> tract is still valid since we both accepted the risk fully knowing
> the different burdens of the other.
Duh. You have some pretty wacky definitions of sex.
Sex is not a contract. Only marriage is a contract.
Go back to the 40's where your ideas stand a chance of not being
laughed at.
Asmus Tietchens
Mask'd Intruder wrote:
>
> On 11 Nov 1996 14:43:30 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
> Hemingway) wrote:
> : "fluff" to hide behind. C4m is not about liberating women from the
> : dismal life of motherhood :] It's about fucking and running.
Exactly. Both sexes should be able to do it with the
same amount of accountaibilty. Whether you like it or not,
poor backwards child, this is exactly what equality means.
Thanks to medical science, we can fuck and run, and so can any man.
Since you have a problem with that, you're a sexist pig.
No further qualifications necessary.
Mask'd Intruder
On 12 Nov 1996 03:43:20 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:
:In <3287bd4...@news.sojourn.com> intr...@sojourn.com (Mask'd
:Intruder) writes:
:>
:(edit)
:
:
:>To look at English Common Law, the guidelines were setup so that the
:>first male child inherited most everything, the second male child a
:>little money, the third, very little money, ect. It was geared
:>toward the male children solely. The was no questions as to
:>responsiblity, no abortions, the women was subservient to here
:>husband, ect....women and female children were not accounted for.
:>Children out of wedlock was reason to ostracize the woman, being
:>nothing more than a whore. Now I don't really think you want to use
:>this as a standard, but I may be wrong....
:
: -------
: I realize very well that this is what patriarchs would like. I am
: not deluded. The fact remains that women have the vote; it is not
: likely that they will vote themselves back into that sort of sub-
: serviance. The "standard" I was using was only to illustrate the
: historical significance of giving to one's children....the natural
: objects of ones bounty.
: --------
If that was your intention you failed Lefty, the fact is that it
wasn't for one's children, it was for one's son's. The rest of your
response seems abit paranoid.
:
:>
:>:
:>: The>fact that this is breaking down (encouraged by your gov't
For input to a choice that WILL have life altering consequences for
both of them? What is she accountablity for? You yourself
indicate that alot of women may abort if men had and was given 'equal'
right to custody. What does that say to the mental, emotional state
of these women? To be so shallow, immature as to abort rather than
allow the father custody, these are the women that have so much
responsiblity and absolutely no accountablity, to anyone??? The
fact that abortion from day one, was nothing more than a convenience
for women, a way to 'abort' your irresponsiblity, for your 'act'.
Yet you want men to be responsible for a standard that you yourself
claim would violate your personal rights. This whole attitude of
yours is ludicrous.
:
:
: Especially for the children she aborted.>We need to take these
:questions out of the loop, we need the same>standard applied to both
:parents, both being responsible. Or both>with the option to abort
:the responsiblity.... I personally>don't care which, as long as
:it's the same for both. Most men would>agree....
:
: -------
: No man has the right to regulate my body....Given that this is the
: case coupled with obligation owed to a child, it would seem prudent
: that men (because of nature) make their choices when they have the
: choice to make. I don't care whether or not most men agree.
: --------
No one I've heard has said one word about wanting to 'regulate your
body'.....I find it amazing that a woman as intelligent as you seem to
be would have such strong objection to a standard of accountablity for
everyone. You claim repeatedly 'for the sake of the children', but
your arguements are directly solely on you maintaining your power for
virtue of gender. You won't even consider the postive ramifications
this proposal may bring. Accountablity is fine, as you apply it in
every other situtation.
:>
:>(edit)
:
:>Hahahaha..... God!! Your logic.... The choice of abortion is
:>one of convenience alone, to fit her needs alone. If it weren't,
:>she would accept the responsiblity of her actions, just as you insist
:>a man must do, for his 'act'. The choice is not a burden, it is a
:>choice. To say that it's an 'equal' burden for both is stupid.
:
: -------
: Ah, but I never said the burden WAS equal; I said the risk was
: assumed by both with both knowing the burdens of the "other" That
: is a bit different than saying that both have equal burdens; They
: each have very different burdens. Each person, in a contract,
: accepts their own unique burdens; if I contract to paint your
: house for $1,987. we have made a contract based upon unequal
: burden. If, for example, you are Trump and make several million
: a day, your burden is very, very small indeed. However, our con-
: tract is still valid since we both accepted the risk fully knowing
: the different burdens of the other.
Are you on again about your contracts.... Fine, let's discuss
contracts then Lefty. What type of contract do we have here?
Would you please describe the contract that binds this situtation
today and explain how it would be viewed if applied in any other area
of contract law? I like this part.....
:
:
: Two play, two pay; it's 7:40; do you know where your children are?
:
: Lefty
:
Of course... : ) Everynight.
Stephanie Smith
In article <569tio$f...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>In <568qjr$3...@usenet10.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
>(Stephanie Smith) writes:
>>
>>In article <567e2i$d...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
>lef...@ix.netcom.co
>>says...
>>>
>>>In <5638ub$9...@usenet4.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
>(Stephanie
>>>Smith) writes:
>>On to the sex discrimination/pregnancy argument:
>>
>>>>>>Instead, I am just trying to make you see the danger of
>>>discriminating>>between men and women based on sex due to the
>>>possibility of pregnancy. >Many of the distinctions this seems to
>>>justify harm women,>>which is >especially unfair since most of the
>>>women affected are not>pregnant.
>
> ------
> The "distinctions" that justify the "dissimilar situation" are very
> real, and need not relate at all to women who aren't pregnant.
Precisely my point (though you still haven't said what distinctions you
are talking about). That's why it's not sex discrimination and is okay,
as long as you don't use it to discriminate against non-pregnant women.
> It
> is not the "possibility of pregnancy" that separates us; it is the
> fact that ONLY women can gestate that does so.
What distinctions between men and women (all women, not just between
pregnant and non-pregnant persons, with many women in the second group)
are justified because only women can become pregnant? None that I can
see, and you haven't given any examples.
>Trying to pretend
> the men and women may gestate in your "pregnant person" analysis is
> ridiculous, IMO.
> ------
I never tried to do that. I merely said that a distinction between
pregnancy and non-pregnancy is not necessarily sex discrimination (unless
it is merely a pretext to discriminate against women). Allowing
distinctions between women and men due to the possibility that women may
become pregnant (as you seem to suggest above) would be sex
discrimination, however, and unfair to the non-pregnant women.
Also, while you may think that saying that pregnancy discrimination isn't
the same as sex discrimination is "ridiculous", the Supreme Court has
disagreed, holding that denying medical benefits for pregnancy, for
example, is not a sex distinction (even if other voluntary/non-employment
caused disabilities are covered). See Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 US 484
(explaining that such a distinction is "a far cry from...discrimination
based on gender as such. The California insurance program does not
exclude anyone from benefit eligibility because of gender but merely
removes one physical condition -- pregnancy -- from the list of
comparable disabilities"). The fact that Congress later prohibited
employers from discriminating based on *pregnancy* does not change the
SC's *14th amendment* analysis. Under the 14th amendment, then,
pregnancy discrimination is not the same as sex discrimination, and not
entitled to heightened scrutiny. And note that the SC pointed out that
including pregnancy would cost more, thus harming non-pregnant women as
well as men.
[snip]
>>Again, the sex discrimination point is irrelevant to the c4m argument,
>>particularly your side of it. All you have to say is that the person
>>whose body it is gets to decide whether to be pregnant or not. No sex
>>discrimination comes into play. In fact, all courts which have faced
>the >argument have held that abortion is not justified by a sex
>>discrimination/equality theory.
>
> ------
> There has never really been the need to use that theory since
> it is obvious to most people that the issue of gestation does
> separate the needs of the two genders. I think that perhaps
> the issue was addressed in RvW, but simply by the use of gender
> specific language.....the case holds that WOMEN have this right.
> It doesn't say "people" who choose; it specifically refers to
> women.
The right was adopted from _Griswold_, which is gender neutral. But the
discrimination argument has nothing to do with abortion either way, so I
don't know why you are making such a big deal about it. There is no man
v. women problem with abortion. Everyone can choose to abort or not
(under the allowable restrictions) on *their own body*. However, no one
has ever claimed that the underlying right (the right to privacy) is
limited by gender. That's ludicrous and contradicted by many Supreme
Court holdings, including those such as _Casey_ and _PP v. Akron_ which
recognized that the potential father had privacy interests as well, but
that while pregnant the woman's were greater. (A holding which I
completely agree with.) I don't know why you cling to this argument,
which is false under existing case law, and obviously ridulous to anyone
with the least bit of constitutional law knowledge, when *it is not
necessary to your argument*.
>If that language doesn't suggest gender specific holding, I
> can't imagine anything else that would meet the qualifications of
> the 14th amendment more.
I think you are confused as to how the 14th amendment is relevant here.
The due process clause of the 14th amendment is one of the sources of the
right to privacy, which includes to right to have an abortion. In
prohibiting abortion, the state violated the right to privacy (not equal
protection -- that argument was rejected).
Thus, no laws relating to abortion currently exist which distinguish
between people on the basis of sex.
So there is no need to justify the current law based on a distinction
between pregnancy and non-pregnancy. There is no discriminatory law to
justify.
Also, since discrimination based on pregnancy is not discrimination based
on sex under the 14th amendment, even if there were such distinctions
(though it makes no sense), it wouldn't be sex discrimination.
For example, if the state says they will pay for all medical care but
abortions, the 14th amendment's not violated, even though that only
affects women. That's fine, not because a man desiring medical care and
the pregnant woman are not similarly situated (they pretty much are, but
that question would never be reached), but because the distinction's not
based on sex.
[snip]
>>>>I don't know what your distinctions are -- that's why I've asked
>about
>>>>4 times now. How such distinctions in general would (again) -- one
>>>>example is a company not allowing women to have jobs which could
> harm>potential fetuses (with dangerous chemicals, for example).
>>>>
>>>>[snip -- guess you don't want to talk about anything but c4m]
>>>
>>> -----
>>> Are there companies where "dangerous chemicals" could cause harm
>>> to a fetus without subjecting the human beings that work there to
>>> the same harm, and is it reasonable to subject anyone to that
> kind of danger. I don't know the answer to that one, do you?
>>
>>Where have you been over the past 5 years? I certainly do know the
>>answer to it -- yes. This issue has been addressed by the courts, and
>>the fact that women can become pregnant does not permit discrimination
>>against *women* as a class. Good thing, though your argument would
>>indicate differently.
>
> -----
> Cite a case; I will read it and respond, if you like.
I will look it up and cite (since I don't remember the name or cite off
the top of my head). The specific case is not the point, though, it just
evidences that this situation is possible.
A company
> would, IMO not be able to discriminate against women as a class
> simply because a woman might gestate, but rather only if she is,
> in fact, gestating. I'm guessing that the courts would find that
> discrimination against a person for a potential problem would not
> hold; i.e. the company, at the very least, would have to find the
> least restrictive means to address the problem, i.e. subject
> female employees to monthly pregnancy tests; it would be interest-
> ing for me to read one of those cases if you have the cite.
Precisely. That's why the pregnancy difference does not justify
discrimination based on *sex*, but only based on pregnancy. Most women
are not pregnant. If you can find a distinction based on *sex* due to
this difference (and explain specifically what it would be), I would like
to hear it, since I can't imagine one that is fair.
>Trying
> to somehow belittle me by suggesting that I haven't kept up on my
> reading is rather shallow of you, since you already know that much
> of my time has been spent studying for exams and for the bar.
I wasn't trying to belittle you, I was just rather surprised that you
hadn't heard of it, since it was well-known and reported in all the
newspapers at the time (back when I was a first year in law school or
just before). I have no idea what you were doing 5 years or so ago, and I
heard of it.
>Be-
> sides, my legal interests don't reside in family law;
How is this family law? It's constitutional law or labor law (employment
discrimination)?
[snip]
>>On to college loans/public schools, etc.:
>>
>>>>You think college loans are unfair to the taxpayer if the parents
>can>>>afford to pay for college? What you ignore is that the gov't
>>>>(rightfully) is a bit hestitant to interfere with parents'
>>>childrearing >choices or regulate how much money they spend on their
>>>children (or to >attempt to figure out how much they could spend).
>>>This seems obviously right to me (and most people, I suspect).
>>>Unfortunately, this principle >seems to go out the window if the
>>>parents aren't married. The best solution (IMO) would be requiring
>and>>enforcing contracts prior to >marriage dealing with these issues
>(and>>allowing similar contracts prior to sex).
>>>
[snip remainder of c4m related discussion]
>>You didn't answer my question -- what about public school? Do you
>want >to charge parents for that too?
> ------
> You know, I really didn't properly address your question about
> public schooling; I'm sorry, I was exhausted. Public schooling
> for all children is not just a benefit to children and/or parents
> it benefits us all. If we, as a society want to produce a bunch
> of kids who run the streets in gangs and enter the world of crime
> to support all their bad habits, i.e. drugs, all we need to do is
> to provide some form of elitist education policy. The idea behind
> "America" is that everyone has an opportunity....that's not a
> promise of success, but it is a chance.
We agree. I would never want to get rid of the education provided for
all children, since I think it is necessary if we are to have even a
pretense at equality of opportunity, and also beneficial to society. My
question was why providing education through grade 12 is good, but
somehow college loans become unfair to the taxpayer?
Stephanie
Mask'd Intruder
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 14:15:27 -0800, Asmus Tietchens
<gar...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote:
:Mask'd Intruder wrote:
:>
:> On 11 Nov 1996 14:43:30 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
:> Hemingway) wrote:
:> : As far as your comment above, I see it as so much
:> : "fluff" to hide behind. C4m is not about liberating women from the
:> : dismal life of motherhood :] It's about fucking and running.
:
:Exactly. Both sexes should be able to do it with the
:same amount of accountaibilty. Whether you like it or not,
:poor backwards child, this is exactly what equality means.
:Thanks to medical science, we can fuck and run, and so can any man.
:Since you have a problem with that, you're a sexist pig.
:No further qualifications necessary.
:
:
OH MAN!!!! Out with it now....don't be shy.... (with a nod and
a grin....)
Michael Shepanski
My my, Lefty's in fine style tonight. Watch this ...
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> Stephanie Smith writes:
[snip]
> >As for the co-creater BS -- the men we are talking about have most
> likely>done nothing that most of us haven't done (had sex).
>
> This is true for the girl as well as the guy.
> Allow me to explain. The King of Siam (Anna and the King) was ask-
> ing the king to explain "polygamy" and the reasoning as to why men
> were "allowed" to have more than one wife...his musical answer (I
> believe from Rodgers and Hammerstein) went: "A woman is like a
> blossom, with honey for just one man....a man is like a honey bee
> who must gather all he can....to fly from blossom to blossom, a
> honey bee must be free, but blossom must not EVER fly from bee,
> to bee, to bee". Now, I am trying to explain here, why I see the
> motives for c4m as "bad". It is not bad or wrong to give people
> as many choices as possible, but it is bad to give one group of
> people rights that must be balanced on the backs of another. It
> is wrong to insist that men are free to have sex without the risks
> but women must accept those risks. Both play, both pay. The
> blossoms of the world are in revolt and find c4m or the "fuck and
> run law" most revolting.
> -------
>
> Thus, why should they have a greater burden without any greater
^^^^
>> choice?
See that? Stephanie compared (a) men who have had sex that led
to a child they didn't want, with (b) all the other people who
have had sex in exactly the same state of mind. The word "they",
here, refers to those two groups of people, and Stephanie has
asked why (a) should have a greater burden than (b). Lefty has
inserted a piece of Hollywood memorabilia between Stephanie's
sentences, to make it look as though Stephanie was comparing the
man with the woman. Thus Lefty can duck Stephanie's question,
and write this instead:
> They don't. Men and women are both burdened by any resulting
> child. A woman must support her child as well.
[snip]
>> If the real issue is the child's rights, there is *no*
>> justification for sperm donor exception.
OK, I bet we're all wondering how Lefty will answer that.
Let's see ...
> You can pretend that to be the case if it makes you feel better,
> but it simply isn't true. The first amendment has nothing at all
> to do with collection of child support, unless you want to pretend
> that fucking and running is some kind of "symbolic speech", and I
> think the courts would play with you on that one, rather like a cat
> with a mouse. As for "childrens rights", children do have many of
> the same rights promised to the rest of us; many others are given,
> not by the constitution, but by the state, which, thru the 10th
> amendment has the "police powers" to make those laws that give the
> kids those rights; the feds aren't likely to interfere with that,
> and have, in fact, and will continue to bolster those rights thru
> federal laws that will make it increasingly easier to collect
> support.
Did anyone see an answer in that fog?
>> (Or allowing mothers not to seek support from the father if
>> state support is not required.)
This, I think, is the #1 knock-down objection to the claim that
current paternity child support laws are derived from the rights
of children. Does Lefty have an answer to it? Here is her next
comment:
> The states are free to make laws that give children the
> benefit of their parents bounty if they so choose.
> It must be gender-neurtal however.
No, I guess she didn't.
[snip to end]
Stephanie, it astonishes me that you keep this going.
Each time Lefty serves a ball into your court, you hit it
squarely back into hers, then she doesn't respond to it,
takes a swing in some completely different direction,
then gets another ball out of the box and throws it at you.
She doesn't seem to care: as long as she does *something*
each time, she imagines she's playing tennis.
One more thing. Let me repeat this gem from within Lefty's
bee-and-blossom story:
>It is not bad or wrong to give people
>as many choices as possible, but it is bad to give one group of
>people rights that must be balanced on the backs of another. It
>is wrong to insist that men are free to have sex without the risks
>but women must accept those risks.
Lefty: how about playing against a mirror this time? Just
swap "men" and "women" in this passage, and it's a pretty
good pro-c4m argument. Can you reply to it?
--- Michael Shepanski
Stephanie Smith
Adding information/cite about the case I mentioned.
In article <569tio$f...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>In <568qjr$3...@usenet10.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
>(Stephanie Smith) writes:
>>
>>In article <567e2i$d...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
>lef...@ix.netcom.co
>>says...
>>>
>>>In <5638ub$9...@usenet4.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com
>(Stephanie
>>>Smith) writes:
>>> -----
>>> Are there companies where "dangerous chemicals" could cause harm
>>> to a fetus without subjecting the human beings that work there to
>>> the same harm, and is it reasonable to subject anyone to that
> kind of danger. I don't know the answer to that one, do you?
>>
>>Where have you been over the past 5 years? I certainly do know the
>>answer to it -- yes. This issue has been addressed by the courts, and
>>the fact that women can become pregnant does not permit discrimination
>>against *women* as a class. Good thing, though your argument would
>>indicate differently.
>
> -----
> Cite a case; I will read it and respond, if you like.
Okay. The case is _UAW v. Johnson Controls_, 499 US 187 (1991). The
facts are that Johnson Controls, a company which makes batteries, a job
involving exposure to levels of lead which OSHA and medical experts
have found is potentially harmful to fetuses, prohibited women from
taking these lead-exposure jobs without demonstrating that they were
infertile. Originally Johnson Controls had permitted women to take
the jobs, but just warned them of the potential danger and asked that
women who planned to have a child not choose the job (there were other
jobs available with Johnson Controls). They changed the policy after
several women became pregnant while working the battery manufacturing
(lead exposure) jobs. They were concerned not only for the health of
the babies (and no evidence indicated that this was a pretext), but
also about possible tort liability (a very valid concern for such a
company).
The Supreme Court held that there was an obvious showing of sex
discrimination (since the rules, on their face, prohibited fertile women,
but not fertile men, from taking certain jobs). They held that good
intentions, though present, were irrelevant. Instead, they found that
the only possible exception to the Title VII requirements was if
Johnson Controls could show that the distinction was a BFOQ (bona fide
occupational qualification -- particularly interesting considering the
discussion about this in another thread).
The Court found that the BFOQ is interpreted narrowly (*not* a rational
basis test or even close). It found that 1) applying the distinction
to all fertile women, rather than pregnant women, was unjustified, given
the very small percentage of the female workforce which is pregnant at
any given time; and 2) that even restricting pregnant women (or those
who intended to become pregnant) did not meet the *narrow* BFOQ test,
since it did not affect ability to do the job, and the company should
leave the decision about whether to risk the health of fetuses to the
parents (in accordance with other decisions). The SC also held that
the fact that they were complying with Title VII should protect the
company from potential tort suits (although the dissent expressed doubt
about that).
This is important, since the BFOQ is basically a way of establishing
whether men and women (or pregnant and non-pregnant people) should be
considered "similarly situated" in a particular case. Here, the court
held that they were. Also, it held that even if pregnant and
non-pregnant workers were not, that this did not justify sex based
distinctions.
>A company
> would, IMO not be able to discriminate against women as a class
> simply because a woman might gestate, but rather only if she is,
> in fact, gestating.
Totally agree, but the problem in _Johnson Controls_ was that the
company may not know of the woman's condition until after the damage is
done. In order to protect fetuses (and thus themselves from the threat
of suit), the company believed it needed a more comprehensive policy,
since some women had not been following its warning not to take the
jobs if they intended to become pregnant (there were 8 pregnancies in the
year leading up to the adoption of the policy).
> I'm guessing that the courts would find that
> discrimination against a person for a potential problem would not
> hold; i.e. the company, at the very least, would have to find the
> least restrictive means to address the problem, i.e. subject
> female employees to monthly pregnancy tests; it would be interest-
> ing for me to read one of those cases if you have the cite.
Monthly pregnancy tests seems very invasive to me. I have no problem
with the result in _Johnson Controls_ (work at your own risk), as long
as (and this is very important) the company cannot be subjected to
liability after a woman ignores or disregards its warning.
However, as far as pregnancy discrimination goes, note that while it
is currently illegal (for employment anyway) because Title VII has
been amended to specifically prohibit it, it was (as I said before) not
on its own a violation of the 14th amendment. The SC found that it
was different than sex discrimination, and thus not entitled to
heightened scrutiny.
Also, even now, there is no requirement that employers work around their
employees' pregnancies, but simply that they don't treat them differently
because of their pregnancies. You are entitled to whatever medical
leave the employer would otherwise give, but no more. If pregnancy
makes the employee incapable of performing the job as required for
more time that the employer allows, then the employer may terminate the
employee. Leave beyond that required to recover from childbirth is not
disability and does not have to be covered.
For example, in _Geier v. Medtronic_, 1996 WL 627733 (7th Cir., Oct. 29,
1996), the court held that an employer was not guilty of pregnancy
discrimination, even though he 1) told the employee not to have kids
during the winter, since he did not want to cover her sales territory
then; 2) called her at home when she was confined to her bed due to
complications with her pregnancy and told her to call her accounts if she
wanted to keep her job; 3) continued to call her after she was admitted
to the hospital for the complications and told her to close a deal with a
client; and 4) after she miscarried, called her while at home recovering
to say "get out of your God damn bed and call your accounts if you want
to keep your f*cking job". A couple months later the employee told her
supervisor that she was pregnant again, and soon after was fired
(according to the employer for poor performance, which was documented).
The court held that while she was not treated very well, the employee
made no showing of discrimination due to pregnancy rather than because
she was absent from work. "The Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not
require that employers make accomodations for pregnant workers.... [The
PDA] requires the emloyer to ignore an employee's pregnancy, but not her
absence from work, unless the employer overlooks the comparable absences
of nonpregnant employees." (at *5, citations omitted)
Thus, if an employer wanted to create a policy allowing a cap of 10 days
off per year for sickness, and an employee missed more due to her
pregnancy (or similarly if the job required lots of heavy lifting and
the employee was unable to meet these real job requirements for a longer
period than the employer permitted for disability) the employer would be
within its rights (assuming that it treated non-pregnant employees who
violated the policy the same) to terminate her.
The fact that a pregnant employee may not be similarly situated *allows*
the employer to potentially discriminate against her in some cases if it
can make an appropriate BFOQ showing (airlines have been able to do this
to justify a policy of laying off pregnant stewardesses to ensure the
safety of passengers in several cases: see 649 F.2d 670; 633 F.2d 361;
558 F.2d 1176; 434 F.Supp. 249). However, it does not require an
employee to *accomodate* her. That's not what the "similarly situated"
requirement means -- it is merely a defense. The state (or employer)
can treat non-similarly situated people to the same standards as others
if they want (in fact, this is what usually happens).
Thus, all I'm trying to point out, is that while men and women (or more
properly pregnant and non-pregnant people) may not be similarly situated
in some cases (though I still want specific examples of what you are
thinking of) and while this may indeed *permit* differential treatment,
this "differential treatment" could just as easily be used (and most
likely would be) to discriminate against the pregnant woman. Thus, it
is very dangerous to start claiming that it should be considered a
difference between men and women, since that could easily lead to
pointless and unjustified (IMO) discrimination against non-pregnant
women.
Also, exactly how the pregnant woman is "not similarly situated" is
another question. Courts have generally held that a person unable to
perform their job due to pregnancy *is* similarly situated to anyone,
man or woman, who is unable to perform their job due to a disability
not resulting from the job itself. Thus, a pregnant woman would be
considered similarly situated to some men, and not similarly situated to
many women. That's why I would like to see some examples of *sex*
discrimination justified by this difference, since I can't think of any.
Stephanie
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <3289E3...@uow.edu.au> Michael Shepanski <m...@uow.edu.au> Hi,
Sorry it's taken me sooooo long to respond; I've had to work some
overtime.
writes:
>
>My my, Lefty's in fine style tonight. Watch this ...
>
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>>
>> Stephanie Smith writes:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >As for the co-creater BS -- the men we are talking about have most
>> likely>done nothing that most of us haven't done (had sex).
>>
>> This is true for the girl as well as the guy.
>> Allow me to explain. The King of Siam (Anna and the King) was
asking the king to explain "polygamy" and the reasoning as to
why men were "allowed" to have more than one wife...his musical
answer (I believe from Rodgers and Hammerstein) went: "A woman
is like a blossom, with honey for just one man....a man is like
a honey bee who must gather all he can....to fly from blossom to
blossom, a honey bee must be free, but blossom must not EVER fly
from bee, to bee, to bee". Now, I am trying to explain here,
why I see the motives for c4m as "bad". It is not bad or wrong
to give people as many choices as possible, but it is bad to
give one group of people rights that must be balanced on the
backs of another. It is wrong to insist that men are free to
have sex without the risks but women must accept those risks.
Both play, both pay. The blossoms of the world are in revolt
and find c4m or the "fuck and run law" most revolting.
>> -------
>>
>> Thus, why should they have a greater burden without any greater
>> choice?
>
>See that? Stephanie compared (a) men who have had sex that led
>to a child they didn't want, with (b) all the other people who
>have had sex in exactly the same state of mind. The word "they",
>here, refers to those two groups of people, and Stephanie has
>asked why (a) should have a greater burden than (b). Lefty has
>inserted a piece of Hollywood memorabilia between Stephanie's
>sentences, to make it look as though Stephanie was comparing the
>man with the woman. Thus Lefty can duck Stephanie's question,
>and write this instead:
-------
Actually, I can hit the ball in either direction. In the
arena of "sexual risk" everyone knows what risk they, per-
sonally, are taking. It doesn't matter which "group" you
belong to, whether it is groups of men and women, or groups
of people desiring or not desiring to "go forth and multi-
ply." Men who "have children they didn't want" are nothing
special if they have assumed that risk. I don't see where
"these" men HAVE a "greater" burden since both types of
men are accountable for their own risk, AND since both men
and women are accountable to support their children.
---------
>
>> They don't. Men and women are both burdened by any resulting
>> child. A woman must support her child as well.
>
>
>[snip]
>
>>> If the real issue is the child's rights, there is *no*
>>> justification for sperm donor exception.
>
>OK, I bet we're all wondering how Lefty will answer that.
>Let's see ...
>
>> You can pretend that to be the case if it makes you feel better,
>> but it simply isn't true. The first amendment has nothing at
all to do with collection of child support, unless you want to
pretend that fucking and running is some kind of "symbolic
speech", and I think the courts would play with you on that one,
rather like a cat with a mouse. As for "childrens rights",
children do have many of the same rights promised to the rest of
us; many others are given, not by the constitution, but by the
state, which, thru the 10th amendment has the "police powers" to
make those laws that give the kids those rights; the feds
aren't likely to interfere with that, and have, in fact, and
will continue to bolster those rights thru federal laws that
will make it increasingly easier to collect support.
>
>Did anyone see an answer in that fog?
------
Probably not without including HER post where SHE invokes
the 1st amendment.
-------
>
>
>>> (Or allowing mothers not to seek support from the father if
>>> state support is not required.)
>
>This, I think, is the #1 knock-down objection to the claim that
>current paternity child support laws are derived from the rights
>of children. Does Lefty have an answer to it? Here is her next
>comment:
>
>> The states are free to make laws that give children the
>> benefit of their parents bounty if they so choose.
>> It must be gender-neurtal however.
>
>No, I guess she didn't.
>
-------
I find it humorous that you find the constitution so
"endearing", since it doesn't serve your cause well;
however, I too find it endearing, and the tenth amendment
is no "slouch". Your one-liners are just that.
---------
>[snip to end]
>
>
>Stephanie, it astonishes me that you keep this going.
>Each time Lefty serves a ball into your court, you hit it
>squarely back into hers, then she doesn't respond to it,
>takes a swing in some completely different direction,
>then gets another ball out of the box and throws it at you.
>She doesn't seem to care: as long as she does *something*
>each time, she imagines she's playing tennis.
-------
I do enjoy a good game of tennis from time to time, but I'm
not sure that Stephanie would agree with you about our game.
....or, maybe she would. If there is a question she feels
I have not answered, I'm always up for a rematch :] Actually
I've been a bit busy lately and haven't had as much time to
respond, but I enjoy her posts and generally respond to her.
--------
>
>
>One more thing. Let me repeat this gem from within Lefty's
>bee-and-blossom story:
>
>>It is not bad or wrong to give people
>>as many choices as possible, but it is bad to give one group of
>>people rights that must be balanced on the backs of another. It
>>is wrong to insist that men are free to have sex without the risks
>>but women must accept those risks.
>
>Lefty: how about playing against a mirror this time? Just
>swap "men" and "women" in this passage, and it's a pretty
>good pro-c4m argument. Can you reply to it?
>
>--- Michael Shepanski
---------
Sure, but it won't be anything you haven't heard before. The
very same thing applies to c4m that applies to abortion rights
"as is"; i.e. we all accept whatever risks are involved within
the confines of nature, science and technology. The "law" is
not there to balance those risks. If that were the case, there
should be some sort of law charging fathers for the time, pain
and suffering, and economic inconveniece, etc. for the preg-
nancy itself. THAT was part of her risk, as was the possibil-
ity of going thru an abortion. She has no right to demand that
the law balance the effects of nature, or the risks she took
when she engaged in risky behavior.
Lefty
Stephanie Smith
In article <56hqlq$q...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co
says...
I'm still in my self-imposed moratorium on discussing c4m with Lefty.
(Though I sincerely hope that Michael continues his involvement.)
However, since my name was brought up:
>>>> If the real issue is the child's rights, there is *no*
>>>> justification for sperm donor exception.
>>
>>OK, I bet we're all wondering how Lefty will answer that.
>>Let's see ...
>>
>>> You can pretend that to be the case if it makes you feel better,
>>> but it simply isn't true. The first amendment has nothing at
> all to do with collection of child support, unless you want to
> pretend that fucking and running is some kind of "symbolic
> speech", and I think the courts would play with you on that one,
> rather like a cat with a mouse. As for "childrens rights",
> children do have many of the same rights promised to the rest of
> us; many others are given, not by the constitution, but by the
> state, which, thru the 10th amendment has the "police powers" to
> make those laws that give the kids those rights; the feds
> aren't likely to interfere with that, and have, in fact, and
> will continue to bolster those rights thru federal laws that
> will make it increasingly easier to collect support.
>>
>>Did anyone see an answer in that fog?
>
> ------
> Probably not without including HER post where SHE invokes
> the 1st amendment.
> -------
But I never said the First Amendment had anything to do with the legality
of c4m, so I still don't see where the "symbolic speech" argument comes
in. You do have a habit of ridiculing arguments which were never made.
What I said was that "children's rights" was not the real issue here as
shown by the way in which it worked in practice. I also pointed out that
claiming children's rights lacks credibility, since it is all too often
used as a tool for other purposes, such as in attempts to get around the
First Amendment.
[snip]
Stephanie
Michael Shepanski
Stephanie Smith wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I'm still in my self-imposed moratorium on discussing c4m with Lefty.
> (Though I sincerely hope that Michael continues his involvement.)
I don't think I will, unless I see the potential for some
new progress.
You may not realise that I was arguing with Lefty about this
for some months before you turned up. I'm no lawyer, much less
an American constitutional lawyer, so I just took her word that
the current U.S. child-support laws are constitutional. I argued
that they weren't *moral*. Lefty had trouble seeing the possi-
bility of arguing morals, and kept reverting to "it's the law".
Insofar as she did argue morals, she argued with some imaginary
opponent who thought abortion was a moral duty.
When you arrived it got more interesting, at least for a while,
because Lefty couldn't bluff you about torts, contracts etc.
Lefty says there are two tortfeasors, and you challenge her
directly on how it's possible to apply tort law in this area.
When she isn't able to show that the necessary conditions are
met, she retreats to "I don't mean that tort law really applies;
I just mean that tort law had a historical role in the origins
of family law." OK, so there aren't two tortfeasors. Her next
gambit is that it's an implied contract. You list all the
different types of contract (express, implied in fact, etc) and
challenge her to show that a couple having sex are making any
one of them. She can't, and she retreats to "I don't mean that
it's really a contract; it's just that contract law had a
historical role in the origins of family law. And besides
--don't you remember-- I've got my tort analysis. My thinking
isn't limited to one dimension you know." Then she always has
the "society's interests" gambit. You reply that it's
unconstitutional to let society's interests override individual
rights in this situation, and she says "But there's no right to
evade contractual or tortious obligations."
And so it goes. I saw last week she was saying again that
sex is an implied contract for child support. Her reasoning:
both parties know that there's a risk of a child being born,
therefore both parties have implicitly promised to support it
if it is. (How is that *reasoning*, I hear you ask. Well,
it goes via equivocation on same vague phrase like "the subject
matter of the contract is risk".)
You could challenge her again on contract law, but I see why
you don't. She'd say "So what, I don't need contract law, I
have torts and society's interests." Then two weeks later
she'd be saying "I don't need torts, I have contracts."
--- Michael Shepanski
Jubal Harshaw
So you are saying that there is no social contract? Are you denying
John Locke? If there is a social contract, included in it would be the
responsibility of a parent to support their offspring. If our society
has sprung up around a few major issues, the rearing of our young is
certainly one of them. So, if there is a social contract to support
your offspring and you have sex resulting in offspring it seems rather
straightforward that you are bound contractually to support them.
Jubal
--
Michael Shepanski
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> Michael Shepanski wrote:
[snip]
> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >> Stephanie Smith writes:
> >>
> >> >As for the co-creater BS -- the men we are talking about have most
> >> likely>done nothing that most of us haven't done (had sex).
[snip Lefty's film review segment]
> >> Thus, why should they have a greater burden without any greater
> >> choice?
> >
> >See that? Stephanie compared (a) men who have had sex that led
> >to a child they didn't want, with (b) all the other people who
> >have had sex in exactly the same state of mind. The word "they",
> >here, refers to those two groups of people, and Stephanie has
> >asked why (a) should have a greater burden than (b). Lefty has
> >inserted a piece of Hollywood memorabilia between Stephanie's
> >sentences, to make it look as though Stephanie was comparing the
> >man with the woman. Thus Lefty can duck Stephanie's question,
> >and write this instead:
>
> -------
> Actually, I can hit the ball in either direction.
Depending on whether you want to answer the question or not.
> In the
> arena of "sexual risk" everyone knows what risk they, per-
> sonally, are taking. It doesn't matter which "group" you
> belong to, whether it is groups of men and women, or groups
> of people desiring or not desiring to "go forth and multi-
> ply." Men who "have children they didn't want" are nothing
> special if they have assumed that risk. I don't see where
> "these" men HAVE a "greater" burden since both types of
> men are accountable for their own risk, AND since both men
> and women are accountable to support their children.
[snip]
> >>> If the real issue is the child's rights, there is *no*
> >>> justification for sperm donor exception.
> >
> >OK, I bet we're all wondering how Lefty will answer that.
> >Let's see ...
> >
> >> You can pretend that to be the case if it makes you feel better,
> >> but it simply isn't true. The first amendment has nothing at
> all to do with collection of child support, unless you want to
> pretend that fucking and running is some kind of "symbolic
> speech", and I think the courts would play with you on that one,
> rather like a cat with a mouse. As for "childrens rights",
> children do have many of the same rights promised to the rest of
> us; many others are given, not by the constitution, but by the
> state, which, thru the 10th amendment has the "police powers" to
> make those laws that give the kids those rights; the feds
> aren't likely to interfere with that, and have, in fact, and
> will continue to bolster those rights thru federal laws that
> will make it increasingly easier to collect support.
> >
> >Did anyone see an answer in that fog?
>
> ------
> Probably not without including HER post where SHE invokes
> the 1st amendment.
Go back as far as you like in the thread and show me where
you answered Stephanie's point about the sperm-donor exception.
> >>> (Or allowing mothers not to seek support from the father if
> >>> state support is not required.)
> >
> >This, I think, is the #1 knock-down objection to the claim that
> >current paternity child support laws are derived from the rights
> >of children. Does Lefty have an answer to it? Here is her next
> >comment:
> >
> >> The states are free to make laws that give children the
> >> benefit of their parents bounty if they so choose.
> >> It must be gender-neurtal however.
> >
> >No, I guess she didn't.
> >
> -------
> I find it humorous that you find the constitution so
> "endearing", since it doesn't serve your cause well;
> however, I too find it endearing, and the tenth amendment
> is no "slouch". Your one-liners are just that.
> ---------
Yep, and here's another:
You're still ducking the point about mothers not seeking support.
> >[snip to end]
> >
> >
> >Stephanie, it astonishes me that you keep this going.
> >Each time Lefty serves a ball into your court, you hit it
> >squarely back into hers, then she doesn't respond to it,
> >takes a swing in some completely different direction,
> >then gets another ball out of the box and throws it at you.
> >She doesn't seem to care: as long as she does *something*
> >each time, she imagines she's playing tennis.
>
> -------
> I do enjoy a good game of tennis from time to time, but I'm
> not sure that Stephanie would agree with you about our game.
> ....or, maybe she would. If there is a question she feels
> I have not answered, I'm always up for a rematch :] Actually
> I've been a bit busy lately and haven't had as much time to
> respond, but I enjoy her posts and generally respond to her.
Right, you've been busy, so you duck all her questions.
That's fine, she can keep asking them and asking them
and asking them; I'm sure she's got nothing better to
do with her time. [Sarcasm off.]
Free clue: if you haven't got time to answer a post
properly, let it sit there until you do. In that way
you can slow down all your dialogues as much as you
like, and you can compose answers that don't waste
other people's time.
> >>It is not bad or wrong to give people
> >>as many choices as possible, but it is bad to give one group of
> >>people rights that must be balanced on the backs of another. It
> >>is wrong to insist that men are free to have sex without the risks
> >>but women must accept those risks.
> >
> >Lefty: how about playing against a mirror this time? Just
> >swap "men" and "women" in this passage, and it's a pretty
> >good pro-c4m argument. Can you reply to it?
> >
> >--- Michael Shepanski
>
> ---------
> Sure, but it won't be anything you haven't heard before. The
> very same thing applies to c4m that applies to abortion rights
> "as is"; i.e. we all accept whatever risks are involved within
> the confines of nature, science and technology. The "law" is
> not there to balance those risks. If that were the case, there
> should be some sort of law charging fathers for the time, pain
> and suffering, and economic inconveniece, etc. for the preg-
> nancy itself. THAT was part of her risk, as was the possibil-
> ity of going thru an abortion. She has no right to demand that
> the law balance the effects of nature, or the risks she took
> when she engaged in risky behavior.
Quoth Lefty: "It is not bad or wrong to give people as many
choices as possible, but it is bad to give one group of people
rights that must be balanced on the backs of another." That's
c4-everyone in a nutshell. Give women the right to abort or
not abort, in keeping with the possibilities that nature and
science provide, but don't put the burden of that choice onto
anyone but the one who makes it.
--- Michael Shepanski
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <328E9F...@uow.edu.au> Michael Shepanski <m...@uow.edu.au>
writes:
>
>Stephanie Smith wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
> I'm still in my self-imposed moratorium on discussing c4m with Lefty.
>> (Though I sincerely hope that Michael continues his involvement.)
>
>I don't think I will, unless I see the potential for some
>new progress.
>
>You may not realise that I was arguing with Lefty about this
>for some months before you turned up. I'm no lawyer, much less
>an American constitutional lawyer, so I just took her word that
>the current U.S. child-support laws are constitutional. I argued
>that they weren't *moral*. Lefty had trouble seeing the possi-
>bility of arguing morals, and kept reverting to "it's the law".
>Insofar as she did argue morals, she argued with some imaginary
>opponent who thought abortion was a moral duty.
>
>When you arrived it got more interesting, at least for a while,
>because Lefty couldn't bluff you about torts, contracts etc.
-----
There was no need to "bluff" since tort and contract law provided
much of the historical basis for family law; when one questions
the "ethics" of a structure, one must always go to its "foundation"
That is what I did.
------
>Lefty says there are two tortfeasors, and you challenge her
>directly on how it's possible to apply tort law in this area.
>When she isn't able to show that the necessary conditions are
>met, she retreats to "I don't mean that tort law really applies;
>I just mean that tort law had a historical role in the origins
>of family law."
-----
That is blatantly untrue! I answered ALL of Ms. Stephanie's
questions on tort and contract law; we simply did not agree
on the outcome. My response regarding the "historical" im-
plications of tort and contract law is relevant as the court
doesn't resort to going back there to reinvent the wheel every
time a dead beat doesn't want to pay support. They simply use
"family law" which now has a firm foundation of its own.
-------
OK, so there aren't two tortfeasors.
------
Of course there aren't; there are only two parents who "would"
have been tortfeasors at another point in time, before family
law was firmly routed in our society. Absent "family law" there
would indeed be a case either in contract and/or tort.
-------
Her next>gambit is that it's an implied contract. You list all the
>different types of contract (express, implied in fact, etc) and
>challenge her to show that a couple having sex are making any
>one of them. She can't, and she retreats to "I don't mean that
>it's really a contract; it's just that contract law had a
>historical role in the origins of family law.
-------
Wrong again. I showed very clearly how an implied contract based
on the subject matter of "risk" was eligible for this type of legal
analysis. You and Steph didn't agree; that hardly means I was
unable to prove up my case, or my point.
--------
And besides>--don't you remember-- I've got my tort analysis. My
thinkingisn't limited to one dimension you know." Then she always has
>the "society's interests" gambit. You reply that it's
>unconstitutional to let society's interests override individual
>rights in this situation, and she says "But there's no right to
>evade contractual or tortious obligations."
-----
Bingo.....you are FINALLY starting to understand....the law,
contract, tort, the CONSTITUTION, and family law (based upon
societal interests ALL work against the fuck and run law pro-
posals.
-----
>
>And so it goes. I saw last week she was saying again that
>sex is an implied contract for child support. Her reasoning:
>both parties know that there's a risk of a child being born,
>therefore both parties have implicitly promised to support it
>if it is. (How is that *reasoning*, I hear you ask. Well,
>it goes via equivocation on same vague phrase like "the subject
>matter of the contract is risk".)
------
Actually, this is NOT a new idea of mine; it is one that has
been around for quite some time, and the original basis of my
own argument since I began posting, but please don't let the
facts bother you. The risk of childbirth is, after all, the
real question of the nature of any implied contract between the
parties.
-------
>
>You could challenge her again on contract law, but I see why
>you don't. She'd say "So what, I don't need contract law, I
>have torts and society's interests." Then two weeks later
>she'd be saying "I don't need torts, I have contracts."
>
>--- Michael Shepanski
If you would like to "challenge" me again on contract law, feel
free to do so.
------
I'm so pleased that you finally understand; one who has a good
argument never need put all her "proverbial" eggs in one
"proverbial" basket. C4m is a big-time loser on all counts....
the common law is against you; modern
family law is against you; legislators and elected officials
want to find you and make you pay; church groups are agaisnt you;
women's groups are agaisnt you; some mens groups are against you,
and groups like ACES have orgainized just to thwart your plans to
fuck and run. The idea that biological parents should be obliga-
ted to support their biological children has been around since the
dawn of time....it's going to take more that a small group of
whiners to change an intrinsic societal belief.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <328F19...@uow.edu.au> Michael Shepanski <m...@uow.edu.au>
writes:
>
(edit....because I like to cut to the chase!)
>Go back as far as you like in the thread and show me where
>you answered Stephanie's point about the sperm-donor exception.
Why don't we live in the present, and you tell me what YOU
would like to know about the "sperm-donor" exception...I don't
spend a lot of time on past posts....I did answer Steph, just
like I always do, but she probably didn't like my answer so I
will be happy to give you a generic explanation of sperm donors
and then if YOU have any questions, I will attempt to answer
{"...speak for yourself, John....")
Sperm donors are an EXCEPTION to the general law that makes all
biological parents responsible for child support. There are
many such exceptions at law when the societal needs indicated
that such should be made. Whether the arguement presented is
tort, contract or simple family law, this exception will still
hold true as long as society finds sperm donorship a benefit. If
over-population becomes an issue, or if these sperm donor parents
start collecting welfare en masse, society may change its mind
about this exception. Like adoption, sperm donorship is a legal
niche we have created to allow a novation of sorts (in a contracts
analysis) so children will have more opportunities to be raised by
parents who plan for, and will make great efforts to love them. So
far, both sperm donorship and adoption seem to be working fairly
well. The fact remains that the EXCEPTION of sperm donorship has
NOT swallowed the rule that biological parents are required to
support their biological children.
Now, if that is not the answer you were looking for, I propose that
you ask me the questions you may have rather than deride me for not
knowing your "mystical" questions that I am somehow supposed
to determine on my crystal globe. Ask away!
----------
>
>
>> >>> (Or allowing mothers not to seek support from the father if
>> >>> state support is not required.)
>> >
>> >This, I think, is the #1 knock-down objection to the claim that
>> >current paternity child support laws are derived from the rights
>> >of children. Does Lefty have an answer to it? Here is her next
>> >comment:
------
I have given my answer ad nauseum; the rights of children to
collect child support are based upon many laws....i.e. the
10 amendment for police powers, many, many federal laws (more
being made daily) and each state's right to create the laws
that best address the issues of CS within that state, i.e.
guidelines for the amount of support collected. I have NEVER
EVER stated (though you have attributed this to me) that CS
is derived from one nice neat set of laws or from "children's
rights"....the rights of children within our society are deriv-
ed from the constitution, but are not applied in the same man-
ner as the rights of adults. While I could argue that some
rights (i.e. per contract, tort) laws may apply to children
thru the constitution (just as they apply to adults), there is
no special brand of "children's rights"; there are, however,
STATE INTERESTS which have sought to protect children and which
continue to do so. There are also new federal laws that may
alter the manner in which we raise our children, and that will
address the power structure as between biological parents and
state interests.
>> >
>> >> The states are free to make laws that give children the
>> >> benefit of their parents bounty if they so choose.
>> >> It must be gender-neurtal however.
>> >
>> >No, I guess she didn't.
>> >
>> -------
>> I find it humorous that you find the constitution so
>> "endearing", since it doesn't serve your cause well;
>> however, I too find it endearing, and the tenth
amendment no "slouch". Your one-liners are just that.
>> ---------
>
>Yep, and here's another:
>
>You're still ducking the point about mothers not seeking support.
-----
Why don't you rephrase your question so that I might understand
what it is....! What about mothers not seeking support?
------
>
>
>> >[snip to end]
>> >
>> >
>> >Stephanie, it astonishes me that you keep this going.
>> >Each time Lefty serves a ball into your court, you hit it
>> >squarely back into hers, then she doesn't respond to it,
>> >takes a swing in some completely different direction,
>> >then gets another ball out of the box and throws it at you.
>> >She doesn't seem to care: as long as she does *something*
>> >each time, she imagines she's playing tennis.
>>
>> -------
>> I do enjoy a good game of tennis from time to time, but I'm
>> not sure that Stephanie would agree with you about our game.
>> ....or, maybe she would. If there is a question she feels
>> I have not answered, I'm always up for a rematch :]
Actually I've been a bit busy lately and haven't had as much
time to espond, but I enjoy her posts and generally respond
to her.
>
>Right, you've been busy, so you duck all her questions.
>That's fine, she can keep asking them and asking them
>and asking them; I'm sure she's got nothing better to
>do with her time. [Sarcasm off.]
------
You claim that I have been "ducking" questions when I have answered
them completely; that indicates to me that you simply don't like
the answers that I have given; I have challenged you to ask me a
question you want answered, and you respond by telling me I'm
"ducking".....not a very good form of argument.....Keep your day
job!
-------
>
>> >>It is not bad or wrong to give people
>> >>as many choices as possible, but it is bad to give one group of
>> >>people rights that must be balanced on the backs of another. It
>> >>is wrong to insist that men are free to have sex without the risks
>> >>but women must accept those risks.
>> >
>> >Lefty: how about playing against a mirror this time? Just
>> >swap "men" and "women" in this passage, and it's a pretty
>> >good pro-c4m argument. Can you reply to it?
>> >
>> >--- Michael Shepanski
>>
>> ---------
>> Sure, but it won't be anything you haven't heard before.
The ery same thing applies to c4m that applies to abortion
rights"as is"; i.e. we all accept whatever risks are
involved withinthe confines of nature, science and
technology. The "law" is not there to balance those
risks. If that were the case, there should be some sort
of law charging fathers for the time, pain
>> and suffering, and economic inconveniece, etc. for the preg-
>> nancy itself. THAT was part of her risk, as was the
possibil-
>> ity of going thru an abortion. She has no right to demand
that
>> the law balance the effects of nature, or the risks she took
>> when she engaged in risky behavior.
>
>Quoth Lefty: "It is not bad or wrong to give people as many
>choices as possible, but it is bad to give one group of people
>rights that must be balanced on the backs of another." That's
>c4-everyone in a nutshell. Give women the right to abort or
>not abort, in keeping with the possibilities that nature and
>science provide, but don't put the burden of that choice onto
>anyone but the one who makes it.
>
>--- Michael Shepanski
------
Men who want to avoid risk are free to do so, and the courts
understand that. No one is forcing a man to copulate without
prophalactics with a gun at his back. Men risk; women risk;
the law on RvW is not even relevant to the conversation for
many reasons that you and I have already discussed. Either
way c4m is a sure loser. Trying to "adjust" the law to give
men an easy out by saying that law should balance nature isn't
going to work. If men are angry that women gestate, they
should find a way to do it themselves, and stop blaming women
for taking the first bite of the apple. Had it been left to
Adam, they'd both still be in the garden not even knowing they
had nothing on. :]
Lefty
Barbara O'Keeffe
Asmus Tietchens wrote:
> > Why on earth should she be "liable" to the man; her only respons-
> > ibility is to the child, same as yours. Sex implies no fiduciary
> > relationship between the father and the mother, only to the child.
> > ------
>
> Likewise, why on earth would the man be liable to her?
He isn't - each parent is responsible for the child they help create.
> But anyway:
> Under forced-child-support law, what you now call her "responsibility
> to the child" precludes the possibility of an abortion.
Nope - until birth, there is no child that needs to be care for.
You're confusing child-rearing responsbilities with pregnancy.
>Use logic for
> once. Do you actually have a coherent morality, or do you change it
> every paragraph?
> There is no forced responsibility on either side of the fence.
> The woman can abort, absolving responsibility- The man must be able to
> do so as well. If a women can 'fuck and run', then so can a man.
Of course he can - - but the state requires that persons who are
involved
in the creation of a child make arrangements for the care of that
child.
If you don't do it voluntary - but expect me to do it with my tax
dollars -
you're barking up the wrong tree. I raised my child, you raise yours.
>
> > Especially for the children she aborted.>We need to take these
> > questions out of the loop, we need the same>standard applied to both
> > parents, both being responsible. Or both>with the option to abort
> > the responsiblity.... I personally>don't care which, as long as
> > it's the same for both. Most men would>agree....
> >
> > -------
> > No man has the right to regulate my body....Given that this is the
> > case coupled with obligation owed to a child, it would seem prudent
> > that men (because of nature) make their choices when they have the
> > choice to make. I don't care whether or not most men agree.
>
> Likewise, they don't give a rats ass about you I'd bet. Some women,
> you know, actually _like_ to have sex for sex's sake.
No kidding - - when did you first have this revalation?
>If I accidentally
> became pregnant and my SO didn't want to support the child, it's my own
> idiotic descision to keep the baby. He shouldn't pay one cent if he
> doesn't want to. Nor would I want him to against his will. Unlike
> you in your boorishness, I do not believe in slavery.
He doesn't owe you anything. He does have a responsibility towards
any child that he helps create. If he is to immature to realize that
there are apt to be consequences to one's actions in life - too bad.
If you want to assume all of the responsibility that is your decision.
But, if you can't or don't want to, then he - not the taxpayer - needs
to step up to the plate. BTW - sure says a lot about an individual
who is so shallow that they believe they have no responsibilities for
their actions in life. Good choice in a life partner.
>
> > Each person, in a contract,
> > accepts their own unique burdens; if I contract to paint your
> > house for $1,987. we have made a contract based upon unequal
> > burden. If, for example, you are Trump and make several million
> > a day, your burden is very, very small indeed. However, our con-
> > tract is still valid since we both accepted the risk fully knowing
> > the different burdens of the other.
>
> Duh. You have some pretty wacky definitions of sex.
> Sex is not a contract. Only marriage is a contract.
> Go back to the 40's where your ideas stand a chance of not being
> laughed at.
Sure it is a contract. You both engaged in behavior that might
have an outcome - we hold people responsible for their actions, or
at least we ought to.
Barb
Michael Shepanski
Crystal globe? It was in the thread until you cut it out.
Here, I'll paste it back in for you:
If the real issue is the child's rights, there is
*no* justification for sperm donor exception.
That was written by Stephanie, about three posts ago.
In your post that followed up to it, you didn't even mention
sperm donors. That's what I call ducking. I can't say it
any plainer than that.
Now that you have deigned to address the point, I see that
you do so by denying that children have a natural right to
support from both parents; i.e. you say society's interests
can override the child's interests in this area. Well that's
OK, as long as you stick to it. But I'll give you two weeks
before you start pleading "rights of the child" all over again,
as though we never had this conversation.
So how come these "state interests which have sought to protect
children" say that a child is only entitled to the NCP's money
if the CP wants to ask for it, and not otherwise? Why does the
state have more interest in a child whose CP chooses to collect
support payments than it has in a child whose CP chooses not to
collect support payments?
> >> >> The states are free to make laws that give children the
> >> >> benefit of their parents bounty if they so choose.
> >> >> It must be gender-neurtal however.
> >> >
> >> >No, I guess she didn't.
> >> >
> >> -------
> >> I find it humorous that you find the constitution so
> >> "endearing", since it doesn't serve your cause well;
> >> however, I too find it endearing, and the tenth
> amendment no "slouch". Your one-liners are just that.
> >> ---------
> >
> >Yep, and here's another:
> >
> >You're still ducking the point about mothers not seeking support.
>
> -----
> Why don't you rephrase your question so that I might understand
> what it is....! What about mothers not seeking support?
Why didn't you answer it when Stephanie asked it last week?
Anyway, see above.
[snip]
> >Right, you've been busy, so you duck all her questions.
> >That's fine, she can keep asking them and asking them
> >and asking them; I'm sure she's got nothing better to
> >do with her time. [Sarcasm off.]
>
> ------
> You claim that I have been "ducking" questions when I have answered
> them completely; that indicates to me that you simply don't like
> the answers that I have given;
When your response to a question about sperm donors doesn't
mention sperm donors; when your response to a question about
mothers not seeking support doesn't mention mothers not
seeking support -- you call this "answering the question
completely". I call it ducking.
> I have challenged you to ask me a
> question you want answered, and you respond by telling me I'm
> "ducking".....not a very good form of argument.....Keep your day
> job!
Err, actually I told you you were ducking *before* you challenged
me to re-ask the quesions. And anyway, it wasn't an argument;
it was a direct observation.
[snip]
> >Quoth Lefty: "It is not bad or wrong to give people as many
> >choices as possible, but it is bad to give one group of people
> >rights that must be balanced on the backs of another." That's
> >c4-everyone in a nutshell. Give women the right to abort or
> >not abort, in keeping with the possibilities that nature and
> >science provide, but don't put the burden of that choice onto
> >anyone but the one who makes it.
> >
> >--- Michael Shepanski
>
> ------
> Men who want to avoid risk are free to do so, and the courts
> understand that. No one is forcing a man to copulate without
> prophalactics with a gun at his back. Men risk; women risk;
Women risk unwanted pregnancy; men risk unwanted parenthood.
> the law on RvW is not even relevant to the conversation for
> many reasons that you and I have already discussed. Either
> way c4m is a sure loser. Trying to "adjust" the law to give
> men an easy out by saying that law should balance nature isn't
> going to work. If men are angry that women gestate, they
> should find a way to do it themselves, and stop blaming women
> for taking the first bite of the apple. Had it been left to
> Adam, they'd both still be in the garden not even knowing they
> had nothing on. :]
Tell you what. Go and find some of these "angry" men who are
"blaming" women for gestating, aborting, not aborting, whatever,
and have this debate with those men. It has nothing to do with
me. I think it's great that women can fuck and run.
"Fuck and run for all", I say.
--- Michael Shepanski
Word Warrior
Asmus Tietchens <gar...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote:
>Exactly. Both sexes should be able to do it with the
>same amount of accountaibilty.
Where is the =accountability= in pregnancy risks for
men as compared to women?
> Whether you like it or not,
>poor backwards child, this is exactly what equality means.
Equality means men give birth, suckle, and lose their
careers to care for young.
You put that together and then you can talk about it.
>Thanks to medical science, we can fuck and run, and so can any man.
Nobody could run and get a d&c at the same time.
>Since you have a problem with that, you're a sexist pig.
Assholes like you have no business making such comments.
>No further qualifications necessary.
You have absolutely none whatsoever.
_____________________________________________________________________________
|Respectfully, Sheila ~~~Word Warrior~~~ gr...@pipeline.com|
|Obligatory tribute to the founding fathers of the United States of America:|
| This is not to be read by anyone under 18 years of age, who should read up|
| on history and the First Amendment to the Constitution, as an alternative.|
| *Animals, including humans, fart, piss, shit, masturbate, fuck and abort.*|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Word Warrior
TZ...@foto.infi.net (Leigh) wrote:
>In article <5610qe$p...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, phyr...@usa.net says...
>> Mask'd Intruder suggested that we should outlaw abortion in order to
>> make things equal. Since that's a poor alternative putting some women
>> into poverty]
>Gee, maybe some of these women should have thought about that before
>they spread their legs?
Why can't the men think about it when they whip out their dicks?
Even if those nasty women of whom you're so very jealous,
poor little Lie-whore, want to get pregnant, no man is
forced to accommodate them in that.
> and guaratneeing the children nothing
>Aborted fetuses don't really have needs, now do they? Who are we
>*really* talking about here? Women?
It figures you have no idea.
>, let's not. To be
>> truly equal, we need to intervene to cause menses and pregnancy in
>> men.
>I'll bet you STILL call it "the curse", don't you?
Your stupidity? It must be.
>Ok, but ONLY when we can force YOU to work to support him and the
>child for 18+ years at around 50% of your income.
Many women don't have it anywhere near that good.
I guess it's too much to expect you to apply
a world view to this problem.
>And I DON'T want to hear any complaints.
No point in complaining about how stupid you are,
it seems to be your perpetual problem.
> It's a technological answer to a technologically created
>> problem.
>I didn't realize screwing was a technology related problem.
Fetuses not normally viable can be made so via technology.
This =will= become even more of a problem.
> In such a case, I would be entirely for their freedom of
>> abortion choice. If they choose to bring the child to term, then mom
>> has to pay support. THAT is fair.
>No only will we make mom pay support, she'll get it stuck up her
>ass just as men have.
You're incoherent as well as inaccurate.
You've no evidence whatsoever that men contribute more
to the effort of childrearing, or sacrifice more for it,
than women.
> She'll have little or no rights to the children.
>if she marries and he screws another woman, we'll make his wife
>pay child support even if it isn't her child.
Yer an idiot.
>If she gets beind in her obligations for reasons other than death,
>we'll take away her licenses, throw her in debtor's prision, plaster
>her face on posters, call her deadbeat, and in general ruin her life.
Yer an idiot.
>If she has the audicity to DIE - we can't the poor children <or
>daddy> suffer - we'll enact laws that allow daddy to go to the
>Maternal Grandparents for support. We'll make her parents
>support her offspring.
Yer an idiot.
>If she remarries, we'll take her new spouses income for children he
>had nothing to do with parenting in the first place. We'll tell
>the media how *every* woman is a potential deadbeat and they
>hide their money with new spouses - so the spouse is a deadbeat
>by proxy!
Yer an idiot.
>If indeed she IS the better parent, we'll arrange for the dads to
>yell "sexual abuse" at the drop of a hat - with no ramifications,
>and jail her so fast her pantyliners will wonder where she went.
Yer an idiot.
>We'll slip the court all the interest in collected child support
>payments from her as an "incentive" to after her.
Yer an idiot.
>Sounds good to me. Probably sounds good to a few men who will read
>this. I'll let them in on a little secret. Monthly periods are
>nothing compared to monthy child support payments.
It sounds idiotic, as usual.
Any man afraid of the support should be more afraid
of the conception.
I guess the kind of idiot who'd want you would be
too stupid to see that.
Jubal Harshaw
Michael Shepanski wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> So how come these "state interests which have sought to protect
> children" say that a child is only entitled to the NCP's money
> if the CP wants to ask for it, and not otherwise? Why does the
> state have more interest in a child whose CP chooses to collect
> support payments than it has in a child whose CP chooses not to
> collect support payments?
>
The state should only facilitate the parenting of the child by both
parents. That should be financial, paternal/maternal, familial, and any
other forms of parenting. The state also needs to protect itself from
having to unnecessarily pay to support the child.
From what I read here, most states have it f**ked up. It seems that the
pendulum has swung too far. Let's all work to push it back more to the
middle. But, all that still doesn't release either parent from their
responsibilities. This is a principle that probably precedes speech let
alone law. You father a child, you care for it as best you can. You
bear a child, you care for it as best you can.
[snip]
> --- Michael Shepanski
Jubal
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <328FCD...@uow.edu.au> Michael Shepanski <m...@uow.edu.au>
writes:
>
--------------------------------
>Crystal globe? It was in the thread until you cut it out.
>Here, I'll paste it back in for you:
>
> If the real issue is the child's rights, there is
> *no* justification for sperm donor exception.
>
>That was written by Stephanie, about three posts ago.
>In your post that followed up to it, you didn't even mention
>sperm donors. That's what I call ducking. I can't say it
>any plainer than that.
------
Well, let's suppose that you are right, and that I didn't answer
her question...(I did, but in a previous post, and ad nausem), what
good does it really do to chastise me for it? Now, doesn't it feel
better just to call me on it, and ask for an answer. Grow up. I
don't "duck" questions, and I think you know that. If I have fail-
to ever answer a question that relates to an issue to which I've
responded, I'm always willing to answer whenever I can. I think I
have now answered your question in my first statement, do you
agree?
------
>
>Now that you have deigned to address the point, I see that
>you do so by denying that children have a natural right to
>support from both parents; i.e. you say society's interests
>can override the child's interests in this area. Well that's
>OK, as long as you stick to it. But I'll give you two weeks
>before you start pleading "rights of the child" all over again,
>as though we never had this conversation.
-------
I can one-up you on that since I can easily start arguing for the
rights of children RIGHT NOW. Children have most of the same
rights as adults, but they are not always implemented in the same
way, and there are some that are limited. Now if you're talking
about "natural law" vs the common law, there are also rights of
children we can consider; whether any of these kinds of rights
can be upheld in common-law courts is another matter. Whenever I
speak of "children's rights", it is generally based upon federal
law or state law, since, as I've suggested, children already have
many of the constitutional rights as enjoyed by adults.
>
--------
>
>> >> >>> (Or allowing mothers not to seek support from the father if
>> >> >>> state support is not required.)
>> >> >
>> >> >This, I think, is the #1 knock-down objection to the claim that
>> >> >current paternity child support laws are derived from the rights
>> >> >of children. Does Lefty have an answer to it? Here is her next
>> >> >comment:
>>
>> ------
>> I have given my answer ad nauseum; the rights of children
to collect child support are based upon many laws....i.e.
the 10 amendment for police powers, many, many federal laws
(more being made daily) and each state's right to create
the laws that best address the issues of CS within that
state, i.e. guidelines for the amount of support collected.
I have NEVER EVER stated (though you have attributed this
to me) that CS is derived from one nice neat set of laws or
from "children's rights"....the rights of children within
our society are deri ed from the constitution, but are not
applied in the same manner as the rights of adults. While
I could argue that some rights (i.e. per contract, tort)
laws may apply to children thru the constitution (just as
they apply to adults), there is no special brand of
"children's rights"; there are, however, STATE INTERESTS
which have sought to protect children and which
>> continue to do so. There are also new federal laws that
may alter the manner in which we raise our children, and
that will address the power structure as between biological
parents and state interests.
>
>So how come these "state interests which have sought to protect
>children" say that a child is only entitled to the NCP's money
>if the CP wants to ask for it, and not otherwise?
------
The child is not deemed "capable" of asking for money on his/her
own behalf; the CP is not only able, but the legal party who can
ask for that money. Even if the guardian, or guardian ad litem
asks for NCP money for the child, what is wrong with that. Our
society gives adults the responsibility for children.
-------
Why does the>state have more interest in a child whose CP chooses to
collect>support payments than it has in a child whose CP chooses not to
>collect support payments?
--------
If the child is getting along well without payments, what reason
does the state have in maintaining an "interest"? The state's
interest is involved with making sure that children are fed,
clothed, sheltered, and educated free of neglect or abuse. If a
CP wants to raise a child without support from an NCP and he/she
is able to do that, why do you think the state should get involved?
I might add here, the child can also get "involved" any time he or
she desires. If a CP or guardian is NOT collecting support for
that child, and the child finds out that "daddy" is Donald Trump,
the child could get his/her own attorney, and thru a guardian ad
litem, sue for support :]
----------
------
Well, did I answer your question NOW? For one thing, it is CP's or
guardians or the state that seeks support, not "mothers" as you
would like to assert; some CPs are mothers; some are not; many
people who collect support are other family members such as grand
parents and aunts/uncles/cousins. People who seek child support
from NCPs are entitled to that support as someone else is raising
the kid that person mothered/fathered, and biological parents are
required, by law to pay support.
-------
>
>
>> I have challenged you to ask me a
>> question you want answered, and you respond by telling me I'm
>> "ducking".....not a very good form of argument.....Keep your day
>> job!
>
>Err, actually I told you you were ducking *before* you challenged
>me to re-ask the quesions. And anyway, it wasn't an argument;
>it was a direct observation.
>
>
>[snip]
>
>> >Quoth Lefty: "It is not bad or wrong to give people as many
>> >choices as possible, but it is bad to give one group of people
>> >rights that must be balanced on the backs of another." That's
>> >c4-everyone in a nutshell. Give women the right to abort or
>> >not abort, in keeping with the possibilities that nature and
>> >science provide, but don't put the burden of that choice onto
>> >anyone but the one who makes it.
>> >
>> >--- Michael Shepanski
>>
>> ------
>> Men who want to avoid risk are free to do so, and the courts
>> understand that. No one is forcing a man to copulate
without prophalactics with a gun at his back. Men risk;
women risk;
>
>Women risk unwanted pregnancy; men risk unwanted parenthood.
>
--------
Legally, both risk unwanted parenthood, since neither
gender has a duty to abort once conception has occured.
--------->
>> the law on RvW is not even relevant to the conversation for
>> many reasons that you and I have already discussed. Either
>> way c4m is a sure loser. Trying to "adjust" the law to give
>> men an easy out by saying that law should balance nature
isn't going to work. If men are angry that women gestate,
theyshould find a way to do it themselves, and stop blaming
women for taking the first bite of the apple. Had it been
left to Adam, they'd both still be in the garden not even
knowing they had nothing on. :]
>
>Tell you what. Go and find some of these "angry" men who are
>"blaming" women for gestating, aborting, not aborting, whatever,
>and have this debate with those men. It has nothing to do with
>me. I think it's great that women can fuck and run.
>"Fuck and run for all", I say.
>
>--- Michael Shepanski
-------
Ah, but women can't "fuck and run" any more than can men; they
each must face the consequences of whatever happens when they
risk unprotected sex. Women have more choices than have men about
that risk. This does not alter the risks they each have that are
willingly taken. Men who want to fuck and run need better forms
of birth control ....they need to concentrate on their OWN bodies
and leave our bodies alone, AND they need to support whatever
children they are foolish enough to father.
Lefty
>
>
Mask'd Intruder
On 18 Nov 1996 15:01:00 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:
<snip>
:>Tell you what. Go and find some of these "angry" men who are
:>"blaming" women for gestating, aborting, not aborting, whatever,
:>and have this debate with those men. It has nothing to do with
:>me. I think it's great that women can fuck and run.
:>"Fuck and run for all", I say.
:>
:>--- Michael Shepanski
:
: -------
: Ah, but women can't "fuck and run" any more than can men; they
: each must face the consequences of whatever happens when they
: risk unprotected sex. Women have more choices than have men about
: that risk. This does not alter the risks they each have that are
: willingly taken. Men who want to fuck and run need better forms
: of birth control ....they need to concentrate on their OWN bodies
: and leave our bodies alone, AND they need to support whatever
: children they are foolish enough to father.
:
: Lefty
:>
:>
:
Yes Lefty, women can fuck and run, and do so with every abortion.
This arguement of both being at risk for the 'act', responsible for
the consequences is silly. That is how it should be, it's not the
way it is. It still comes back to the standard of accountablity,
responsiblity, ect..... Women only are responsible to what they
choose for themselves. They are accountable to that choice only if
they decide to carry to term. Men are responsible and accountable
to that choice. That is the reality of your 'fuck and run'
arguement, it's fine, just as long as men can't do it. This is what
needs to be dealt with, the standard of responsiblity and
accountablity that is fair for everyone. If you think that the
'act' is a fair standard, than abortions as a convenience have to go.
Both play, both pay....
***************************************************************
* *
* "Just cos' you got the Blues don't mean you gotta sing... *
* Hey! Be yourself and do your thing...." Savoy Brown *
* *
* *
* "Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die" *
* I wish I knew... *
* Intruder *
* *
***************************************************************
Ross Williams
In article <328EF4...@ix.netcom.com> Jubal Harshaw wrote:
>Michael Shepanski wrote:
>So you are saying that there is no social contract? Are you denying
>John Locke? If there is a social contract, included in it would be the
>responsibility of a parent to support their offspring. If our society
>has sprung up around a few major issues, the rearing of our young is
>certainly one of them.
If you are saying that any social contract consists of the ability to rear
our young, then what of the wholesale denial of that by courts of "equity"?
>So, if there is a social contract to support
>your offspring and you have sex resulting in offspring it seems rather
>straightforward that you are bound contractually to support them.
He would also be bound similarly contractually to rear them. But that
actual *rearing* part is what is lacking.
Construct a consistent argument please.
-rw (Don't hate me because I'm right)
Ross Williams
In article <328F3C...@sirinet.net> Barbara O'Keeffe wrote:
>Asmus Tietchens wrote:
>>If I accidentally
>> became pregnant and my SO didn't want to support the child, it's my own
>> idiotic descision to keep the baby. He shouldn't pay one cent if he
>> doesn't want to. Nor would I want him to against his will. Unlike
>> you in your boorishness, I do not believe in slavery.
>
> He doesn't owe you anything. He does have a responsibility towards
> any child that he helps create.
I suppose, then, that you'd have no problem with a revolving trust account
set up in the name of the child with the custodial parent liable for all
withdrawals and expenditures made from monies put into that fund by the
non-custodial-but-still-responsible aprent? With criminal penalties for
fraud, extortion, misuse of funds, money laundering, whatever-may-apply
being used in the event that such displaced "responsibility" is not
administered properly?
Didn't think so.
I have yet to meet a woman on the net who is gung-holier-than-Thou for men
coughing up cash as per rules of moral/civil behavior as determined by law,
who also believe in a woman's duty to wisely spend such cash in accordance
with similar moral/civil codes as determined by laws which apply to everyone
else.
Ross Williams
In article <56nac4$l...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>In <328E9F...@uow.edu.au> Michael Shepanski <m...@uow.edu.au>
>writes:
>>When you arrived it got more interesting, at least for a while,
>>because Lefty couldn't bluff you about torts, contracts etc.
>
> -----
> There was no need to "bluff" since tort and contract law provided
> much of the historical basis for family law; when one questions
> the "ethics" of a structure, one must always go to its "foundation"
> That is what I did.
What you did, Carol, in declaring that tort and contract law provided much
of the historical basis of family law is issue an assertion with no basis in
fact.
I suppose, though, that if one had a time machine and had the ability to run
time backwards, and one had taken you for the ride and let you assume that
time was running chonologically forward, you might come to this conclusion,
but since I reallyreally doubt this was the case, I'd suggest you 1) forget
about becoming a lawyer, or 2) study m-u-c-h harder before your next bar
exam.
Family law is a direct decendant of King's Courts, or King's Equity -- which
is why it is still called "Equity Court" to this day. According to the
definitions, "Equity" is that section of legal proceding where there are no
laws for the magistrate to administer, and he, in effect, makes it up as he
goes along. When laws are invented by which to formulate rulings, the
matter is taken from "equity" to "tort" or "contract" law.
You have it exactly backwards.
Tort and Contract law are derived of that area of jurisprudence which still
holds family law.
You (or others) may claim that there are indeed laws about family law,
divorce, etc for the judge to follow. That does not alter the fact that
such judge of original jurisdiction has "judicial discretion" to do
effectively as he chooses with that law, and have little realistic chance of
reversal on appeal.
I could provide cite for this if you'd like.
> OK, so there aren't two tortfeasors.
>
> Of course there aren't; there are only two parents who "would"
> have been tortfeasors at another point in time, before family
> law was firmly routed in our society. Absent "family law" there
> would indeed be a case either in contract and/or tort.
Sorry, no. "Family law" is not a second wave tort/contract. In the absence
of family law, nothing would apply. Federal courts have specific
jurisdiction on matters of both tort and contract, and they (except where
tort or contract is applicable) have rarely ventured into family law,
declaring that it is a matter of state and state only application.
> And besides>--don't you remember-- I've got my tort analysis. My
>thinkingisn't limited to one dimension you know." Then she always has
>>the "society's interests" gambit. You reply that it's
>>unconstitutional to let society's interests override individual
>>rights in this situation, and she says "But there's no right to
>>evade contractual or tortious obligations."
>
> -----
> Bingo.....you are FINALLY starting to understand....the law,
> contract, tort, the CONSTITUTION, and family law (based upon
> societal interests ALL work against the fuck and run law pro-
> posals.
Except where same would interfere with a woman's right to choice.
> I'm so pleased that you finally understand; one who has a good
> argument never need put all her "proverbial" eggs in one
> "proverbial" basket. C4m is a big-time loser on all counts....
> the common law is against you; modern
> family law is against you;
Modern (sic) family law (sic) is as close to "common law" (i.e. unwritten
rules of politically convenient fair play) as anything we got in this
country.
>legislators and elected officials
> want to find you and make you pay; church groups are agaisnt you;
> women's groups are agaisnt you; some mens groups are against you,
> and groups like ACES have orgainized just to thwart your plans to
> fuck and run. The idea that biological parents should be obliga-
> ted to support their biological children has been around since the
> dawn of time....it's going to take more that a small group of
> whiners to change an intrinsic societal belief.
Then construct the societal frame such that it isn't inherently biased.
Simple proposition.
Complex effects.
Grant both parties with a vested interest in a communal project such as
pregnancy the ability to control the situation. If that requires making
societal presumptions in favor of a single legal community of those parties,
then so be it.
But when you create presumptions which devolve upon singular rights of
control, you risk, under our constitutional framework and by necessity, the
mandate of singular responsibility.
Ross Williams
In article <32903B...@ix.netcom.com> Jubal Harshaw wrote:
>Michael Shepanski wrote:
>> So how come these "state interests which have sought to protect
>> children" say that a child is only entitled to the NCP's money
>> if the CP wants to ask for it, and not otherwise? Why does the
>> state have more interest in a child whose CP chooses to collect
>> support payments than it has in a child whose CP chooses not to
>> collect support payments?
>
>The state should only facilitate the parenting of the child by both
>parents. That should be financial, paternal/maternal, familial, and any
>other forms of parenting. The state also needs to protect itself from
>having to unnecessarily pay to support the child.
>
>From what I read here, most states have it f**ked up. It seems that the
>pendulum has swung too far. Let's all work to push it back more to the
>middle. But, all that still doesn't release either parent from their
>responsibilities. This is a principle that probably precedes speech let
>alone law. You father a child, you care for it as best you can. You
>bear a child, you care for it as best you can.
Fancy words, there, Jubal.
Have you spent more than a few minutes in comtemplating the practical
effects of putting those words into motion?
I kinda doubt it.
Tells ya what, though. You think about what it would actually mean to
require both a father *and* a mother to "care for" "as best they can" their
singular child, when that child is 1) in their communal home; 2) in one of
their singular homes; and 3) in another home altogether.
And then get back.
We'll talk.
Spyral Fox
In article <56qg0v$p...@news-c1.gnn.com>, Ross Williams
<rossw...@gnn.com> wrote:
= In article <328F3C...@sirinet.net> Barbara O'Keeffe wrote:
= >Asmus Tietchens wrote:
=
= >>If I accidentally
= >> became pregnant and my SO didn't want to support the child, it's my own
= >> idiotic descision to keep the baby. He shouldn't pay one cent if he
= >> doesn't want to. Nor would I want him to against his will. Unlike
= >> you in your boorishness, I do not believe in slavery.
= >
= > He doesn't owe you anything. He does have a responsibility towards
= > any child that he helps create.
=
= I suppose, then, that you'd have no problem with a revolving trust account
= set up in the name of the child with the custodial parent liable for all
= withdrawals and expenditures made from monies put into that fund by the
= non-custodial-but-still-responsible aprent? With criminal penalties for
= fraud, extortion, misuse of funds, money laundering, whatever-may-apply
= being used in the event that such displaced "responsibility" is not
= administered properly?
=
= Didn't think so.
=
= I have yet to meet a woman on the net who is gung-holier-than-Thou for men
= coughing up cash as per rules of moral/civil behavior as determined by law,
= who also believe in a woman's duty to wisely spend such cash in accordance
= with similar moral/civil codes as determined by laws which apply to everyone
= else.
I'm happy to be an exception to the rule.
I'd have no trouble in the record-keeping to verify that any contribution
from the second parent was spent in ways that explicitly related to the
child, and that the aditional income did not cause me to alter my spending
habits by buying more stuff for me. Of course, it's easy for *me* to say
-- I already document my own spending habits as a matter of routine, and I
can't really think of anything much I'd want to buy that I don't already
have. Other women, who don't already detail their own purhases might have
difficulty in showing whether the food budget was increased only because
of the second eater (the child) or because of a change in dietary
preferences. Likewise, it may be hard for a woman who is divorced some
time after giving birth to indicate which expenses are specifically
child-related.
I think that in the event that a male parent is paying child support that
the female parent is morally obligated to use those funds only for the
stated purpose.
Nevertheless, the standard of proof may be difficult. I can easily show
that I'm buying babyfood ad Price Costco, and my stroller came from
Goodwill.... but how could I show that I need to have a *particular*
apartment in order to give a growing child sufficient room to grow and a
decent school to attend, if it's a hundred dollars more expensive than my
old "who cares about the school district?" one-bedroom single-person
occupancy type of flat (not that this is what I'm living in, but for the
sake of argument....)?
I'll add that since two of my sisters have children, I would expect that
unless the settlement from the other parent was unusually generous I'd
probably have to make some sacrifices myself (buy fewer hardcover new
books, buy chicken breasts with a whole fryer instead of filleted, skinned
and boned, etc.) to remain solvent -- all that kid stuff seems to be
EXPENSIVE.
And, of course, I _still_ don't think that any woman who is not married
and in good financial standing should consider keeping an child where the
father would need to pay child support for it to have a decent standard of
living (adoption sounds like a much better option if she's anti-abortion)
.... but if she does, I think he *is* morally obligated. Both of them had
sex, after all; both of them need to take responsibility for the results.
- - -Adina
"What makes you think I'd do as you say? Ani l'dodi."
Spyral Fox
In article <3290b778...@news.sojourn.com>, intr...@sojourn.com
(Mask'd Intruder) wrote:
= On 18 Nov 1996 15:01:00 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
= Hemingway) wrote:
=
= <snip>
=
= :>Tell you what. Go and find some of these "angry" men who are
= :>"blaming" women for gestating, aborting, not aborting, whatever,
= :>and have this debate with those men. It has nothing to do with
= :>me. I think it's great that women can fuck and run.
= :>"Fuck and run for all", I say.
= :>
= :>--- Michael Shepanski
= :
= : -------
= : Ah, but women can't "fuck and run" any more than can men; they
= : each must face the consequences of whatever happens when they
= : risk unprotected sex. Women have more choices than have men about
= : that risk. This does not alter the risks they each have that are
= : willingly taken. Men who want to fuck and run need better forms
= : of birth control ....they need to concentrate on their OWN bodies
= : and leave our bodies alone, AND they need to support whatever
= : children they are foolish enough to father.
= :
= : Lefty
= :>
= :>
= :
= Yes Lefty, women can fuck and run, and do so with every abortion.
Nope. They can do so if they don't get pregnant, but IMO they need to
actually *do* something in those cases where they opt for an abortion.
They need to allow for the time and money to have an uncomfortable &
intrusive medical procedure. Men who are involved in those same aborted
pregnancies need not be involved in this at all -- although a responsible
man may hold his partner's hand or even help pay for the termination of
the pregnancy their actions *together* caused.
= This arguement of both being at risk for the 'act', responsible for
= the consequences is silly. That is how it should be, it's not the
= way it is. It still comes back to the standard of accountablity,
= responsiblity, ect..... Women only are responsible to what they
= choose for themselves. They are accountable to that choice only if
= they decide to carry to term. Men are responsible and accountable
= to that choice.
In those cases where the woman chooses to give birth, the birth occurs
without miscarriage or stillbirth, and the mother chooses to keep the
child and she is able to convince a court to order the man to make
financial payments to help raise the child the man has not only an ethical
responsibility but also a legal one. Statistically, this is less likely
than that no baby will result.
Men, like women, still have a perfect right to say "no" to sexual
activity, to only have sex with people who they know well enough to trust
that their partner is using birth control, to use additional birth control
(suspenders & belt approach) themselves, and who they believe shares their
world view in regaurds to abortion/adoption/responsibility.
People who have unprotected sex with a partner who does not share their
viewpoint can whine about it all they like, but their whining doesn't have
any weight in a court of law should their partner choose to give live
birth.
= That is the reality of your 'fuck and run'
= arguement, it's fine, just as long as men can't do it. This is what
Sure men can. I give all men permission to have as many abortions as they
feel they need. And I forbid women from interfering in any abortion any
man chooses to havel. Likewise, I demand that any time a man gives live
birth and chooses to keep the child that the woman who contributed the egg
help support her offspring.
= needs to be dealt with, the standard of responsiblity and
= accountablity that is fair for everyone. If you think that the
= 'act' is a fair standard, than abortions as a convenience have to go.
= Both play, both pay....
1) Prove that most women have an abortion for convenience.
2) Disprove that most women who have an abortion do not have a man
willing to be the child's father in the full sense of the word.
Asmus Tietchens
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> C4m is a big-time loser on all counts....
> the common law is against you; modern
> family law is against you; legislators and elected officials
> want to find you and make you pay; church groups are agaisnt you;
> women's groups are agaisnt you; some mens groups are against you,
> and groups like ACES have orgainized just to thwart your plans to
> fuck and run.
Ooo, I quake in my ugg boots. Well then, it's like Einstein said.
"Great souls have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." ;)
> The idea that biological parents should be obliga-
> ted to support their biological children has been around since the
> dawn of time....it's going to take more that a small group of
> whiners to change an intrinsic societal belief.
You see the world through your own rose-colored glasses. Things are
a lot more complex than that. I need look no further than my own cat,
who years ago gave birth to a litter of kittens and then >ATE< two of
them because she didn't want to support them. I rather like her
ideology: I'll support who ever the hell I want, and no one I don't
want. You would like to believe that you have a big army of
conservative
wacks backing up your words, but in my world you're just one lonely
poster on a newsgroup. You don't scare me.
Ennead
Someone - I think Stephanie, but I may have gotten misled by the maze of
attributions - wrote:
: >>> If the real issue is the child's rights, there is *no*
: >>> justification for sperm donor exception.
[enourmous snip]
It seems to me this "exception-proves-the-lack-of-any-rule" arguement is
logically flawed. It's like saying "if the real issue behind murder laws
is the right not to be killed, then there is *no* justification for [pick
your favorite: assisted suicide/self-defense laws/capital punishment.]
Well, no; there's no rule that says society can't choose to make
exceptions to its laws.
It's benificial to society to have parental obligations to their children;
and it's benificial to society to make an exception for sperm donors. The
latter part of that sentence in no way logically disproves the former
part.
Yours,
--Ampersand
Asmus Tietchens
Barbara O'Keeffe wrote:
>
> Asmus Tietchens wrote:
>
> > > ibility is to the child, same as yours. Sex implies no fiduciary
> > > relationship between the father and the mother, only to the child.
> > > ------
> >
> > Likewise, why on earth would the man be liable to her?
>
> He isn't - each parent is responsible for the child they help create.
Remember that you said this.
> > But anyway:
> > Under forced-child-support law, what you now call her "responsibility
> > to the child" precludes the possibility of an abortion.
>
> Nope - until birth, there is no child that needs to be care for.
Woops, you forgot that you said it.
You can't have it both ways and still present a coherent argument.
Consider this:
* Killing a child is illegal.
* For abortion to be legal, it must not be killing a child.
* If there is no "child" in that womb, there is nothing to be
responsible for.
SO. Either the man MUST provide support AND abortion MUST be illegal,
or neither. In my mind, there is no logical argument any other
way.
It's that simple.
> You're confusing child-rearing responsbilities with pregnancy.
No, I'm afraid it is you who are confusing the two in order to make your
point,
which as I have pointed out above, is bad logic.
> >Use logic for
> > once. Do you actually have a coherent morality, or do you change it
> > every paragraph?
> > There is no forced responsibility on either side of the fence.
> > The woman can abort, absolving responsibility- The man must be able to
> > do so as well. If a women can 'fuck and run', then so can a man.
>
> Of course he can - - but the state requires that persons who are
> involved
> in the creation of a child make arrangements for the care of that
> child.
> If you don't do it voluntary - but expect me to do it with my tax
> dollars -
> you're barking up the wrong tree. I raised my child, you raise yours.
No, once again you're using bad logic. You would only have to pay for
my
child with your tax dollars if I were forced to carry it to term even
though
I didn't want it, as would be the case if abortion were illegal.
You're arguing from a different morality again. Do some more thinking.
> > > No man has the right to regulate my body....Given that this is the
> > > case coupled with obligation owed to a child, it would seem prudent
> > > that men (because of nature) make their choices when they have the
> > > choice to make. I don't care whether or not most men agree.
> >
> > Likewise, they don't give a rats ass about you I'd bet. Some women,
> > you know, actually _like_ to have sex for sex's sake.
>
> No kidding - - when did you first have this revalation?
I've known this all my life, but the poster above appears to have
forgotten it.
My point is that some women have sex because they enjoy having sex, and
do not
choose to consciously equate it to a contract that involves children,
but simply
to an enjoyable physical activity. I believe that I have enough control
over my
own body to take part in it without insisting on an insurance policy
from my man.
> >If I accidentally
> > became pregnant and my SO didn't want to support the child, it's my own
> > idiotic decision to keep the baby. He shouldn't pay one cent if he
> > doesn't want to. Nor would I want him to against his will. Unlike
> > you in your boorishness, I do not believe in slavery.
>
> He doesn't owe you anything. He does have a responsibility towards
> any child that he helps create.
Once again you swap your definitions. Remember what you JUST SAID:
"> Nope - until birth, there is no child that needs to be care for."
> If he is to immature to realize that
> there are apt to be consequences to one's actions in life - too bad.
Over-generalized crap. You do not know him, or me.
> If you want to assume all of the responsibility that is your decision.
> But, if you can't or don't want to, then he - not the taxpayer - needs
> to step up to the plate.
Why would I give birth to a child I did not want???
Why would I, and why would he??
> > > Each person, in a contract,
> > > accepts their own unique burdens; if I contract to paint your
> > > house for $1,987. we have made a contract based upon unequal
> > > burden. If, for example, you are Trump and make several million
> > > a day, your burden is very, very small indeed. However, our con-
> > > tract is still valid since we both accepted the risk fully knowing
> > > the different burdens of the other.
> >
> > Duh. You have some pretty wacky definitions of sex.
> > Sex is not a contract. Only marriage is a contract.
> > Go back to the 40's where your ideas stand a chance of not being
> > laughed at.
>
> Sure it is a contract. You both engaged in behavior that might
> have an outcome - we hold people responsible for their actions, or
> at least we ought to.
Yes, we ought to. But before it becomes legally feasible, medical
science needs
to invent a device that acts as a womb. Something that will sit in the
closet for
nine months and spit out a baby. Until then it is impossible for a man
to choose to
keep a baby that his female partner does not want, for it would be an
invasion of her
provacy and rights. Once this happy little machine is invented, the
biological
duty of the man and the woman will be virtually identical.
But is this what we all really want?? That's a question I cannot
answer.
I can suggest some nice mid-level reading to help you think though, try
a book
called Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. A classic, though a bit
outdated.
Until then the only way to start a proper family is to have a properly
functional
base. IOW, find someone who is just as willing to have kids and support
them as you
are, and then get married, making the contract. No trickery, no forced
responsibility. It's as simple as that. It's what my parents did, and
what their
parents did. If you want people to act responsibly, you first have to
allow them the
honor due them when they CHOOSE to act responsibly. If you FORCE them
to you deny
them that honor.
Mask'd Intruder
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 15:25:04 -0700, spyr...@aol.com (Spyral Fox)
wrote:
:In article <3290b778...@news.sojourn.com>, intr...@sojourn.com
:(Mask'd Intruder) wrote:
:
:= On 18 Nov 1996 15:01:00 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
:= Hemingway) wrote:
:=
:= <snip>
:=
:= :>Tell you what. Go and find some of these "angry" men who are
:= :>"blaming" women for gestating, aborting, not aborting, whatever,
:= :>and have this debate with those men. It has nothing to do with
:= :>me. I think it's great that women can fuck and run.
:= :>"Fuck and run for all", I say.
:= :>
:= :>--- Michael Shepanski
:= :
:= : -------
:= : Ah, but women can't "fuck and run" any more than can men; they
:= : each must face the consequences of whatever happens when they
:= : risk unprotected sex. Women have more choices than have men about
:= : that risk. This does not alter the risks they each have that are
:= : willingly taken. Men who want to fuck and run need better forms
:= : of birth control ....they need to concentrate on their OWN bodies
:= : and leave our bodies alone, AND they need to support whatever
:= : children they are foolish enough to father.
:= :
:= : Lefty
:= :>
:= :>
:= :
:= Yes Lefty, women can fuck and run, and do so with every abortion.
:
:Nope. They can do so if they don't get pregnant, but IMO they need to
:actually *do* something in those cases where they opt for an abortion.
:They need to allow for the time and money to have an uncomfortable &
:intrusive medical procedure. Men who are involved in those same aborted
:pregnancies need not be involved in this at all -- although a responsible
:man may hold his partner's hand or even help pay for the termination of
:the pregnancy their actions *together* caused.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand what your point is to my response
to Lefty.
:
:= This arguement of both being at risk for the 'act', responsible for
:= the consequences is silly. That is how it should be, it's not the
:= way it is. It still comes back to the standard of accountablity,
:= responsiblity, ect..... Women only are responsible to what they
:= choose for themselves. They are accountable to that choice only if
:= they decide to carry to term. Men are responsible and accountable
:= to that choice.
:
:In those cases where the woman chooses to give birth, the birth occurs
:without miscarriage or stillbirth, and the mother chooses to keep the
:child and she is able to convince a court to order the man to make
:financial payments to help raise the child the man has not only an ethical
:responsibility but also a legal one. Statistically, this is less likely
:than that no baby will result.
As it is today, yes, quite true....
:
:Men, like women, still have a perfect right to say "no" to sexual
:activity, to only have sex with people who they know well enough to trust
:that their partner is using birth control, to use additional birth control
:(suspenders & belt approach) themselves, and who they believe shares their
:world view in regaurds to abortion/adoption/responsibility.
Men also should have the perfect right to be held to the same
standard as a women and a women to a man.
:
:People who have unprotected sex with a partner who does not share their
:viewpoint can whine about it all they like, but their whining doesn't have
:any weight in a court of law should their partner choose to give live
:birth.
As it is today, true. Everything changes Adina, the disparity
between the genders on this issue is wholly unfair. You can stoop
you your whiny thing again, but it doesn't address what you yourself
couldn't abide, but you expect men too.
:
:= That is the reality of your 'fuck and run'
:= arguement, it's fine, just as long as men can't do it. This is what
:
:Sure men can. I give all men permission to have as many abortions as they
:feel they need. And I forbid women from interfering in any abortion any
:man chooses to havel. Likewise, I demand that any time a man gives live
:birth and chooses to keep the child that the woman who contributed the egg
:help support her offspring.
Amusing, but off the point.
:
:= needs to be dealt with, the standard of responsiblity and
:= accountablity that is fair for everyone. If you think that the
:= 'act' is a fair standard, than abortions as a convenience have to go.
:= Both play, both pay....
:
:1) Prove that most women have an abortion for convenience.
:2) Disprove that most women who have an abortion do not have a man
:willing to be the child's father in the full sense of the word.
:
:- - -Adina
Fine Adina, I'll get the stats for you. The second is a little
harder since not even a husband can be informed that his wife is
having an abortion, much less a sexual partner. There no way to
know for certain is there.....
*************************************************************
"Just cos' you got the Blues don't mean you gotta sing...
Hey! Be yourself and do your thing...." Savoy Brown
"Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die"
I wish I knew...
Intruder
**************************************************************
Jubal Harshaw
Ross Williams wrote:
>
> In article <32903B...@ix.netcom.com> Jubal Harshaw wrote:
> >Michael Shepanski wrote:
>
> >> So how come these "state interests which have sought to protect
> >> children" say that a child is only entitled to the NCP's money
> >> if the CP wants to ask for it, and not otherwise? Why does the
> >> state have more interest in a child whose CP chooses to collect
> >> support payments than it has in a child whose CP chooses not to
> >> collect support payments?
> >
> >The state should only facilitate the parenting of the child by both
> >parents. That should be financial, paternal/maternal, familial, and any
> >other forms of parenting. The state also needs to protect itself from
> >having to unnecessarily pay to support the child.
> >
> >From what I read here, most states have it f**ked up. It seems that the
> >pendulum has swung too far. Let's all work to push it back more to the
> >middle. But, all that still doesn't release either parent from their
> >responsibilities. This is a principle that probably precedes speech let
> >alone law. You father a child, you care for it as best you can. You
>
> Fancy words, there, Jubal.
>
Thanks.
> Have you spent more than a few minutes in comtemplating the practical
> effects of putting those words into motion?
>
yes.
> I kinda doubt it.
>
you would doubt it.
> Tells ya what, though. You think about what it would actually mean to
> require both a father *and* a mother to "care for" "as best they can" their
> singular child, when that child is 1) in their communal home; 2) in one of
> their singular homes; and 3) in another home altogether.
>
> And then get back.
>
> We'll talk.
>
First the flippant remark said for humor and not to hurt... I get a lot
of money to think and solve problems... How many hours do you want to
contract for? Now the more serious comment. I purposely used the
phrase "as best as they can." It represented the way I believe. I
*know* how tough things can be. I'm not one of those who is trying to
minimize the pain and suffering that goes on. Each situation is unique
and there can't be a cookie cutter solution,
I believe it is the state of mind of the parent that matters. It is the
intention and the effort that are tantamount. Children grow up and they
sometimes find and talk with their biological forebearers and when they
do if they do, it is important for that parent to have lived with
integrity. Actually I believe that it is in the self interest of the
parent to have lived in integrity. Unto thine own self be true,
whatever that means...
If you weren't blessed with a good mind, then maybe... but you do know
right from wrong and you *are* smart and you *can* solve problems and
you *will* make a wonderful father if only you wanted to and I'm not
just buttering you up, I just believe it.
You can write letters, postcards, etc.; you can make a video journal for
your child; you can buy and wrap birthday / xmas / etc. presents and
save them (if they would be rejected) until your child is older; (these
are just examples and aren't even strawmen) but *you* can do a myriad of
things which are expressions of you and offer that to your child. It is
your responsibility. Just because it is tough doesn't dissolve the
responsibility. And just because it can't be as good as you think it
should be doesn't mean you should stop being a parent.
Gosh that sounds sappy. But i's what I feel.
Now I understand your points about the unfairness. Did you have similar
discussions with the mother before the conceptual event? Did the mother
agree to your terms? If you have a piece of paper acknowledging this
you'd certainly have a strong case. Otherwise I'd have to assume that
the mother's expectations were what society has proscribed. Now was
there fraud involved in the sex? That is you knew that she expected one
set of behavior and you *knew* that you would act in another way.
> -rw (Don't hate me because I'm right)
Jubal
Jubal Harshaw
Ross Williams wrote:
> >John Locke? If there is a social contract, included in it would be the
> >responsibility of a parent to support their offspring. If our society
> >has sprung up around a few major issues, the rearing of our young is
> >certainly one of them.
>
> If you are saying that any social contract consists of the ability to rear
> our young, then what of the wholesale denial of that by courts of "equity"?
>
of our social contract is the requirement that biological parents be
responsible for their children. And I think that the wholesale denial
of that by the courts stinks and I'd like to do something to stop it
from going on.
> >So, if there is a social contract to support
> >your offspring and you have sex resulting in offspring it seems rather
> >straightforward that you are bound contractually to support them.
>
> He would also be bound similarly contractually to rear them. But that
> actual *rearing* part is what is lacking.
>
Not so. The social contract does not require that soldiers be home to
rear their young our merchant seamen. Nope, nothing in the social
contract about that. But the supporting of them, that's there. Now I'm
not saying that the rearing of them isn't as important. I'm saying that
they are independent. I thinnk that any court which denies a man's
ability to rear their children or co-rear their children as the case may
be is wrong and something ourght to be done to reverse those decisions.
Let's hope that Justice Ginsburg's views on matters such as this will
prevail.
> Construct a consistent argument please.
>
You chose to link rearing and support and I didn't. We do disagree, but
the argument was consistent. Provide better analysis if you disagree.
> -rw (Don't hate me because I'm right), but you keep getting it wrong!
Jubal
Jubal Harshaw
Ross Williams wrote:
>
> In article <56nac4$l...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >In <328E9F...@uow.edu.au> Michael Shepanski <m...@uow.edu.au>
> >writes:
>
> Then construct the societal frame such that it isn't inherently biased.
>
> Simple proposition.
>
> Complex effects.
>
> Grant both parties with a vested interest in a communal project such as
> pregnancy the ability to control the situation. If that requires making
> societal presumptions in favor of a single legal community of those parties,
> then so be it.
>
> But when you create presumptions which devolve upon singular rights of
> control, you risk, under our constitutional framework and by necessity, the
> mandate of singular responsibility.
>
O.K. let's do some analysis here. Woman gets one vote. Man gets one
vote. Fetus gets one one millionth of a vote. First vote is to
determine whether fetus comes to term. Possibilities:
for: one one millionth. against: two
disposition: abortion
for: two and one one millionth. against: zero
disposition: they lived happily ever after (we only hope)
for: one and one millionth. against: one
disposition: baby is born and raised by the "wanting" parent and is
financially supported by the non-custodial parent and has whatever
"rearing" as can be worked out among the three of them.
That's fair and simple and gender neutral. Now there are still some
details to be worked out as to how to implement it... But a transfer of
the Z/E/F (is that short for zygote/embryo/fetus?) to a waiting womb
instead of abortion would preserve the child for the solo father and
ther current system continues to work for the solo mother. In any case,
there is no release of the need for financial support. To put it
crudely... I (society) don't want to have to pay to raise a child you
created for a few hours of pleasure and a few moments of exstacy.
> -rw (Don't hate me because I'm right)
I don't hate you. I just think that sometimes you're wrong and you
think you are right all the time and you're an easy target.
Jubal
Jubal Harshaw
Asmus Tietchens wrote:
>
> Barbara O'Keeffe wrote:
> >
> > Asmus Tietchens wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sure it is a contract. You both engaged in behavior that might
> > have an outcome - we hold people responsible for their actions, or
> > at least we ought to.
>
> Yes, we ought to. But before it becomes legally feasible, medical
> science needs
> to invent a device that acts as a womb. Something that will sit in the
> closet for
> nine months and spit out a baby. Until then it is impossible for a man
> to choose to
> keep a baby that his female partner does not want, for it would be an
> invasion of her
> provacy and rights. Once this happy little machine is invented, the
> biological
> duty of the man and the woman will be virtually identical.
Actually nature invented that happy little machine and it is a surrogate
mother. A woman who is willing to rent her womb for a fair fee.
> But is this what we all really want?? That's a question I cannot
> answer.
> I can suggest some nice mid-level reading to help you think though, try
> a book
> called Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. A classic, though a bit
> outdated.
Actually it wasn't the womb machine that was so dangerous to family et
al, but it was the "school" system and the constant propoganda that was
so bad. I didn't did the turning of the bottles to get certain physical
chartacteristics, though.
> Until then the only way to start a proper family is to have a properly
> functional
> base. IOW, find someone who is just as willing to have kids and support
> them as you
> are, and then get married, making the contract. No trickery, no forced
> responsibility. It's as simple as that. It's what my parents did, and
> what their
> parents did. If you want people to act responsibly, you first have to
> allow them the
> honor due them when they CHOOSE to act responsibly. If you FORCE them
> to you deny
> them that honor.
Then draw up a pre-sexual agreement disavowing any children forthcoming
and have the woman acknowledge her acceptance of this condition and put
up a bond that guarantees the child's support in case of a catastrophy
to the mother so that the state doesn't have to clean up your mess and
go fuck your head off. Lacking that, be careful and don't whine if you
are the one in one hundred. Too bad, am sad, but it was your orgasm and
not mine.
Jubal
Jubal Harshaw
Asmus Tietchens wrote:
>
> Barbara O'Keeffe wrote:
> >
> > Asmus Tietchens wrote:
> >
> > > > Why on earth should she be "liable" to the man; her only respons-
> > > > ibility is to the child, same as yours. Sex implies no fiduciary
> > > > relationship between the father and the mother, only to the child.
> > > > ------
> > >
> > > Likewise, why on earth would the man be liable to her?
> >
> > He isn't - each parent is responsible for the child they help create.
>
> Remember that you said this.
>
> > > But anyway:
> > > Under forced-child-support law, what you now call her "responsibility
> > > to the child" precludes the possibility of an abortion.
> >
> > Nope - until birth, there is no child that needs to be care for.
>
> Woops, you forgot that you said it.
>
> You can't have it both ways and still present a coherent argument.
>
> Consider this:
> * Killing a child is illegal.
> * For abortion to be legal, it must not be killing a child.
> * If there is no "child" in that womb, there is nothing to be
> responsible for.
>
If "not being a child" made it a rock, you would have a point. But it
isn't a rock. It is a "potential" child. And there is nothing in your
argument that says a non-but-potential child diesn't deserve both
parents being responsible. In fact, the argument as to the child /
non-child nature of a fetus doesn't alter the mother's responsibilities
to the health of the potential-child and for the father to start the
continuum of responsibility for his part either.
> SO. Either the man MUST provide support AND abortion MUST be illegal,
> or neither. In my mind, there is no logical argument any other
> way.
> It's that simple.
>
Sorry, it is only that simple in your mind. The world is not black and
white or ones and zeros. The data you use for your logic is incomplete
and overly simplistic, ergo your logic comes to the wrong conclusion.
> > You're confusing child-rearing responsbilities with pregnancy.
>
> No, I'm afraid it is you who are confusing the two in order to make your
> point,
> which as I have pointed out above, is bad logic.
>
I guess you, oh mighty judge of bad logic, then can recognize the faulty
nature of your own bad logic.
[snip for brevity]
Jubal
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <56qhio$p...@news-c1.gnn.com> Ross Williams <rossw...@gnn.com>
writes:
>
(edit of equity court discussion and put downs)
>
>>
>> Of course there aren't; there are only two parents who "would"
>> have been tortfeasors at another point in time, before family
>> law was firmly routed in our society. Absent "family law" there
>> would indeed be a case either in contract and/or tort.
>
>Sorry, no. "Family law" is not a second wave tort/contract. In the
absence >of family law, nothing would apply. Federal courts have
specific >jurisdiction on matters of both tort and contract, and they
(except where >tort or contract is applicable) have rarely ventured
into family law, >declaring that it is a matter of state and state only
application.
------
Federal courts do NOT have "specific" jurisdiction over tort and
contracts cases; that state courts and/or federal courts have
not ventured into family law, does not preclude them from doing
so should family court be abolished.....we were only talking
a hypo....since both of us know that family court will not be
abolished. When we play "let's pretend".....jurisdiction would
also have to be altered since family court would (hypothetically)
no longer exist.
-------
>
>> And besides>--don't you remember-- I've got my tort analysis. My
>>thinkingisn't limited to one dimension you know." Then she always
has>>>the "society's interests" gambit. You reply that it's
>>>unconstitutional to let society's interests override individual
>>>rights in this situation, and she says "But there's no right to
>>>evade contractual or tortious obligations."
>>
>> -----
>> Bingo.....you are FINALLY starting to understand....the law,
>> contract, tort, the CONSTITUTION, and family law (based upon
>> societal interests ALL work against the fuck and run law pro-
>> posals.
>
>Except where same would interfere with a woman's right to choice.
------
The right to choose is not based upon parental reliquishment; it
is based upon the right to make choices about one's physical bod!
Big difference! Philosophically, we could certainly enter into
a conversation here about "effects" and "consequences".
-------
>
>> I'm so pleased that you finally understand; one who has a good
>> argument never need put all her "proverbial" eggs in one
> "proverbial" basket. C4m is a big-time loser on all counts....
>> the common law is against you; modern
>> family law is against you;
>
>Modern (sic) family law (sic) is as close to "common law" (i.e.
unwritten >rules of politically convenient fair play) as anything we
got in this >country.
-----
What common law measures would you see changed?
------
>
>>legislators and elected officials > want to find you and make you
pay; church groups are agaisnt you; women's groups are agaisnt you;
some mens groups are against you, and groups like ACES have
orgainized just to thwart your plans to fuck and run. The idea that
biological parents should be obligated to support their biological
children has been around since the dawn of time....it's going to take
more that a small group of whiners to change an intrinsic societal
belief.
>
>Then construct the societal frame such that it isn't inherently
biased.
>
>Simple proposition.
>
>Complex effects.
>
>Grant both parties with a vested interest in a communal project such
as pregnancy the ability to control the situation. If that requires
making >societal presumptions in favor of a single legal community of
those parties, >then so be it.
------
You can never engage in a "communal" project when the subject
matter resides within the body of one since the human body is
the most fundamental possession each one of us "owns". I know
that I would NEVER enter into such an agreement that gave another
the right to control my body. I prefer being the "boss" of my
own body.
--------
>
>But when you create presumptions which devolve upon singular rights of
>control, you risk, under our constitutional framework and by
necessity, the >mandate of singular responsibility.
---------
This is simply not true. Look at any contract....the parties each
have individual risks within the contractual risk accepted, i.e.
there is no "exact" risk equity between any two contracting
parties. That one party in a contract may have more CONTROL over
the product manufacture doesn't negate the responsibility of the
other contracting party. And, where that situation of CONTROL
is not even accompanied with duties, there is not much to discuss.
A woman who is pregnant has no duty to abort or not abort. She
must still make decisions that will effect her health, her body,
but then, the two parties knew that going in.
Lefty
>
>
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <3290b778...@news.sojourn.com> intr...@sojourn.com (Mask'd>Hemingway) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>:>Tell you what. Go and find some of these "angry" men who are
>:>"blaming" women for gestating, aborting, not aborting, whatever,
>:>and have this debate with those men. It has nothing to do with
>:>me. I think it's great that women can fuck and run.
>:>"Fuck and run for all", I say.
>:>
>:>--- Michael Shepanski
>:
>: -------
>: Ah, but women can't "fuck and run" any more than can men; they
>: each must face the consequences of whatever happens when they
>: risk unprotected sex. Women have more choices than have men
about
>: that risk. This does not alter the risks they each have that are
>: willingly taken. Men who want to fuck and run need better forms
>: of birth control ....they need to concentrate on their OWN bodies
>: and leave our bodies alone, AND they need to support whatever
>: children they are foolish enough to father.
>:
>: Lefty
>:>
>:
>Yes Lefty, women can fuck and run, and do so with every abortion.
>arguement, it's fine, just as long as men can't do it. This is what
------
If we applied your "standards" of "responsibility" to contract law,
what you are suggesting here would imply that two parties with
different contractual rights and duties would be unable to enter
into any contract. When folks agree to do something or not to do
something, the risks they take do NOT have to be equal or the same,
but the parties must be made aware of those patent risks within the
contract. Here, the risks are KNOWN by both parties. Men know
that women have the ability (but not the duty) to abort which
places a different risk upon them than upon the women. Where is
the ambiguity, the sense of surprise!
I do find it amusing that men who don't have the exact same risk
would like to CONTROL female reproductive choices.....Let's have a
brief scenerio. I make "widgets" and I contract to sell you 50
widgets for $100. each. While in process my widget machine breaks
down and I must pay $4000. for a new machine. That is part of my
risk of doing business. Also, you have lost your $$$$ in the
market and cannot pay for the widgets I made for you. Each of us
has different risks in this venture. Each of us are accountable
for our own risks. If I have replaced my machine, and have made
your 50 widgets you are responsible to meet your obligation; you
are NOT responsible, however, to pay 4000. (or any part of that)
to fix my machine. You see, the risk need not be identical to make
a valid contract.
In this example, we have contracted by promising a product for
money. In childbirth, the subject of the contract IS the risk
itself, i.e. if we engage in sex, there is a RISK of childbirth,
each of us with different risk-taking and risk-altering methods
(because of nature). Should a baby result we are both responsible.
Trying to take away the rights of women to abort is futile, and
lawmakers know that. The only women who CAN be CONTROLLED in that
arena are ones who cannot easily abort, i.e. in the third trimes-
ter, so patriarchal lawmakers concentrate in that area, thus the
quest for CONTROL of late-term abortions. These, after all, are
witches that CAN be controlled because the fate of their bodies and
their fetus is then in the hands of others.
Whether the resulting child is at the discretion of ma, pa, or
both, two play; two pay. Whether either party wanted the child,
res ipsa louquiter!
Lefty