c4m-get this girl pregnant? not my problem
Alan Madsen
: In <4e7o54$4...@PEAK.ORG>, pet...@PEAK.ORG (Marguerite Petersen) writes:
: >In article <4e4ead$h...@cleese.nas.com>,
: >Kingsley G. Morse Jr. <cha...@nas.com> wrote:
: >>pet...@PEAK.ORG (Marguerite Petersen) writes:
: >>
: >>>Yes, I can *quite* aware of what c4m would allow. And it's pure
: >>>unadulterated bunk. A born child has the *right* to be supported
: >>>by its parents; BOTH of them. And BOTH have the responsibility to
: >>>do so.
: >>
: >>Bzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Support from two parents isn't a foregone
: >>conclusion even under current US law, which permits single parent adoptions
: >>and sperm donations to single women. Don't get too hung up on the
: >>nefarious "responsibilty roulette" to see the reasons for legalizing
: >>choice for men.
: >
: >Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer yourself! Those who go the route of single
: >parent adoptions and single women who wish to be impregnated with
: >donated sperm have to and do show that they are financially capable
: >of supporting a child.
: >
: >Those who get their child in the *biological* roulette, have no
: >such responsiblity to *prove* financial stability. Thus, IF a
: >child is born, it is assumed that it WILL have financial support
: >from somewhere. The biological parents are looked to FIRST for
: >that financial support. Both of them.
: >
: >Marg
: What you are positing is that sex with a woman equates, necessarily, to
: giving up all right of further choice, and consequent enslavement to the
: woman's choice regarding whether to carry the child to term.
someone using words like "enslavement" is a warning that response to
the user will fall on less that reasonable ears...
: You ignor entirely the fact that
: the woman may have lied about her birth control techniques, and that this may
: be nothing more than a fraud for the woman, by which you want her to profit.
confusing issues leads to confusion... if a male does not wish to be
held responsible for the consquence of his activitys, it is incumbent
on *him* to be sure... failing that duty (to himself!) leads to con-
sequences where society *will* hold him responsible...
: This part is insupportable, and that's what c4m is all about.
: If you have any alternatives to an opt-out clause for the men, in which
: the choice of bringing the child into the world is shared, I'd sure like
: to hear it.
you have been hearing it, you don't like it... avoid paternity...
: As it is, your whole argument, whether you like it or not is "All choice
: belongs to women, and all responsibility to men."
after fertilization, yes... before fertilization, no...
c4m has acknowledged 'standing' in choice found in the privacy of
one's body... males have no standing (kingsley's attempted incorp-
oration of shawn larsen's arguements (c4m labled shawn a nut, while
attempting to keep his arguement (knowing the value of standing)))
in the matter...
: This is the same as the current welfare system. A child exists;
: paternity cannot be determined. So, consequently, others who have
: and had no choice, and no effective rights in the rearing of the
: child, must pay for its support.
welfare problems are not invoved in the basis of c4m... they are
used in attempt to find socially valuable reason for c4m... no
joy for c4m anywhere, including there...
: This is indefensible, and why welfare as it now exists is in deep political trouble.
: It has gone so far that political extremes are insisting on cutting the women off
: if she does not agree to forced sterilization.
: In short, the body politic does not agree with you, as a whole, when it
: is THEY who get all responsibility and no right of choice.
simply silly... c4m holds itself a political issue, thus claims in-
volvement in the body politic... *of course* "as a whole" (granting
c4m political status) is true... but attempts to link that with the
sentence that follows is error, even if unknown when made...
: In the larger world, what you are saying has already been considered,
: and is generally rejected.
in fact, the "larger world" has considered the issue of paternity... c4m
chooses to fight the result of that consideration... your own reason-
ing illustrates the actual state of the matter contrary to what you claim...
: Now for Don Juans, I would consider this a different matter; if actual
: promiscuity and devil-may-care-isms are demonstrated, we have a different
: case.
same case... one is less than aware of what he is doing...
: But this is not the totality, nor is it most men. And let's not hear
: about how women never entrap anyone, and never behave in a devious way.
: Both sexes have their more-than-fair share of this.
you have heard no one argue that not so here that i am aware of...
***
prof. (sociology) stephen seidman [suny albany] on consent as a norma-
tive standard that guides sexual choice...
"attributing consent to a practice would be, as i see it, a matter of
determining whether there are any compelling reasons to believe that
an agent made a decision in which there was an understanding of the
meaning of the act and the possibility of choosing alternative action."
(stephen seidman, embattled eros - sexual politics and ethics in con-
tempory america -, routledge, new york, n.y. 1992 pp196)
***
any male, engaging in intercourse, makes the choice to risk
consequences of paternity, including support... he has made
his choice where he has choice...
--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.
Alan Madsen
: Alan Madsen (ama...@news.dorsai.org) wrote:
: : Tim Irvin (irvi...@sundance.sjsu.edu) wrote:
: : : Marcie941 (marc...@aol.com) wrote:
: : : : Ok... I can see easy legal resolution if the man doesn't want
: : : : fatherhood... and the woman can decide if she wants a child with sole
: : : : financial responsibility.... Does sound fair to me...
: :
: : : Provided that this is agreed upon--in writing--before conception, I
: : : fully agree.
: :
: : the problem is, that there are reasonable folk who disagree...
: :
: : there is only one fool proof way of avoiding paternity,
: : avoid intercourse...
: Of course this attitude ignores the clamourings of the pro choice
: movement who consider it ridiculous to expect a woman who does not wish
: to be a mother to avoid intercourse. But then such hypocrisy from the
: womens movement is par for the course, really.
of course, a fool proof method of avoiding paternity can escape
some...
a female's pregnancy, and her choices in response to her physical
condition are not valid means of avoiding the consequences of one's
actions...
those who would do so are either confused about what are separate
matters or seek a devise to aid in avoiding consequencses of choice...
Hillel
Barbara O'Keeffe <boke...@gmi.edu> writes:
> Excuse me - why would a woman willing engage in sex with a
> man who proclaims for all to hear that he would consider
> any child that might be born as a result of his sexual acitvity
> the responsibility of the mother?
Because she enjoys sex.
Because she knows that no matter what he said, she can always take
him to the cleaners later. (With a lot of feminist support...)
Because some women are irresponsible.
>Very few - so that means that people aren't talking to each other.
And you make your best to ensure that the woman will lose nothing
because she did not communicate. That's the feminist way for
better communication and responsibility...
> There is an old saying that seems to hold true:
> "Men use love to get sex, woman use sex to get love"
Traditionalism, the last refuge of a feminist.
Well, I met women who use sex to get sex. Women who want a good fuck
for the fun of it. Women who enjoy sex. Women who are mature enough
to admit in what they want, who negotiate instead of manipulate.
> Seems to me that if you only wish to USE a woman for sex,
> that you have no desire for a permanant relationship
> and are only after gratification for the moment you run
> the risk of a woman deciding to USE you in return.
There is a big difference between being honest about what you want,
and negotiate it, and keeping your word, to the feminist ideal of
"you fucked her, she should have the right to take you to the cleaners."
I keep my word, you support women who don't keep their word.
> Yes some women lie - and so do some men.
And even if it is proved in the court that she lied she should
be able to take him to the cleaners. The feminist ideal -
my gender, right or wrong.
> Time to grow up.
When will feminists grow up enough to take responsibility for their action?
When will feminists grow up enough to try to achieve peace, not victory?
When will feminists grow up enough to give up even one of their extra rights?
Probably not in my life time, especially if Barbara will be around.
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"I don't want to have to convince someone that hedonism is good.
I want them to know it already." -- Sonja Kueppers
Alan Madsen
this post has been waiting 3 weeks for response in examination of the
c4m contention that c4m does not facilitate irresponsibility...
c4m advocates a period wherein a male responsible for paternity may de-
cline support (to avoid the use of the word 'responsibility') for the
child born...
(orig. posted on or near 01/04/96)...
c4m advocates, explain how freedom from the consequences of paternity
does not encourage irresponsible behavior...
Kingsley G. Morse Jr. (cha...@nas.com) wrote: 01/06/96
<snip>
: Alan asks how legalizing choice for men won't encourage irresponsibility.
: 1.) A cautious woman who is told by a man that he'll help raise a child
: can demand that he sign an affidavit accepting paternity BEFORE they
: try to conceive.
: 2.) Legalizing choice for men will discourage irresponsibility in several
: ways:
: a.) It will eliminate the subsidy of child support which has been
: know to encourage women to lie about contraception for the
: purpose of having a child against the men's wishes (See Frank S.
: v. Pamela P. at http://www.nas.com/c4m/)
: b.) Eliminating the same subsidy will reduce population growth,
: pollution and ultimately extinction of species.
amadsen 01/07/96
:this is not responsive to the question of male irresponsibility (the
:subject of this thread)...
:response 1 is new material to me... here there is a position to require
:a woman to be able to produce a written document affirming any males
:intent to impregnate before he is held responsible for paternity...? this
:is material for the main line thread, not one that examines for the irre-
:sponsible male...
:response 2a also does not examine for the irresponsible male, rather it,
:throught claim of general basis of c4m, indicates claim of females gene-
:rally predatory in nature...
:response 2b is, in its own way, amusing, but i do not believe that "re-
:duction" in state and federal support for the single parent household
:will save the species from extinction...
:***
:please restrict your response to the question wherein it is acknowledged
:that we are speaking of the consequence of c4m to male action and respon-
:sibility...
:we are talking of 2 types of males here: 1. the type that could care less
:about possible paternity but may come to be responsible when he realizes
:that the consequences of paternity is significant to him, and 2. the type
:of male who currently *is* careful, but only so as he fears the consequen-
:ce of paternity to himself...
:you need to show that lessening of consequence to the male in paternity
:through c4m at *least* maintains the current level of care in type 2 above
:and still offers the same incentive to type 1 males above to begin to be
:responsible...
Alan Madsen
: >In <4e6sf3$e...@cleese.nas.com> cha...@nas.com (Kingsley G. Morse Jr.)
: >writes:
: >>
: >>irvi...@sundance.sjsu.edu (Tim Irvin) writes:
: >>
: >>>Marcie941 (marc...@aol.com) wrote:
: >>>: Ok... I can see easy legal resolution if the man doesn't want
: >>>: fatherhood... and the woman can decide if she wants a child with
: >sole>: financial responsibility.... Does sound fair to me...
: >>
: >>>Provided that this is agreed upon--in writing--before conception, I
: >>>fully agree. (Question for legal-types: If she changes her mind
: >>>after conception and wants support, would this contract still be
: >>>legally binding or will he take a big hit in the wallet despite
: >>>entering a good-faith agreement?)
: >>
: >>The law currently forces men into fatherhood, contract or not.
: >>------------------------------------------------------
: >It is not the law that forces men to take responsibility for
: >fatherhood, it is nature coupled with the need of society to feed,
: >clothe and shelter its children.
: I don't think so. My understanding is that no contemporary court would look
: to the woman's income level before deciding if the contract should be
: rescinded. Even when the mother can feed, clothe and shelter the child,
: today's courts will overturn the contract. It's not about providing for
: the kid, it's about forcing men into parenthood.
society holds a known paternal male responsible for child support...
it also holds a females right to privacy in the matter of her sex-
ual relations...
related, but different matters... society has no problem maintaining
the distinction, c4m, and its claims not with standing...
what kingsley calls "forcing men into parenthood" is society holding
men responsible for their actions... he dosen't like it... sorry, it
more than likely will stay that way...
Alan Madsen
Kingsley G. Morse Jr. (cha...@nas.com) wrote:
: pet...@PEAK.ORG (Marguerite Petersen) writes:
: >In article <4e4ead$h...@cleese.nas.com>,
: >Kingsley G. Morse Jr. <cha...@nas.com> wrote:
: >>pet...@PEAK.ORG (Marguerite Petersen) writes:
: >>
: >>>Yes, I can *quite* aware of what c4m would allow. And it's pure
: >>>unadulterated bunk. A born child has the *right* to be supported
: >>>by its parents; BOTH of them. And BOTH have the responsibility to
: >>>do so.
: >>
: >>Bzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Support from two parents isn't a foregone
: >>conclusion even under current US law, which permits single parent adoptions
: >>and sperm donations to single women. Don't get too hung up on the
: >>nefarious "responsibilty roulette" to see the reasons for legalizing
: >>choice for men.
: >Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer yourself! Those who go the route of single
: >parent adoptions and single women who wish to be impregnated with
: >donated sperm have to and do show that they are financially capable
: >of supporting a child.
: Now look at Marg's post immediately above this, and then her third
: paragraph above this. Immediately above she says that children CAN have a
: single parent if that parent is financially capable, but three paragraphs
: above, she says "BOTH" parents are necessary. So what's it going to be?
: Is it OK to have one financially capable parent, or are two allways
: necessary?
kingsley would like society to bend it's knee for him... i don't
think it will happen...
there is no problem with it being both... one supportive where able is
sufficent where only one parent is known, both supportive, regardless
of ability, where both are known... real reasonable to me...
kingsley, when are you going to talk about c4m and the irresponsible
male...?
how can you speak as responsible promoter if you don't...?
Alan Madsen
: : : *right* to life.
: : <snip>
: :
: : society disagrees with your assesment...
: Society once disagreed with the statement "women should be
: allowed to vote" This did not make it right.
to make that statement requires that one use modern values to judge
a prior time, this is akin to taking a quote out of context...
even so, it is interesting... this thread is not, however, the place
to examine the foundation and dynamics of social standards...
what society says about c4m will be apparent should it be more than
generally ignored... should it be heard, fundamental criteria held
useful by societys for ages will be used to deal with c4m and i be-
lieve we will respond with conclusive rejection...
Alan Madsen
: >there is only one fool proof way of avoiding paternity,
: >avoid intercourse...
: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid parenthood
: by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from a case where
: a babysitter statutorially raped the boy she was babysitting for, and he
: was forced into legal parenthood by a court.
"many people" are not you, myself, or any of those who are regulars
in this discussion...
you have been answered on this before...
when someone new looks at it, it will be again...
Gaby
>When will feminists grow up enough to take responsibility for their action?
>When will feminists grow up enough to try to achieve peace, not victory?
>When will feminists grow up enough to give up even one of their extra rights?
>
>Probably not in my life time, especially if Barbara will be around.
>
>Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
>
When will men grow up enough to take responsibilty for their actions?
When will men grow up enough to achieve peace, instead of making war?
When will men grow up enough to give up even one of their extra rights?
Hopefully in my lifetime, Hillel, but certainly not with men like you
around who like to blame everyhting on feminists, when any smart feminist
knows everything is not to blame on men (but a lot of things, very
profound things are).
Gt
Hillel
##When will feminists grow up enough to try to achieve peace, not victory?
##When will feminists grow up enough to give up even one of their extra rights?
In article <4eogt8$q...@news1.ucsd.edu> Gaby <gt...@ucsd.edu> writes:
>When will men grow up enough to take responsibilty for their actions?
>When will men grow up enough to achieve peace, instead of making war?
(I wish I had a time machine to send Gaby to live in Israel under Golda
and get a *clue*.)
>When will men grow up enough to give up even one of their extra rights?
Men gave up extra rights.
E.g. the voting rights for women Amendment passed by a men-only vote.
Can you point out even one example where the majority of women were
willing to give up an extra right?
Can you really believe that the majority of women will support
choice-for-men, equality in custody or the end of affirmative action?
If you believe in that, what *facts* make you believe in it?
Alan Madsen
: In article <4ehr3f$3...@Pleasanton01.Pop.Internex.NET>,
: <clo...@wartech.com> wrote:
: >
: >This whole debate is out of hand, and so is the current state of medical technology.
: No, I would say that YOU are, out of hand. (and out of control)
: [major lunatic ranting deleted]
: >And give me no bullshit about this, women. I grew up in a ghetto, and had only
: >too many male friends who came from such environments, as I do myself.
: >
: >All of us killed at least once.
: >
: >Are women really braindead? Hey, my mother was, and I barely survived it.
: >
: >All of this leads to an argument of less choice for women, not more.
: >
: >Women are the surrogate murderers who caused the age of the average murderer
: >to get down to 15 years and falling. They had their way; and we have already seen
: >what they did with "choice."
: Obviously, your mother didn't make the right choice.
: >The case that women are incompetent in the world, and need to be attached to
: >and subject to men has become compelling.
: What a joke!
: Marg
say "what a joke" for the relief of it but there is no joke here...
he says he's a killer, he hates women, the cause of his and other men's
misery, and its ok, because he survived a getto...
he is mistaken...
Alan Madsen
: > any male, engaging in intercourse, makes the choice to risk
: > consequences of paternity, including support... he has made
: > his choice where he has choice...
: Get rid of this trash - the naturallistic fallacy, confusing _is_ with
: _ought_.
why do youse guys keep starting you statements with sentences that
advise what to do with the rest of the statement (even if advise is
sound)...?
: > that another has further choice due to their body being in-
: > volved should in no way be used as a device by the paternal
: > male to avoid the consequences of his choice...
: And misses the point of rights implying responsibility...
like enjoying intercourse can lead to responsibility of child support...?
: > prof. (sociology) stephen seidman [suny albany] on consent as a norma-
: > tive standard that guides sexual choice...
: LEGALIZE CHOICE FOR MEN!
support irresponsibility..!
it's a man's choice
to avoid the consequences of his choice...!
Alan Madsen
: Alan Madsen wrote:
: > a female's pregnancy, and her choices in response to her physical
: > condition are not valid means of avoiding the consequences of one's
: > actions...
: It is impossible to become pregnant without knowledge that you COULD
: become pregnant as a result of your actions. Or, are you saying
: that women (females) are not capable of being as responsible as men?
catch up... options available to a female in response to her *physical*
condition are not available to a male for obivious reasons...
Alan Madsen
: Marguerite Petersen wrote:
: > Then it would certainly be in their best interest to make absolutely
: > certain that THEY (those I refer to in the above) are NEVER, EVER
: > involved in the creation of another human being. See, you're still
: > a biological *father* whether you keep the child or give it away.
rick
: typical response from a "pro-choice, pro-rights" woman, choice/rights
: is/are a oneway street. maybe rights in general only belong to women.
typical confused assertion followed with indication of anger that can
lead to blindness... so it goes...
rick
: ok, I will take that to mean that you also will support the truth that
: it would certainly be in best interest to make absolutely certain that
: ANY WOMAN, who brings a baby into this world, who thereafter can't or
: will not support the child, THEY NEVER, EVER be involved in the creation
: of another human being. See, you are biological *mother* whether you
: keep the child or give it away.
<snip>
: Remember, these are your words translated to impact your sex.
not even side issue in c4m (but presumably marg would agree)...
John Lee
Thanks.
John
Marguerite Petersen
Hillel <ga...@lear.cs.duke.edu> wrote:
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960201...@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu>
>John Lee <ol...@shiva.Hunter.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>>Could someone explain "c4m"? I missed the original post detailing it.
>
>
>We would like to change the law so a man will have a legal right
>to give up all rights and responsibility toward a future child.
>
>This choice should be in the early stages of pregnancy, (e.g. for
>one week after he was notified about the pregnancy), so the woman
>will be have the option of *low* risk abortion, or RU-486.
I notice that you didn't include the *choice* to have the child
totally on her own. Interesting eh? Don't think that many women
*would* choose that option? Don't bet on it!
Marg
--
"At ease, Ensign, before you sprain something." - Captain Janeway in Caretaker
Member PSEB Official Sonneteer JLP SoL Poet/Author
Email: pet...@peak.org http://www.orst.edu/~peterseb/marg.html
Hillel
Alan Madsen
: In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960201...@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu>
you've heard an advocate describe c4m, now an adversarial voice...
"... give up all rights and responsibilitys ..."...
a responsible person does not turn away from responsibilitys...
c4m is an arguement made by those who confuse, or attempt to
confuse in an effort to avoid responsibility and consequence
of choice...
it claims inequality as a pregnant female may choose to bear
to term without consulting the paternal male, or she may cho-
ose to end her pregnancy...
c4m claims injustice as the male has "no choice", hence the
"choice" in c4m...
counter arguements include the male and female have different
physiological circumstance mandating different choice at dif-
ferent times. one chooses when choice is had and that is when
one's body is invoved... males at intercourse, females during
a term that can last up to 6 months...
the male, through his voluntary involvement *gave* that choice
to the female... c4m seeks to protect the male from risk of
paternity...
it is held by opponents to both be irresponsible and foster ir-
responsibility...
in brief:
scenario 1: gee, i might get this girl pregnant...
scenario 2: get her pregnant? not my problem...
male choice was made when his body was last involved...
to hold choice not made then is to hold for irresponsibility..
***
fact of the matter is the male *did* opt for exposure
to possible paternity when last his body was involved,
there was his choice...
that another has further choice due to their body be-
ing involved should in no way be used as a device for
avoiding the consequences of his choice...
he had his choice; if he is a responsible person, he
will live with it...
***
prof. (sociology) stephen seidman [suny albany] on consent as a norma-
tive standard that guides sexual choice...
"attributing consent to a practice would be, as i see it, a matter of
determining whether there are any compelling reasons to believe that
an agent made a decision in which there was an understanding of the
meaning of the act and the possibility of choosing alternative action."
(stephen seidman, embattled eros - sexual politics and ethics in con-
tempory america -, routledge, new york, n.y. 1992 pp196)
***
any male, engaging in intercourse, makes the choice to risk
consequences of paternity, including support... he has made
his choice where he has choice...
--
Hillel
(Alan Madsen) writes:
>you've heard an advocate describe c4m, now an adversarial voice...
> "... give up all rights and responsibilitys ..."...
> a responsible person does not turn away from responsibilitys...
Which is the argument that the "pro-life" movement uses against abortion.
Somehow feminists, just like "pro-life" supporters, believe that
enforcing their "moral" values on society is the way to create a
better society. And yes, both groups know that their "moral" values
can't win a debate in the "village square," so the police has
to enforce them...
So, my dear hypocrite, when are you going to use the above argument
against artificial insemination and adoption?
Can't you at least try to be a little consistent?
Is it such a hard thing for a liberal to do?
Scott Gilbert
:
: I notice that you didn't include the *choice* to have the child
: totally on her own. Interesting eh? Don't think that many women
: *would* choose that option? Don't bet on it!
:
: Marg
With the exception of child support, this is what women already
do. Men are cavalierly denied any Paternal rights while being told to
"quit whining and pay up" too right I wont bet on it!
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
sha...@sydney.dialix.oz.au |"The emporer is -not- as forgiving as -I-"
Scott Gilbert |Lord Vader
______________________________________________________________________________
Hillel
##
##We would like to change the law so a man will have a legal right
##to give up all rights and responsibility toward a future child.
##
##This choice should be in the early stages of pregnancy, (e.g. for
##one week after he was notified about the pregnancy), so the woman
##will be have the option of *low* risk abortion, or RU-486.
In article <4ers9r$e...@PEAK.ORG> pet...@PEAK.ORG (Marguerite Petersen) writes:
>I notice that you didn't include the *choice* to have the child
>totally on her own. Interesting eh? Don't think that many women
>*would* choose that option? Don't bet on it!
Try to check the word "option" in a dictionary.
Anyway, I don't really care what you will choose, as long as
I'll not have to pay for it.
Alan Madsen
kingsley g. morse jr. in examination of the c4m contention that
c4m does not facilitate male irresponsibility...
c4m advocates a period wherein a male responsible for paternity
may decline support (to avoid the use of the word 'responsibility')
for the child born...
:***
***
prof. (sociology) stephen seidman [suny albany] on consent as a norma-
tive standard that guides sexual choice...
"attributing consent to a practice would be, as i see it, a matter of
determining whether there are any compelling reasons to believe that
an agent made a decision in which there was an understanding of the
meaning of the act and the possibility of choosing alternative action."
(stephen seidman, embattled eros - sexual politics and ethics in con-
tempory america -, routledge, new york, n.y. 1992 pp196)
***
any male, engaging in intercourse, makes the choice to risk
consequences of paternity, including support... he has made
his choice where he has choice...
--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.
--
note follow-up line
Marguerite Petersen
Scott Gilbert <sha...@sydney.DIALix.oz.au> wrote:
>Marguerite Petersen (pet...@PEAK.ORG) wrote:
>:
>: I notice that you didn't include the *choice* to have the child
>: totally on her own. Interesting eh? Don't think that many women
>: *would* choose that option? Don't bet on it!
>: Marg
>
> With the exception of child support, this is what women already
>do. Men are cavalierly denied any Paternal rights while being told to
>"quit whining and pay up" too right I wont bet on it!
Well, as far as I'm concerned, in an individual isn't interested in
shouldering part of the responsibility that goes along with being
a parent, then they don't get to *play* at being a parent. Sorry.
>Scott Gilbert |Lord Vader
Marguerite Petersen
Hillel <ga...@lear.cs.duke.edu> wrote:
>##c4m means Choice for Men.
>##
>##We would like to change the law so a man will have a legal right
>##to give up all rights and responsibility toward a future child.
>##
>##This choice should be in the early stages of pregnancy, (e.g. for
>##one week after he was notified about the pregnancy), so the woman
>##will be have the option of *low* risk abortion, or RU-486.
>
>In article <4ers9r$e...@PEAK.ORG> pet...@PEAK.ORG (Marguerite Petersen) writes:
>>totally on her own. Interesting eh? Don't think that many women
>>*would* choose that option? Don't bet on it!
>
I have and I'd be interested in knowing why you feel it disagrees
with anything I have written.
>Anyway, I don't really care what you will choose, as long as
>I'll not have to pay for it.
But of course. I understand that perfectly. And others feel the
same way. That is why they prefer that the biological parents
pay for the child. IF you ARE one, then you will pay. Simple
really.
Golgotha
>>I'll not have to pay for it.
>But of course. I understand that perfectly. And others feel the
>same way. That is why they prefer that the biological parents
>pay for the child. IF you ARE one, then you will pay. Simple
>really.
>Marg
Hmmm...
Let's review this quickly: Both biological parents by law have to pay
for their child? Uhuh - the male parent has to pay.
Nonetheless, since the baby gestates within the females body, she has
full rights of choice concerning that baby - she can choose to
terminate it, whereas the males choice concerning this is irrelevant.
However, assuming that the child is born outside of wedlock, the
female can choose to raise the baby by herself, even then she may
demand support from the father, even thou he can be completely denied
access to the child!
So upon reflection, it is seen that the statement that BOTH biological
parents are responsible for the child is false...
Rather the female has complete power of CHOICE and no RESPONSIBILITY
for her actions and the male no power of CHOICE and full
RESPONSIBILITY.
Sounds completely fair and just to me!
-<< Golgotha
'I just hope you didn't think it sucked' (Garth)
Alan Madsen
CARL A. FRIEDMAN (CFRI...@cris.dcu.edu) wrote:
: On 3 Feb 1996, Marguerite Petersen wrote:
: >
: > Ahhh, Carlie, yes I am VERY careful what I write here. And we have
: > had this disagreement before. I contend that gestating a fetus and
: > giving birth to it is NOT the same as providing money for its
: > support. I know that you disagree and I do not wish to debate you
: > on this.
: >
: The issue Maggie dear is not that gestating a fetus and paying CS are the
: same - they are very different. The issue is whether anyone should be
: FORCED to do either. If you expect others to support your right not to
: involuntarily gestate, then you must recognize and support their right
: not to be forced to bear the consequences of YOUR decision. Your body,
: your choice, your responsibility.
this is an attempt to hold the deliberative female uniquely
causitive...
previous arguement has found female deliberation not causitive
but simply responsive to conception, where the male is causitive...
****
LEGALIZE CHOICE FOR MEN!
support irresponsibility..!
it's a man's choice
to avoid the consequences of his choice...!
--
Marguerite Petersen
>>>Anyway, I don't really care what you will choose, as long as
>>>I'll not have to pay for it.
>
>>But of course. I understand that perfectly. And others feel the
>>same way. That is why they prefer that the biological parents
>>pay for the child. IF you ARE one, then you will pay. Simple
>>really.
>
>>Marg
>
>Hmmm...
>
>Let's review this quickly: Both biological parents by law have to pay
>for their child? Uhuh - the male parent has to pay.
No, BOTH parents have to PAY. That is, unless you consider *only*
the male parent's contribution of money as being the *only*
contribution to the support of the child. Most mothers ALSO
contribute money *and* work.
>Nonetheless, since the baby gestates within the females body, she has
>full rights of choice concerning that baby - she can choose to
>terminate it, whereas the males choice concerning this is irrelevant.
That is correct. It is in HER body, not HIS. IF it was in HIS
body, HE would have exactly the same right to make that choice.
>However, assuming that the child is born outside of wedlock, the
>female can choose to raise the baby by herself, even then she may
>demand support from the father, even thou he can be completely denied
>access to the child!
Whether or not the mother *demands* support is irrelevant (to me).
It is the child's right to have support from both its parents.
As to being denied access, I feel that any parent who IS being
a responsible parent deserves *some* access to the child.
The individual circumstances will vary as determined by the
Family Court.
>So upon reflection, it is seen that the statement that BOTH biological
>parents are responsible for the child is false...
Nope. Only in YOUR mind.
>Rather the female has complete power of CHOICE and no RESPONSIBILITY
>for her actions and the male no power of CHOICE and full
>RESPONSIBILITY.
Complete CHOICE over what will happen within HER OWN body.
Responsibilities *after* a child is born. Choice for the male
happens when *last* his body was involved. And responsibility
*after* a child is born. The same responsibilities.
>Sounds completely fair and just to me!
It may not be fair; biology is not fair. It IS just, however.
Gerry Harbison
>Can't you at least try to be a little consistent?
>Is it such a hard thing for a liberal to do?
It's impossible. There are too many latent contradictions in what we
currently call liberalism.
So it's not their fault. They're victims of indoctrination in an
untenable philosophical system! Don't you go blaming them, now!
Gerry Harbison mailto:ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu
http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/harbison_group/harbison.html
The foundation of morality is to have done, once and for all, with
lying.
(T.H. Huxley, Science and Morals)
Chris Mancinelli
tells the guy, and he does not want to be a father, she should either get
an abortion, or have the child without the guy being forced to support
it.
CARL A. FRIEDMAN
>
> this is an attempt to hold the deliberative female uniquely
> causitive...
>
> previous arguement has found female deliberation not causitive
> but simply responsive to conception, where the male is causitive...
>
Alan, perhaps one day you will be introduced to reason and logic. Until
then, kindly spare us from your psuedo intellectual drivel. You truly do
sound like an asshole.
Gregg Rosenberg
And, he doesn't know how to spell "causative."
--Gregg
karen knispel
victory"? please. i'll take equality over peace any day.
Scott Gilbert
: No, BOTH parents have to PAY. That is, unless you consider *only*
: the male parent's contribution of money as being the *only*
: contribution to the support of the child. Most mothers ALSO
: contribute money *and* work.
Since the father usually has -no- -option- to do the work,
including it when comparing input from the two parents is hardly reasonable.
Scott Gilbert
In the various C4M threads in this newsgroup it is becoming
increasingly clear that those who stand in oppostition see the C4M
advocates as little more than potential or actual deadbeat dads.
Frankly, although I find the C4M arguments more convincing than
the opposing arguments, I consider the opposing arguments to be strong
and convinsing also (albeit less so than supporting arguments.) The
characterisation of ones opponents as being irresponsible and/or idiotic
simply on the basis of the fact that they hold a different view from
oneself does nothing to improve ones arguments, quite the opposite.
For the record, If C4M was an option, I would not take it (I WANT
to be a father... were I asked to list my ambitions, fatherhood would top
the list.) My motivation for engaging in this debate is because
(1) I have a concern that men are denied justice in the modern world
and
(2) I am not entirely convinced that C4M -is- just and by debating the
subject I hone my ideas on the subject.
So let me make a request of ALL parties to the debate (not that I
particularly expect to be heeded in this). My request is this....
Could we all drop the name calling (yes, I have been guilty of
this once or twice, my apologies) and confine ourselves to the issue at
hand.
Alan Madsen
: >this post has been waiting 3 weeks for response in examination of the
: >c4m contention that c4m does not facilitate irresponsibility...
: I origanlly posted this reply a week ago, but I suppose you missed it...
: Here it is again.
: May I suggest that you elaborate on exactly what you mean by "choice" and
: "irresponsibility"? Being specific may help me understand what you mean
: and give you a reply that helps you. Being specific might also spare
: you from asking the same questions for another month.
: PS: And I mean you should be really, really specific.
oh, goodie...
Kingsley G. Morse Jr. (cha...@nas.com) wrote: 01/06/96
<snip>
: Alan asks how legalizing choice for men won't encourage irresponsibility.
: 1.) A cautious woman who is told by a man that he'll help raise a child
: can demand that he sign an affidavit accepting paternity BEFORE they
: try to conceive.
: 2.) Legalizing choice for men will discourage irresponsibility in several
: ways:
: a.) It will eliminate the subsidy of child support which has been
: know to encourage women to lie about contraception for the
: purpose of having a child against the men's wishes (See Frank S.
: v. Pamela P. at http://www.nas.com/c4m/)
: b.) Eliminating the same subsidy will reduce population growth,
: pollution and ultimately extinction of species.
amadsen 01/07/96
:this is not responsive to the question of male irresponsi-
:bility (the subject of this thread)...
:response 1 is new material to me... here there is a pos-
:ition to require a woman to be able to produce a written
:document affirming any males intent to impregnate before
:he is held responsible for paternity...? this is material
:for the main line thread, not one that examines for the
:irresponsible male...
:response 2a also does not examine for the irresponsible
:male, rather it, throught claim of general basis of c4m,
:indicates claim of females generally predatory in nature...
:response 2b is, in its own way, amusing, but i do not be-
:lieve that "reduction" in state and federal support for
:the single parent household will save the species from ex-
:tinction...
:***
:please restrict your response to the question wherein
:it is acknowledged that we are speaking of the conse-
:quence of c4m to male action and responsibility...
:we are talking of 2 types of males here: 1. the type
:that could care less about possible paternity but may
:come to be responsible when he realizes that the con-
:sequences of paternity is significant to him, and 2.
:the type of male who currently *is* careful, but only
:so as he fears the consequence of paternity to himself...
:you need to show that lessening of consequence to the
:male in paternity through c4m at *least* maintains the
:current level of care in type 2 above and still offers
:the same incentive to type 1 males above to begin to be
:responsible...
additionally,
as the paternal male is responsible for paternity, how
can *any* responsible person walk away from that respon-
sibility having freely made the choice that led to it
knowing that paternity may result...?
****
LEGALIZE CHOICE FOR MEN!
support irresponsibility..!
it's a man's choice
to avoid the consequences of his choice...!
--
Alan Madsen
: Marguerite Petersen wrote: (when asked her position if and when the
: rights to an unborn's life (fetus) become greater BY LAW than that of
: the woman's [mother's AKA getstating person's] right to TERMINATE it.)
: >
: > I have already made that decision. Yes, MY (or any woman's) right
: > to privacy supercedes that of any fetus' right to life, primarily
: > because it is IN my (their) bodies *and* I (they) are already
: > existing human beings. The fetus is not.
: >
: > Marg
: >
: Very Good, then you must understand and now fully RESPECT that
: whether or not it's not CURRENTLY legal for CM4 abortion rights, we as
: a group of men, (as you may represent a group of women) believe that:
: We have the right to TERMINATE our rights/responsibilites for an unborn
: (fetus without rights to anything yet. NO child (from Marguerite own
: words) which then later on becomes a "CHILD" as of the result of the
: woman's sole choice. We have the right to the same rights of:
: autonomy 1. Having self government. 2.Existing or functioning
: independently.)
: privacy 1. seclution. 2. secrecy of one's *private life.
: private 1. NOT open to or CONTROLLED by the public
: VERY generic idea.
there is one small difference... the privacy being discussed is
*physical* in nature (you know, your body)...
Alan Madsen
: If a woman lies about using birth control, and then gets pregnant, and
: an abortion, or have the child without the guy being forced to support
: it.
got a better idea... lets hold the male responsible for what he does...!
Carol Ann Hemingway
A. FRIEDMAN" <CFRI...@cris.dcu.edu> writes:
>
>On 5 Feb 1996, Alan Madsen wrote:
>>
>> this is an attempt to hold the deliberative female uniquely
>> causitive...
>>
>> previous arguement has found female deliberation not causitive
>> but simply responsive to conception, where the male is causitive...
>>
>
>Alan, perhaps one day you will be introduced to reason and logic.
Until >then, kindly spare us from your psuedo intellectual drivel. You
truly do >sound like an asshole.
>
Mr Madsen's arguments are the very essence of reason and logic. I
admire his ability to reduce my own verbiage, and that of others, into
a few short sentences. If you are going to accuse this man of not
being reasonable or logical, perhaps you should argue the points he
raises instead of reducing your own "argument" (I use the term loosely)
to one of name-calling and/or gross generalization.
Lefty
>
>
Doug Bailey
>
> Chris Mancinelli (man...@mail.capital.net) wrote:
> : If a woman lies about using birth control, and then gets pregnant, and
> : tells the guy, and he does not want to be a father, she should either get
> : an abortion, or have the child without the guy being forced to support
> : it.
>
> got a better idea... lets hold the male responsible for what he does...!
Great idea! Men are 50% responsible for the creation of an embryo, so
they should pay 50% of the cost of an abortion, if the mother chooses
to take that route with her body.
A man is ZERO% responsible for the birth of a child (Roe v. Wade made
it the woman's decision whether or not to give birth--no one can force
her either way)--so he should be ZERO% responsible for providing for
the child (unless he signed a marriage license or some other agreement
obligating him).
> it's a man's choice
> to avoid the consequences of his choice...!
You're implying that a man chooses to force a woman to give birth to
his offspring. This attitude is DEFINITELY un-feminist, promotes the
PATRIARCHY, and is counter to everything Roe v. Wade stands for. Get
thee hence, you woman-basher. This is the '90s, and women should not
be victims of male control and abuse. Women have equal rights, they
can make their own decisions.
HER BODY, HER CHOICE, HER RESPONSIBILITY
Doug
dsba...@ingr.com
Doug Bailey
> Mr Madsen's arguments are the very essence of reason and logic. I
Perhaps, perhaps not. He keeps assuming that the foundation of his
position is accurate and accepted by both sides, that men consent to
parenthood when they have sex. This is specifically what "C4M" is
arguing *against*. Until this central issue is resolved, nothing
else can be settled.
Doug
dsba...@ingr.com
Alan Madsen
: Alan Madsen wrote:
: >
: > Chris Mancinelli (man...@mail.capital.net) wrote:
: > : If a woman lies about using birth control, and then gets pregnant, and
: > : tells the guy, and he does not want to be a father, she should either get
: > : an abortion, or have the child without the guy being forced to support
: > : it.
: >
: > got a better idea... lets hold the male responsible for what he does...!
: Great idea! Men are 50% responsible for the creation of an embryo, so
: they should pay 50% of the cost of an abortion, if the mother chooses
: to take that route with her body.
<snip>
nope... 100% of 50% of the responsibility for having risked the con-
sequences and having *given* the female the choice in response to her
pregnancy...
****
LEGALIZE CHOICE FOR MEN!
support irresponsibility..!
it's a man's choice
to avoid the consequences of his choice...!
Alan Madsen
: Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
consent is a c4m central issue, the other is choice denied...
for myself, existing choice made and c4m's irresponsible nature have
been (as noted in my very early posts: scenario 1: gee, i might get
this girl pregnant, and scenario 2: get her pregnant? not my problem)...
doug's statement that i hold "...that men consent to parenthood when
they have sex." has caused me to examine my archives for any mention
of such a position...
what i've found is that nowhere did i say that specifically... what i
have maintained is found in the definition of the word imply...
imply \...\ vt [me emplien, fr. mf emplier, fr. l implicare] 1 obs:
enfold, entwine 2: to involve or indicate by inference, assocation,
or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement 3: to con-
tain potentially 4: to express indirectly syn see include, suggest
(webster's 7th n.c.d, merriam-webster springfield ma. 1971)...
"to [...] indicate by [...] necessary consequence rather than by di-
rect statement"...
***
this examination has lead to me see that those who do not think, or
those who think that they may be able to get away with, do not, in
fact, behave in a way that implys consent (the responsible, in my view
(and s.seidman's view), do, but that is another matter)...
***
so doug, while i have never said "men consent to parenthood when they
have sex", i will no longer maintain that they imply consent (in view
of the less than responsible nature of some men involved (holding that
almost all males are capable of reason)...
choice in fact existing (and made) and irresponsiblity remain as cen-
tral flaws (as has been maintained to date)...
Alan Madsen
: Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
: > Mr Madsen's arguments are the very essence of reason and logic. I
: Perhaps, perhaps not. He keeps assuming that the foundation of his
: position is accurate and accepted by both sides, that men consent to
: parenthood when they have sex. This is specifically what "C4M" is
: arguing *against*. Until this central issue is resolved, nothing
: else can be settled.
doug may hold that his central issue vis a vis myself, but c4m argues
male inequality in choice...
for myself, existing choice made and c4m's irresponsible nature have
been constantly argued (as noted in my very early posts: scenario 1:
gee, i might get this girl pregnant, and scenario 2: get her pregnant?
not my problem)...
doug's statement that i hold "...that men consent to parenthood when
they have sex." has caused me to examine my archives for any mention
of such a position...
what i've found is that nowhere did i say that specifically... what i
have maintained is found in the definition of the word imply...
imply \...\ vt [me emplien, fr. mf emplier, fr. l implicare] 1 obs:
enfold, entwine 2: to involve or indicate by inference, assocation,
or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement 3: to con-
tain potentially 4: to express indirectly syn see include, suggest
(webster's 7th n.c.d, merriam-webster springfield ma. 1971)...
"to [...] indicate by [...] necessary consequence rather than by di-
rect statement"...
***
this examination has lead to me see that those who think that they
may be able to get away with do not, in fact, behave in a way that
implys consent (the responsible, in my view (and s.seidman's view),
do, but that is another matter)...
***
so doug, while have never said "men consent to parenthood when they
have sex", i have held that they imply consent to consequence of pa-
ternity which specifically includes support, which is only applicable
to the sexually responsible male...
you may see this as progress, and indeed it may be, but there are
basic differences yet to be resolved...
i do appologize for whatever energy this missunderstanding has cost
c4m supporters but point out that its foundation was the assumption
of a generally aware, responsible male... alas, neither are sure in
those who would use c4m...
it is not important... denying choice made where choice exists and
holding c4m responsible remain c4m flaws...
Marguerite Petersen
Scott Gilbert <sha...@sydney.DIALix.oz.au> wrote:
>
> In the various C4M threads in this newsgroup it is becoming
>increasingly clear that those who stand in oppostition see the C4M
>advocates as little more than potential or actual deadbeat dads.
I calls them as I sees them. Whatever *name* you wish to attribute
to those who advocate c4m, the fact of the matter is that the issue
IS responsibility; responsibility of a parent to a child. Therefore,
IMO, it is impossible to call those who would support c4m as anything
*other* than irresponsible. (Note: *I* haven't personally called
anyone a potential or actual deadbeat dad.)
> Frankly, although I find the C4M arguments more convincing than
>the opposing arguments, I consider the opposing arguments to be strong
>and convinsing also (albeit less so than supporting arguments.) The
>characterisation of ones opponents as being irresponsible and/or idiotic
>simply on the basis of the fact that they hold a different view from
>oneself does nothing to improve ones arguments, quite the opposite.
>
> For the record, If C4M was an option, I would not take it (I WANT
>to be a father... were I asked to list my ambitions, fatherhood would top
>the list.) My motivation for engaging in this debate is because
>
>(1) I have a concern that men are denied justice in the modern world
>
> and
>
>(2) I am not entirely convinced that C4M -is- just and by debating the
> subject I hone my ideas on the subject.
>
> So let me make a request of ALL parties to the debate (not that I
>particularly expect to be heeded in this). My request is this....
>
> Could we all drop the name calling (yes, I have been guilty of
>this once or twice, my apologies) and confine ourselves to the issue at
>hand.
The issue at hand IS the responsibility of a parent to its biological
child. The ignoring of this responsibility IS irresponsible behavior.
Period. I can't help it if those who FIT feel insulted by this.
>Scott Gilbert |Lord Vader
Marg
--
Member PSEB Official Sonneteer JLP SoL Poet/Author
Email: pet...@peak.org http://www.orst.edu/~peterseb/marg.html
Abortion: If you disagree with it, don't have one.
Barbara O'Keeffe
> Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> > Mr Madsen's arguments are the very essence of reason and logic. I
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. He keeps assuming that the foundation of his
> position is accurate and accepted by both sides, that men consent to
> parenthood when they have sex. This is specifically what "C4M" is
> arguing *against*. Until this central issue is resolved, nothing
> else can be settled.
>
> Doug
> dsba...@ingr.com
What you have been missing is that everyone is responsible
for their actions. You choose to have sex and do so without
thought to the consequence? Clearly if one does not know the
person well, how can you be sure that you won't get some
disease? Do you take precautions? Same holds true for
pregnancy - it can result and if a LIVE BIRTH results then
you are responsible for that person that carries one-half of
their genetic material with your name written all over it.
Whether or not an abortion may occur (or a spontaneous miscarriage)
is irrelavant to the discussion as the problem is the support
of BORN children. I raised mine, I expect you to raise yours
not depend upon the taxpayers to pick up after you.
Is it really so hard for someone who wishes to avoid fatherhood
to take the necessary precautions - the primary one being
KNOWING the person you are hoping into bed with?
Barb
Marguerite Petersen
Scott Gilbert <sha...@sydney.DIALix.oz.au> wrote:
>Marguerite Petersen (pet...@PEAK.ORG) wrote:
>: No, BOTH parents have to PAY. That is, unless you consider *only*
>: the male parent's contribution of money as being the *only*
>: contribution to the support of the child. Most mothers ALSO
>: contribute money *and* work.
>
> Since the father usually has -no- -option- to do the work,
>including it when comparing input from the two parents is hardly reasonable.
>--
No option? Surely you jest! Sounds more like, "Wah, wah, mommy! She
won't LET ME take care of the baby; she won't LET ME change its diapers;
she won't LET ME read to it and bathe it etc." Sure......
Gregg Rosenberg
|> >
|> >Alan, perhaps one day you will be introduced to reason and logic.
|> Until >then, kindly spare us from your psuedo intellectual drivel. You
|> truly do >sound like an asshole.
|> >
|> -------------------------
|> a few short sentences. If you are going to accuse this man of not
|> being reasonable or logical, perhaps you should argue the points he
|> raises instead of reducing your own "argument" (I use the term loosely)
|> to one of name-calling and/or gross generalization.
Lefty, you seem to have missed the point. You, apparently, are one of
the few people who can actually make sense of what Madsen is writing.
People would be happy to debate Madsen's points if we only had some
idea of what they were. For instance, he posted a long reply to one
of my messages, and, for the life of me, I could not make heads or
tails of what he was trying to say, or how it related to what I said.
Sorry.
You, I must admit, do post intelligible thoughts. It is too bad they
are almost always irrelevant to whatever is at issue. Your arguments are
virtually always analogous to a defense of segregation that goes, "Segregation
is right because it is the law."
--Gregg
Carol Ann Hemingway
Rosenberg) writes:
>
>In article <4fac5e$r...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>,
>|> >Alan, perhaps one day you will be introduced to reason and logic.
>|> Until >then, kindly spare us from your psuedo intellectual drivel.
You> truly do >sound like an asshole.
>|> >
>|> -------------------------
>|> Mr Madsen's arguments are the very essence of reason and logic. I
>|> admire his ability to reduce my own verbiage, and that of others,
into>|> a few short sentences. If you are going to accuse this man of
not>|> being reasonable or logical, perhaps you should argue the points
he>|> raises instead of reducing your own "argument" (I use the term
loosely)> to one of name-calling and/or gross generalization.
>
>Lefty, you seem to have missed the point. You, apparently, are one of
>the few people who can actually make sense of what Madsen is writing.
>People would be happy to debate Madsen's points if we only had some
>idea of what they were. For instance, he posted a long reply to one
>of my messages, and, for the life of me, I could not make heads or
>tails of what he was trying to say, or how it related to what I said.
>
>Sorry.
>
Mr. Madsen's posts are not meant to be confusing, but he tends to deal
with brief statements of logic. If we have questions about that logic,
I think we should respond by asking him questions rather than by
denigrating his argument. I have not understood many posts by many
people where I had to ask questions. That's all I'm saying.
---------------------------
>You, I must admit, do post intelligible thoughts. It is too bad they
>are almost always irrelevant to whatever is at issue. Your arguments
are>virtually always analogous to a defense of segregation that goes,
"Segregation>is right because it is the law."
>
>--Gregg
------------------------------
My posts have absolutely nothing to do with segregation, so it would
appear that you have misunderstood them as well. My posts tend to
debate points of c4m with arguments based upon legal history,
precedent, and whatever theories of law that I have in my arsenal to
debate the topic.....Mr. Madsen's tend to deal with logic...Others
address the philosophical reasoning or more practical aspects of
c4m....it's a well rounded group, and I enjoy it. One cannot change
any law without understanding the framework one has to work within; I
hope my contribution is to provide one side of that framework....there
are other legal-type folks that enjoy a counter argument and I welcome
it.
Lefty
Gregg Rosenberg
Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <4fbk62$d...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ghro...@phil.indiana.edu (Gregg
>Rosenberg) writes:
>>
>---------------------------------
>>Lefty, you seem to have missed the point. You, apparently, are one of
>>the few people who can actually make sense of what Madsen is writing.
>>People would be happy to debate Madsen's points if we only had some
>>idea of what they were. For instance, he posted a long reply to one
>>of my messages, and, for the life of me, I could not make heads or
>>tails of what he was trying to say, or how it related to what I said.
>>
>>Sorry.
>>
>-------------------------
>Mr. Madsen's posts are not meant to be confusing, but he tends to deal
>with brief statements of logic.
As a professional logician, this surprises me immensely. I am
usually *so* much better at recognizing this kind of thing.
>
>>You, I must admit, do post intelligible thoughts. It is too bad they
>>are almost always irrelevant to whatever is at issue. Your arguments
>are>virtually always analogous to a defense of segregation that goes,
>"Segregation is right because it is the law."
>
>------------------------------
>My posts have absolutely nothing to do with segregation, so it would
>appear that you have misunderstood them as well.
I have understood them, but, once again, you have missed the point. I
never claimed that your posts were about segregation. I made an analogy
between the form of your reasoning about c4m, and the following form
of reasoning someone in the '50's might have engaged in about
segregation: "Segregation is the law. All precedents support the
legality of segregation, and none of the legally relevant concepts
involved seem to undermine segregation. Therefore, segregation is
right."
That kind of argument is tangential to the more fundamental argument
about the injustice of a segregated society, and injustice which
might require breaking from precedent, and changing the understanding
of the related concepts.
>My posts tend to
>debate points of c4m with arguments based upon legal history,
>precedent, and whatever theories of law that I have in my arsenal to
>debate the topic
Why is any of that relevant? If c4m men is correct and women have
rights men do not, rights which can be equalized and which put
men into an unjust position relative to women, all that you call
upon will have to be broken free from. Part of what is at issue is
how to understand 'rights', for instance, so claiming that historic
precedent rules against c4m means nothing. c4m already cheerfully
admits the historic ways of understanding the 'rights' involved
in reproduction, and the 'responsibilities' doled out, are
unjust. What good do you do by exhibiting the unjustness they
complain about, justifying its morality with outmoded ways of
thinking about reproduction and birth, the very ways of thinking
that are being challenged?
You need to find a deeper ground, Lefty. You seem to be in denial
about the profoundly revolutionary character of c4m, and therefore
are incapable of addressing it head on.
--Gregg
Carol Ann Hemingway
Rosenberg) writes:
>
>In article <4fbrn2$o...@cloner4.netcom.com>,
>Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <4fbk62$d...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ghro...@phil.indiana.edu
(Gregg
>>Rosenberg) writes:
>>>
>>---------------------------------
>>>Lefty, you seem to have missed the point. You, apparently, are one
of>>the few people who can actually make sense of what Madsen is
writing.>>>People would be happy to debate Madsen's points if we only
had some>>>idea of what they were. For instance, he posted a long reply
to one>>>of my messages, and, for the life of me, I could not make
heads or>>>tails of what he was trying to say, or how it related to
what I said.
>>>
>>>Sorry.
>>>
>>-------------------------
>>Mr. Madsen's posts are not meant to be confusing, but he tends to
deal>>with brief statements of logic.
>
>As a professional logician, this surprises me immensely. I am
>usually *so* much better at recognizing this kind of thing.
>
You and Madsen have a different style....so what. As grown-ups we deal
with all kinds of people with all kinds of styles and those of us who
are able, do so with finesse.
--------------------------------
>
>>>You, I must admit, do post intelligible thoughts. It is too bad they
>>>are almost always irrelevant to whatever is at issue. Your arguments
>>are>virtually always analogous to a defense of segregation that goes,
>>"Segregation is right because it is the law."
>>
>>------------------------------
>>My posts have absolutely nothing to do with segregation, so it would
>>appear that you have misunderstood them as well.
>
>I have understood them, but, once again, you have missed the point. I
>never claimed that your posts were about segregation. I made an
analogy>between the form of your reasoning about c4m, and the following
form>of reasoning someone in the '50's might have engaged in about
>segregation: "Segregation is the law. All precedents support the
>legality of segregation, and none of the legally relevant concepts
>involved seem to undermine segregation. Therefore, segregation is
>right."
--------------------------------------------------
My main argument is that children need support from all of us who
contribute to their existence, from biological parents, to adoptive
parents, to those who enter contractual relationships for support.
I simply use the law to set the foundation for argument, i.e. one
cannot change law unless one goes thru the hoops to do so. Before new
law is ever contemplated, it must go thru the process. Not only do
c4mers not propose good law that gets them thru the legal doors, but
they can show no groundswell of support from any political or
religious, or other group holding sway in society. There is not one
political leader who has even mentioned c4m....why is that?
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>That kind of argument is tangential to the more fundamental argument
>about the injustice of a segregated society, and injustice which
>might require breaking from precedent, and changing the understanding
>of the related concepts.
--------------------------
Ok...prove it....show me any justification other than the "it's not
fair that women can choose gestation or not" argument. Show me one
societal reason for society to be willing to pay for your children.
What kind of "its not fair" mentality requires this breaking with
precedent....I have seen none....My argument is not spouting the status
quo at all....I want to EXPAND support for children. I want to find
more and better ways to make biological parents and others support the
children to whom they are obligated.
--------------------------------
>
>>My posts tend to>debate points of c4m with arguments based upon legal
history,>>precedent, and whatever theories of law that I have in my
arsenal to>>debate the topic
>
---------------------------------------------------------------
>Why is any of that relevant? If c4m men is correct and women have
>rights men do not, rights which can be equalized and which put
>men into an unjust position relative to women, all that you call
>upon will have to be broken free from.
------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't get it. I think c4m is wrong, and I will continue to argue
that it is wrong, as long as I have the time to do so. Women's bodies
are different from men's bodies (kindergarten 101) the law that covers
that part of reproductive choice is benevolent discrimination....valid
supported by our constitution, and women ....and over 70% of the
American people. What percentage of the American pop. would support
running out on paying for children?
=======================================================================
=Part of what is at issue is how to understand 'rights', for instance,
so claiming that historic>precedent rules against c4m means nothing.
c4m already cheerfully>admits the historic ways of understanding the
'rights' involved>in reproduction, and the 'responsibilities' doled
out, are>unjust. What good do you do by exhibiting the unjustness they
>complain about, justifying its morality with outmoded ways of
>thinking about reproduction and birth, the very ways of thinking
>that are being challenged?
>
---------------------------------------------
Unjust or not, the laws made (last time I looked) still had to comply
with the constitution, unless, of course, you are proposing a
constitutional convention or you want to turn our country over to the
unibomber. There are only a few legal avenues open for c4mers. I only
address the options I know of. Others are free to address what they
know. Simply because I support EXPANSION OF THE STATUS QUO doesn't
make my theories "outmoded"; it simply makes them different from
yours.
---------------------------------------------------
>You need to find a deeper ground, Lefty. You seem to be in denial
>about the profoundly revolutionary character of c4m, and therefore
>are incapable of addressing it head on.
>
>--Gregg
>
-------------------------------------------------------
I grew up in the 60s Gregg....love beads and all. I always am amazed
at those who say I am "incapable" of addressing the argument, yet not
one person who has accused me of that has ever asked me a question
they'd like me to answer, without the use of law; maybe they're simply
afraid of what they might get in response. I am perfectly willing and
able to answer questions in "equity" or "fairness", or even in
"revolution"; so ask on if you dare. I am willing to answer any
ethical question you could possible pose regarding c4m. Ask...go
ahead. I double-dog dare you.
Lefty
>
Alan Madsen
: >
: > this is an attempt to hold the deliberative female uniquely
: > causitive...
: >
: > previous arguement has found female deliberation not causitive
: > but simply responsive to conception, where the male is causitive...
: Alan, perhaps one day you will be introduced to reason and logic. Until
: then, kindly spare us from your psuedo intellectual drivel. You truly do
: sound like an asshole.
friedman, perhaps one day you'll discover that it is sometimes necessary
to demonstrate the validitiy of what you say...
until then i have no recourse but to believe that you will continue to
hold you postion insulates you from such need, with thats effect demon-
strated here...
****
LEGALIZE CHOICE FOR MEN!
support irresponsibility..!
it's a man's choice
to avoid the consequences of his choice...!
--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.
--
ti...@world.std.com
> In the various C4M threads in this newsgroup it is becoming
> increasingly clear that those who stand in oppostition see the C4M
> advocates as little more than potential or actual deadbeat dads.
> Frankly, although I find the C4M arguments more convincing than
> the opposing arguments, I consider the opposing arguments to be strong
> and convinsing also (albeit less so than supporting arguments.)
Which opposing argument would that be? I'm almost tempted to go
sarcastic (*), but I would really like to hear what you think are strong
argument against c4m.
Because frankly, as it now stands there is no genuine discussion. The
anti-c4ms have NOTHING a reasonable person would accept. They are just
misandrist monsters lying to push their political position.
If there _are_ any good arguments against it, the misandrists sure
haven't raised them. They obviously prefer simple-minded hatemongering.
> the list.) My motivation for engaging in this debate is because
>
> (1) I have a concern that men are denied justice in the modern world
>
> and
>
> (2) I am not entirely convinced that C4M -is- just and by debating the
> subject I hone my ideas on the subject.
Great. But if you want to discuss any "strong anti-c4m arguments" you're
going to have to find them yourself because the man-haters have advanced
nothing a reasonable person would accept.
> So let me make a request of ALL parties to the debate (not that I
^^^
> particularly expect to be heeded in this). My request is this....
>
> Could we all drop the name calling (yes, I have been guilty of
^^^
> this once or twice, my apologies) and confine ourselves to the issue at
> hand.
Scott, I don't think that's entirely fair. The situation is hardly
symmetrical. If you damn both parties for the doings of one, what
incentive is there for either one to behave?
Tim
(*) And what I would say would be:
Which "strong" arguments would that be? The fingers-in-the-ears drone 'I
don't care what you say. You just want to escape responsibillity'? Or
would that be the constant blindness to the fact that their arguments
all apply against Roe v Wade too? Would that be the continual use of the
naturalistic fallacy? Or would that be their continual confusion (in
both directions) between "should" and "is"? Would it be the absolute
insistence on double-standards? The snotty little "So keep it holstered"
remarks?
PS: Yes, I ignored your advice. I hardly think it would be fair that
the misandrists could do all that shit and I would not even be allowed
to point it out.
--
Against all forms of sexism -- and feminism is the most prevalent form.
Feminists lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie...
Hillel
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway ) writes:
>My main argument is that children need support from all of us who
>contribute to their existence, from biological parents, to adoptive
>parents, to those who enter contractual relationships for support.
My main argument is that your way does not work. The law supports
your way, with all its unfairness and coercion, and it can't get
the job "done."
>but they can show no groundswell of support from any political or
>religious, or other group holding sway in society. There is not one
>political leader who has even mentioned c4m....why is that?
So far we saw from Lefty that:
1) Might makes Right.
2) Law makes Right.
3) Political support makes Right.
Well Lefty, what you encounter here is a *new* idea. It was born in
soc.men several years ago, and it got support between net readers.
All you (main-stream feminists) can do is to remember that sometime
in the past you could produce new ideas, but you lost the ability
to do it today. You are too busy preserving your unfair gains to
be able to develop anything new.
Yes, the idea is still new, yes it does not have a lot of support
outside the net; but sometime, after even you will have to admit that
you can't recreate the village without fairness to men, and that you
can't force people to live your way, you will have to negotiate and
choice for men will be one of the subjects.
Till then, you will have the opportunity to see how a society that
follows your ideas *breaks* apart, and you will be able to find a lot
of nice excuses and explanations how right your laws are, and how wrong
are the people who don't follow them.
And, like every bigot, you will blame everybody but yourself.
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"There is an important distinction between prejudice and bigotry which
we often gloss over. Prejudice results from misinformation and lack
of exposure, and can be eradicated by education; bigotry is obstinate,
having begun as prejudice, but now blind and irrational. The bigot
cannot be educated, because he/she actively refuses to give up his/her
blindness, even in the face of information." -- Clay Bond
Hillel
>I calls them as I sees them.
Just watch for her reaction when the "pro-life" people call women who
had an abortion "murderer moms."
Alan Madsen
: Alan Madsen (ama...@news.dorsai.org) wrote:
: : Scott Gilbert (sha...@sydney.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
: : : Alan Madsen (ama...@news.dorsai.org) wrote:
: : : : : The above statement has the same ring as the unborn child has the
: : : : : *right* to life.
: : : : <snip>
: : : :
: : : : society disagrees with your assesment...
: :
: : : Society once disagreed with the statement "women should be
: : : allowed to vote" This did not make it right.
: :
: : to make that statement requires that one use modern values to judge
: : a prior time, this is akin to taking a quote out of context...
: How conveeeeeeeeeenient!!
and also true...
: :
: : even so, it is interesting... this thread is not, however, the place
: : to examine the foundation and dynamics of social standards...
: :
: : what society says about c4m will be apparent should it be more than
: : generally ignored... should it be heard, fundamental criteria held
: : useful by societys for ages will be used to deal with c4m and i be-
: : lieve we will respond with conclusive rejection...
: This does nothing to change my original comment. Society is
: quite capable of inflicting enormous injustice on groups of people.
: The fact that society says that such injustices are okeydokey does not
: change the fact that it is wrong.
c4m claims injustice and damage... so did the luddites (do you get the
idea or do i have to go on?)...
Alan Madsen
: Marguerite Petersen wrote:
:
: > No, the issue is whether or not the CHILD (once born) has the right
: > to FORCE its parents to bear the consequences of THEIR decisions.
: > The existing child's body, the child's rights to support. IT had
: > no choice in whether it was born or not. The TRUE victim of c4m
: > (and hence irresponsibility by one parent) is the born *child*.
: > Society feels that born children ARE a benefit. It is truly sad
: > that c4m advocates feel differently.
: I don't know whether or not it's actually true that children are
: always a benefit to society: I'm pretty sure, in a world that's
: rapidly approaching 10^10 people, that society could make do with
: somewhat fewer children. Nor do I think that it's axiomatic that
: children must be supported by their parents and nobody else: plenty
: of societies have arranged support for children differently, and they
: generally seem to do OK.
: I do know, though, that children, whether a "benefit" in some
: abstract sense or not, had better be supported by somebody: a society
: that let children die from lack of support would be monstrous. And
: while I can imagine a society where children were the responsibility
: of extended families, or neighborhoods, or the government, it's pretty
: clear that our society isn't going to be one of them. Too many
: things in our society are rooted in the idea that parents have special
: rights and responsibilities.
: In practical terms, the only real options in the context of our
: current society are that parents have the responsibility of supporting
: their children, or that nobody does. Given those two options, I think
: it's an easy choice.
this guy's a radical... who let him in here...?
Alan Madsen
: In article <4fbeja$k...@dorsai.dorsai.org>, ama...@dorsai.org (Alan Madsen) writes:
: [Madsen clarifies his position somewhat]:
: |> have maintained is found in the definition of the word imply...
: |>
: |> imply \...\ vt [me emplien, fr. mf emplier, fr. l implicare] 1 obs:
: |> enfold, entwine 2: to involve or indicate by inference, assocation,
: |> or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement 3: to con-
: |> tain potentially 4: to express indirectly syn see include, suggest
: |> (webster's 7th n.c.d, merriam-webster springfield ma. 1971)...
: |>
: |> "to [...] indicate by [...] necessary consequence rather than by di-
: |> rect statement"...
: |> ***
: |>
: |> so doug, while have never said "men consent to parenthood when they
: |> have sex", i have held that they imply consent to consequence of pa-
: |> ternity which specifically includes support, which is only applicable
: |> to the sexually responsible male...
: Thanks Alan, this helps. Now, maybe you can see the error in your
: position. It seems to me that the definition of 'implies' you need to
: make your position do any work for you in this debate commits you to:
<snip>
: I hope this helps to clear your head.
i manage that several ways, including breathing fresh air... your note,
however, neither managed that nor was necessary...
implication of consent is not consent to: 1. those too stupid to con-
sider the consequences of their action or, 2. those who are dishonest
enough in their actions to willfully scheme to have what they want of
another and maybe be able to avoid the consequences...
either way... c4m males deserve to be held responsible... either way
male choice exists and c4m fosters irresponsibility... want to talk re-
sponsibility some more...?
Alan Madsen
: In <4fbk62$d...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ghro...@phil.indiana.edu (Gregg
: Rosenberg) writes:
: >In article <4fac5e$r...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>,
: >|> >Alan, perhaps one day you will be introduced to reason and logic.
: >|> Until >then, kindly spare us from your psuedo intellectual drivel.
: You> truly do >sound like an asshole.
: >|> -------------------------
: >|> Mr Madsen's arguments are the very essence of reason and logic. I
: >|> admire his ability to reduce my own verbiage, and that of others,
: into>|> a few short sentences. If you are going to accuse this man of
: not>|> being reasonable or logical, perhaps you should argue the points
: he>|> raises instead of reducing your own "argument" (I use the term
: loosely)> to one of name-calling and/or gross generalization.
: ---------------------------------
: >Lefty, you seem to have missed the point. You, apparently, are one of
: >the few people who can actually make sense of what Madsen is writing.
: >People would be happy to debate Madsen's points if we only had some
: >idea of what they were. For instance, he posted a long reply to one
: >of my messages, and, for the life of me, I could not make heads or
: >tails of what he was trying to say, or how it related to what I said.
: >
: >Sorry.
: >
: -------------------------
: Mr. Madsen's posts are not meant to be confusing, but he tends to deal
: I think we should respond by asking him questions rather than by
: denigrating his argument. I have not understood many posts by many
: people where I had to ask questions. That's all I'm saying.
is true, i tend brief... there is value in doing so as brevity tends
to work against confusing clutter...
i also ask questions, as gregg and kingley have seen... gregg, with
whatever reasoning, responded; kingsley has yet to (perhaps he will,
but after 4 weeks or so, i still wait)...
one value that questions have is that to honestly answer them reqires
one think of what they are saying in terms of elements that may be out-
side that considered when what was said was said...
another is that even those dishonest in a pet scheme are uncomfortable
being dishonest as almost all would like pet ideas to stand with merit...
few are so dishonest that it does not disturb them and disturbed enough,
those dishonest in particular cases have prompting to return to honesty...
a major problem is that in defense, many are willing to stoop to that
that would otherwise be beneath them, like name calling, intent to in-
jure, and willing blindness...
hereafter, i return to c4m...
i could give many reasons why i speak against c4m... some of them would be
poetic (the burden is equal to the horses strength, the talmud), others
relate to how a male may be of value to his society (take less than you
give), still others may relate to pressing problems (passing the buck does
not deal with the problem), and still others would be simple self expres-
sion (i am as i do, i choose to be responsible)...
i am going to stop now...
Alan Madsen
<snip>
****
LEGALIZE CHOICE FOR MEN!
support irresponsibility..!
it's a man's choice
to avoid the consequences of his choice...!
--
Alan Madsen
: In article <4fbeja$k...@dorsai.dorsai.org>, ama...@dorsai.org (Alan Madsen) writes:
: [Madsen clarifies his position somewhat]:
: |> have maintained is found in the definition of the word imply...
: |>
: |> imply \...\ vt [me emplien, fr. mf emplier, fr. l implicare] 1 obs:
: |> enfold, entwine 2: to involve or indicate by inference, assocation,
: |> or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement 3: to con-
: |> tain potentially 4: to express indirectly syn see include, suggest
: |> (webster's 7th n.c.d, merriam-webster springfield ma. 1971)...
: |>
: |> "to [...] indicate by [...] necessary consequence rather than by di-
: |> rect statement"...
: |> ***
: |>
: |> so doug, while have never said "men consent to parenthood when they
: |> have sex", i have held that they imply consent to consequence of pa-
: |> ternity which specifically includes support, which is only applicable
: |> to the sexually responsible male...
: Thanks Alan, this helps. Now, maybe you can see the error in your
: position. It seems to me that the definition of 'implies' you need to
: make your position do any work for you in this debate commits you to:
<snip>
: I hope this helps to clear your head.
i manage clearing my head several ways, including breathing fresh air...
your note, however, neither managed that nor was it necessary...
implication of consent is not consent to: 1. those who do not consider
the consequences of their actions or, 2. those who are inclined to take
pleasure now, at the risk of consequence, with the view that maybe they
do not have to cope with those consequences...
either way, c4m males deserve to be held responsible... either way
male choice exists, either way c4m fosters irresponsibility...
Carol Ann Hemingway
>
>Alan Madsen wrote:
>>
>> Chris Mancinelli (man...@mail.capital.net) wrote:
>> : If a woman lies about using birth control, and then gets pregnant,
and> : tells the guy, and he does not want to be a father, she should
either get: an abortion, or have the child without the guy being forced
to support : it.
>>
>> got a better idea... lets hold the male responsible for what he
does...!
>
>Great idea! Men are 50% responsible for the creation of an embryo, so
>they should pay 50% of the cost of an abortion, if the mother chooses
>to take that route with her body.
>
>it the woman's decision whether or not to give birth--no one can force
>her either way)--so he should be ZERO% responsible for providing for
>the child (unless he signed a marriage license or some other agreement
>obligating him).
>
If you really want to discuss what "IS" instead of the fairy-tale
called c4m, the facts remain that mothers and/or fathers may each be
100% responsible for their offspring, depending upon circumstances...so
let's be careful before we discern what "is" from what is "not".
Marriage, or lack thereof, does not negate the obligation of child
support. If you would rather discuss the fairy tale, you should
preclude it with a tune from Disney....i.e. "The Lying King"....so I'd
know that you didn't really want to discuss what "is".
---------------------------------
>> it's a man's choice
>> to avoid the consequences of his choice...!
--------------------------------
>
>You're implying that a man chooses to force a woman to give birth to
>his offspring. This attitude is DEFINITELY un-feminist, promotes the
>PATRIARCHY, and is counter to everything Roe v. Wade stands for. Get
>thee hence, you woman-basher. This is the '90s, and women should not
>be victims of male control and abuse. Women have equal rights, they
>can make their own decisions.
-----------------------------------
Since a man is not legally able to force a woman to abort, Mr. Madsen's
opinion seems to be correct. The only choice a man has is to avoid the
consequences by choosing not to have sex, or accept the risk of using a
condem. Your attempt at humour (if that's what it was) fails in the
cold light of reality.
--------------------------------------
>
>HER BODY, HER CHOICE, HER RESPONSIBILITY
>
>Doug
>dsba...@ingr.com
----------------------------------------
I can understand your sense of frustration. It must be difficult to
admit you don't know the difference between a body and a wallet, but
you shouldn't let your frustration goad you into shouting; it's not
polite.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>> Mr Madsen's arguments are the very essence of reason and logic. I
>
>position is accurate and accepted by both sides, that men consent to
>parenthood when they have sex. This is specifically what "C4M" is
>arguing *against*. Until this central issue is resolved, nothing
>else can be settled.
>
>Doug
>dsba...@ingr.com
If we look at c4m within the confines of contract law, Mr. Madsen could
be correct. Some contracts need not be in writing and may be implied
in fact, i.e. If it is common knowledge that women can get pregnant by
having sex, when a man has sex with a woman, he has accepted (by
performance) the risks inherent in the action. This acceptance may
indeed be construed as implied consent.
Of course, contract law is only one of the underpinnings of family law,
and there are many more ways to analyse Mr. Madsen's views about
consent.
Lefty
Mark Jebens
Ann Hemingway ) wrote:
> If we look at c4m within the confines of contract law, Mr. Madsen could
> be correct. Some contracts need not be in writing and may be implied
> in fact, i.e. If it is common knowledge that women can get pregnant by
> having sex, when a man has sex with a woman, he has accepted (by
> performance) the risks inherent in the action. This acceptance may
> indeed be construed as implied consent.
Similarly, if it is common knowledge that women can get pregnant by
having sex, when a woman has sex with a man, she has accepted (by
performance) the risks inherent in the action. This acceptance may
indeed be construed as implied consent.
Why would you want to make such a profound argument against on-demand
abortions?
--
Mark Jebens
mje...@primenet.com
Marguerite Petersen
Alan Madsen <ama...@dorsai.org> wrote:
>Matt Austern (aus...@well.com) wrote:
>: Marguerite Petersen wrote:
>:
>: > No, the issue is whether or not the CHILD (once born) has the right
>: > to FORCE its parents to bear the consequences of THEIR decisions.
>: > The existing child's body, the child's rights to support. IT had
>: > no choice in whether it was born or not. The TRUE victim of c4m
>: > (and hence irresponsibility by one parent) is the born *child*.
>: > Society feels that born children ARE a benefit. It is truly sad
>: > that c4m advocates feel differently.
>
>: I don't know whether or not it's actually true that children are
>: always a benefit to society: I'm pretty sure, in a world that's
>: rapidly approaching 10^10 people, that society could make do with
>: somewhat fewer children.
I most certainly agree with you. However, the entire world (nor
even this particular small part of it), does not necessarily concur.
Nor do I think that it's axiomatic that
>: children must be supported by their parents and nobody else: plenty
>: of societies have arranged support for children differently, and they
>: generally seem to do OK.
Also agreed. Other societies HAVE arranged support for children
differently *and* it DOES seem to work pretty well.
>: I do know, though, that children, whether a "benefit" in some
>: abstract sense or not, had better be supported by somebody: a society
>: that let children die from lack of support would be monstrous. And
>: while I can imagine a society where children were the responsibility
>: of extended families, or neighborhoods, or the government, it's pretty
>: clear that our society isn't going to be one of them. Too many
>: things in our society are rooted in the idea that parents have special
>: rights and responsibilities.
Precisely. As well as rooted in the idea of *personal* responsibility,
which isn't always a good thing nor a bad thing. It just happens to
be the way the US society has decided to be.
>: In practical terms, the only real options in the context of our
>: current society are that parents have the responsibility of supporting
>: their children, or that nobody does. Given those two options, I think
>: it's an easy choice.
Yup, that's the way I see it as well.
>this guy's a radical... who let him in here...?
He's one of the GOOD ones. :-)
> LEGALIZE CHOICE FOR MEN!
>
> support irresponsibility..!
>
> it's a man's choice
> to avoid the consequences of his choice...!
>
>--
>alan madsen - new york, n.y.
>
>
>--
>alan madsen - new york, n.y.
>
Marg
--
Member PSEB Official Sonneteer JLP SoL Poet/Author
Carol Ann Hemingway
(Mark Jebens) writes:
>
>In article <4fe6up$5...@cloner4.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.com
(Carol
>Ann Hemingway ) wrote:
>
>> If we look at c4m within the confines of contract law, Mr. Madsen
could
>> be correct. Some contracts need not be in writing and may be
implied
>> in fact, i.e. If it is common knowledge that women can get pregnant
by
>> having sex, when a man has sex with a woman, he has accepted (by
>> performance) the risks inherent in the action. This acceptance may
>> indeed be construed as implied consent.
>
>Similarly, if it is common knowledge that women can get pregnant by
>having sex, when a woman has sex with a man, she has accepted (by
----------------------------------------------
You are absolutely correct. She accepted the terms and took the risk.
Her risk is a bit different from his for the obvious reasons. It's ok
to treat folks differently when they're not similarly situated. The
Constitution says so....just read some cases about the Equal Protection
Clause (14th)....you will see that having a different risk is
ok...nature did it.
-------------------------------------------------
>
>Why would you want to make such a profound argument against on-demand
>abortions?
>
>--
>Mark Jebens
>mje...@primenet.com
-------------------------
Simple, I didn't.
Lefty
Alan Madsen
: In article <4fbrn2$o...@cloner4.netcom.com>,
: Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >
: >>You, I must admit, do post intelligible thoughts. It is too bad they
: >>are almost always irrelevant to whatever is at issue. Your arguments
: >are>virtually always analogous to a defense of segregation that goes,
: >"Segregation is right because it is the law."
: >
: >------------------------------
: >My posts have absolutely nothing to do with segregation, so it would
: >appear that you have misunderstood them as well.
: I have understood them, but, once again, you have missed the point. I
: never claimed that your posts were about segregation. I made an analogy
: between the form of your reasoning about c4m, and the following form
: of reasoning someone in the '50's might have engaged in about
: segregation: "Segregation is the law. All precedents support the
: legality of segregation, and none of the legally relevant concepts
: involved seem to undermine segregation. Therefore, segregation is
: right."
: That kind of argument is tangential to the more fundamental argument
: about the injustice of a segregated society, and injustice which
: might require breaking from precedent, and changing the understanding
: of the related concepts.
<snip>
: You need to find a deeper ground, Lefty. You seem to be in denial
: about the profoundly revolutionary character of c4m, and therefore
: are incapable of addressing it head on.
: --Gregg
(geez, poor gregg is going to have to react to more stuff from me...)
not too impressed with the characterization of what passes for c4m philos-
ophy as "profound revolutionary character of c4m"... attempts to avoid
the consequence of free choice is very old stuff...
pro c4m types argue law does not make right... the two most recent attempts
that i remember (one here, by gregg) both focus on the modern view of the old
idea of segregation saying "it was law, it was not right"...
simple stuff no...? never mind that it is recognized that quoting out of
context is often used to prove something that isn't so and that doing as
has been done in gregg's arguement is the same thing...
ok, slow (for gregg (the logician))...
what society defines as just is not dependent on everyone agreeing that
it is just... some (including, perhaps, c4m supporter clovis, who threat-
en violence of others who agree with him) will never accept what their
opinion holds unjust as just... these are delt with by the police...
(how am i doing in the intellegable dept...?)
it does not matter... social ideas do not turn because someone who works
in logic says something he supports has "profound revolutionary character"...
they turn on society's agreement... society's agreement defines what is soc-
ially just for that society (for society is responsive to much more than sim-
ply even its own view of particular case)...
(that just last sentence too much for you gregg...?)
***
illustrating the social dynamic vis a vis idea and law does nothing to sup-
port the reasonableness of an idea presented, much less does it illustrate
social injustice...
***
gregg, did you understand any of that...?
Michael Rooney
>In article <4f5blv$e...@news.gem.co.za>, Golgotha <Golg...@Gem.co.za> wrote:
<snip>
>
>It may not be fair; biology is not fair. It IS just, however.
>
>Marg
>
>--
Biology did not create the paternity and child support laws!
There is nothing "just" about allowing an immutable trait (gender) to be
applied in a discriminatory fashion. There is not rational relationship
between one's gender or DNA, and the constitutioinally protected individual
choices one is allowed to make.
Your argument (implying that judges and society are helpless) is best
defused by comparing it to the statement:
"Because a person's skin color is black (biology is not fair), therefore
those with such traits may be treated differently or
denied choices (paternity/support laws which deny choices are just)."
In other words the only standard for something being what you call "just" is
that you merely picked an irrelevant trait as the basis for a law.
The implication of your statement is that the state does not have to be
responsible for the design and implementation of its laws when applied
equally to persons not similarly situated on account of biology.
Some of the grossest discrimination occurs when persons in fact not
similarly situated but are treated as if they are.
Barbara O'Keeffe
> In article <4fe6up$5...@cloner4.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.com (Carol
> Ann Hemingway ) wrote:
>
> > If we look at c4m within the confines of contract law, Mr. Madsen could
> > be correct. Some contracts need not be in writing and may be implied
> > in fact, i.e. If it is common knowledge that women can get pregnant by
> > having sex, when a man has sex with a woman, he has accepted (by
> > performance) the risks inherent in the action. This acceptance may
> > indeed be construed as implied consent.
>
> Similarly, if it is common knowledge that women can get pregnant by
> having sex, when a woman has sex with a man, she has accepted (by
> performance) the risks inherent in the action. This acceptance may
> indeed be construed as implied consent.
>
> Why would you want to make such a profound argument against on-demand
> abortions?
>
> --
> Mark Jebens
> mje...@primenet.com
You are correct - a woman who has unprotected sex has accepted
just like the man the risk that pregnancy will occur. So?
I believe the real problem is that somehow people are confusing
what a man and a woman may or may not do or want with the needs
of a born child. That is the focus - the needs of the child.
Either the parents (legally established) provide support or the
state provides support. If a single parent is able to provide
support without assistance, then there is no problem. If a
couple is able to provide support without assistance, no problem.
The problem occurs when there is not sufficient funds to support
the child. If this happens because only one parent is currently
providing the support, then it is natural for the state to
require the other parent to do their share, before requiring
the taxpayers of that state to help support the child.
Barb
Denise J. Pryor
: Alan Madsen wrote:
: > got a better idea... lets hold the male responsible for what he does...!
: Great idea! Men are 50% responsible for the creation of an embryo, so
: they should pay 50% of the cost of an abortion, if the mother chooses
: to take that route with her body.
: A man is ZERO% responsible for the birth of a child (Roe v. Wade made
: it the woman's decision whether or not to give birth--no one can force
: her either way)--so he should be ZERO% responsible for providing for
: the child (unless he signed a marriage license or some other agreement
: obligating him).
Now, why can't I be this articulate when responding to Alan ("Kingsley
Morse is my obsession") Madsen. Nice job, Doug.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denise J. Pryor An Apple a day keeps
rmc...@primenet.com MS-DOS away!
Denis...@aol.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marguerite Petersen
It's been done before, and before, and before. It's nothing new.
And it's always been done by small-minded people more interested
in *contol* of women than from any deep desire to *save* fetuses.
Golgotha
>In <3118DE...@ingr.com> Doug Bailey <dsba...@ingr.com> writes:
>>
>>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>>
>>> Mr Madsen's arguments are the very essence of reason and logic. I
>>
>>Perhaps, perhaps not. He keeps assuming that the foundation of his
>>position is accurate and accepted by both sides, that men consent to
>>parenthood when they have sex. This is specifically what "C4M" is
>>arguing *against*. Until this central issue is resolved, nothing
>>else can be settled.
>>
>>Doug
>>dsba...@ingr.com
>-------------------------------------------
>If we look at c4m within the confines of contract law, Mr. Madsen could
>be correct. Some contracts need not be in writing and may be implied
>in fact, i.e. If it is common knowledge that women can get pregnant by
>having sex, when a man has sex with a woman, he has accepted (by
>performance) the risks inherent in the action. This acceptance may
>indeed be construed as implied consent.
>Of course, contract law is only one of the underpinnings of family law,
>and there are many more ways to analyse Mr. Madsen's views about
>consent.
>Lefty
Hmmm... If I engage in sex with a woman, I am contractually obligating
myself to the well-being of any offspring that might be a result of
this union. Makes sense.
If we use contraception, then I am responsible if that contraception
fails. I have once again effectively signed a contract in this regard.
HOWEVER - If the contraception used is purposely sabotaged - the pill
is not taken, the diaphragm is tampered with etc. - then by law of
contract ( Delict? ) I am NOT responsible - the contract has been
broken, as we agreed to use contraception.
-<< Golgotha
'I just hope you didn't think it sucked' (Garth)
Fuck CDA kill anarchy bomb USA Clinton White House Nudity
Protitution - Keep dictatorships off the Internet!!
Marguerite Petersen
Michael Rooney <dnan...@pop.pld.com> wrote:
>pet...@PEAK.ORG (Marguerite Petersen) wrote:
>>In article <4f5blv$e...@news.gem.co.za>, Golgotha <Golg...@Gem.co.za> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>It may not be fair; biology is not fair. It IS just, however.
>>
>>Marg
>>
>>--
>
>
>Biology did not create the paternity and child support laws!
No, Biology didn't create them, but the laws were created
*considering* the biology of humans.
>There is nothing "just" about allowing an immutable trait (gender) to be
>applied in a discriminatory fashion. There is not rational relationship
>between one's gender or DNA, and the constitutioinally protected individual
>choices one is allowed to make.
You seem to be wandering around in circles here. We weren't discussing
*gender*. We were discussing pregnancy and who gets pregnant. If you
believe that can be equalized between the sexes (not gender, please),
then you are much worse off than even I thought. Besides, anyone
who is in need of an abortion or needs to give birth (because they are
pregnant), certainly has every right to do so. Nobody will prevent
you and there are no laws to stop you; only biology.
>Your argument (implying that judges and society are helpless) is best
>defused by comparing it to the statement:
>
> "Because a person's skin color is black (biology is not fair), therefore
>those with such traits may be treated differently or
>denied choices (paternity/support laws which deny choices are just)."
Pregnancy and giving birth has no similarities whatsoever to skin color.
None.
>In other words the only standard for something being what you call "just" is
>that you merely picked an irrelevant trait as the basis for a law.
Thank you SO much for considering pregnancy and giving birth as *irrelevant*.
If it is SO irrelevant, then why are you so interested and complaining
about discrepancies in custody.
>The implication of your statement is that the state does not have to be
>responsible for the design and implementation of its laws when applied
>equally to persons not similarly situated on account of biology.
>Some of the grossest discrimination occurs when persons in fact not
>similarly situated but are treated as if they are.
You make absolutely no sense in the above. Care to elaborate?
Red-Jaguar
Contract.... key word here.
Perhaps folks should draw up a pre-sex contract/agreement... sorta like a
pre-nuptuial agreement.
Get it down in black & white just what will happen in what contigency.
Heck... one could also trade blood test info then too.....
Of course, it WOULD put a damper on those one night stands.
However, I think the main part of the problem here IS folks hopping into
the sack with people they know little about...
Not even knowing how the female will react to an unplanned pregancy.
Jaguar
Gregg Rosenberg
Alan Madsen <ama...@dorsai.org> wrote:
>Gregg Rosenberg (ghro...@phil.indiana.edu) wrote:
>
>simple stuff no...? never mind that it is recognized that quoting out of
>context is often used to prove something that isn't so and that doing as
>has been done in gregg's arguement is the same thing...
Mmhmm. In what way?
>ok, slow (for gregg (the logician))...
>
>what society defines as just is not dependent on everyone agreeing that
>it is just... some (including, perhaps, c4m supporter clovis, who threat-
>en violence of others who agree with him) will never accept what their
>opinion holds unjust as just... these are delt with by the police...
>
> (how am i doing in the intellegable dept...?)
OK. But you are doing very, very poorly in the "begging the question"
department.
>it does not matter... social ideas do not turn because someone who works
>in logic says something he supports has "profound revolutionary character"...
Actually, I'm not yet sure I support c4m. I do support cogent reasoning
however, which is why you and Lefty and Marg and O'Keefe keep drawing
my fire. In any case, giving men more control over both their rights
and responsibilities as parents strikes me as quite a departure for
a society. If you didn't agree, I doubt you'd be putting in such effort
to oppose it.
>they turn on society's agreement... society's agreement defines what is soc-
>ially just for that society (for society is responsive to much more than sim-
>ply even its own view of particular case)...
>
> (that just last sentence too much for you gregg...?)
>
And what c4m is trying to do is manufacture a new social agreement by appeal
to underlying principles of equity and individual freedom. What's your
point?
>gregg, did you understand any of that...?
About 50% of it, which is pretty good for something you wrote.
--Gregg
Carol Ann Hemingway
>
>lef...@ix.netcom.com (Carol Ann Hemingway ) wrote:
>
>>In <3118DE...@ingr.com> Doug Bailey <dsba...@ingr.com> writes:
>>>
>>>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mr Madsen's arguments are the very essence of reason and logic. I
>>>
>>>Perhaps, perhaps not. He keeps assuming that the foundation of his
>>>position is accurate and accepted by both sides, that men consent to
>>>parenthood when they have sex. This is specifically what "C4M" is
>>>arguing *against*. Until this central issue is resolved, nothing
>>>else can be settled.
>>>
>>>Doug
>>>dsba...@ingr.com
>>-------------------------------------------
>>If we look at c4m within the confines of contract law, Mr. Madsen
could>>be correct. Some contracts need not be in writing and may be
implied>>in fact, i.e. If it is common knowledge that women can get
pregnant by>>having sex, when a man has sex with a woman, he has
accepted (by>>performance) the risks inherent in the action. This
acceptance may>>indeed be construed as implied consent.
>
>>Of course, contract law is only one of the underpinnings of family
law,>and there are many more ways to analyse Mr. Madsen's views about
>>consent.
>
>>Lefty
>
>Hmmm... If I engage in sex with a woman, I am contractually obligating
>myself to the well-being of any offspring that might be a result of
>this union. Makes sense.>If we use contraception, then I am
responsible if that contraception>fails.
-------------------------
Actually, it is not only you who is obligated by the theory of implied
contract....it is you and she. Both are responsible for the risk of
failed contraception as well.
---------------------------
I have once again effectively signed a contract in this regard.
>
>HOWEVER - If the contraception used is purposely sabotaged - the pill
>is not taken, the diaphragm is tampered with etc. - then by law of
>contract ( Delict? ) I am NOT responsible - the contract has been
>broken, as we agreed to use contraception.
>
>-<< Golgotha
-----------------------------------------
Actually, in the sex act you are both accepting risk of lying as
another means of defective birth control. IMHO, you will still be
responsible for child support, but you might consider taking her into
court (civilly) for fraud. Of course, when they start asking you
questions about the night of the sex act, you don't want to have it
brought out that you also told her you had not been with another woman
in months (unless it was true) because then, the doctrine of "unclean
hands" might prevent you from collection. ....and then their's that
old, "I will love you forever" line...that may not bode well in a fraud
case.
---------------------------------------------
Lefty
Gregg Rosenberg
>Rosenberg) writes:
>
>--------------------------------------------------
>My main argument is that children need support from all of us who
>contribute to their existence, from biological parents, to adoptive
>parents, to those who enter contractual relationships for support.
And the point of contention is that you claim too much. All parties
agree that children need support. The *further* claim that they
need support from "all of us who contribute to their existence" is
challenged, at least under certain interpretations of what counts
as "contributing to their existence." c4m holds society can and
should find alternative means of finding support for children. These
means may or may not include:
1) state-funded abortions to help reduce
the number of children born to single women;
2) encouraging single mothers to give children up for adoption so
that better situated families raise them;
3) community aid to single mothers;
4) legally enforced support from fathers who wish to keep and enjoy
the right to be a parent to their children. It is an integral part of
c4m that this option is accompanied by changes in family law that gives
men incentive to want to keep those rights by making those rights worth
having. This will involve decreasing women's power over the lives of
born children, and repealing women's status as the 'default' parent
so that responsibilities are experienced less like a form of slavery.
For example, laws would need to be in place to keep a woman from
moving to a state or city practically inaccessible to the father, and
thereby robbing him of the experience of being a father while sticking
him with the financial responsibilities.
>I simply use the law to set the foundation for argument, i.e. one
>cannot change law unless one goes thru the hoops to do so. Before new
>law is ever contemplated, it must go thru the process. Not only do
>c4mers not propose good law that gets them thru the legal doors, but
>they can show no groundswell of support from any political or
>religious, or other group holding sway in society. There is not one
>political leader who has even mentioned c4m....why is that?
c4m is politically unpopular -- it challenges some long-standing values.
No politician has anything to gain by talking about it: he/she would
be certain to alienate throngs of women, while winning over few votes
from men. The same thing could have been said about segregation in the '50s.
Do you have a relevant point to make here?
>>That kind of argument is tangential to the more fundamental argument
>>about the injustice of a segregated society, and injustice which
>>might require breaking from precedent, and changing the understanding
>>of the related concepts.
>
>--------------------------
>Ok...prove it....show me any justification other than the "it's not
>fair that women can choose gestation or not" argument.
Sure. Listen closely so that you can grasp the logical structure of
the position.
First, c4m claims that a woman's right to abort is really two rights
in one:
1) It is the right to assimilate the fetus to the category of bodily
parasite, and therefore expel it by appealing to privacy rights. In
short, it is the right to terminate the life of the fetus.
2) It is *also*, by implication, the right to control parenting. By
killing the fetus, the mother ALSO waives both rights and responsibilities
to be a parent to the child the fetus would become.
Notice that (1) and (2) are DIFFERENT types of action. Although (1)
entails (2), (2) does not entail (1). Therefore, by giving women the right
to (1), society also gives women the right to (2). Yet society can
grant either women or men a right to (2) without also giving them
a right to (1).
c4m points out that only (1) is actually grounded in biology. Women
have the right to terminate the fetus' life because of their special
biology, and the distinctive relationship between themselves and the fetus.
c4m does not suggest this makes men and women's rights unequal. Both
sexes have the right to control their bodies, and to expel parasites.
This is where biology makes a difference: For men, this does not and
cannot entail the right to terminate a fetus' life, even though women have
such a right. The ground for this difference in choice is biology.
On the other hand, the fact that women have a right to (2) is a
*further* right that women have that men do not. This inequity
in rights is NOT, contrary to the claims of some here, grounded simply
in biology. It certainly is not IMPLIED by that difference. This difference
in rights -- the difference in the right to control one's own future
as a parent -- comes about only because of a combination of biological
difference (women's gestation giving them the right to terminate
the fetus' life), AND social institutions and structures: society's
decision to force men to support children contingently on a woman's
decision to bear them and ask for such support.
Unlike with (1), c4m points out that the inequity in having the rights
represented by (2) can be corrected by changing the social
institutions and structures which are essential to supporting
the inequity in the first place. We can do this by establishing
more equitable laws and support structures, ones which respect
the individual rights of men to control their fates.
>Show me one
>societal reason for society to be willing to pay for your children.
Hmmm. How did my children get involved in this debate?
Anyway, the argument above is an argument from the point of view of
individual rights. If it is correct, society as a whole may simply
have to bear a certain cost in honoring these individual rights. That
is the way things work: after all, from the point of view of the
status quo "society" had no good reason to end slavery or Jim Crowe.
That is, no good reason except respect for justice and equality.
But meeting your challenge on its own level may be possible too. Implicit
in the challenge, I think, is the fear that c4m would result in much
larger numbers of fatherless children who would be a burden on
society. I think this is a fair enough worry, and I have it too. There's
some reason to think this would not be the case. Most of these
reasons come from considering changes to other aspects of how we
handle child rearing, aspects which give women less incentive to keep
their children if they cannot care for them, and more incentive for
men to keep their rights to fatherhood (and, thus, their responsibilities).
For example:
Give less control to women in deciding the fate of children
once born; more control would be given to the father. This can occur
on several fronts, everywhere from changing the 'default' assumption that
the mother should be the CP, to restricting a woman's right to
choose where she lives without consulting the father or risking losing
the children. That is, bind the woman's life to the father's life more
tightly while simultaneously binding the father's life to his child's life,
and you may end up both lessening a woman's incentive to HAVE children
out of wedlock while increasing a man's incentive to be a father.
Make it easier for women to have abortions, including government
funding for abortion for poor women. Repeal silly 'parental
consent' laws for teenage mothers.
Consider 'forced adoption' laws for unwed, teenage mothers in cases
where the father has chosen to waive his rights and responsibilities.
Bolster aid to families, and balance the budget by cutting the
big ticket items like defense which are really responsible for it.
>What kind of "its not fair" mentality requires this breaking with
>precedent....
A respect for individual rights and equality.
>You don't get it. I think c4m is wrong, and I will continue to argue
>that it is wrong, as long as I have the time to do so.
What makes you think I don't get that you think c4m is wrong, and
will argue the point? Haven't I been criticizing you for just that
attitude, and pointing out flaws in your arguments? This is a very
strange charge to level against me.....I was never under the impression
you are a c4m advocate.
>Women's bodies
>are different from men's bodies (kindergarten 101)
Yes. And this gives women the right to terminate the fetus' life, a
right that issues from a right *both* men and women have to expel
parasites from their bodies.
>the law that covers
>that part of reproductive choice is benevolent discrimination....
c4m points out that 'reproductive choice' is a *further* right that
women have, one over and above the right to terminate the fetus
life by appeal to her right to expel parasites from her body. They
further point out that this right can be equalized by appropriate
measures.
>valid
>supported by our constitution, and women ....and over 70% of the
>American people. What percentage of the American pop. would support
>running out on paying for children?
The same could have been said about segregation in the '50s.
--Gregg
Rick Bartlett
>
>
> What I find so disturbing is the idea that men have responsibility, but
> no rights. A woman can choose not to even name the father on the birth
> certificate, or put the baby up for adoption without any consent on the
> father's part. She can abort the fetus without his say in the matter.
> What scares and bothers men is the idea that they can be held responsible
> but have no say in their own fate.
> The choice analogy is a good one, but in terms of the full choices:
> choice includes giving up the child for adoption. Why can't a man give up
> all his parental rights and just say "I'm giving up my rights for
> adoption. If the mother wants to keep the baby, fine with me."
> It's the double-standard that bothers me. If 50% of the genetic material
> is enough to force the father to be a father, then why isn't it enough to
> let him assrt or deny his fatherhood? To give him a choice?
I find it TOTALLY FUNNY that there have been a couple of cases where the
(single/unmarried) woman wished to place her child up for adoption over the
Bio father's request to obtain custody. The cases have gone to court, with
the judge ruling that the bio-father had NO PARENTAL RIGHTS, NO TIE TO THE
CHILD, NOT the "FATHER". The adoption went through.
Had the woman changed her mind at the last minute, the same judge would have
*ASSERTED* (the bio-father's) parental "RIGHTS" to the tune of 18-20 years
of child support.
Ahh, yes! this is the true double standard. I also find it odd that our
society looks upon man as scum who says, "Hey, I don't want to be a parent,
but you (mom) may wish to". Oddly society excepts the woman who says "Hey, I
don't want to be a parent, I don't give a damn if you (father) want to be,
I'm going to have an abortion".
-rick-
Dave Prichard
>Also agreed. Other societies HAVE arranged support for children
>differently *and* it DOES seem to work pretty well.
Yes it does seem to work pretty well...in tribal societies. Last time I
looked out my door there was 3 million people surrounding me. Would you
care to give an example of an urbanized society that has a successful
social structure with such an arrangement?
>Precisely. As well as rooted in the idea of *personal* responsibility,
>which isn't always a good thing nor a bad thing. It just happens to
>be the way the US society has decided to be.
Wow, extreme moral prevaricating! In your world of ethical relativism who
detirmines the standards? If a young man walking down the street decides to
take the first woman who attracts him then and there, this can't be a bad
thing. After all it's a natural biological urge. Surely it would be the
responsiblity of the woman to insure her fellow citizen need not suffer
that outragous male syndrome S.R.H.. ( semen rentention headache.)
Dave
Brian D. Stark
>
>I find it TOTALLY FUNNY that there have been a couple of cases where the
>(single/unmarried) woman wished to place her child up for adoption over the
>Bio father's request to obtain custody. The cases have gone to court, with
>the judge ruling that the bio-father had NO PARENTAL RIGHTS, NO TIE TO THE
>CHILD, NOT the "FATHER". The adoption went through.
>
fight for fathers rights to take responsibility for their children, I'm
on your side, but your fighting for a fathers right to decline responsibility
for his action. The scenerio you add has NO RELEVANCE to c4m.
brian
--
Go Chargers
Hillel
%%Just watch for her reaction when the "pro-life" people call women who
%%had an abortion "murderer moms."
In article <4fj35o$b...@PEAK.ORG>, Marguerite Petersen <pet...@PEAK.ORG> wrote:
>It's been done before, and before, and before. It's nothing new.
>And it's always been done by small-minded people more interested
>in *contol* of women than from any deep desire to *save* fetuses.
All of that from the small minded woman who is much more interested
in controling men than in helping children.
Golgotha
>Lefty
I realise that I am not the only one responsible for the result of a
sexual union - the case that I was making was that in the first two
cases, both parties, myself and the female involved, are responsible
and that in the third case I am not, but the female is.
[1]. We both agree to UNPROTECTED sex, we are both responsible for
the consequences of that act.
[2]. We both agree to PROTECTED sex, we are both responsible,
understanding that protection is not 100%
[3]. I am led to believe that we are having protected sex, whereas de
facto we are not - I have been conned, because she WANTED a baby,
whereas I DID NOT. My right to choice has been impinged upon. ( This
'right to choice' has been a popular argument in this thread - I
support it, but to apply it only to women would be obscene ).
To further illustrate this, consider this parrallell:
a. By raping a women, I am denying her her right to choose to have sex
- I am making her choice for her, by physically overpowering her.
b. In point [3], I am being denied my right to choose to have a child
- my choice is being made for me, by the sabotaging of the
contraception used.
Is a woman held responsible for having been raped? No. She is not
responsible for the foetus, she can abort it.
Why am I responsible for the foetus => child??
-<< Golgotha
'I just hope you didn't think it sucked' (Garth)
Fuck CDA kill anarchy bomb USA Clinton White House Nudity Prostitution
Barbara O'Keeffe
> > On Wed, 7 Feb 1996, Doug Bailey wrote:
> > What you have been missing is that everyone is responsible
> > for their actions. You choose to have sex and do so without
> > thought to the consequence? Clearly if one does not know the
> > person well, how can you be sure that you won't get some
> > disease? Do you take precautions? Same holds true for
> > pregnancy - it can result and if a LIVE BIRTH results then
> > you are responsible for that person that carries one-half of
>
> What I find so disturbing is the idea that men have responsibility, but
> no rights. A woman can choose not to even name the father on the birth
> certificate, or put the baby up for adoption without any consent on the
> father's part. She can abort the fetus without his say in the matter.
> What scares and bothers men is the idea that they can be held responsible
> but have no say in their own fate.
But you do have a say. The problem is that you don't see it
as a choice. It is the choice of with whom and when to have
sex. Yes, women get more choices should a pregnancy occur -
because they gestate. But where it REALLY matters - the person
you go choose for a sexual partner, both individuals have the
same choice. That's where you should be focusing your attention.
If you don't want a child, then make sure you don't engage in
practices that could lead to one. If you do want a child, then
you should find someone who shares your goals. Is that really
so difficult?
> The choice analogy is a good one, but in terms of the full choices:
> choice includes giving up the child for adoption. Why can't a man give up
> all his parental rights and just say "I'm giving up my rights for
> adoption. If the mother wants to keep the baby, fine with me."
Fine - if the mother is able to support the child without asking
the state (ie, me) for assistance. However, if she needs help
then I expect you to step forward - - I raised my child, I don't
think I should have to support one that carries 1/2 of their
genetic material from you.
> It's the double-standard that bothers me. If 50% of the genetic material
> is enough to force the father to be a father, then why isn't it enough to
> let him assrt or deny his fatherhood? To give him a choice?
Again, if you and the mother agree, fine. As long as the two of
you work it out (you could both agree that adoption is best, for
instance) then I have no problem. BTW - how do you deny a child
who carries 1/2 of their genetic material from you?
> How is a father who wants no rights to their child any different from
> sperm donation? It would be ridiculous to sue a sperm donor for child
> support. (And yet it's happened. A woman who was a single mother by
> choice found out that the donor was a rich man who had recently died. She
> tried to have the will contested so that her duaghter would have "what
> was rightfully hers." Yet if the millionaire had wanted to see his
> daughter when he was alive, how likely do you think she'd be in granting
> his wishes?)
And the suit was not decided in the child's favor was it? The
child was not the legal child of the sperm donor. There had been
an arrangement made (through a sperm bank I suppose) whereby the
woman agreed BEFORE insemination that she was able to support the
child and that the sperm donor WAS NOT named as the legal father.
> What does it take to understand this? Men to admit, "yes, we're in awe of
> the power of women to have babies"? Men just want some say in the matter.
If you want some say then I would suggest that you choose a woman
who shares your goals - - isn't that better for EVERYONE concerned?
Barb
Marguerite Petersen
Dave Prichard <byde...@idirect.com> wrote:
>pet...@PEAK.ORG (Marguerite Petersen) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Also agreed. Other societies HAVE arranged support for children
>>differently *and* it DOES seem to work pretty well.
>
> Yes it does seem to work pretty well...in tribal societies. Last time I
>looked out my door there was 3 million people surrounding me. Would you
>care to give an example of an urbanized society that has a successful
>social structure with such an arrangement?
Uh, lemme see; Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain (to a certain
extent), France, Australia.
>>Precisely. As well as rooted in the idea of *personal* responsibility,
>>which isn't always a good thing nor a bad thing. It just happens to
>>be the way the US society has decided to be.
>
> Wow, extreme moral prevaricating! In your world of ethical relativism who
>detirmines the standards?
Shame on you, you know the answer to this question. But since it
seems to have escaped your little mine, I'll answer it for you.
Society, of course. The society that you live in.
If a young man walking down the street decides to
>take the first woman who attracts him then and there, this can't be a bad
>thing. After all it's a natural biological urge. Surely it would be the
>responsiblity of the woman to insure her fellow citizen need not suffer
>that outragous male syndrome S.R.H.. ( semen rentention headache.)
And just HOW would that be a "personal responsibility" of anyone?
You're entitled to all the biological urges you desire to have (or
don't even.) That doesn't mean that anyone else has a *responsibility*
to provide anything to you; including *relief* from your biological
urges.
And as you also well know (well, maybe YOU don't), the reason that
I made the comment that personal responsibility is not *always* a
good thing or a bad thing, necessarily, is simply because we DO live
in a society that now and then, depending on its whims, DOES take
on responsibility for others and for what others have done. For
example, you get old, you're ill, you have NO funds, you have NO family,
you are starving. What should happen to you? OUR society has decided
that it will take certain measures to ensure that YOU don't die from
lack of funds to pay for your medicine or lack of food or housing.
At least, to a certain extent. IF we lived in a society that completely
and totally depended on "personal responsibility", such individuals
would be left to their own devices. We live in a society that cares
*enough* to prevent such situations at least in part. It is the
measure of *any* society, IMO, just HOW it treats the least able of
its citizenry.
>Dave
Russell Witt
>Hmmm... If I engage in sex with a woman, I am contractually obligating
>myself to the well-being of any offspring that might be a result of
>this union. Makes sense.
>If we use contraception, then I am responsible if that contraception
>
Let's change the "we" to "I" and it makes a LOT more sense. You are always
responsible for your own actions performed without mental or physical duress.
>HOWEVER - If the contraception used is purposely sabotaged - the pill
>is not taken, the diaphragm is tampered with etc. - then by law of
>contract ( Delict? ) I am NOT responsible - the contract has been
>broken, as we agreed to use contraception.
>
>-<< Golgotha
But then you go and talk about what if the other parties efforts where
sabotaged. If you want to insure that no pregnancy takes place, then it is up
to you to insure the contraception is working. Have a vasectomy, use a condom
that you supplied and put on yourself, or don't have sex in the first place.
Your arguments are valid (though I do not agree with all of them) until you
start talking about sabotage, and then indicate that all the responsibility
had already been given over to someone else. If you sign away a
power-of-attorney, you had been be 100% sure who you gave it to. If you are
not, then don't come crying when you find that it was abused. If you want to
be responsible for your own actions, then take the actions yourself (and don't
assume that someone else is taking them for you).
Russell
Carol Ann Hemingway
writes:
>
>In article <4fc11t$h...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway ) writes:
>
>>My main argument is that children need support from all of us who
>>contribute to their existence, from biological parents, to adoptive
>>parents, to those who enter contractual relationships for support.
>
>your way, with all its unfairness and coercion, and it can't get
>the job "done."
>
---------------------
I've heard this from you and others; it's interesting that the ones who
holler the loudest offer the least in the form of ideas on how to make
things better. The law, as with any other historical institution,
grows and evolves day by day. New ideas are sought and discussed to
make things better. It is the "naysayers" like yourself who prefer to
pull the system apart simply because they are so shortsighted they have
no ideas to contribute.
------------------------
>>but they can show no groundswell of support from any political or
>>religious, or other group holding sway in society. There is not one
>>political leader who has even mentioned c4m....why is that?
>
>So far we saw from Lefty that:
>1) Might makes Right.
>2) Law makes Right.
>3) Political support makes Right.
>
-------------------------------
1) Might never makes "right", but it does provide a civilized way
to discuss the issues without resorting to unibomber mentality.
Where is your spokesperson?
2) Law may or may not be right, but it provides a way to discuss
the issues without blood running in the streets.
Where is your law presented in the courtroom?
3) Poitical support may be right or wrong, but in order to make
alterations in society one needs to garner political support.
Which party supports c4m?
>Well Lefty, what you encounter here is a *new* idea. It was born in
>soc.men several years ago, and it got support between net readers.
>All you (main-stream feminists) can do is to remember that sometime
>in the past you could produce new ideas, but you lost the ability
>to do it today. You are too busy preserving your unfair gains to
>be able to develop anything new.
----------------------------------
That's pretty funny. I belong to two organizations (not NOW) that seem
to come up with new ideas regarding women. New ideas are always
welcome; if I didn't support your right to argue this idea, I wouldn't
have responded. I am interested in preserving constitutional rights;
even when those rights address equal protection issues. I think the
Constitution is important. So sue me.
-----------------------------------
>
>Yes, the idea is still new, yes it does not have a lot of support
>outside the net; but sometime, after even you will have to admit that
>you can't recreate the village without fairness to men, and that you
>can't force people to live your way, you will have to negotiate and
>choice for men will be one of the subjects.
---------------------------------------------
Fairness, where fairness is possible is part and parcel of our
Constitution. One can never legislate fish to fly (except for flying
fish) because nature made some differences, but I subscribe to fairness
wherever it can be so. Issues of equality will always be debated and
negotiated. I'm not worried.
-------------------------------------------
>
>Till then, you will have the opportunity to see how a society that
>follows your ideas *breaks* apart, and you will be able to find a lot
>of nice excuses and explanations how right your laws are, and how
wrong>are the people who don't follow them.
>
---------------------------------------------
I keep hearing this sad refrain...."go tell it on the unibomber"...When
you say "my" laws, you are telling a joke, right? I don't agree with
many of the laws that exist today, but unlike you, I seek, not to label
those with whom I differ, but to make things better. Short of anarchy,
the only hope I see for c4m (as written) is a constitutional
convention. To me, that would be very scary...for lots of reasons. As
for society breaking apart, there is stress all over the world because
we keep procreating, and the pie is getting smaller. Everyone must
share. And, we need to find better ways of building our economy. This
is a matter for those creative folks who have positive ideas.
----------------------------------------------------
>And, like every bigot, you will blame everybody but yourself.
>
>Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
>
>"There is an important distinction between prejudice and bigotry which
>we often gloss over. Prejudice results from misinformation and lack
>of exposure, and can be eradicated by education; bigotry is obstinate,
>having begun as prejudice, but now blind and irrational. The bigot
>cannot be educated, because he/she actively refuses to give up his/her
>blindness, even in the face of information." -- Clay Bond
----------------------------------------------------
I do like your quote, but I have not seen any "information" presented
in the c4m debate that would challenge the other information I already
have at my disposal. A mature adult does not change like the wind with
each new subtlty of emotion...she would balance the facts she has with
the information she is given. What I have seen is an argument based
upon the rational that "its not fair"....it takes a lot more than that
to win a moral or legal fight.
Lefty
Hillel
>>My main argument is that your way does not work. The law supports
>>your way, with all its unfairness and coercion, and it can't get
>>the job "done."
>I've heard this from you and others; it's interesting that the ones who
>holler the loudest offer the least in the form of ideas on how to make
>things better.
I posted a libertarian idea that you have never answered.
>It is the "naysayers" like yourself who prefer to
>pull the system apart simply because they are so shortsighted they have
>no ideas to contribute.
If you want to fix something, first you have to understand that
it is broken. Pretending that everything is just fine is not
my thing.
>>So far we saw from Lefty that:
>>1) Might makes Right.
>>2) Law makes Right.
>>3) Political support makes Right.
>1) Might never makes "right", but it does provide a civilized way
> to discuss the issues without resorting to unibomber mentality.
There are very few Unibombers, but there are a lot of FBI agents that
will be happy to repeat the same mistakes as in Waco, if Reno will
just give the order. Might give the government the ability to get away
with stupid and damaging acts, and it is very happy to abuse the might.
The mind set of the FBI agent that got the command "shoot to kill" in
Ruby Ridge, and shoot without a second thought, is more dangerous
than the common criminals because he shoots much better.
>2) Law may or may not be right, but it provides a way to discuss
> the issues without blood running in the streets.
Have the wrong laws, and blood will run down the streets.
(Just ask King George about his experience with the US...)
>3) Poitical support may be right or wrong, but in order to make
> alterations in society one needs to garner political support.
There are several ways to gather that support.
E.g. Prohibition had a *support*; passing a Constitutional Amendment
is not that easy, you know. After the government *failed* in its
attempt to enforce the "moral" values, the political support was shifted.
Sooner or later the war on drugs will end in a similar way.
My conclusion is that if the majority will fail in enforcing its "moral"
values then the majority (but not Lefty...) will give up.
>That's pretty funny. I belong to two organizations (not NOW) that seem
>to come up with new ideas regarding women.
For example?
(Remember, "new" means less than 20 years old.)
>I am interested in preserving constitutional rights;
All of that from the one who claimed that my freedom of speech is
not cast in stone.
>Fairness, where fairness is possible is part and parcel of our Constitution.
For example, men's only draft was held by every court as
fair and Constitutional. Therefore men's only draft is fair.
I guess that one has to be a lawyer (or a feminist) to believe in that...
>>Till then, you will have the opportunity to see how a society that
>>follows your ideas *breaks* apart, and you will be able to find a lot
>>of nice excuses and explanations how right your laws are, and how
>>wrong>are the people who don't follow them.
>I keep hearing this sad refrain...."go tell it on the unibomber"...When
>you say "my" laws, you are telling a joke, right?
You are the one who defends no-choice-for-men and brings the war on drugs
as a justification for the enforcement of "moral" values.
>I don't agree with
>many of the laws that exist today, but unlike you, I seek, not to label
>those with whom I differ, but to make things better.
But the ideas that you have supported make things worse.
>Short of anarchy,
There is no government like "no government."
>the only hope I see for c4m (as written) is a constitutional convention.
No rights and responsibility for the biological father in
artificial insemination cases is the law of the land without
a constitutional convention.
>To me, that would be very scary.
The next Constitutional Convention is far away, and it will probably be
dominated either by Buchanan type people or libertarians. The liberals
*failed* and the only question is who will replace them.
>..for lots of reasons. As
>for society breaking apart, there is stress all over the world because
>we keep procreating, and the pie is getting smaller. Everyone must
>share.
The above argument was the backbone of Communism, and it *failed*.
Those who bake the pie deserve a priority, and everybody must pay for
their own stupidity.
>And, we need to find better ways of building our economy.
Get the government of people's backs.
>This is a matter for those creative folks who have positive ideas.
Milton Friedman had some great ideas, but I don't expect you to
follow ideas that might work...
>I do like your quote, but I have not seen any "information" presented
>in the c4m debate that would challenge the other information I already
>have at my disposal.
You have the lawyer mind set. You are arguing a case, and you
can't stop and think "yes, but is that fair?"
>A mature adult does not change like the wind with
>each new subtlty of emotion.
Her mind was just set by her emotions in the 60's and she can't change
it today. She can't put the ideas that she supported for so long under
question, and so she will do her best to ignore reality.
>What I have seen is an argument based
>upon the rational that "its not fair"....it takes a lot more than that
>to win a moral or legal fight.
It works if you don't argue with a feminist.
E.g. women based their demand for the right to vote on fairness, and the
representative of all-men Congress agreed pass a Constitutional
Amendment to do just that.
Yes, I agree that it take much more to win anything from feminists,
but I don't think that feminism will stay a strong movement for long.
It is *addicted* to public money, and when the money will dry up then
it will have no way to keep itself alive.
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"A NOW LDEF staff attorney has been appointed to the American Bar
Association Custody Executive Committee. From that vantage point, we
successfully opposed a proposed A.B.A. model statute that would permit
judges to impose joint custody over a parent's opposition."
-- A NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, November 16, 1988
KHSkill
situation in terms of principle, fine points of law, what is right, etc.,
etc. It seems perfectly obvious that the current situation in regard to
"choice" for men, and "choice" for women represents crude political
realities.
Those women who support abortion rights are organized, have
intimidated politicians and judges, and everyone involved knows they will
make a big fuss about retaining "choice" for themselves. However, these
same women also want to be able to impose their choices on others (both
men and unborn children). That's human nature. All power corrupts, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Women who favor abortion rights aren't going to admit that there's
any disparity between their "choice" rights, and their insistence on
denying those same rights to men. Why should they agree to male/female
equality, if they don't have to? That would mean giving up 18 or more
years of child support. No one is ever going to give up power or money
because they've been convinced by fine points of logic such as have been
deployed here.
Alternatively, equality between the sexes in this context could be
introduced on the basis of overturning Roe v. Wade. In my view, there's a
good case for doing this, in view of what has been discovered in the last
20 years about the point at which life starts, and in view of the clear
evidence that abortion is being used as a substitute for birth control.
However, women who favor abortion rights aren't going to give up those
rights because of scientific discoveries, or because of any other
legitimate arguments. The inequality between men and women will be
preserved, so long as the current power structure remains as it is now.
This issue has nothing to do with principles or fine points of law.
Attempts to cast it in terms of law and principle are just a smokescreen
for the exercise of power. The issue is determined by the relative
political strengths of the two sexes in regard to these matters.
In my opinion, there are two simple points: (1) the current abortion
rights situation depends entirely on one of the parties (the child) not
having a voice; and (2) the current situation on male/female "choice"
disparities rests on one sex (men) not having any effective political
voice. All the other stuff about men not gestating, constitutional rights
of privacy, and so on is just hypocritical cant.
Kenneth S.
Don't like murder? Then don't kill anyone!
Julian Vigo
rather oligarchal approaches to a woman's body and to women's efforts
which have not only attempted to reclaim certain ethos of physical and
pychological nurturing of HER body, but also to simultaneously rid herself
of the very speculation, the discourse which questions empirical status of
her body, her privacy, and her repoductive rights.
This is why I fail to understand the following statement which
essentializes a woman's lack of choice as "natural", and then her
assertion to enact her choice as "corrupt":
Those women who support abortion rights are organized, have
> intimidated politicians and judges, and everyone involved knows they will
> make a big fuss about retaining "choice" for themselves. However, these
> same women also want to be able to impose their choices on others (both
> men and unborn children). That's human nature. All power corrupts, and
> absolute power corrupts absolutely.
> Women who favor abortion rights aren't going to admit that there's
> any disparity between their "choice" rights, and their insistence on
> denying those same rights to men. Why should they agree to male/female
> equality, if they don't have to?
To which rights of men is this writer referring? Might he be alluding to
the fact that if a woman doesn't want to have a child, that somehow the
father should be able to enforce his desire of parenthood on her? The
fact that, as many of the news bulletins mention, a woman can legally
request child support payment should she decide to have the child and the
husband not? In the latter, I would agree that this paradigm is
manupulative of the very sexual contract into which most parties involved
with casual relationships enter not anticipating pregnancy.
I do feel that we need to educate both children as to the obvious risks of
pregnancy, but moreso, we need to enforce the idea that pregnancy
ultimately rests in the hands of a woman--regardless of her willingness to
use contraception, regardless of her religious convictions, regardless of
her partner's willingness or lack of willingness to use birth control.
Once pregnancy is established, there are obvious paradigms set into
motion--many of which have little to do with any regard for the father's
psychological condition, his desire, and, of course, his financial
stability. I do think that to encourage women--either through
jurisprudence or popular expression--to sue the alleged father of their
child for child support completely disempowers women as free agents of
their body and further elides her subjectivity as an actor in the
pregnancy and not a victim. Likewise, we must advocate that RU 485 be
made accessible to women so that in the event of pregnancy, she can more
easily evacuate the embryo, rather than have to wait the necessary time
before an abortion should be performed.
> Alternatively, equality between the sexes in this context could be
> introduced on the basis of overturning Roe v. Wade. In my view, there's a
> good case for doing this, in view of what has been discovered in the last
> 20 years about the point at which life starts, and in view of the clear
> evidence that abortion is being used as a substitute for birth control.
> However, women who favor abortion rights aren't going to give up those
> rights because of scientific discoveries, or because of any other
> legitimate arguments. The inequality between men and women will be
> preserved, so long as the current power structure remains as it is now.
Well, unfortunately the power structure is the "status quo" since religion
has often served as a type of intellectual sedative which reinforces
patriarchal discourse by asserting it supreme, phallocentric, authority
over the ideas and rights of mere mortals, mere women. Of course, there
are other religions and which actually do leave the body of a woman within
her own hands such that should a woman in Morocco, for instance, become
pregnant, she could have an abortion without having to run through mobs of
fundamentalists screaming at her.
> This issue has nothing to do with principles or fine points of law.
> Attempts to cast it in terms of law and principle are just a smokescreen
> for the exercise of power. The issue is determined by the relative
> political strengths of the two sexes in regard to these matters.
> In my opinion, there are two simple points: (1) the current abortion
> rights situation depends entirely on one of the parties (the child) not
> having a voice; and (2) the current situation on male/female "choice"
> disparities rests on one sex (men) not having any effective political
> voice. All the other stuff about men not gestating, constitutional rights
> of privacy, and so on is just hypocritical cant.
>
> Kenneth S.
>
> Don't like murder? Then don't kill anyone!
Well, what can I say, Kenneth S. I would have to confirm that if you see
such very private matters for women as "murder", then I think you ought to
be coming up with a better solution that merely turning the tables back a
hundred years and once again imprisoning women within their functionary
role as "childmaker." For instance, if you really feel that abortion is
murder...if you really feel that...then why not act in good faith and DO
something about it that involves your body, your action, rather than your
enacting your ideas on another. I have a few suggestions for those of you
out there who do feel that abortion is murder:
1. Stop engaging in sexual practices that could possibly result in
pregnancy. After all, there are other orifices and other pleasures. And
then there is always homosexuality which also reduces the risk.
2. Women, if you just can't go through with an abortion, then I think you
too should not engage in any endangering sexual act. Try suggestion
number 1.
3. And then, my favorite, which would really be the parallel answer to
pro-lifers who seek to enforce their morality upon women's bodies: Men,
chop off your penises so that none of us, men or women, will ever have to
worry about the evils of abortion and the evils of unwanted pregnancies.
I think most of us would be happier with this suggestion since men would
no longer feel victimized by women who "trap" men into pregnancy and women
could feel safer in the sexual act since there would no longer be the risk
of inducing pregnancy.
Short of the above ideas, I think that we ought to all stop moralizing
about any Body that extends any further than the tip of our dicks!
Julian V.
Kenneth S.
Julian V's comments on what I said about the "choice for men" issue
are in some respects fair. However, in other respects he is putting
words into my mouth.
My main point was really a simple one, namely that this issue (and a
great many others in the family law and other areas) is decided, not upon
principle or rationality, but upon the power structure. The present
power structure is that women, particularly those who favor some of the
things that many men object to, are an organized force with considerable
political impact. There is no National Organization for Men, Men's Legal
Defense Fund, or National Association for Men's Reproductive Rights. My
point in referring to human nature was to indicate that women, like men,
behave selfishly, and put up self-serving arguments to make sure that
they retain power. I was not saying that this is defensible.
On the "choice" issue, an initial question is what determines
everything that follows. It's like the drop of water, which if it falls
at one point close to the Continental Divide, eventually drains into the
Atlantic, but if it falls only one foot to the west, eventually drains
into the Pacific. If you think that life begins at birth, then you think
that abortion is murder. If you think that isn't the case, then you
think in terms of "choice."
So there's little point in stating that, if you don't approve of
abortion, don't have one. That is just restating the premise that your
opponents are questioning. If abortion is infanticide, then it isn't
just a matter of women controlling their bodies. Also, it isn't a
private matter for women, as Julian V. suggests, any more than the
decision whether or not to let their children live after birth would be a
private matter.
On this crucial initial question, at one time it seemed to me that
the balance of the argument was on the "choice" side. Now, in view of
recent scientific knowledge about the point at which life begins, and the
ability to keep alive increasingly younger fetuses, the situation has
changed very considerably. Another factor is the clear evidence that
abortion is not being used just when birth control has failed, but as a
form of birth control.
But let's assume those women who talk in terms of "reproductive
choice" and "controlling our own bodies" are right. If that's what it's
about, then a similar choice must be given to men. Men must be allowed
to have reproductive choice and to control their own bodies, which in
their case means that they must be allowed to renounce their parental
rights and responsibilities. The current situation is similar to
allowing women to have their methods of birth control, but not allowing
male methods of birth control. Why does the present situation continue,
then? The answer is not to be found in the rights or wrongs of the
situation, or in fine issues of principle. It's to be found in the
relative powerlessness of men, when it comes to influencing the political
system on such male issues as "choice for men" -- and others, such as
child custody, child support, and the place of fathers in the family.
Which is where we came in.
As to Julian V.'s comments about the consequences for men of
acknowledging that abortion is wrong, I largely agree with him. I don't
of course consider that men have to mutilate themselves, or turn to
homosexuality (but I assume this was just a rhetorical exaggeration on
his part). However, yes, it does seem that a recognition that abortion
is wrong would prompt a return to the old time religion in terms of
sexual morality.
Dave Prichard
>Uh, lemme see; Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain (to a certain
>extent), France, Australia.
My point exactly! If you have been following the news in these countries
Britain and Sweden in particular, massive cutbacks in government social
spending are resulting in the cessation of many programs. It is important
to note they were government sponsored programs and not a result of
personal responsibility which was the original thread.
When I was younger and lived in a small community, adults would admonish
children they didn't know for socially unacceptable behaviour. It was
considered normal. In order for the raising of children to be at personal
level of responsibility and not government, it can't succeed within a
community at much above the tribal level. I'm fortunate on living on a
street with many fine neighbours which we have turned in to what you might
say is an urban tribe. We look out for each others children, property,
health etc.. It is a personal responsibility we have taken on by choice.
>Shame on you, you know the answer to this question. But since it
>seems to have escaped your little mine, I'll answer it for you.
>Society, of course. The society that you live in.
Oh, which society? The one that 50 years ago determined that identifying
Jews to the authorities was a personal responsibly? Or perhaps the one that
25 years ago encouraged it's youth to run around in red scarves to root out
transgressors. Or how about the one in the States at the moment, which
seeks to identify those that are different from them and declare them
outcasts.
I went to a public showing last week. After I had sat down a group of
elderly men came in the packed auditorium. I got up and offered one my
seat, personal responsibility. Many people around me didn't bother to move,
their interpretation of personal responsibility. Some were very annoyed
when I further exercised MY sense of personal responsibility and shamed
them into giving up their seats.
To get back to my original point, morality changes just as dress fashion
does. For me personal responsibility transcends the vagaries of moral
fashion. I have a great deal of respect for the individual who disagrees
with my out of personal conviction rather than moral fashion.
>And just HOW would that be a "personal responsibility" of anyone?
>You're entitled to all the biological urges you desire to have (or
>don't even.) That doesn't mean that anyone else has a *responsibility*
>to provide anything to you; including *relief* from your biological
>urges.
To use your example of citing other societies, both the Polynesian and
Inuit societies followed such a practice, with great success and harmony
for centuries. Are you saying that their version of personal responsibility
is not as valid as yours?
>And as you also well know (well, maybe YOU don't), the reason that
>I made the comment that personal responsibility is not *always* a
>good thing or a bad thing, necessarily, is simply because we DO live
>in a society that now and then, depending on its whims, DOES take
>on responsibility for others and for what others have done. For
>example, you get old, you're ill, you have NO funds, you have NO family,
>you are starving. What should happen to you? OUR society has decided
>that it will take certain measures to ensure that YOU don't die from
>lack of funds to pay for your medicine or lack of food or housing.
>At least, to a certain extent. IF we lived in a society that completely
>and totally depended on "personal responsibility", such individuals
>would be left to their own devices. We live in a society that cares
>*enough* to prevent such situations at least in part. It is the
>measure of *any* society, IMO, just HOW it treats the least able of
>its citizenry.
Just down the street from me is a house that once belonged to my great
aunt. It was there that my great grandfather died. He was nursed in his
dotage by his daughter and her family. Not an uncommon practice in those
days. Your argument rests solely on the fallacy that state responsibility
is personal responsibility. They are not the same.
I heard a very interesting argument at a Christmas party between two
couples, both with children. It started with one couple, both working,
complaining about cuts to day care. To make the long story short, the other
couple had a parent at home, felt it was their responsibility to do so.
They had no objection to the other couple both working, but did object to
their tax money going to a double income family in order to subsidize their
day care. ( this was not an economic strata in which both parents had to
work to survive )
While the debate went on for some hours, I believe it is in essence a
benchmark of our times. Many in our Canadian society, while believing in
paying taxes to insure the education and health of others children, are
starting to object to paying to raise the children. They use the reason of
personal responsibility. You elected to have those children, you pay to
raise them. Some single people of my acquaintance are even upset at
educating anothers child, bit mean spirited and short sighted in my
opinion.
You have attempted to make government responsibility, societal
responsibility, and personal responsibility one entity and they are not.
While closely linked, the fabric of our society depends first on personal
responsibility. As Churchill noted "We make our living by what we get,we
make our life by what we give."
> Abortion: If you disagree with it, don't have one.
Agreed. But if I disagree with it should I be asked to subsidize it? After
all, if I didn't get her pregnant it's not my personal responsibility.
Dave
Kenneth S.
>
> On the "choice" issue, an initial question is what determines
>everything that follows. It's like the drop of water, which if it falls
>at one point close to the Continental Divide, eventually drains into the
>Atlantic, but if it falls only one foot to the west, eventually drains
>into the Pacific. If you think that life begins at birth, then you think
>that abortion is murder. If you think that isn't the case, then you
>think in terms of "choice."
>
There was, of course, an error in this paragraph that I didn't spot
before sending it. It should have been that, "if you think life begins
at CONCEPTION, you think that abortion is murder. My apologies if the
logic was hard to follow.
Marguerite Petersen
>
>
>
>>Uh, lemme see; Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain (to a certain
>>extent), France, Australia.
>
> My point exactly! If you have been following the news in these countries
>Britain and Sweden in particular, massive cutbacks in government social
>spending are resulting in the cessation of many programs. It is important
>to note they were government sponsored programs and not a result of
>personal responsibility which was the original thread.
Agreed. And I HAVE (and do) advocate personal responsibility. Either
that OR government (societal) responsibility. We have to have one
or the other.
> When I was younger and lived in a small community, adults would admonish
>children they didn't know for socially unacceptable behaviour. It was
>considered normal. In order for the raising of children to be at personal
>level of responsibility and not government, it can't succeed within a
>community at much above the tribal level. I'm fortunate on living on a
>street with many fine neighbours which we have turned in to what you might
>say is an urban tribe. We look out for each others children, property,
>health etc.. It is a personal responsibility we have taken on by choice.
Commendable and I heartily concur.
>>Shame on you, you know the answer to this question. But since it
>>seems to have escaped your little mine, I'll answer it for you.
>>Society, of course. The society that you live in.
>
> Oh, which society? The one that 50 years ago determined that identifying
>Jews to the authorities was a personal responsibly? Or perhaps the one that
>25 years ago encouraged it's youth to run around in red scarves to root out
>transgressors. Or how about the one in the States at the moment, which
>seeks to identify those that are different from them and declare them
>outcasts.
Of course not. The society that one lives in today. That is the
*only* one that is relevant to any of us living.
> I went to a public showing last week. After I had sat down a group of
>elderly men came in the packed auditorium. I got up and offered one my
>seat, personal responsibility. Many people around me didn't bother to move,
>their interpretation of personal responsibility. Some were very annoyed
>when I further exercised MY sense of personal responsibility and shamed
>them into giving up their seats.
Also commendable.
> To get back to my original point, morality changes just as dress fashion
>does. For me personal responsibility transcends the vagaries of moral
>fashion. I have a great deal of respect for the individual who disagrees
>with my out of personal conviction rather than moral fashion.
Of course morality changes. It always has, it always will. And yes
personal responsibility DOES transcend the vagaries of moral fashion.
I believe this wholeheartedly.
>>And just HOW would that be a "personal responsibility" of anyone?
>>You're entitled to all the biological urges you desire to have (or
>>don't even.) That doesn't mean that anyone else has a *responsibility*
>>to provide anything to you; including *relief* from your biological
>>urges.
>
> To use your example of citing other societies, both the Polynesian and
>Inuit societies followed such a practice, with great success and harmony
>for centuries. Are you saying that their version of personal responsibility
>is not as valid as yours?
Yes, for one simple reason. The females in these particular societies
were not allowed any voice in whether or not THEY wished or desired
to partake. It was simply expected of them because others desired
it of them.
>>And as you also well know (well, maybe YOU don't), the reason that
>>I made the comment that personal responsibility is not *always* a
>>good thing or a bad thing, necessarily, is simply because we DO live
>>in a society that now and then, depending on its whims, DOES take
>>on responsibility for others and for what others have done. For
>>example, you get old, you're ill, you have NO funds, you have NO family,
>>you are starving. What should happen to you? OUR society has decided
>>that it will take certain measures to ensure that YOU don't die from
>>lack of funds to pay for your medicine or lack of food or housing.
>>At least, to a certain extent. IF we lived in a society that completely
>>and totally depended on "personal responsibility", such individuals
>>would be left to their own devices. We live in a society that cares
>>*enough* to prevent such situations at least in part. It is the
>>measure of *any* society, IMO, just HOW it treats the least able of
>>its citizenry.
>
> Just down the street from me is a house that once belonged to my great
>aunt. It was there that my great grandfather died. He was nursed in his
>dotage by his daughter and her family. Not an uncommon practice in those
>days. Your argument rests solely on the fallacy that state responsibility
>is personal responsibility. They are not the same.
I've never claimed that at all. What I have claimed is that as a
society, we have a *responsibility* to assist and provide for those
who are not able to do so for themselves. That is, IF we desire to
have such a society. That IS our choice.
> I heard a very interesting argument at a Christmas party between two
>couples, both with children. It started with one couple, both working,
>complaining about cuts to day care. To make the long story short, the other
>couple had a parent at home, felt it was their responsibility to do so.
>They had no objection to the other couple both working, but did object to
>their tax money going to a double income family in order to subsidize their
>day care. ( this was not an economic strata in which both parents had to
>work to survive )
>
> While the debate went on for some hours, I believe it is in essence a
>benchmark of our times. Many in our Canadian society, while believing in
>paying taxes to insure the education and health of others children, are
>starting to object to paying to raise the children. They use the reason of
>personal responsibility. You elected to have those children, you pay to
>raise them. Some single people of my acquaintance are even upset at
>educating anothers child, bit mean spirited and short sighted in my
>opinion.
I agree. It IS mean spirited and short sighted. And I have also
heard the same complaints. What is at the base of all of this
however, is just WHAT responsibilities DO individuals have with
regard to *others* who live in our society? Society IS a community.
We have *some* responsibility to others, IMO. And at the bottom
of all of this is just WHAT benefit to society are children? If
society feels they offer NO benefit, then it is reasonable to
conclude that *only* the parents should be responsible for them;
their support, their education, their health. However, IF society
feels (as it does to a certain extent) that children ARE of some
benefit to society, then society has a certain responsibility to
see to it that those children are healthy, supported *and*
educated. It IS of benefit to us all, IMO.
>You have attempted to make government responsibility, societal
>responsibility, and personal responsibility one entity and they are not.
>While closely linked, the fabric of our society depends first on personal
>responsibility. As Churchill noted "We make our living by what we get,we
>make our life by what we give."
I've never suggested that these responsibilities are one. They ARE,
however, linked as none of us lives totally alone. We DO live within
a society.
>> Abortion: If you disagree with it, don't have one.
>
>Agreed. But if I disagree with it should I be asked to subsidize it? After
>all, if I didn't get her pregnant it's not my personal responsibility.
No. I don't agree with government subsidized abortion. It IS a
personal responsibility.
>Dave
Marg
--
Member PSEB Official Sonneteer JLP SoL Poet/Author
pet...@peak.org http://www.orst.edu/~peterseb/marg.html
ti...@world.std.com
> Julian V's comments on what I said about the "choice for men" issue
> are in some respects fair. However, in other respects he is putting
> words into my mouth.
I didn't think it was in any respect fair. For one thing, he utterly
completely disregarded your point.
You had a good point: While we're sitting here arguing the finer points
of the justification for c4m against intransigent liars, our society is
blithely committing "might makes right" and ignoring every justification
we give. Unless we show up to the battlefield, we can't expect to win.
Julian's response was completely irrelevant, the mindless shoot-back of
a PC type to whom "justice" and "fairness" are simply spin-words.
Geez, why argue with a monster that suggests men should cut their dicks
off? You can't reason with monsters like that. The best you can hope for
is to beat them politically, and we're not even doing that.
You had a good point there. Don't go forgetting it just because some
misandrist shouts out.
Tim
--
Against all forms of sexism -- and feminism is the most prevalent form.
Feminists lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie...
Kenneth S.
Ms. Hemingway has replied to the charge that she favors the principle
that might makes right by again talking in lofty (lefty?) terms about
"the law." She also invites those who disagree with the present
situation to suggest alternatives.
Absolutely no one who looks at the real world, and who doesn't have a
vested interest in pretending otherwise, would think that the law in the
United States has not radically changed, to the point where the law is
politics by another means. The process probably started with Roosevelt's
packing of the Supreme Court to get his legislation through. The process
has accelerated sharply in the last 20-30 years. The elements in the
change are: (1) Those who cannot get what they want through democratic
action and elections turn to the courts to overturn the results of public
opinion; (2) Lawyers are only too happy to oblige these people, since the
end result is to concentrate more power in the hands of judges and other
lawyers; (3) Lawyers in Congress and the state legislatures resist any
attempts to simplify the law, or to make it more predictable, and closer
to what the majority of the public wants.
The end result is that the letter of the U.S. Constitution and of
federal and state statutes now means very little. What counts is what
judges are likely to feel, and who can bring pressure to bear on judges
and politicians (and on the media, because they magnify the voices of
politically correct pressure groups). The idea of the rule of law, and
of judges who are above the political fray, has been lost almost
entirely.
People are not stupid. Those who have contact with the legal system,
with politicians, and with the media on issues about which they feel very
strongly can see what has happened. Fathers in my own state currently
are involved in attempts to change the law to a presumption of joint
custody. The above characteristics are VERY evident in the way the issue
is being handled.
The end result is that "the law," in this perverted modern form,
increasingly is ceasing to provide an alternative to "blood running in
the streets," as Ms Hemingway would have it. Lawyers cannot save us from
this, except by returning to their traditional craft of drafting and
interpreting the laws, and getting out of the business of making policies
and imposing their own views on the rest of society. How much chance is
there of that happening?
So what should happen to fix the system? One thing is that fathers
will have to recognize the brutal realities of the present
arrangements, as indicated by the way their rights have been trampled
upon, causing great damage not only to them, but to their children.
Fathers must cease looking at their own situations as personal quirks,
and must join with groups working for change, and be prepared to stick
with it for years. When fathers are an organized and politically
effective group, you can depend upon it that the law and the U.S.
Constitution will miraculously be found to embody some of the things that
fathers want. The Supreme Court will, as usual, follow the election
results.
The best way to restore balance into the system is to find a way of
restoring the two-parent family, which ensures that fathers have a place
with their children and removes the opportunity for lawyers and all the
rest of the child support industry to intervene between fathers and their
children. Until that is done, there must be equity in child custody. If
child support ceased to be a one-way flow of money from men to women, the
features of the present system would soon change. A presumption of joint
physical and legal custody would help in this context. Women could help
in this effort, but I have seen only a few are willing to do so. The
only prominent feminist I am aware of who recognizes the inadequacy and
injustice of the present system is Karen DeCrow.
In my view, the "choice for men" issue is very interesting, because
it illustrates so very clearly the disparities in the present system.
And, as the comments in this news group indicate, the "choice" issue also
illustrates the fact that the objective of many feminists is NOT equity,
but maximizing the power of women, if necessary at the expense of men and
children. "Choice for men" may yet be useful as a way of illuminating
this aspect. If women are to have this "choice," men must have it too.
However, in the broader context, I think the right course of action is to
find ways of reducing the number of abortions, through reintroducing the
stigma that used to be associated with it. (And, by the way, we
don't get anything like the full story on the negative side of abortion.
There is no clearer example of media bias than the coverage of abortion.
Nearly all reporters are on the "choice" side, and it affects what they
produce on the topic.)
Carol Ann Hemingway
writes:
>
>
> Ms. Hemingway has replied to the charge that she favors the
principle >that might makes right by again talking in lofty (lefty?)
terms about >"the law." She also invites those who disagree with the
present >situation to suggest alternatives.
>
I think most folks would agree that offering alternatives is more
productive than blame or shame. I don't think that "might" makes
right, but the views of the majority are more often represented in the
formation of law. That's why the burden of persuasion is placed on
those in the minority to show why the ideas of the majority should be
changed to reflect some new thinking.
---------------------------------------------
> Absolutely no one who looks at the real world, and who doesn't
have a vested interest in pretending otherwise, would think that the
law in the >United States has not radically changed, to the point where
the law is >politics by another means.
-------------------------------------
If you look at history, this is no change. It has always been thus.
--------------------------------------
The process probably started with Roosevelt's >packing of the Supreme
Court to get his legislation through. The process >has accelerated
sharply in the last 20-30 years.
--------------------------------------
Do you know of _any_ President who would not appoint someone who
reflected his own political or philosphical thought? They all do.
----------------------------------------
The elements in the >change are: (1) Those who cannot get what they
want through democratic >action and elections turn to the courts to
overturn the results of public >opinion; (2) Lawyers are only too happy
to oblige these people, since the >end result is to concentrate more
power in the hands of judges and other >lawyers; (3) Lawyers in
Congress and the state legislatures resist any >attempts to simplify
the law, or to make it more predictable, and closer >to what the
majority of the public wants.
-----------------------------------------------
1. There is nothing new about judicial activism....look at early
cases. Cardozo...Learned Hand....many others provided the
activist view of law.
2. Power is much less in the hands of judges today than it ever was
in years gone by; they have to abide by the stare decisis rulings
or risk getting overturned....that is a "bad" thing.
3. You can call it what you like, but a complex society where sperm
and egg can form "possible life" in a petri dish demand complex
law. Nothing is ever as simple as we'd like it to be. It's very
easy to blame this complexity on judges and lawyers because we
don't like or understand them very well, but perhaps it is a bit
more complex than that.
>
------------------------------------------------------------
> The end result is that the letter of the U.S. Constitution and of
>federal and state statutes now means very little. What counts is what
>judges are likely to feel, and who can bring pressure to bear on
judges >and politicians (and on the media, because they magnify the
voices of >politically correct pressure groups). The idea of the rule
of law, and >of judges who are above the political fray, has been lost
almost >entirely.
-----------------------------------------------------
This seems, to me, like the argument of a defeated person. When folks
from around the world come to America to study our Constitution, it is
not because they hear vain words that have been superceded by judges,
politicians and the media. They are overwhelmed by what it is we have,
a system of justice that allows all voices to be heard. Maybe you have
little appreciation for that, but I am in love with our Constitution.
I certainly don't agree with all the laws that exist. I may have
problems accepting those in power, but the document serves to protect
all of us.
--------------------------------------------------------
>
> People are not stupid. Those who have contact with the legal
system, >with politicians, and with the media on issues about which
they feel very >strongly can see what has happened. Fathers in my own
state currently >are involved in attempts to change the law to a
presumption of joint >custody. The above characteristics are VERY
evident in the way the issue >is being handled.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I could be in favor of joint custody....but I could not be persuaded
that it should precede the best interests of the child. As long as
those interests are placed first, I don't give a flying fig which
parent or parents prevail. Whatever is determined on that issue will
most likely, fit very well within the Constitution, so I doubt that you
will have any Constitutional issues there.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The end result is that "the law," in this perverted modern form,
>increasingly is ceasing to provide an alternative to "blood running in
>the streets," as Ms Hemingway would have it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Blood running in the streets" goes in many directions. It's not
really an either, or situation. If folks fail to abide by the system,
there is legal retribution and also the ability of others to defend
themselves. Most folks may recognize a need for self-defense but do
not pursue violence. Each of us must make personal choices about those
issues, but ultimately, if we cave into thugs and bullies, anarchy wins
and we are lost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers cannot save us from >this, except by returning to their
traditional craft of drafting and >interpreting the laws, and getting
out of the business of making policies >and imposing their own views on
the rest of society. How much chance is >there of that happening?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahahaha! I'm real curious as to what you think a lawyer does to earn
her bread. The job of a lawyer is to convince (argue, cajole, teach,
and instruct) the trier of fact as to the facts and issues of the case
and the law that controls. It is not their personal views that are
thrusted into the frey, but rather their obligation to provide these
facts on behalf of a client. Persuasion is part and parcel of their
work, and they may not always agree with what their client proposes.
The law is a noble thing when practiced with nobility. Each lawyer has
to determine where that nobility resides.
-----------------------------------------
>
> So what should happen to fix the system? One thing is that
fathers >will have to recognize the brutal realities of the present
>arrangements, as indicated by the way their rights have been trampled
>upon, causing great damage not only to them, but to their children.
>Fathers must cease looking at their own situations as personal quirks,
>and must join with groups working for change, and be prepared to stick
>with it for years.
----------------------------------------------------------
Whenever a group of people get together for a good purpose and work
toward changing law, that is a good thing. If your purpose has some
nobility, I have nothing against that idea whether I agree with you or
not. My only bone of contention may be with the methods you use, or
perhaps your channeling your energy in the wrong direction, but that
would be best determined by your group and not by me.
------------------------------------------------------------
When fathers are an organized and politically
>effective group, you can depend upon it that the law and the U.S.
>Constitution will miraculously be found to embody some of the things
that >fathers want. The Supreme Court will, as usual, follow the
election >results.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I would hope that the U.S. Constitution will always embody equality.
When it does not, it should be amended to assure all humans are getting
equal protection where it is founded upon equal situations. The
Supreme Court does not really follow election results, but it must
remain a credible institution or it would die. In other words,
Presidents have attempted to appoint justices who follow their own
beliefs, but once appointed, they have other duties to the people, the
law, and Presidents have oft been dissapointed with the results.
------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The best way to restore balance into the system is to find a way
of >restoring the two-parent family, which ensures that fathers have a
place >with their children and removes the opportunity for lawyers and
all the >rest of the child support industry to intervene between
fathers and their >children.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This thinking is a slow-crawl back to the days of "father knows best".
Our society is slowly evolving into one that supports individual rights
rather than "family rights". The reason for this is simple. Not all
folks have or desire to have a family. There are many life-style
choices that may or may not involve having another in your life. In
order to make sure all people are represented, it makes sense to some
to have the individual be represented rather than "the family" which
has become an arbitrary terminology depending upon your own definition
of family. Of course, there are still many patriarchal folk who desire
a return to the cave. Even tho it is dark and dank there, there may be
a level of comfort for some.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Until that is done, there must be equity in child custody. If >child
support ceased to be a one-way flow of money from men to women, the
>features of the present system would soon change.
----------------------------------------------------
The system demands support of children regardless of assignment of CP
or NCP status. As more and more women become more economically equal
we will see more of them complaining about how much money they
contribute to child support. I will have as much sympathy for them as
I do for their male counterparts.
---------------------------------------------------------
A presumption of joint >physical and legal custody would help in this
context. Women could help >in this effort, but I have seen only a few
are willing to do so. The >only prominent feminist I am aware of who
recognizes the inadequacy and >injustice of the present system is Karen
DeCrow.
----------------------------------
I don't know DeCrow's stand on joint custody. I only support it when
it works in the child's best interests, like any other part of the
custodial arrangement.
-------------------------------------
>
> In my view, the "choice for men" issue is very interesting,
because >it illustrates so very clearly the disparities in the present
system.
------------------------------------------------------
It's also interesting because it illustrates very clearly that similar
situation is a pre-requisite to equal treatment under the 14th
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------
>And, as the comments in this news group indicate, the "choice" issue
also >illustrates the fact that the objective of many feminists is NOT
equity, >but maximizing the power of women, if necessary at the expense
of men and >children.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I can't speak for others, but my objective is to make sure women remain
equal under the law regarding their own bodily autonomy, and to assure
that children's best interests are reflected within custodial law and
issues of child support.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Choice for men" may yet be useful as a way of illuminating >this
aspect. If women are to have this "choice," men must have it too.
>However, in the broader context, I think the right course of action is
to >find ways of reducing the number of abortions, through
reintroducing the >stigma that used to be associated with it.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Stigma", blame, and dark rooms filled with guilt were all used by the
patriarchal society to make sure women towed the mark. Women like
myself will never go back to that form of abuse. We will live in the
light regardless of your attempt to control and regulate our bodies.
What's more, we know how to do it now. Abortion is probably not a
choice I would easily make...I can think of few circumstances that
would persuade me to make that choice. The fact remains, the choice is
mine and belongs to no other.
----------------------------------------------------------------
(And, by the way, we >don't get anything like the full story on the
negative side of abortion. > There is no clearer example of media bias
than the coverage of abortion. > Nearly all reporters are on the
"choice" side, and it affects what they >produce on the topic.)
>
------------------------------------------------------------
I know a few right-wing talk show hosts that blast the "liberal media
and academia" for left wing rhetoric. I guess the only comment I can
make regarding that labeling is....if I were going to go with one side
or the other I'd rather go with the people who could read and right
than those who can only bitch and moan.
Lefty
Hillel
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway ) writes:
>I think most folks would agree that offering alternatives is more
>productive than blame or shame.
I suggested the following alternative several times, and you
had absolutely nothing to say about it. Painting men as
irresponsible and blaming them was much more fun.
#long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, there was a pretty damn
#libertarian society: cold, cruel, Dickensian by our present standards.
#People were responsible for taking care of themselves and their
#children. There was no guaranteed governmental safety net. If you
#fell upon bad times you asked for help from friends, relatives, or
#private charities. The problem here was that all these sources of aid
#pretty much had an agenda, a set of rules they insisted you follow in
#order to be a recipient of their (usually grudging) charity. If you
#lost your job you might be able to move in with your parents, but you
#suddenly got stuck with a curfew and no loud rock music and your
#girlfriend couldn't spend the night and . . . well, you know how
#parents are. If you got pregnant and couldn't support the baby
#yourself and the man wouldn't help and your parents wouldn't take you
#in you could go to the Catholic home for unwed mothers. You'd be taken
#care of, your baby would be adopted into a good home, but boy did *they*
#have an agenda. Listening to the nuns go on about your sinful past wasn't
#half of it. Everybody tried *real* hard not to fall upon bad times,
#and kept their insurance premiums paid up; because, while nobody much
#actually starved, the alternatives sometimes didn't look all that much
#better.
>I could be in favor of joint custody....but I could not be persuaded
>that it should precede the best interests of the child.
And "the best interests of the child," should be decided by lawyers
and social workers with Lefty's mind set. That's the best way to
keep the discrimination against men in custody and support
alive and well.
>I only support it when it works in the child's best interests,
Tell me Lefty, did children have a better childhood in the 50's or today?
Tell me Lefty, how many kids where killed by gun fire in the 50's?
How many children did not know to read and write after 8
years in school?
Tell me Lefty, do you believe that growing up knowing that
having a kid you can't support is the ticket for "freedom" is
so good for girls?
Do you believe that knowing the the law will help you if you
will lie about birth control is the way to raise women that
can be trusted?
What do you do when you see that the system you supported
for 30 years don't deliver? Do you have the integrity to say
"I was wrong"?
Methinks that you have decided that saying "I was wrong" is not
in the children's best interest, so you will never say it.
As we have seen with the CDA, "children's right" is the last
refuge of the anti-freedom fighters.
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"President Johnson is a living proof that an inability to speak
English is no obstacle to success," -- ("Getting Straight", Ken Kolb)
Kenneth S.
> (And, by the way, we >don't get anything like the full story on the
>negative side of abortion. > There is no clearer example of media bias
>than the coverage of abortion. > Nearly all reporters are on the
>"choice" side, and it affects what they >produce on the topic.)
>>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>I know a few right-wing talk show hosts that blast the "liberal media
>and academia" for left wing rhetoric. I guess the only comment I can
>make regarding that labeling is....if I were going to go with one side
>or the other I'd rather go with the people who could read and right
>than those who can only bitch and moan.
>
>Lefty
This last comment is like the clock that strikes thirteen -- it
casts doubt on all that has gone before. Nobody except journalists
attempts to argue that the media is not strongly biased towards the
liberal end. Even journalists are only half-hearted in their defense,
because they know the charge is true, and cannot be disputed by anyone
who knows the media. Surveys of the personal views and voting
preferences of reporters have provided clear evidence of why this is so.
If this bias is not evident, there must be a question about the overall
judgment of those who fail to see it.
I'm no admirer of the Rush Limbaughs and Gordon Liddys, but they
provide some minor corrective to the liberal bias. In the end, however,
the agenda -- particularly for politicians and judges -- is set by the
liberal print media and television.
On the particular issue of abortion, a few years ago the L.A. Times
did its own investigation of its coverage, following persistent
complaints. They found that the charge of bias in favor of the "choice"
side was very well-founded. Not only were all the reporters covering the
issue "pro-choice," they didn't even KNOW anyone personally who held
opposing views. Whether the L.A. Times coverage changed after this, I
don't know.
There are many people who can read and write (I presume that is what
was meant) outside the media. These people are doing much more than
bitching and moaning, as Ms. Hemingway puts it, It's just that you don't
find out much about their activities from the media. You don't find out
much about the fathers' side of family law issues, for example. Media
coverage of the child custody issue is a beautiful example. A tiny
number of cases where mothers "lose" custody are turned by the media into
a tidal wave of father-custody. Those of us who are trying to change
this situation know what a travesty of coverage this is, and how the
glass ceiling on paternal custody has not changed at all.
People who rely solely on the media as a basis to make up their
minds are liable to reach very ill-informed judgments. They will be
caught by surprise by all kinds of developments.
White Fox
> I just don't understand why everyone here spends time analyzing this
>situation in terms of principle, fine points of law, what is right, etc.,
>etc. It seems perfectly obvious that the current situation in regard to
>"choice" for men, and "choice" for women represents crude political
>realities.
Only on a very small scale, actually it more closely represents an
archaic societal view that women need to be taken care of by men.
> Those women who support abortion rights are organized, have
>intimidated politicians and judges, and everyone involved knows they will
>make a big fuss about retaining "choice" for themselves. However, these
>same women also want to be able to impose their choices on others (both
>men and unborn children). That's human nature. All power corrupts, and
>absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Wrong, this is a generalization that discounts that many women do not
feel their choice in regards to their own body includes the choice to
pick a man's pocket.
> Women who favor abortion rights aren't going to admit that there's
>any disparity between their "choice" rights, and their insistence on
>denying those same rights to men. Why should they agree to male/female
>equality, if they don't have to? That would mean giving up 18 or more
>years of child support. No one is ever going to give up power or money
>because they've been convinced by fine points of logic such as have been
>deployed here.
Wrong, again this is a generalization (see above).
> Alternatively, equality between the sexes in this context could be
>introduced on the basis of overturning Roe v. Wade. In my view, there's a
>good case for doing this, in view of what has been discovered in the last
>20 years about the point at which life starts,
Huh? Your view is askew. There's no "good case" for overturning RvW.
Which is not to say that the unfortunate day might not occur that this
happens, considering the number of control freaks out there. Should
it happen it's more likely to be a detriment to society as a whole for
reasons not limited to a woman's right to make decisions involving her
own body.
> and in view of the clear
>evidence that abortion is being used as a substitute for birth control.
>However, women who favor abortion rights aren't going to give up those
>rights because of scientific discoveries, or because of any other
>legitimate arguments. The inequality between men and women will be
>preserved, so long as the current power structure remains as it is now.
Ah, now I see, this whole thing has been your rationalization as to
why the Religious Reich should have more power, so they can control
women's bodies. Why didn't you just state that at the beginning of
your post and I would have given it the attention it deserved and
moved on. All this hiding of your agenda behind the issues is boring.
> This issue has nothing to do with principles or fine points of law.
>Attempts to cast it in terms of law and principle are just a smokescreen
>for the exercise of power. The issue is determined by the relative
>political strengths of the two sexes in regard to these matters.
This has little to do with political strength as you see it and more
to do with passing the buck, or in this case, the bill for child
support. But I like your choice of the word smoke-screen, it does
seem fitting for your post.
> In my opinion, there are two simple points: (1) the current abortion
>rights situation depends entirely on one of the parties (the child) not
>having a voice; and (2) the current situation on male/female "choice"
>disparities rests on one sex (men) not having any effective political
>voice. All the other stuff about men not gestating, constitutional rights
>of privacy, and so on is just hypocritical cant.
I'm sure you know what they say about opinions... As to your first
point, it's irrelevant to the issue of forcing men to pay child
support. As to your second point,"...men not having any effective
political voice" ??? Don't make me laugh. I hate to break it to you
but it's mostly men that come up with these laws to force men to pay
child support. It is these men that make up the greater portion of
the *powers that be* that can change this situation to reflect choices
being made to reflect a more equitable balance for men and women.
White Fox
"If men were equally at risk from this condition...then I am sure that
pregnancy would be classified as a sexually transmitted disease and
abortions would be no more controversial than emergency
appendectomies." - Barbara Ehrenreich
v.pagan
> I just don't understand why everyone here spends time analyzing this
>situation in terms of principle, fine points of law, what is right, etc.,
>etc.
Yeah. What a waste of time. Who care about principles, anyway?
It seems perfectly obvious that the current situation in regard to
>"choice" for men, and "choice" for women represents crude political
>realities.
> Those women who support abortion rights
There are PLENTY of men who support abortion rights--
hadn't you noticed? And there are plenty of women who
don't.
are organized,
You got a problem with organizations--or just with WOMEN who
get organized?
have
>intimidated politicians
Oh--and groups like the "Christian" Coalition don't try
to "intimidate" politicians?(ROTFL)
and judges, and everyone involved knows they will
>make a big fuss about retaining "choice" for themselves.
So? What's wrong with that?
However, these
>same women also want to be able to impose their choices on others (both
>men and unborn children).
Well, any pregnant MEN are free to make the same choice.
Your body=your choice. It's called retaining one's bodily
autonomy. You have a problem with that? Why do YOU want to
impose your choice on a woman?
That's human nature. All power corrupts, and
>absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Yup. That's why we needed feminism--so that one gender
would not automatically have power over the other.
> Women who favor abortion rights aren't going to admit that there's
>any disparity between their "choice" rights, and their insistence on
>denying those same rights to men.
You big silly! Any pregnant MAN can get an abortion too!
Why should they agree to male/female
>equality, if they don't have to?
I'd agree that men should have to do their fair share of
gestating, if I had MY druthers . . .
That would mean giving up 18 or more
>years of child support.
Umm--BOTH parents have to support their children.
That's the law. You got a problem with that?
No one is ever going to give up power or money
>because they've been convinced by fine points of logic such as have been
>deployed here.
That's why we have "laws" and "courts" because there are so
many ethically impaired and logically challenged individuals--take
heart, YOU ARE NOT ALONE.
> Alternatively, equality between the sexes in this context could be
>introduced on the basis of overturning Roe v. Wade.
How? Only women bear children.
In my view, there's a
>good case for doing this, in view of what has been discovered in the last
>20 years about the point at which life starts,
Cite your source. BTW, no one doubts that a fetus is alive.
and in view of the clear
>evidence that abortion is being used as a substitute for birth control.
You are crazier than a shithouse rat if you beleive that.
>However, women who favor abortion rights aren't going to give up those
>rights because of scientific discoveries,
Whaat scientific discoveries are you babbling about?
or because of any other
>legitimate arguments.
Well, you haaven't brought one up yet . . .
The inequality between men and women
Hey--I already said that I think men should be free to
bear children!
will be
>preserved, so long as the current power structure remains as it is now.
(snicker)yup, and the black helicopters are spying on you,
aren't they?
> This issue has nothing to do with principles or fine points of law.
Well, you would be be incapable of understanding anyway . . .
>Attempts to cast it in terms of law and principle are just a smokescreen
>for the exercise of power. The issue is determined by the relative
>political strengths of the two sexes in regard to these matters.
And women are currently running everything, huh?
And men have no power?
> In my opinion, there are two simple points: (1) the current abortion
>rights situation depends entirely on one of the parties (the child) not
>having a voice;
It's called a fetus, and it bnever has had any "rights"
and (2) the current situation on male/female "choice"
>disparities rests on one sex (men) not having any effective political
>voice.
I forgot that Supreme Commander Steinam took the vote away
from the menfolks . . .
All the other stuff about men not gestating, constitutional rights
>of privacy, and so on is just hypocritical cant.
And you know more about the law than the Supreme court, and
more than our elected officials, huh?
>Kenneth S.
>Don't like murder? Then don't kill anyone!
Wouldn't dream of it--it's against the law.
Abortion is not.
v.pagan
> There was, of course, an error in this paragraph that I didn't spot
>before sending it.
More than ONE error, more like NOTHING BUT.
eaf