Being Unwillingly Sued for Paternity? Fight Back!
Will Steeves
For redistribution:
R O E V . W A D E F O R M E N
The National Center for Men has prepared a legal challenge to
today's restrictive paternity laws, and is searching for a
suitable plaintiff in or near Hartford Connecticut, Boston
Massachusetts or New York City. Simply put, we intend to initiate
the male Roe v. Wade on the federal level. We have an attorney,
legal strategy and media interest.
We believe we can win, and are searching for the best possible
plaintiff. He
- will be certain that he doesn't want to be a father
- won't have capitulated to fatherhood in court, in writing or otherwise
- will be articulate
- will be comfortable with media interviews
- will live near Hartford Connecticut, Boston Massachusetts or New
York City to have access to our attorneys. Or if your attorney is
interested, ours may be willing to work with him.
If you know someone who fits the bill, please ask him to call us.
NATIONAL CENTER FOR MEN P.O. BOX 555 OLD BETH PAGE, NY 11804 (516) 942-2020
---
Will Steeves, B.Sc. (Toronto, 1991), go...@io.org - "Neil Hull is GOiD"
Publisher & Managing Editor, The New Edition (U of T); Nu '96, Psi Upsilon
Ontario Area Coordinator, FREE (http://www.vix.com/free)
Make Money & Save on Long Distance: http://freedomstarr.com/ST4855382.rep
David W. Truland
go...@io.org (Will Steeves) wrote:
>For redistribution:
> R O E V . W A D E F O R M E N
> The National Center for Men has prepared a legal challenge to
> today's restrictive paternity laws, and is searching for a
> suitable plaintiff in or near Hartford Connecticut, Boston
> Massachusetts or New York City. Simply put, we intend to initiate
> the male Roe v. Wade on the federal level. We have an attorney,
> legal strategy and media interest.
Find a guy who is pregnant and who has been refused
the right to terminate the pregnancy and you'll be all set.
[...]
Lenny Schafer
David W. Truland (tru...@albany.net) says:
-snip-
[regarding reproductive rights for men]
: Find a guy who is pregnant and who has been refused
: the right to terminate the pregnancy and you'll be all set.
But that wouldn't equalize reproductive rights.
Best would be to make abortion illegal. Or extend the definition of
"abortion" ever so slightly to include infanticide, then dad could have a
chance to kill it too. Who's to say a nine
month old fetus is that much less a person than a baby borne for one minute?
There is no definitive science to support substancial differences between
the two, especially if the imbillical cord is left intact immediately
after birth.
Legal abortion does set a precedence for killing one's offspring for
one's personal convenience. Just extend the killing period to maybe 5
mins. pass birth so that the father can crush it's skull a minute after
birth, than only a minute before, as is legal for the mother now.
Partial birth abortions, as they are now, might already give dads the
right to kill their babies. If the fetal object, during delivery, has
only it's head protruding out of the mother's body, it is still legally a
fetus.
However crushing it's skull at that point would not interfere with a
woman's privacy since that part is no longer inside her body. Since it
still legally only a fetus at this point, destroying it this way should
be equally legal. I know this is a little gruesome and repugnant to
some, but not really that much more different than that which surrounds
other abortions. This way a father can have abortion rights too, without
interefering with the private body of the mother, so rigorously protected by
Roe v Wade. Just severe the fetus' head as it delivers. If the fetus
is female, it's ovum can be harvested for important research or even stored
for later transplant into the mother herself as treatment for relief from
menopause, a disorder which unfairly strikes only women. Women could
benefit by two major ways: not only would they avoid the aging stress
of raising that child, but its parts as a fetus can relieve the mother
of the aging stress of menopause. Men then would benefit by having
more attractive wives, girlfriends for longer periods over time and
wouldn't have to chase younger women, as well as not having to raise
children they don't want. Seems like a win-win solution to me.
Love, lenny
--
---
Privacy, not pornography is the greatest threat presented by the Internet.
Too much (anonymity) and too little (harassments and dossiers) will
invite government regulation, if at all possible to enforce.
sch...@netcom.com
james g. keegan jr.
In article <schaferD...@netcom.com>, sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) wrote:
: David W. Truland (tru...@albany.net) says:
: -snip-
: [regarding reproductive rights for men]
:
: : Find a guy who is pregnant and who has been refused
: : the right to terminate the pregnancy and you'll be all set.
:
: But that wouldn't equalize reproductive rights.
why not?
what could be more equal than having a choice to carry a
pregnancy to term or not be made by the pregnant party?
unless you can come up with something more equal, your
remark is menaingless.
: Best would be to make abortion illegal.
"Best" for whom? looks like you made another statement of
opinion and expressed it so badly that it sounds like you
are stating a fact.
[...]
David W. Truland
sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) wrote:
>David W. Truland (tru...@albany.net) says:
>-snip-
>[regarding reproductive rights for men]
>: Find a guy who is pregnant and who has been refused
>: the right to terminate the pregnancy and you'll be all set.
>But that wouldn't equalize reproductive rights.
Sure it would. Everyone who is pregnant gets to
decide whether to carry that pregnancy to term.
>Best would be to make abortion illegal.
I see - you would like to *force* pregnant people to
carry the pregnancy to term.
>Or extend the definition of
>"abortion" ever so slightly to include infanticide, then dad could have a
>chance to kill it too.
How cute. But then, when you lie and call a fetus a person. That's
what you end up with.
>Who's to say a nine
>month old fetus is that much less a person than a baby borne for one minute?
Define "that much less." As I'm sure you know (chuckle) States
already have the right to restrict late term abortions to cases where
the life or health of the "mother" are threatened. A pity you have so
little regard for the health of pregnant people.
>There is no definitive science to support substancial differences between
>the two, especially if the imbillical cord is left intact immediately
>after birth.
Science is completely irrelevant. A pregnant person's right
to privacy (control their own body and protect their own health)
is.
>Legal abortion does set a precedence for killing one's offspring for
>one's personal convenience.
Only for complete idiots who are incapable of distinguishing
between a fetus and a person who has been born and is alive.
>Just extend the killing period to maybe 5
>mins. pass birth so that the father can crush it's skull a minute after
>birth, than only a minute before, as is legal for the mother now.
Do you have these demented cravings for homicide often?
>Partial birth abortions, as they are now, might already give dads the
>right to kill their babies. If the fetal object, during delivery, has
>only it's head protruding out of the mother's body, it is still legally a
>fetus.
Actually, you have that particular late term procedure backward.
But what else is new. Besides, the "father" still doesn't have the
right to make the decision [absent a health care proxy from the
woman].
[remainder of pro-lie rant deleted]
Suck it up lenny and read the truth [I know you're
quite fond of those pro-lie pamphlets but you've got to grow
up sometime]:
------------------------------------------------------------
By Mary-Dorothy Line
My husband and I are extremely offended about how
legitimate medical procedures are being portrayed in
Washington. Legislation (H.R. 1833/S 939) was recently
sent to President Clinton which would ban several types of
late-term abortions, late-term abortions which are used to
protect the mother's health when there is no hope for the
baby.
This legislation is wrong, and it would hurt a lot of
American families. We know, we are one of those families.
I am a registered Republican and we are practicing
Catholics. Last April, we found out I was pregnant with
our first child and were extremely happy.
Nineteen weeks into my pregnancy, an ultrasound indicated
that there was something wrong with our baby. The doctor
noticed that his head was too large and contained
excessive fluid. He recommended another ultrasound in two
weeks to check the progression.
This problem is called hydrocephalus. Every person's head
contains fluid to protect and cushion the brain, but if there is
too much fluid, the brain cannot develop.
As practicing Catholics, when we have problems and
worries, we turn to prayer. So we prayed, as did our
parents and grandparents. My husband and I were scared,
but we are strong people and believed that God would not
give us a problem if we couldn't handle it. This was our
baby. Everything would be fine. We never thought about
abortion.
A few weeks later we had another ultrasound and another
one after that. We consulted with five specialists, who
all told us the same thing. Our little baby had a very
advanced, textbook case of hydrocephaly. We asked what
we could do. They all told us there was no hope and
recommended that we terminate the pregnancy.
We asked about in utero operations and removing the fluid,
but were again told there was nothing we could do. We
were devastated. I can't express the pain we still felt -
this was our precious little baby and he was being taken
from us before we even had him.
My doctors, some of the best in the country, recommended
the Intact Dilation and Evacuation (IDE) procedure. No
scissors were used and no one sucked out our baby's brains
as is being depicted in the inflammatory ads supporting this
legislation.
A simple needle was used to remove the fluid - the same
fluid that killed our son - to allow his head to pass through
the birth canal undamaged. Our baby never developed a
brain, his head was filled with fluid and he had no stomach.
This was not our choice - this was God's will.
My doctor's knew that we would want to have children in
the future, even though it was the furthest thing from my
mind at the time.. They recommended the best procedure
for me and our baby. Because the trauma to my body was
minimized by this procedure, I was able to become
pregnant again. We are expecting another baby in
September.
I pray every day that this will never happen to anyone
again, but it will, and those of us unfortunate enough to
have to live this nightmare need a procedure which will
give us hope for the future. Our elected officials need
to hear the truth. The truth does make a difference -
when people listen.
Many people do not understand the real issue - it is
women's health; not abortion and certainly not choice.
We must leave decisions about the type of medical
procedure to employ with the experts in the medical
community and with the families they affect. It is not
the place for government.
Lenny Schafer
james g. keegan jr. (jke...@ix.netcom.com) says:
: In article <schaferD...@netcom.com>, sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) wrote:
: : David W. Truland (tru...@albany.net) says:
: : -snip-
: : [regarding reproductive rights for men]
: :
: : : Find a guy who is pregnant and who has been refused
: : : the right to terminate the pregnancy and you'll be all set.
: :
: : But that wouldn't equalize reproductive rights.
: why not?
: what could be more equal than having a choice to carry a
: pregnancy to term or not be made by the pregnant party?
Your argument is specious and assinine as it presumes that men can get
pregnant. I hate to tell you, but try as you will, your stools cannot be
inseminated with life. My point: it still takes both sexes to get
pregnant, no matter the geography of the fetus.
: : Best would be to make abortion illegal.
: "Best" for whom?
It would prohibit either parent from killing their children, equalizing
reproductive "rights" and responsibilities. Yes, I know that by making
abortion illegal again, male feminists might find it more difficult to
engage in care-free sex knowing that they may have to pay child support
for 18 years, instead of splitting the abortionists fee. It's so unfair,
isn't it? It's a lot easier to just label the unborne baby a tumor to be
destroyed before it hits you up for your income. I am truely touched by
your professed compassion for the privacy of women.
Lenny Schafer
: >David W. Truland (tru...@albany.net) says:
: >-snip-
: >[regarding reproductive rights for men]
: >: Find a guy who is pregnant and who has been refused
: >: the right to terminate the pregnancy and you'll be all set.
: >But that wouldn't equalize reproductive rights.
: Sure it would. Everyone who is pregnant gets to
: decide whether to carry that pregnancy to term.
I wish you would stop squeezing your intellectual pimples in my
direction. Men don't get pregnant, Einstein. Can't get pregnant without
men though. Men have a role, men have a say. Let's make it equal. Deal
with it.
: >Best would be to make abortion illegal.
: I see - you would like to *force* pregnant people to
: carry the pregnancy to term.
Damn right! I'm all for forcing people to not kill other people.
: >Or extend the definition of
: >"abortion" ever so slightly to include infanticide, then dad could have a
: >chance to kill it too.
: How cute. But then, when you lie and call a fetus a person. That's
: what you end up with.
There's no science to say a fetus isn't a person. But later you say
science is irrelevant anyway. In your case this would seem to include
rational thought as being irrelevant, too.
: >Who's to say a nine
: >month old fetus is that much less a person than a baby borne for one minute?
: Define "that much less." As I'm sure you know (chuckle) States
: already have the right to restrict late term abortions to cases where
: the life or health of the "mother" are threatened. A pity you have so
: little regard for the health of pregnant people.
I support abortions for those who's lives are in acute danger.
: >There is no definitive science to support substancial differences between
: >the two, especially if the imbillical cord is left intact immediately
: >after birth.
: Science is completely irrelevant.
-snip-
And arguing with an idiot is pointless.
Love, lenny
P.S. In your included sob story, the Catholic mother admits her unborne son
was already dead from the fluid. Also, since the baby had no brain, it
had no brainwaves -- a sign of clinical death. If true, this is a
stillborne not an abortion. But screw science, right?
David W. Truland
sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) wrote:
>David W. Truland (tru...@albany.net) says:
>: sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) wrote:
>: >David W. Truland (tru...@albany.net) says:
>: >-snip-
>: >[regarding reproductive rights for men]
>: >: Find a guy who is pregnant and who has been refused
>: >: the right to terminate the pregnancy and you'll be all set.
>: >But that wouldn't equalize reproductive rights.
>: Sure it would. Everyone who is pregnant gets to
>: decide whether to carry that pregnancy to term.
>I wish you would stop squeezing your intellectual pimples in my
>direction. Men don't get pregnant, Einstein.
Perhaps you now finally understand.
[...]
>: >Best would be to make abortion illegal.
>: I see - you would like to *force* pregnant people to
>: carry the pregnancy to term.
>Damn right! I'm all for forcing people to not kill other people.
Of course you meant not to terminate a pregnancy. But
I'll make allowances for your obvious intellectual disability.
Well, fortunately for pregnant women, what you want to
do is unconstitutional. Deal with it.
Prestor John
In article <4rkco0$g...@ultra.sonic.net>, mi...@sonic.net (MINXS) wrote:
> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) wrote:
>
> >I support abortions for those who's lives are in acute danger.
>
> Why? If a fetus is a person and killing it is murder, then how can
> you justify killing it to save someone else?
>
because then and only then, when it is a life for a life, can one life be
lost in order to make sure that two are not. If _nothing is done_ when
the mother's life is in danger, than they will both die. If the child is
aborted, one is lost. In all other cases, if nothing is done than two
will live.
Peace,
DCM
--
Some will die in hot pursuit in fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit while sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain that is
pouring like an avalance coming down the mountain
MINXS
sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) wrote:
>I support abortions for those who's lives are in acute danger.
Why? If a fetus is a person and killing it is murder, then how can
you justify killing it to save someone else?
>And arguing with an idiot is pointless.
>Love, lenny
>P.S. In your included sob story, the Catholic mother admits her unborne son
>was already dead from the fluid. Also, since the baby had no brain, it
>had no brainwaves -- a sign of clinical death.
Wrong. An anencephalic just lacks a forebrain. It has a brainstem
and while alive there are brainwaves in the brainstem.
If true, this is a
>stillborne not an abortion. But screw science, right?
MINXS Website closed for renovation
WiggieYuk
(edit)
>P.S. In your included sob story, the Catholic mother admits her unborne
son
>was already dead from the fluid. Also, since the baby had no brain, it
>had no brainwaves -- a sign of clinical death. If true, this is a
>stillborne not an abortion. But screw science, right?
regarding what you callously dismiss as a "sob story", i think it depends
on what you consider a "brain" (seems absurd, but bear w/me for a minute).
as to my understanding the fetus (or whatever your term) had a developed
brainstem, allowing for things like fetal heartbeat, etc, but lacked the
higher reigons. so technically (especially if you argue life at
conception) it had a brain, certainly more of one than a zygote or embryo,
making tidy ethical anti explainations of "stillbirth" a little more gray,
like all of the abortion debate.
mer
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <schaferD...@netcom.com> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer)
writes:
>It would prohibit either parent from killing their children,
equalizing >reproductive "rights" and responsibilities. Yes, I know
that by making >abortion illegal again, male feminists might find it
more difficult to >engage in care-free sex knowing that they may have
to pay child support >for 18 years, instead of splitting the
abortionists fee. It's so unfair, >isn't it? It's a lot easier to
just label the unborne baby a tumor to be >destroyed before it hits you
up for your income. I am truely touched by >your professed compassion
for the privacy of women.
----------
Grow up Gonzo! Women have always HAD the right to determine
what bodily intrusions they desired; men (and Congress) may not have
always respected our rights; but we've always had them. The right to
determine what happens to your own body is the most FUNDAMENTAL of all
rights. As far as your little scenerio, how ludicrous for you to
assume that you have the right to kill a fetus or a baby (at whichever
time you would choose to do so). While the fetus is still attached to
the mother SHE (and sometimes the doctor) control the outcome because
the fetus is still a part of "her". Once born, the BABY has human
rights. The privacy of women is pretty much the same as the privacy of
men; of course, men don't gestate, so we don't discuss that aspect of
their rights. Once technology makes it possible for men to gestate,
they too, will partake of the privacy that women enjoy as it relates to
gestation.
Lefty
>
>
>Love, lenny
Lenny Schafer
Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) says:
: In <schaferD...@netcom.com> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer)
: writes:
: >
: >It would prohibit either parent from killing their children,
: equalizing >reproductive "rights" and responsibilities. Yes, I know
: ----------
: Grow up Gonzo!
-sigh-
: Women have always HAD the right to determine
: what bodily intrusions they desired; men (and Congress) may not have
: always respected our rights; but we've always had them. The right to
: determine what happens to your own body is the most FUNDAMENTAL of all
: rights.
No "right" is absolute. Not even the recently invented right to privacy.
You may not sell your body for sex. You may not sell yourself into
slavery. You may not pass illegal drugs/toxins through your body into
your nursing baby. You may be forced into combat where your genitals, as
well as other parts, can be blown to bits. While drafted, you may be
forced to ingest medications. Gential mutilations known as circumcision
can be forced upon a male without his consent.
Via Rowe v. Wade, the supreme court elevated privacy over the right to
life of the fetus. The court has made similar mistakes in the past
(slavery, segregation, prohibition) and were later reversed. I don't
know how long it will take for other generations to come to see abortion
for the profoundly horrid infanticide that it is, but it will happen and
the court will be reversed. Abortion will lose ultimately because of the
cannabalistic morality that underlies it, no matter how elaborate its
proponents try to disquise this with clever rationalizations.
: As far as your little scenerio, how ludicrous for you to
: assume that you have the right to kill a fetus or a baby (at whichever
: time you would choose to do so). While the fetus is still attached to
: the mother SHE (and sometimes the doctor) control the outcome because
: the fetus is still a part of "her". Once born, the BABY has human
: rights.
The scenario was faceious. But notice how horrible it becomes to
"invent" for men a similar "right" to kill the unborn child, especially
if the mother wants it. But no slack given to fathers who want their
children to live. Yes, it's her body. But it's *BOTH* their creation
and responsibility.
The privacy of women is pretty much the same as the privacy of
: men; of course, men don't gestate, so we don't discuss that aspect of
: their rights. Once technology makes it possible for men to gestate,
: they too, will partake of the privacy that women enjoy as it relates to
: gestation.
Because of the biological differences between sexes, society insists on
"gender norming", that is changing or lowering standards to allow women
to participate in previously men-only occupations (firemen, cops, the
Citadel, etc.). No reason we can "gender norm" reproduction too,
allowing men more say in the life of their unborn child to make up for
nature. Men are forced to make room for women to come into their
traditional world, let's extend the concept to demanding women make room
for fathers who want to protect their unborn children.
Or is reciprocal equality too grown up of a concept for you?
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <Daniel.C.Montiel....@montiel.chem.nd.edu>
Daniel.C....@nd.edu (Prestor John) writes:
>
>In article <4rkco0$g...@ultra.sonic.net>, mi...@sonic.net (MINXS)
wrote:
>
>>
>> >I support abortions for those who's lives are in acute danger.
>>
>> Why? If a fetus is a person and killing it is murder, then how can
>> you justify killing it to save someone else?
---------------------
That's very true. If the fetus is given the same status as the
women who is bearing it, one could not justify choosing one over the
other; we can't have it both ways. If that is the case, I, as a
fecund woman, would NEVER place my own life in jeopardy by allowing
another equal human life to use my body. This information would be
shared, sister to sister, and population would then be considered
"under control."
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <schaferD...@netcom.com> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer)
writes:
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) says:
>: In <schaferD...@netcom.com> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer)
>: writes:
>: >
>: >It would prohibit either parent from killing their children,
>: equalizing >reproductive "rights" and responsibilities. Yes, I know
>-snip-
>
>: ----------
>: Grow up Gonzo!
>
>-sigh-
>
>: Women have always HAD the right to determine
>: what bodily intrusions they desired; men (and Congress) may not
have
>: always respected our rights; but we've always had them. The right
to
>: determine what happens to your own body is the most FUNDAMENTAL of
all
>: rights.
>No "right" is absolute. Not even the recently invented right to
privacy.
---------
The right to privacy is not an "invented" right; to be more
precise, under the U. S. Constitution, it is a "penumbral" right that
is inferred by all of the other rights within the Bill of Rights; in
other words, after the Bill of Rights was created, the privacy right
was found within those rights, primarily the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th
amendments, as defined by case law. In fact, in California, we have
the right to privacy embedded within our Constitution, not only a
penumbral right. Now you have....the rest of the story.
-----------
>You may not sell your body for sex. You may not sell yourself into
>slavery.
--------------
That's true; these rules are not about FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS; they
are not dealing with physical intrusions into the human body. The
privacy right, as defined by RvW is characterized by a very very
limited holding regarding the privacy of reproductive intrusions; no
one said it applied to EVERYTHING. In fact, there are a group of
prostitutes in Oregon who are trying to legalize prostitution by
comparing it to the rights in Roe; I have written them to let them
know why I think their case will fail. For those who have a tough time
keeping the oranges out of the apple cart, this might be a difficult
concept to fathom.
-----------------
You may not pass illegal drugs/toxins through your body into >your
nursing baby.
-----------------
That's true, but for a very good reason. A living child has
the same protections as any other human, and poisoning another human is
against the law. A soon-to-be mother, OTOH, may freely injest whatever
legal substance her husband may injest even if it harms the fetus.
-------------------
You may be forced into combat where your genitals, as >well as other
parts, can be blown to bits. While drafted, you may be >forced to
ingest medications. Gential mutilations known as circumcision >can be
forced upon a male without his consent.
----------------------
Folks in the military, and folks imprisoned do have "lessened"
constitutional rights. Even students have lessened right, but the
ordinary Jack AND Jill have equal constitutional rights. Circumcision
is something that parents can and do select for their male babies; I
would like to see this practice stopped. It's time for religions to
look at the maiming of our children differently; there are plenty of
Constitutional problems here.
----------------------------
>
>Via Rowe v. Wade, the supreme court elevated privacy over the right to
>life of the fetus. The court has made similar mistakes in the past
>(slavery, segregation, prohibition) and were later reversed. I don't
>know how long it will take for other generations to come to see
abortion >for the profoundly horrid infanticide that it is, but it will
happen and >the court will be reversed. Abortion will lose ultimately
because of the >cannabalistic morality that underlies it, no matter how
elaborate its >proponents try to disquise this with clever
rationalizations.
------------------------------
You can continue to live in your fairy tale world if it makes
you feel better, but the fact remains that women have, thru time,
aborted, sometimes resulting in their own death. Women will continue
to abort, and even if Congress tries to stop them, we will simply apply
the same rules that applied in prohibition. Today, we know so much
about abortion and abortificients that it would only take a few months
to put the system in place for women to abort with relative safety.
You would have to provide a "bathroom patrol" to oversee your control
domain.
-------------------------------
>
>: As far as your little scenerio, how ludicrous for you to
>: assume that you have the right to kill a fetus or a baby (at
whichever>: time you would choose to do so). While the fetus is still
attached to: the mother SHE (and sometimes the doctor) control the
outcome because>: the fetus is still a part of "her". Once born, the
BABY has human: rights.
----------------------------
>
>The scenario was faceious. But notice how horrible it becomes to
>"invent" for men a similar "right" to kill the unborn child,
especially >if the mother wants it. But no slack given to fathers who
want their >children to live. Yes, it's her body. But it's *BOTH*
their creation >and responsibility.
------------------------------
Yes. I suggest that if you ever marry, you choose a wife who
will love you enough and trust you enough to share those choices with
her. The father of my children was there, every step of the way, and
he enjoyed being part of the process. It doesn't alter the fact that
every HUMAN has the ultimate right to make decisions over their own
body. I already told this story, but I'll tell it again. I know a
young bride who wanted a baby very badly; when she conceived, she and
her husband were joyous. She discovered, shortly after her first
doctor's apointment, that she was diabetic. Not just
borderline...serious diabetic. She made the choice to abort so the the
doctors could normalize her condition. It was the hardest choice for
her to make. She couldn't come back to work for some time...her
husband, likewise, was heartbroken. Today, she is the mother of two,
one by birth, one by adoption.
------------------------
>
>
> The privacy of women is pretty much the same as the privacy of
>: men; of course, men don't gestate, so we don't discuss that aspect
of>: their rights. Once technology makes it possible for men to
gestate,>: they too, will partake of the privacy that women enjoy as it
relates to: gestation.
--------------------------
>
>Because of the biological differences between sexes, society insists
on >"gender norming", that is changing or lowering standards to allow
women >to participate in previously men-only occupations (firemen,
cops, the >Citadel, etc.). No reason we can "gender norm" reproduction
too, >allowing men more say in the life of their unborn child to make
up for >nature.
----------------------------
Women have no intention of sacrificing our fundamental human rights
so that little boys can feel more in control. It simply isn't going to
happen. The 14th amendment does allow for discrimination against those
who are dis-similarly situated, but the standard for a FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT is not the median one...it's strict scrutiny. Therefore the
societal interest would have to be much more than IMPORTANT; it would
have to be COMPELLING, NECESSARY, and NARROWLY TAILORED. This is
seldom ever found.....and it would BE the burden of the state to prove
their case. Say "goodbye" to that analysis.
----------------------------
n are forced to make room for women to come into their
>traditional world, let's extend the concept to demanding women make
room >for fathers who want to protect their unborn children.
---------------------------
Men are going to be continued to be forced to let similarly
situated folks into their world; this means those of a different race
or gender who are able to meet the requirements can do so. Gestation
is another matter entirely.
----------------------------
>
>Or is reciprocal equality too grown up of a concept for you?
>
>Love, lenny
-----------------------------
Not at all, Lenny; I simply don't spend my time tilting at
windmills, unless I'm just having some fun on the net, much like a cat
who plays with his food first!
Lefty
Richard Foy
In article <4rmo1v$l...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>-----------
>>You may not sell your body for sex. You may not sell yourself into
>>slavery.
>--------------
> That's true; these rules are not about FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS; they
>are not dealing with physical intrusions into the human body. The
>privacy right, as defined by RvW is characterized by a very very
>limited holding regarding the privacy of reproductive intrusions; no
>one said it applied to EVERYTHING. In fact, there are a group of
>prostitutes in Oregon who are trying to legalize prostitution by
>comparing it to the rights in Roe; I have written them to let them
>know why I think their case will fail. For those who have a tough time
>keeping the oranges out of the apple cart, this might be a difficult
>concept to fathom.
Are your reasons for thinking they will fail based on constitutional
arguments or social/political ones?
--
"The form is the content in motion, and the content is the form at
rest." --Northrup Frye
URL http://www.he.tdl.com/~hfanoe/udc.html Unity and Diversity
Richard Foy
In article <4rmjs3$2...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>>> you justify killing it to save someone else?
>
>---------------------
> That's very true. If the fetus is given the same status as the
>women who is bearing it, one could not justify choosing one over the
>other; we can't have it both ways. If that is the case, I, as a
>fecund woman, would NEVER place my own life in jeopardy by allowing
>another equal human life to use my body. This information would be
>shared, sister to sister, and population would then be considered
>"under control."
>
>Lefty
As I think the population is our biggest problem, you have almost
talked me into supporting anti-abortion laws.
Lenny Schafer
[Original post reassigned to this thread]
David W. Truland (tru...@albany.net) says:
-snip-
[regarding reproductive rights for men]
: Find a guy who is pregnant and who has been refused
: the right to terminate the pregnancy and you'll be all set.
But that wouldn't equalize reproductive rights.
Best would be to make abortion illegal. Or extend the definition of
"abortion" ever so slightly to include infanticide, then dad could have a
chance to kill it too. Who's to say a nine
month old fetus is that much less a person than a baby borne for one minute?
There is no definitive science to support substancial differences between
the two, especially if the imbillical cord is left intact immediately
after birth.
Legal abortion does set a precedence for killing one's offspring for
one's personal convenience. Just extend the killing period to maybe 5
mins. pass birth so that the father can crush it's skull a minute after
birth, than only a minute before, as is legal for the mother now.
Partial birth abortions, as they are now, might already give dads the
right to kill their babies. If the fetal object, during delivery, has
only it's head protruding out of the mother's body, it is still legally a
fetus.
However crushing it's skull at that point would not interfere with a
woman's privacy since that part is no longer inside her body. Since it
still legally only a fetus at this point, destroying it this way should
be equally legal. I know this is a little gruesome and repugnant to
some, but not really that much more different than that which surrounds
other abortions. This way a father can have abortion rights too, without
interefering with the private body of the mother, so rigorously protected by
Roe v Wade. Just severe the fetus' head as it delivers. If the fetus
is female, it's ovum can be harvested for important research or even stored
for later transplant into the mother herself as treatment for relief from
menopause, a disorder which unfairly strikes only women. Women could
benefit by two major ways: not only would they avoid the aging stress
of raising that child, but its parts as a fetus can relieve the mother
of the aging stress of menopause. Men then would benefit by having
more attractive wives, girlfriends for longer periods over time and
wouldn't have to chase younger women, as well as not having to raise
children they don't want. Seems like a win-win solution to me.
Love, lenny
Kevin Darcy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <schaferD...@netcom.com> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) writes:
>David W. Truland (tru...@albany.net) says:
>-snip-
>[regarding reproductive rights for men]
>
>: Find a guy who is pregnant and who has been refused
>: the right to terminate the pregnancy and you'll be all set.
Note the subtle fallacy here: Truland implies that the term "reproductive
rights" can *ONLY* encompass the right to gestate or to terminate a pregnancy.
In actual fact, the term "reproductive rights" is broad enough to encompass
any and all issues related to human procreation, and although men obviously
cannot gestate, they sure as hell can procreate, and become parents, currently
many against their wishes. To deny one gender equal rights rights in this
realm is morally unconscionable, and constitutionally unacceptable.
(Actually, I take part of that back: the fallacy isn't so subtle after all;
in fact, it's quite transparent).
>But that wouldn't equalize reproductive rights.
>Best would be to make abortion illegal.
Excuse me, that might make things "equal", in a simplistic sense, but it
wouldn't make them *just*. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because men
currently suffer a deficit in the area of reproductive rights does not justify
depriving women of rights in the same realm; better would be to leave women's
rights alone, but give men the SAME rights as women, to the extent that
biology allows. Specifically, Choice for Men advocates allowing men to
unilaterally, pre-natally relinquish their parental status. This puts them
more on a par with women in legal terms, without diminishing _anyone's_
fundamental rights.
"Seems like a win-win solution to me."
- Kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: finger ke...@msen.com for public key
iQCVAwUBMeBNJPPOMH8rIaFRAQHPsgP+JyUcy6CfL1nmrFyncTBr9brFDJuKWp5n
jZGmwZ1Y+DmabCXFRfbQ++Ir3JpgQ3R7qan7NIWD4DA6HuhfFGGgm5aLs1REDNrK
I9P2v8AmtZFcr5v1zyRNp4rY/LH1v3FTI+Ido958Ot/HD/YE5x2DKkOUWEtKCe7g
3ulB+NtseTY=
=Ave1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PROFILES IN INCOHERENCE, Part 27:
"those newly emerging into national awareness often confuse what they think
the past to have been with what the future could be using what they know next
to nothing off..."
Alan Madsen, ama...@news.dorsai.org
2 Jan 1996 02:14:59 GMT
<4ca4f3$q...@dorsai.dorsai.org>
--
PROFILES IN INCOHERENCE, Part 36:
"bice try as a dishonest diversion, bue keith's post did not claim what you
state it will claim. you seem to be having more than enough problems with
what is said and what is not said rather than confuse your little mine
with what you claim, incorrectly, will be a future act."
james g. keegan jr., kee...@helios.acm.rpi.edu
15 Nov 1994 22:51:43 GMT
<3abe1v$m...@usenet.rpi.edu>
Lenny Schafer
Kevin Darcy (ke...@rotag.mi.org) says:
: In article <schaferD...@netcom.com> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) writes:
-snip-
: >But that wouldn't equalize reproductive rights.
: >Best would be to make abortion illegal.
: Excuse me, that might make things "equal", in a simplistic sense, but it
: wouldn't make them *just*. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because men
: currently suffer a deficit in the area of reproductive rights does not justify
: depriving women of rights in the same realm; better would be to leave women's
: rights alone, but give men the SAME rights as women, to the extent that
: biology allows.
Abortion deprives the unborn child, if otherwise left unmolested, the
"right" to life. There is no deprivation of reproductive rights by
making abortion illegal. Don't want kids? Keep your pants on.
(exceptive rape scenarios noted). I would
submit that "right" to life of an unborn child outweighs the "right" of
couples to carelessly indulge their orgasms. Yes, it's the basic abortio
argument.
Specifically, Choice for Men advocates allowing men to
: unilaterally, pre-natally relinquish their parental status. This puts them
: more on a par with women in legal terms, without diminishing _anyone's_
: fundamental rights.
Choice for men can still be attained theoretically even if abortion is
re-made illegal.
I believe men should be able to contractually opt out of paternity prior
to conception and should be the default arrangment between unmarried couples.
Mothers can still relinquish their parental status for adoption.
However both liberal and conservative camps view male sexuality as
essentially predatory and therefor deserving of greater financial
obligation for his sexual behavior. Both camps strongly support the
male-only sex tax known as child support. Both camps trip over eachother
seeing who could put the screws to designated fathers the toughest.
That, along with the pro-abortion stance of the choice for men movement
leaves you without political champions. That leaves you in the male
feminism camp pleading for "equality" as if feminists really seek this in
the first place. Political diagnosis of C4M: already stillborn.
Kevin Darcy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <schaferD...@netcom.com> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) writes:
>Kevin Darcy (ke...@rotag.mi.org) says:
>
>: In article <schaferD...@netcom.com> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) writes:
>-snip-
>: >But that wouldn't equalize reproductive rights.
>: >Best would be to make abortion illegal.
>
>: Excuse me, that might make things "equal", in a simplistic sense, but it
>: wouldn't make them *just*. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because men
>: currently suffer a deficit in the area of reproductive rights does not justify
>: depriving women of rights in the same realm; better would be to leave women's
>: rights alone, but give men the SAME rights as women, to the extent that
>: biology allows.
>
>Abortion deprives the unborn child, if otherwise left unmolested, the
>"right" to life.
Yadda yadda yadda. Do you have ANY IDEA how many times I've seen this stuff
argued? Thousands. No, make that tens of thousands. Look, I'm simply not
interested in the same old Pro-life arguments about whether the fetus is a
"person" or not, whether it has a "right to life" or not, whether gestation is
the Manifest Destiny of all womankind, whether what is "natural" is necessarily
"good" or "right", whether abortion restrictions constitute active or passive
coercion. Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.
This thread, as I recall, started out with a Choice for Men theme. You are
trying to commandeer it into something else -- a vehicle on which to hitch
your heavy Pro-life agenda. Sorry, I don't buy it. Choice for Men is not
Pro-life. Never was, isn't, and hopefully never will be. Find some other
cause to use as a conduit for your ideology...
>There is no deprivation of reproductive rights by making abortion illegal.
Can you write this with a straight face? Taking away a pregnant woman's choice
as to whether or not to reproduce is sure as hell a "deprivation of
reproductive rights", and it takes a fair dose of intellectual dishonesty,
or just plain _chutzpah_, to characterize it otherwise.
>Don't want kids? Keep your pants on. (exceptive rape scenarios noted).
This is a non-sequitur. Even *if* abortion rights were justified as a fitting
"punishment" for "illict sex" (and I don't for a moment believe that this
would be constitutional), the punishment would *still* amount to a "deprivation
of reproductive rights".
>I would submit that "right" to life of an unborn child outweighs the "right"
>of couples to carelessly indulge their orgasms.
Well, go ahead and "submit" all you want. All of your submissions are hereby
rejected. If you want to talk about Choice for Men, then you're in the right
thread. If you don't, then I suggest you find some other thread in which to
spout your _pro forma_ Pro-life arguments. Start a new one if necessary.
>: Specifically, Choice for Men advocates allowing men to
>: unilaterally, pre-natally relinquish their parental status. This puts them
>: more on a par with women in legal terms, without diminishing _anyone's_
>: fundamental rights.
>
>Choice for men can still be attained theoretically even if abortion is
>re-made illegal.
Choice for Men is essentially a moot point if abortion is illegal.
>I believe men should be able to contractually opt out of paternity prior
>to conception and should be the default arrangment between unmarried couples.
It is unconstitutional for a state to make arbitrary legal distinctions between
married and unmarried persons, particularly in regard to issues of sexuality
and procreation. At least, this appears to be the holding of _Eisenstadt v.
Baird_, in which a anti-contraception statute was struck down on Equal
Protection grounds because it only applied to unmarried persons. The case has
been heavily criticized by academics, but to my knowledge it still remains
good law. What I'm trying to say is that while I don't have a particular
problem with your suggestion (given a hypothetical -- and I believe IMPOSSIBLE
- -- re-criminalization of abortion), there may be constitutional problems with
the married/unmarried distinction. Why not simply allow men OR women, married
OR not, to relinquish parenthood at any time prior to the birth of the child,
regardless of whether abortion is legal or not? This is the simplest and most
constitutionally-acceptable arrangement. Why get bogged down with unnecessary
distinctions of who can relinquish when?
>However both liberal and conservative camps view male sexuality as
>essentially predatory and therefor deserving of greater financial
>obligation for his sexual behavior. Both camps strongly support the
>male-only sex tax known as child support. Both camps trip over eachother
>seeing who could put the screws to designated fathers the toughest.
>
>That, along with the pro-abortion stance of the choice for men movement
>leaves you without political champions. That leaves you in the male
>feminism camp pleading for "equality" as if feminists really seek this in
>the first place. Political diagnosis of C4M: already stillborn.
You seem to forget that there are three branches of government. There is more
than one way to skin a cat. True, the Choice for Men position is easy to
distort and demonize. I have variously seen it portrayed as anti-child, anti-
woman, pro-irresponsibility, fiscal suicide etc. etc.. The current political
climate is quite hostile to the Choice for Men position. But I honestly
believe, after significant research on the issue, that a good _Roe_-style
constitutional challenge to the paternity/parentage laws could succeed in the
judicial branch of government, despite the political unpopularity. This would
cause, at the very least, a rethinking of the issue at the national level, and
this opens up the hope of political change.
- Kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: finger ke...@msen.com for public key
iQCVAwUBMeDCRPPOMH8rIaFRAQGDWgQAi6kDBXfA2lKoNjOU2QqIIMBqnBHKJcxt
R6MAc4nB5YdJaxlJPvzdKJMu/DU+kCCM/lhUQ9qLUEDbfQhT8sgJ7cBWUi7m5NPr
b0AHbxLOgBiyAVOO6HDvAlEwl0VYrmmNX6gL7tByOdBUHzilq8YeMillQ0jj++a6
DGMvpOqGDk0=
=gjv+
Richard Foy
In article <schaferD...@netcom.com>,
Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Abortion deprives the unborn child, if otherwise left unmolested, the
>making abortion illegal. Don't want kids? Keep your pants on.
>(exceptive rape scenarios noted). I would
>submit that "right" to life of an unborn child outweighs the "right" of
>argument.
Why?
>
>I believe men should be able to contractually opt out of paternity prior
>to conception and should be the default arrangment between unmarried couples.
Why?
Kristen Hansen
Follow-ups trimmed to T.A. & A.A.I.
On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) writes:
> >Kevin Darcy (ke...@rotag.mi.org) says:
[...]
> >: Specifically, Choice for Men advocates allowing men to
> >: unilaterally, pre-natally relinquish their parental status. This puts them
> >: more on a par with women in legal terms, without diminishing _anyone's_
> >: fundamental rights.
> >
> >Choice for men can still be attained theoretically even if abortion
> >is re-made illegal.
>
> Choice for Men is essentially a moot point if abortion is illegal.
If you insist upon your pre-birth waiver,
etc., yes.
But your conclusion is illogical because,
since the man's body is not directly involved
in abortion or gestation, abortion and c4m are
not analogous anyway. Thus, arguing that
criminalization of abortion would moot c4m allows
the means (i.e. the timing of the waiver being
pre-birth versus w/i 72 hours after birth,
as in adoption) to trump the ends (i.e. a
unilateral waiver of parental rights for men).
[...]
> Why not simply allow men OR women, married OR not, to relinquish
> parenthood at any time prior to the birth of the child, regardless of
> whether abortion is legal or not? This is the simplest and most
> constitutionally-acceptable arrangement. Why get bogged down with
> unnecessary distinctions of who can relinquish when?
In essence, this is what adoption does, but
AFTER birth. So long as the Court and the
legislatures insist upon promoting the "unitary
family," the courts are going insist upon giving
the biological parents every opportunity to change
their minds in the name of due process (perhaps by
discouraging abortion via informed consent, etc;
definitely by forcing "relinquishing" parents to
have the opportunity to "meet" their children before
they are allowed to give up their rights to raise
them).
[...]
> > Political diagnosis of C4M: already stillborn.
>
> You seem to forget that there are three branches of government. There is
> more than one way to skin a cat. True, the Choice for Men position is
> easy to distort and demonize. I have variously seen it portrayed as
> anti-child, anti- woman, pro-irresponsibility, fiscal suicide etc. etc..
> The current political climate is quite hostile to the Choice for Men
> position. But I honestly believe, after significant research on the
> issue, that a good _Roe_-style constitutional challenge to the
> paternity/parentage laws could succeed in the judicial branch of
> government, despite the political unpopularity. This would cause, at the
> very least, a rethinking of the issue at the national level, and this
> opens up the hope of political change.
Well I agree that you could challenge paternity laws, but
I disagree that this can be done via an Equal Protection
action, as you impliedly suggest ("illegal abortion would
moot c4m"). An Equal Protection claim will fail b/c men
and women are not similarly situated WRT gestation and
abortion. If you have indeed done the research you claim,
I'm sure you cannot be ignorant of this pre-requisite.
While often confused, Due Process and Equal Protection are
*not* the same. IMO you could use the former more effectively
than the latter by pointing out that men's privacy rights
are infringed by paternity laws and that this intrusion does
not effectively achieve its purported goal (provision for
the welfare of children). Leave abortion out of it entirely.
Kristen
David W. Truland
ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>In article <schaferD...@netcom.com> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) writes:
>>David W. Truland (tru...@albany.net) says:
>>-snip-
>>[regarding reproductive rights for men]
>>
>>: Find a guy who is pregnant and who has been refused
>>: the right to terminate the pregnancy and you'll be all set.
We all know that child support is a pet peeve of Kevin's but...
>Note the subtle fallacy here: Truland implies that the term "reproductive
>rights" can *ONLY* encompass the right to gestate or to terminate a pregnancy.
>In actual fact, the term "reproductive rights" is broad enough to encompass
>any and all issues related to human procreation, and although men obviously
>cannot gestate, they sure as hell can procreate, and become parents, currently
>many against their wishes. To deny one gender equal rights rights in this
>realm is morally unconscionable, and constitutionally unacceptable.
In other words, Kevin wants men to be able to refuse to support the
children they help create.
>(Actually, I take part of that back: the fallacy isn't so subtle after all;
>in fact, it's quite transparent).
>>But that wouldn't equalize reproductive rights.
>>Best would be to make abortion illegal.
>Excuse me, that might make things "equal", in a simplistic sense, but it
>wouldn't make them *just*. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because men
>currently suffer a deficit in the area of reproductive rights does not justify
>depriving women of rights in the same realm; better would be to leave women's
>rights alone, but give men the SAME rights as women, to the extent that
>biology allows.
They already have the same rights "to the extent that biology allows."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
>Specifically, Choice for Men advocates allowing men to
>unilaterally, pre-natally relinquish their parental status.
I told you.
>This puts them
>more on a par with women in legal terms, without diminishing _anyone's_
>fundamental rights.
Except, of course, for the child's right to be supported by both it's
parents. A right Kevin obviously has no interest in.
Lenny Schafer
Richard Foy (rf...@netcom.com) says:
: In article <schaferD...@netcom.com>,
: Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >
: >Abortion deprives the unborn child, if otherwise left unmolested, the
: >"right" to life. There is no deprivation of reproductive rights by
: >making abortion illegal. Don't want kids? Keep your pants on.
: >(exceptive rape scenarios noted). I would
: >submit that "right" to life of an unborn child outweighs the "right" of
: >couples to carelessly indulge their orgasms. Yes, it's the basic abortio
: >argument.
: Why?
Because.
: >
: >I believe men should be able to contractually opt out of paternity prior
: >to conception and should be the default arrangment between unmarried couples.
: Why?
Because.
Jeffrey Haber
sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) wrote:
>Abortion deprives the unborn child, if otherwise left unmolested, the
>"right" to life. There is no deprivation of reproductive rights by
>making abortion illegal. Don't want kids? Keep your pants on.
>(exceptive rape scenarios noted). I would
>submit that "right" to life of an unborn child outweighs the "right" of
>couples to carelessly indulge their orgasms. Yes, it's the basic >abortion argument.
Deprives the unborn potential child of what? How can you infringe on
the rights of someone who doesn't exist? A fetus is only a potential
person, not an actual person.
How can something growing inside of a woman possibly have rights? Would
you argue that tumors have rights? For that matter, how could a being
without the ability to reason, which could not possibly possess a
conceptual level consciousness--which is the basis of rights and the
reason why animals cannot have rights--have rights?
Jeffrey Haber
Robert Mobbs
In article <4rm1qc$6...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.co says...
>
>In <schaferD...@netcom.com> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer)
>writes:
>>
>>It would prohibit either parent from killing their children,
>equalizing >reproductive "rights" and responsibilities. Yes, I know
>more difficult to >engage in care-free sex knowing that they may have
>to pay child support >for 18 years, instead of splitting the
>abortionists fee. It's so unfair, >isn't it? It's a lot easier to
>just label the unborne baby a tumor to be >destroyed before it hits you
>up for your income. I am truely touched by >your professed compassion
>for the privacy of women.
>
>----------
>what bodily intrusions they desired; men (and Congress) may not have
>always respected our rights; but we've always had them. The right to
>determine what happens to your own body is the most FUNDAMENTAL of all
>assume that you have the right to kill a fetus or a baby (at whichever
>time you would choose to do so). While the fetus is still attached to
>the mother SHE (and sometimes the doctor) control the outcome because
>the fetus is still a part of "her". Once born, the BABY has human
>men; of course, men don't gestate, so we don't discuss that aspect of
>their rights. Once technology makes it possible for men to gestate,
>they too, will partake of the privacy that women enjoy as it relates to
>gestation.
And, until then, don't expect any men to help support you women
"involuntarily". Call it a further expansion of your rights.
Robert L. Mobbs
Microsoft WPG Software Development Engineer
t-rm...@microsoft.com
-
"Got blues drawing crosses on my front door
Blues a' bringing buckets round the back
Blues trying to push me from me white fence
And tar me a darker bluey black"
XTC
Lenny Schafer
Jeffrey Haber (habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu) says:
: sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) wrote:
: >Abortion deprives the unborn child, if otherwise left unmolested, the
: >"right" to life. There is no deprivation of reproductive rights by
: >making abortion illegal. Don't want kids? Keep your pants on.
: >(exceptive rape scenarios noted). I would
: >submit that "right" to life of an unborn child outweighs the "right" of
: >couples to carelessly indulge their orgasms. Yes, it's the basic >abortion argument.
: Deprives the unborn potential child of what? How can you infringe on
: the rights of someone who doesn't exist? A fetus is only a potential
: person, not an actual person.
There is more scientific evidence that a fetus is a person, than evidence
that he or she is not. If left unmolested, an obvious person emerges.
For those who desire to destroy this, I would say the burden of proof is
on you. And since the matter is not clear-cut one way or the other in
scientific terms, I would give the unborn the benefit of the doubt as a
matter of basic humanity.
: How can something growing inside of a woman possibly have rights?
The argument of geography doesn't sway me that much.
: Would
: you argue that tumors have rights?
Would you agree that tumors, if left alone, turn unmistakenly into people
at some point? Such intellectual flailing about suggests to me not a
search for truth, but rather a backformation grasping at straws for
any plausible rationalizations.
For that matter, how could a being
: without the ability to reason, which could not possibly possess a
: conceptual level consciousness--which is the basis of rights and the
: reason why animals cannot have rights--have rights?
I could concede that your definition of what constitutes a human being is
as arbitrary as mine. This ambiguity, however in my mind does not give
anyone the license to destroy such persons/potential persons.
If abortion wasn't murder, it would still be pretty damn close to it.
Like murder, it is an act of profound dehumanizing selfishness and
cheapens all life. And that is the cornerstone of the "progressive"
feminist movement who cares not how much blood spills in the name of
situational "equality."
L. Di valentino
>: >(exceptive rape scenarios noted). I would
>: >submit that "right" to life of an unborn child outweighs the "right" of
>: >couples to carelessly indulge their orgasms. Yes, it's the basic abortio
>
>: Why?
>
>Because.
ROFL! Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer!
>: >I believe men should be able to contractually opt out of paternity prior
>: >to conception and should be the default arrangment between unmarried couples.
>
>: Why?
>
>Because.
My sentiments exactly!
Fornit Some Fornus,
Lisa D
AGAINST CHILDREN? DON'T CONCEIVE ONE!
Ray Fischer
Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>There is more scientific evidence that a fetus is a person, than evidence
>that he or she is not. If left unmolested, an obvious person emerges.
Or not. Many, if not most, zygotes/embryos either fail to implant or
subsequently miscarry. And notice also that left alone, an embryo
will die. It needs the active assistance of another person to
survive.
>For those who desire to destroy this, I would say the burden of proof is
>on you.
I don't wish to destroy anything. You wish to enslave women to the
needs of fetuses. Justify yourself.
> And since the matter is not clear-cut one way or the other in
>scientific terms, I would give the unborn the benefit of the doubt as a
>matter of basic humanity.
>
There is no doubt about the personhood of the (apparently invisible)
woman. Why do you think that she should be forced into servitude?
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Kevin Darcy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <4rrf2t$c...@lori.albany.net> tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) writes:
>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>>In article <schaferD...@netcom.com> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) writes:
>>>David W. Truland (tru...@albany.net) says:
>>>-snip-
>>>[regarding reproductive rights for men]
>>>
>>>: Find a guy who is pregnant and who has been refused
>>>: the right to terminate the pregnancy and you'll be all set.
>
>We all know that child support is a pet peeve of Kevin's but...
>
>>Note the subtle fallacy here: Truland implies that the term "reproductive
>>rights" can *ONLY* encompass the right to gestate or to terminate a pregnancy.
>>In actual fact, the term "reproductive rights" is broad enough to encompass
>>any and all issues related to human procreation, and although men obviously
>>cannot gestate, they sure as hell can procreate, and become parents, currently
>>many against their wishes. To deny one gender equal rights rights in this
>>realm is morally unconscionable, and constitutionally unacceptable.
>
>In other words, Kevin wants men to be able to refuse to support the
>children they help create.
What I object to, first and foremost, is gender-based involuntary legal
parenthood. Child support is a secondary issue. If the states INSIST on
maintaining the current linkage between child support and legal parental
status, then obviously if involuntary legal parenthood perishes as a result of
a successful constitutional attack, then it will throw the whole child support
infrastructure into a tailspin. I would HOPE that the states wouldn't put all
of their eggs into one basket like that. I would HOPE that the states would
decouple child support from parental status. That would be the smart thing to
do. Supporting our children is, after all, very important. Much too important
to hitch to a leaking, sinking ship like involuntary legal parenthood...
>>(Actually, I take part of that back: the fallacy isn't so subtle after all;
>>in fact, it's quite transparent).
>
>>>But that wouldn't equalize reproductive rights.
>>>Best would be to make abortion illegal.
>
>>Excuse me, that might make things "equal", in a simplistic sense, but it
>>wouldn't make them *just*. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because men
>>currently suffer a deficit in the area of reproductive rights does not
>>justify depriving women of rights in the same realm; better would be to
>>leave women's rights alone, but give men the SAME rights as women, to the
>>extent that biology allows.
>
>They already have the same rights "to the extent that biology allows."
Um, no. Women have the substantive right to unilaterally, pre-natally
relinquish their parental status. Men do not. Abortion has been made
the prerequisite to this relinquishment, but only by arbitrary LEGAL fiat,
not as the result of any BIOLOGICAL imperative. Too fast for you? Here, I'll
try to encapsulate the line of reasoning:
Substantive right: unilateral, pre-natal relinquishment of parental status
Biological prerequisites: none
Legal prerequisites: abortion or miscarriage
Availability of right:
(for women): must be willing and able to procure abortion, or be
"lucky" enough to miscarry
(for men): not available at all
Within the limits of biology, both men and women could be allowed to pre-
natally, unilaterally relinquish their parental status. It takes only a stroke
of the statute-drafting pen, not any cosmic change to the immutable laws of
biology, to remove the LEGAL prerequisite to pre-natal relinquishment. Such
would bring about EQUALITY. Far more equality than what we have now. Why do
you oppose such an arrangement?
>>Specifically, Choice for Men advocates allowing men to
>>unilaterally, pre-natally relinquish their parental status.
>
>I told you.
>
>>This puts them
>>more on a par with women in legal terms, without diminishing _anyone's_
>>fundamental rights.
>
>Except, of course, for the child's right to be supported by both it's
>parents.
Choice for Men does not diminish or in any way impinge on the child's right to
be supported by its legal parent(s). At worst, it only reduces the monetary
value of that right. No child has a fundamental right to a MAXIMIZATION of
their standard of living, at the expense of someone else's. *Nobody* in our
society has that right.
- Kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: finger ke...@msen.com for public key
iQCVAwUBMeM9qPPOMH8rIaFRAQG+UAP+OnrEaBQZ2wA+ze1yYYeK5nvjDNm10kvv
YMSNjtqg/PQKHMravZThHL6KdGX6HGL8kWJLGsZ/Pj3/MSsjqEouA2Pkw53NS4ss
K7HeklqG0uc4a0la0yFH9SkHargFwcRDIM/JBi0rMiRWDI/29wqour7zBqOfvT2l
9DWZoYWptkU=
=KPTm
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <4ru8dj$m...@news.microsoft.com> t-rm...@microsoft.com (Robert>>In <schaferD...@netcom.com> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer)
>>writes:
>>>
-------------------------
That's cool! (but you still have to support the fruit of your
loins!)
Lefty
>
Kevin Darcy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <Pine.SUN.3.94.960708...@access2.digex.net> Kristen Hansen <kr...@access.digex.net> writes:
>On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>
>> Choice for Men is essentially a moot point if abortion is illegal.
>
>If you insist upon your pre-birth waiver,
>etc., yes.
>
>But your conclusion is illogical because, since the man's body is not
>directly involved in abortion or gestation, abortion and c4m are
>not analogous anyway.
They are analogous in that, when considered within the structure of statutory
parentage definitions, both the effects of abortion, on the one hand, and an
exercise of Choice for Men rights, on the other, are examples of pre-natal
unilateral waivers (you prefer that term to "relinquishment", I assume?) of
parental status. Yes, of course abortion directly involves the woman's body
and Choice for Men does not involve anyone's body. That's a very real,
concrete difference. But IMO not a legally-relevant one. What we seek is not
"bodily" equality, merely equal opportunity to relinquish (or "waive")
parental status. So whence the relevance of "bodies", or the autonomy thereof?
>Thus, arguing that criminalization of abortion would moot c4m allows
>the means (i.e. the timing of the waiver being pre-birth versus w/i 72 hours
>after birth, as in adoption) to trump the ends (i.e. a unilateral waiver of
>parental rights for men).
Kristen, you know that we have been over this ground many times before, so
let me just restate my position: I support the right of a man OR a woman
to unilaterally relinquish ("waive") parental status, at any time subsequent
to conception. Your position, as I understand it, is to limit the exercise
of this right to after birth. Despite repeated attempts, I still fail to
appreciate the value of limiting the relinquishment right in this way.
What if a spiteful man conceals his unwillingness to be a father until
it is too late for the woman to abort? Is that fair to her? Is that fair to
the child? If a waiver of parental status is available, I feel it should be
available to both (potential) parents, from the first practical point in
the whole process, i.e. conception. Anything less in my view opens up huge
potentials for abuse and/or inequity.
>> Why not simply allow men OR women, married OR not, to relinquish
>> parenthood at any time prior to the birth of the child, regardless of
>> whether abortion is legal or not? This is the simplest and most
>> constitutionally-acceptable arrangement. Why get bogged down with
>> unnecessary distinctions of who can relinquish when?
>
>In essence, this is what adoption does, but AFTER birth.
Well, not really. To my knowledge, no state in the Union allows one
(_post partum_) biological parent to relinquish parental status UNILATERALLY
by making their child available for adoption. They all, I think, require the
consent of BOTH biological parents, in the absence of any extenuating factors
such as neglect, abuse or abandonment. Which means that the willing parent gets
a tremendous amount of leverage and bargaining power over the unwilling
parent.
>So long as the Court and the legislatures insist upon promoting the "unitary
>family," the courts are going insist upon giving the biological parents every
>opportunity to change their minds in the name of due process (perhaps by
>discouraging abortion via informed consent, etc; definitely by forcing
>"relinquishing" parents to have the opportunity to "meet" their children
>before they are allowed to give up their rights to raise them).
Whose "due process" do the courts think they are protecting? The parents',
whose petitions they are delaying? That certainly sounds self-defeating.
The children's? This is *exactly* the sort of reason why I favor allowing
pre-birth waivers -- because in that case THERE IS NO CHILD YET, FOR ALL
PRACTICAL PURPOSES, and therefore no child's rights or "best interests" to
protect. In the pre-birth case, the issues are much clearer and simpler.
>> ... I honestly believe, after significant research on the
>> issue, that a good _Roe_-style constitutional challenge to the
>> paternity/parentage laws could succeed in the judicial branch of
>> government, despite the political unpopularity. This would cause, at the
>> very least, a rethinking of the issue at the national level, and this
>> opens up the hope of political change.
>
>Well I agree that you could challenge paternity laws, but I disagree that
>this can be done via an Equal Protection action, as you impliedly suggest
>("illegal abortion would moot c4m"). An Equal Protection claim will fail b/c
>men and women are not similarly situated WRT gestation and abortion. If you
>have indeed done the research you claim, I'm sure you cannot be ignorant of
>this pre-requisite.
We have been over this ground many times also, so you know that I am well-
informed on the topic. Our basic point of disagreement, as I see it, is that
I consider the "similarly situated" analysis to be circumscribed by the
relevance of the difference cited, relative to the stated purpose of the
classification at issue. For example, in the classic case of gender-specific
ordinances against toplessness, the "similarly situated" analysis comes into
play if the stated purpose of the ordinance is (as one would normally expect)
to preserve public decency. But "similarly situated" would *not* come into
play if the stated purpose were, say, to promote the sales of upper-body
garments, or to help reduce the risk of skin cancer. Neither of those goals
would seem to require treating the genders significantly differently -- men
and women *both* buy upper-body garments, and they *both* run the risk of
contracting skin cancer. Thus "similarly situated" would not enter into the
picture.
Your view, on the other hand, seems to be that relevance does not matter --
that *ANY* difference can render two classes "dissimilarly situated" with
respect to *ANY* differential treatment they receive under state law. I think
this broad interpretation of "similarly situated" analysis gives a rubber
stamp to any form of discrimination at the state level -- even *racial*
discrimination -- and thus reduces the Equal Protection Clause to a dead
letter. It is easy to find irrelevant differences between virtually any
classes of people -- whites have lighter skin than blacks or hispanics, women
but not men gestate and women have larger breasts, older people tend to have
more wrinkled skin than younger people, etc. etc. With the overbroad
"similarly situated" analysis, any state wishing to defend discrimination
simply needs to reach into the grab-bag of Irrelevant Differences, pull one
out and proclaim "Behold! *THIS* renders Class X and Class Y 'not similarly
situated' and thus allows us to discriminate, regardless of what the Equal
Protection Clause says!".
Now, obviously, I'm extrapolating here. I'm not saying that you would justify,
say, depriving old people of the right to vote, by pointing out that they
have more wrinkles than young people. The Choice for Men issue is admittedly
a MUCH MUCH closer call than that. But what I wish to impress on you is that
"similarly situated" analysis is not simply a blank check: IT IS CIRCUMSCRIBED
BY THE RELEVANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE CITED, RELATIVE TO THE STATED PURPOSE OF
THE CLASSIFICATION AT ISSUE. I have tried to explain this to you many times
in the past, yet it seems to trickle from your consciousness like water off
a duck's back. I implore you to reflect on the above (capitalized) words for a
few moments. "Similarly situated" analysis is not a blank check. It is not a
catch-all. It is not a panacea. Like most other legal constructs, it has
qualifications and limits to its use. Relevance analysis bounds "similarly
situated" analysis.
My thesis is that the biological differences between men and women are not
sufficiently relevant to the distinction at issue -- women can unilaterally
relinquish, but men cannot -- relative to the stated purpose of the
classification -- to raise funds for child support -- that it can thwart
an Equal Protection challenge on "similarly situated" grounds. If you want
to argue the opposite, go right ahead. But please do not imply that I am
ignorant of "similarly situated" analysis. My disagreement with you is not
borne of ignorance, but of differing interpretations of the same set of
KNOWN facts. It is INFORMED disagreement.
>While often confused, Due Process and Equal Protection are *not* the same.
>IMO you could use the former more effectively than the latter by pointing out
>that men's privacy rights are infringed by paternity laws and that this
>intrusion does not effectively achieve its purported goal (provision for
>the welfare of children).
Privacy jurisprudence has really never been the same since _Hardwick_. Even
_Casey_ was decided mostly on the basis of _stare decisis_ rather than any
ideological commitment to Privacy on the part of the Court. I agree with you
that involuntary parental status *should* be vulnerable on Privacy grounds,
but in the current judicial climate, such an attack would probably be suicidal.
>Leave abortion out of it entirely.
Abortion is intertwined only to the extent that the legislature has coupled
legal parental status with biological parental status. Should I apologize for
something the legislature has wrought, and which I seek to UNDO? You speak as
if abortion were an embarrassment, an excrescence that Choice for Men should
avoid at all costs. I agree that the linkage is an embarrassment, but by all
rights it should be the state legislatures who are embarassed by this linkage
that they themselves have created. I decline to be a surrogate for their
embarassment. I decline to forfeit any of my rights for fear that some may
misinterpret *my* words as seeking to link two things -- abortion and Choice
for Men -- that should not be linked. Let the legislatures be embarassed and
vilified instead, for their ridiculous linkage. Let them reap what they have
sown. Perhaps, then, next time they are tempted to make shortsighted,
stereotype-driven statutory linkages between essentially disparate things,
they will think better of it. Legislate and learn.
- Kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: finger ke...@msen.com for public key
iQCVAwUBMeNSavPOMH8rIaFRAQHK9wP/ZELKTbel3Bsgvlbz+ZKYyBtaRrgzYfRs
y45mJciZ6CC/Ok6BUB/fMGPk70K2ITRDxE3Aj/xBc/jIRIn4Fuxz/NbNPzjlx5mJ
6XUZYC6cIcyuwsrtJETW+UdhkgioYRPtA1EnTB6io6+K+ljnaAR2yNEbQFmH4Xvk
yZGii2IqPu0=
=ZioY
Lenny Schafer
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) says:
: Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >There is more scientific evidence that a fetus is a person, than evidence
: >that he or she is not. If left unmolested, an obvious person emerges.
: Or not. Many, if not most, zygotes/embryos either fail to implant or
: subsequently miscarry.
But not usually as a result of being molested from her/his loving
mother. Or are you responding to some other post?
And notice also that left alone, an embryo
: will die. It needs the active assistance of another person to
: survive.
Earth to Ray, earth to Ray...come in! An emryo only needs it's mother's
*passive* assistance. Perhaps extra active effort was you mother's
experience putting up with you, but I would generalize to everyone. :)
: >For those who desire to destroy this, I would say the burden of proof is
: >on you.
: I don't wish to destroy anything.
Well, YOU haven't been given the legal privilage of that "choice," Ray.
: You wish to enslave women to the
: needs of fetuses. Justify yourself.
Happens to men all the time. Men have to work at the point of a gun (the
law) to pay support for years for those kids who make it passed mom's knife.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <1996Jul10.0...@rotag.mi.org> ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) writes:
>(deletia)
>>Um, no. Women have the substantive right to unilaterally, pre-natally
relinquish their parental status. Men do not. Abortion has been made
>the prerequisite to this relinquishment, but only by arbitrary LEGAL
fiat, >not as the result of any BIOLOGICAL imperative. Too fast for
you? Here, I'll >try to encapsulate the line of reasoning:
----------------
Legal fiat has nothing to do with the ability of women to
abort...it has more to do with the ease and safety of abortion. Women
have been aborting for years without blessing of husband, church or
state, and should that legal status be changed they would still abort.
You may call it a "biological" imperative, if you like, but it would be
quite impossible to enforce abortion laws in the early months of
pregnancy; women would laugh all the way to the bathroom.
-----------------------
>
>Substantive right: unilateral, pre-natal relinquishment of parental
status>Biological prerequisites: none>Legal prerequisites: abortion or
miscarriage
>Availability of right:
> (for women): must be willing and able to procure abortion, or be
> "lucky" enough to miscarry
> (for men): not available at all
>
>Within the limits of biology, both men and women could be allowed to
prenatally, unilaterally relinquish their parental status. It takes
only a stroke>of the statute-drafting pen, not any cosmic change to the
immutable laws of>biology, to remove the LEGAL prerequisite to
pre-natal relinquishment. Such >would bring about EQUALITY. Far more
equality than what we have now. Why do >you oppose such an arrangement?
>
--------
Lefty's interruption: The law cannot address inequality of nature
by giving one group of people a "special" right. That is what would
take place in c4m. The law would essentially relieve men of their
contribution to the birth process and place the entire burden of
childbirth on the woman. The "right" to choice is a limited one. In
CA., for example, minors must have "parental consent" to abort; thus,
your desire for "f___k and run law" would place that woman in a most
precarious situation. Even if all women had open access to abortion,
the choice to abort or not is a physical consideration, and not one any
person (male or female) would have a duty to determine either way. In
other words, a woman who feared the procedure and could not be "forced"
to have it done, might still not choose to be a parent, nevertheless,
she will be. In CA there have been, in the past couple of weeks two
young women who delivered babies they didn't even know they were
carrying. I'm afraid that proposed "f____k and run" laws simply do not
translate into equity....not for the mother...not for the child...and
not for the benefit of society.
--------------------------------
>>>Specifically, Choice for Men advocates allowing men to
>>>unilaterally, pre-natally relinquish their parental status.
>>
>>I told you.
>>
>>>This puts them
>>>more on a par with women in legal terms, without diminishing
_anyone's_ >fundamental rights.
>>
-----------------------------------
Again, it is an attempt to create a "special right" that
doesn't exist...i.e. the right to run away from responsibility when one
chooses to act in an irresponsible manner and force women and society
to pay for their indiscretions.
-------------------------------------
>>Except, of course, for the child's right to be supported by both it's
>>parents.
>
>Choice for Men does not diminish or in any way impinge on the child's
right to >be supported by its legal parent(s). At worst, it only
reduces the monetary >value of that right. No child has a fundamental
right to a MAXIMIZATION of >their standard of living, at the expense of
someone else's. *Nobody* in our >society has that right.
>
> - Kevin
--------------------------------------------
As it exists a "father" has every legal right to walk away from
his child and allow someone else to raise it; what he doesn't have is
the right to avoid his own responsibility to that child. If you bring
a child into this world (by your own irresponsible behavior) you owe
that child part of your bounty. This is something most people know in
their hearts and souls; no need for a legal term of art here, but if
you need one, let's call it a "fiduciary duty".
Lefty
james g. keegan jr.
In article <1996Jul10.0...@rotag.mi.org>, ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
[...]
: Kristen, you know that we have been over this ground many times before, so
: let me just restate my position: I support the right of a man OR a woman
: to unilaterally relinquish ("waive") parental status, at any time subsequent
: to conception.
you have endorsed financial coercion of women with the
intent that they abort.
"I would not force a woman to have an abortion,
if by "force" you mean legally. But if a woman
is not willing or able to pay the 100% of
financial support she (in my opinion) will
owe the child, when going against the man's
wishes, I would question the wisdom of her
keeping the child. And I would not feel bad
about "forcing" her financially to give up the
child, since it's probably best for her,
the child, and possibly the man as well."
ke...@cfctech.cfc.com
(Kevin Darcy)
LUNAR1610
>Within the limits of biology, both men and women could be allowed to pre-
>natally, unilaterally relinquish their parental status. It takes only a
>stroke
>of the statute-drafting pen, not any cosmic change to the immutable laws
of
>biology, to remove the LEGAL prerequisite to pre-natal relinquishment.
Such
>would bring about EQUALITY. Far more equality than what we have now. Why
do
>you oppose such an arrangement?
There can BE no equality..it will always be in favor of women as it
*should* since WE are the ones most affected by a child..whether aborted
or carried to term. The only rights men have as far as procreation goes is
this: 1) Don't get her pregnant . And that's it. Once he gets her pregnant
she has the ball in her court. She can decide to abort (her body her
right), she can force him to pay-child support (child's right). End of
story. If you object..review right one.
~MoonBeam
Lenny Schafer
LUNAR1610 (luna...@aol.com) says:
: There can BE no equality..it will always be in favor of women as it
: *should* since WE are the ones most affected by a child..whether aborted
: or carried to term.
So mother nature is not an egalitarian? I would agree. MMMmm. I wonder
what corresponding biological advantages nature has given to men? Maybe
"patriarchy" is biologically determined? Copping to nature is a
two-edged sword.
The only rights men have as far as procreation goes is
: this: 1) Don't get her pregnant . And that's it. Once he gets her pregnant
: she has the ball in her court. She can decide to abort (her body her
: right), she can force him to pay-child support (child's right). End of
: story. If you object..review right one.
Not true. Men can have their particpation in the process be legally
defined as that of a sperm donor. No child support, no sex-power-custody
battles. The child's "right" to child support from the father is quite
transferable to the mother or a third party.
The only functional difference between a sperm donor and any other man is
that donors must derive minimal sexual pleasure from the experience.
Ray Fischer
Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) says:
>: Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: >There is more scientific evidence that a fetus is a person, than evidence
>: >that he or she is not. If left unmolested, an obvious person emerges.
>
>: Or not. Many, if not most, zygotes/embryos either fail to implant or
>: subsequently miscarry.
>
>But not usually as a result of being molested from her/his loving
>mother. Or are you responding to some other post?
Indications are that MOST conceptions result in NATURAL miscarriage.
Thus your statement is wrong.
>And notice also that left alone, an embryo
>: will die. It needs the active assistance of another person to
>: survive.
>
>Earth to Ray, earth to Ray...come in! An emryo only needs it's mother's
>*passive* assistance.
You must be really ignorant if you think that either I'm going to
believe that bullshit or if you believe it yourself. Pregnancy and
childbirth is most assuredly not passive.
>: You wish to enslave women to the
>: needs of fetuses. Justify yourself.
>
>Happens to men all the time. Men have to work at the point of a gun (the
>law) to pay support for years for those kids who make it passed mom's knife.
Bullshit.
Justify YOURSELF coward.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Lenny Schafer
: >: >There is more scientific evidence that a fetus is a person, than evidence
: >: >that he or she is not. If left unmolested, an obvious person emerges.
: >
: >: Or not. Many, if not most, zygotes/embryos either fail to implant or
: >: subsequently miscarry.
: >
: >But not usually as a result of being molested from her/his loving
: >mother. Or are you responding to some other post?
: Indications are that MOST conceptions result in NATURAL miscarriage.
: Thus your statement is wrong.
I suspect you have a reading comprehension problem to go with your
logic impairments. My statements *do not* contradict yours unless you
are equating abortion to miscarriage.
I say, if left alone to grow naturally and successfully, a fetus becomes a
person.
You say, many zygotes/embryos naturally fail. Just because many do not
naturally make it to birth does not prove they are not persons.
: >And notice also that left alone, an embryo
: >: will die. It needs the active assistance of another person to
: >: survive.
: >
: >Earth to Ray, earth to Ray...come in! An emryo only needs it's mother's
: >*passive* assistance.
: You must be really ignorant if you think that either I'm going to
: believe that bullshit or if you believe it yourself. Pregnancy and
: childbirth is most assuredly not passive.
Why all the verbal flatulence? Are you drunk or high? Is that why you
cannot understand the difference between "active" and "passive"?
After *actively* having sex, the conception, pregnancy and birth are
*passive* bodily functions.
I'm sorry but I am not prepared to offer you a remedial high school
education or help you overcome your learning disabilities.
But arguing with such intellectual slobbery is a waste of time.
: >: You wish to enslave women to the
: >: needs of fetuses. Justify yourself.
: >
: >Happens to men all the time. Men have to work at the point of a gun (the
: >law) to pay support for years for those kids who make it passed mom's knife.
: Bullshit.
Is this in response to something I wrote or did you just discover your
wine bottle empty?
: Justify YOURSELF coward.
-hick-
Ray Fischer
>: >: >There is more scientific evidence that a fetus is a person, than evidence
>: >: >that he or she is not. If left unmolested, an obvious person emerges.
>: >
>: >: Or not. Many, if not most, zygotes/embryos either fail to implant or
>: >: subsequently miscarry.
>: >
>: >But not usually as a result of being molested from her/his loving
>: >mother. Or are you responding to some other post?
>
>: Indications are that MOST conceptions result in NATURAL miscarriage.
>: Thus your statement is wrong.
>
>I suspect you have a reading comprehension problem to go with your
>logic impairments. My statements *do not* contradict yours unless you
>are equating abortion to miscarriage.
>
>I say, if left alone to grow naturally and successfully, a fetus becomes a
>person.
And I say you're obviously wrong, since IF LEFT ALONE an embryo will
die. Even in cases where it has the opportunity to make use of a
woman's body, most of the time an embryo will miscarry and never
"become a person" as you claim.
>You say, many zygotes/embryos naturally fail. Just because many do not
>naturally make it to birth does not prove they are not persons.
Yes, it does. A person is human, born, and alive. An embryo has
never been considered to be a person. If it dies before birth, then
it was never a person.
(Am I typing slow enough for you?)
>: >And notice also that left alone, an embryo
>: >: will die. It needs the active assistance of another person to
>: >: survive.
>: >
>: >Earth to Ray, earth to Ray...come in! An emryo only needs it's mother's
>: >*passive* assistance.
>
>: You must be really ignorant if you think that either I'm going to
>: believe that bullshit or if you believe it yourself. Pregnancy and
>: childbirth is most assuredly not passive.
>
>Why all the verbal flatulence? Are you drunk or high?
Are you stupid?
> Is that why you
>cannot understand the difference between "active" and "passive"?
I can, but you obviously know nothing of pregnancy and birth if you
think it's a passive activity.
>After *actively* having sex, the conception, pregnancy and birth are
>*passive* bodily functions.
And you are wrong.
>I'm sorry but I am not prepared to offer you a remedial high school
>education or help you overcome your learning disabilities.
>But arguing with such intellectual slobbery is a waste of time.
I suggest you stop being such a condescending asshole. You don't have
the brains and the knowledge to carry it off successfully.
[...]
>: Justify YOURSELF coward.
>
>-hick-
Looks like "coward" _is_ the word to use.
Run away little boy.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Roderick D. Van Mechelen
<snip>
> >In other words, Kevin wants men to be able to refuse to support the
> >children they help create.
The underlying objection here is, "men made their choice when they
chose to engage in sex acts in which pregnancy might result." This
is one of the same objection opponents of abortion use: "she made
her choice when..." Either it's a valid objection for both, or
neither.
David W. Truland
ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Translation: you're correct, David.
>>>(Actually, I take part of that back: the fallacy isn't so subtle after all;
>>>in fact, it's quite transparent).
>>
>>>>But that wouldn't equalize reproductive rights.
>>>>Best would be to make abortion illegal.
>>
>>>Excuse me, that might make things "equal", in a simplistic sense, but it
>>>wouldn't make them *just*. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because men
>>>currently suffer a deficit in the area of reproductive rights does not
>>>justify depriving women of rights in the same realm; better would be to
>>>leave women's rights alone, but give men the SAME rights as women, to the
>>>extent that biology allows.
>>
>>They already have the same rights "to the extent that biology allows."
>Um, no. Women have the substantive right to unilaterally, pre-natally
>relinquish their parental status.
Which biology allows.
>Men do not.
Which biology does not allow since they don't get pregnant.
>Abortion has been made
>the prerequisite to this relinquishment,
Nonsense. A child is the prerequisite to parenthood. You've
got it backward, as usual.
>but only by arbitrary LEGAL fiat,
>not as the result of any BIOLOGICAL imperative. Too fast for you? Here, I'll
>try to encapsulate the line of reasoning:
Translation: I know what I just wrote doesn't make any sense so
I'll try again.
>Substantive right: unilateral, pre-natal relinquishment of parental status
>Biological prerequisites: none
>Legal prerequisites: abortion or miscarriage
>Availability of right:
> (for women): must be willing and able to procure abortion, or be
> "lucky" enough to miscarry
> (for men): not available at all
You've still got it backward (see above). A woman isn't
"relinquishing" anything be terminating a pregnancy.
>Within the limits of biology, both men and women could be allowed to pre-
>natally, unilaterally relinquish their parental status.
Translation: Kevin wants men to be able to refuse to support the
children they help create.
>It takes only a stroke
>of the statute-drafting pen, not any cosmic change to the immutable laws of
>biology, to remove the LEGAL prerequisite to pre-natal relinquishment. Such
>would bring about EQUALITY. Far more equality than what we have now. Why do
>you oppose such an arrangement?
A child (someone who has been born and is alive) has a right to be
supported by both it's biological parents, or to have one or more of
those parents substituted for either through adoption or placement in
foster care.
>>>Specifically, Choice for Men advocates allowing men to
>>>unilaterally, pre-natally relinquish their parental status.
>>
>>I told you.
>>
>>>This puts them
>>>more on a par with women in legal terms, without diminishing _anyone's_
>>>fundamental rights.
>>
>>Except, of course, for the child's right to be supported by both it's
>>parents.
>Choice for Men does not diminish or in any way impinge on the child's right to
>be supported by its legal parent(s).
Translation: Kevin wants men to be able say they aren't the parent of
a child which they are the parent of.
>At worst, it only reduces the monetary
>value of that right. No child has a fundamental right to a MAXIMIZATION of
>their standard of living, at the expense of someone else's. *Nobody* in our
>society has that right.
The RNC might disagree with you on that last one.
___________________________________________
David W. Truland tru...@albany.net
http://www.albany.net/~truland/
Kristen Hansen
On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> Kristen Hansen <kr...@access.digex.net> writes:
> >On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> >abortion and c4m are not analogous anyway.
>
> They are analogous in that, when considered within the structure of statutory
> parentage definitions, both the effects of abortion, on the one hand, and an
> exercise of Choice for Men rights, on the other, are examples of pre-natal
> unilateral waivers (you prefer that term to "relinquishment", I assume?) of
> parental status.
Even if I agreed with you (I do not),
your model is faulty: the *effect* of
abortion is that no child is born.
The effect of c4m is that the biological
father of the child gains immunity from a
paternity adjudications and the rights and
responsibilities that flow therefrom,
despite the existence of the man's child.
Could you please clarify whether you
believe that c4m would be available to
all men or only unmarried men?
> Yes, of course abortion directly involves the woman's body
> and Choice for Men does not involve anyone's body. That's a very real,
> concrete difference. But IMO not a legally-relevant one. What we seek is not
> "bodily" equality, merely equal opportunity to relinquish (or "waive")
> parental status. So whence the relevance of "bodies", or the autonomy thereof?
The relevance is that the "opt out" you identify
is not severable from abortion, which involves BODIES.
Abortion is legal only because the state may not
constitutionally compel pregnancy (i.e. so interfere with a
woman's BODY & AUTONOMY) by proscribing the procedure.
In other words, women have a right to control their
innards, they do NOT have the right to unilaterally
relinquish/waive parental status.
> >Thus, arguing that criminalization of abortion would moot c4m allows
> >the means (i.e. the timing of the waiver being pre-birth versus w/i 72 hours
> >after birth, as in adoption) to trump the ends (i.e. a unilateral waiver of
> >parental rights for men).
>
> Kristen, you know that we have been over this ground many times before, so
> let me just restate my position: I support the right of a man OR a woman
> to unilaterally relinquish ("waive") parental status, at any time subsequent
> to conception.
Yet this is inconsistent with your statement above that
c4m has nothing to do with bodies or autonomy, since
a woman's body is still implicated regardless of
whether she "relinquishes" on paper.
> Your position, as I understand it, is to limit the exercise of this
> right to after birth. Despite repeated attempts, I still fail to
> appreciate the value of limiting the relinquishment right in this way.
1) There is no "relinquishment right" for men
or women.
2) I have tried to show you that you cannot use the
Equal Protection Clause to obtain c4m b/c abortion
is irrelevant to your complaint. I'm not trying to
limit you, I'm trying to redirect your analyses to
their proper place--paternity and CS adjudications.
Things which happen after birth.
> What if a spiteful man conceals his unwillingness to be a father until
> it is too late for the woman to abort? Is that fair to her? Is that fair
> to the child? If a waiver of parental status is available, I feel it
> should be available to both (potential) parents, from the first
> practical point in the whole process, i.e. conception.
Of course I've never suggested that a post-birth
option is "fairer" to anyone. I've said that
a post-birth option has a better chance of being
held constitutional that your c4m proposal. I
figured that even you would agree than post-birth
choice is better than no choice.
Furthermore, as I've stated before, c4m as you
advocate is ripe for abuses(, too). I think
that if a man waived and the woman went to
term, then the man has all the power to set
the terms WRT their relationship with the child:
e.g. he can pay CS if and when he wants as
leverage, he can come to see the baby w/o
ever being forced to take responsibility. And
if she says "no" to both b/c she doesn't need
the $ and/or physical support, he can guilt her
about "denying the child his father!" or he
could bring suit against her saying that he didn't
make a "knowing waiver" of his rights; he was denied
due process because he was denied the opportunity to
establish a relationship with his biological child.
[...]
> >> Why not simply allow men OR women, married OR not, to relinquish
> >> parenthood at any time prior to the birth of the child, regardless of
> >> whether abortion is legal or not? This is the simplest and most
> >> constitutionally-acceptable arrangement. Why get bogged down with
> >> unnecessary distinctions of who can relinquish when?
> >
> >In essence, this is what adoption does, but AFTER birth.
>
> Well, not really. To my knowledge, no state in the Union allows one
> (_post partum_) biological parent to relinquish parental status UNILATERALLY
> by making their child available for adoption.
If you re-read *your* paragraph, you didn't state
"unilaterally" anywhere. I inferred it from your
other writings ("In essence..."). What prevented
you from extending me the same courtesy?
> They all, I think, require the consent of BOTH biological parents, in
> the absence of any extenuating factors such as neglect, abuse or
> abandonment. Which means that the willing parent gets a tremendous
> amount of leverage and bargaining power over the unwilling parent.
>
> >So long as the Court and the legislatures
insist upon promoting the "unitary
> >family," the courts are going insist
upon giving the biological parents every
> >opportunity to change their minds in the
name of due process (perhaps by
> >discouraging abortion via informed consent,
etc; definitely by forcing "relinquishing"
> >parents to have the opportunity to "meet"
> >their children before they are allowed to
> >give up their rights to raise them).
>
> Whose "due process" do the courts think they are protecting? The parents',
> whose petitions they are delaying?
Yes.
> That certainly sounds self-defeating.
If the petitioner is truly informed and certain
about this fundamantal choice, yes. If not,
it prevents a big old lawsuit and deprivation
of constitutional rights.
> The children's? This is *exactly* the sort of reason why I favor allowing
> pre-birth waivers -- because in that case THERE IS NO CHILD YET, FOR ALL
> PRACTICAL PURPOSES, and therefore no child's rights or "best interests" to
> protect.
Isn't this reasoning inconsistent with your
continued use of "relinquishment"?
Furthermore, while I mostly agree with you that
it is better for children not to be born into
the custody of unwilling and unprepared parents,
not all agree--including our state legislatures.
As you know, _Casey_ allows for enactment of
pro-natalist laws on the theory that childbirth
is better than abortion. You may have noticed
that Peter Nyikos recently weighed in with
words to this effect, i.e. that abortion is
never in the best interests of the child.
Finally, there is a school of thought that upon
seeing his child, the man will have a change of heart
and become a caring father. I don't put too much
faith in this, but I do think that absent this sighting
the man can argue that he was denied due process (i.e.
didn't make a knowing waiver). Also, I note that n
the alternative, newborn babies are easier to locate
adoptive parents for.
> In the pre-birth case, the issues are much
> clearer and simpler.
For whom? The man, but no one else. Not the
state, not the woman, not the child.
> >> ... I honestly believe, after significant research on the
> >> issue, that a good _Roe_-style constitutional challenge to the
> >> paternity/parentage laws could succeed in the judicial branch of
> >> government, despite the political unpopularity. This would cause, at the
> >> very least, a rethinking of the issue at the national level, and this
> >> opens up the hope of political change.
> >
> >Well I agree that you could challenge
> >paternity laws, but I disagree that
> >this can be done via an Equal Protection
> >action, as you impliedly suggest
> >("illegal abortion would moot c4m").
> >An Equal Protection claim will fail b/c
> >men and women are not similarly situated
> >WRT gestation and abortion. If you
> >have indeed done the research you claim,
> >I'm sure you cannot be ignorant of
> >this pre-requisite.
> We have been over this ground many times also, so you know that I am
> well- informed on the topic.
I know you claim to be well read, but IMO you
FUNDAMENTALLY misconstrue the case law either
because you're incredibly stubborn or because
someone who knew the argument didn't work,
but decided to try it anyways, taught you wrong.
> Our basic point of disagreement, as I see
> it, is that I consider the "similarly situated" analysis to be
> circumscribed by the relevance of the difference cited, relative to the
> stated purpose of the classification at issue.
This is very narrow, but not incorrect.
> For example, in the
> classic case of gender-specific ordinances against toplessness, the
> "similarly situated" analysis comes into play if the stated purpose of
> the ordinance is (as one would normally expect) to preserve public
> decency. But "similarly situated" would *not* come into play if the
> stated purpose were, say, to promote the sales of upper-body garments,
> or to help reduce the risk of skin cancer. Neither of those goals would
> seem to require treating the genders significantly differently -- men
> and women *both* buy upper-body garments, and they *both* run the risk
> of contracting skin cancer. Thus "similarly situated" would not enter
> into the picture.
That was utterly unhelpful, Kevin. Why not
try using the example at hand, c4m? Try to make
it work--it doesn't.
> Your view, on the other hand, seems to be that relevance does not matter --
> that *ANY* difference can render two classes "dissimilarly situated" with
> respect to *ANY* differential treatment they receive under state law.
Absolutely wrong, and, as you've said, we've been arguing
this long enough that I'm sure you know that the above does
NOT accurately reflect my analysis of Equal Protection law.
My view, is that the presence or absence of
a uterus IS RELEVANT in the context of *gestation*
and *abortion*. It is NOT RELEVANT after birth,
in the context of parenthood; THEREFORE c4m
should stop trying to apply the "law" of
abortion to men via the Equal Protection
clause; rather, c4m should argue that men's
rights are infringed by paternity statues b/c
the "fit" between an adverse paternity adjudication
and the provision for the needs of the man's child
w/o support from the state (the state's purported goal)
is so poor that the system me be unconstitutional.
[Insultingly inaccurate "extrapolating" deleted]
> Now, obviously, I'm extrapolating here. I'm not saying that you would
> justify, say, depriving old people of the right to vote, by pointing out
> that they have more wrinkles than young people. The Choice for Men issue
> is admittedly a MUCH MUCH closer call than that. But what I wish to
> impress on you is that "similarly situated" analysis is not simply a
> blank check: IT IS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE RELEVANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE
> CITED, RELATIVE TO THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE CLASSIFICATION AT ISSUE.
That the purpose of the 14th amendment is to
allow women, but not men, to "relinquish
parental status"? I don't think so, Kevin.
Is there another source for abortion rights you
had in mind?
> I have tried to explain this to you many times in the past, yet it seems
> to trickle from your consciousness like water off a duck's back. I
> implore you to reflect on the above (capitalized) words for a few
> moments. "Similarly situated" analysis is not a blank check. It is not a
> catch-all. It is not a panacea. Like most other legal constructs, it has
> qualifications and limits to its use. Relevance analysis bounds
> "similarly situated" analysis.
I'm telling you you CANNOT use the Equal Protection
Clause as a "blank check," not the other way around!
> My thesis is that the biological differences between men and women are not
> sufficiently relevant to the distinction at issue -- women can unilaterally
> relinquish, but men cannot
This is good advocacy, but bad law. Women cannot
"unilaterally relinquish." No such right exists.
> -- relative to the stated purpose of the
> classification -- to raise funds for child support --
Now you're mingling laws. Abortion is SEPARATE
from paternity laws. Your formulation above
ignores this.
> that it can thwart
> an Equal Protection challenge on "similarly situated" grounds. If you want
> to argue the opposite, go right ahead. But please do not imply that I am
> ignorant of "similarly situated" analysis. My disagreement with you is not
> borne of ignorance, but of differing interpretations of the same set of
> KNOWN facts. It is INFORMED disagreement.
I think that you are arguing out of sheer
stubborn-ness, not informed dissent. In order to
make your points you had to completely misrepresent
my analysis and then merge two sets of law that are
jurisprudentially separate. This is considered
clever advocacy by some, but it is not an accurate
description of the law.
> >While often confused, Due Process and
> >Equal Protection are *not* the same.
> >IMO you could use the former more
> >effectively than the latter by pointing
> >out that men's privacy rights are infringed
> >by paternity laws and that this
> >intrusion does not effectively achieve its
> >purported goal (provision for
> >the welfare of children).
>
> Privacy jurisprudence has really never been the same since _Hardwick_. Even
> _Casey_ was decided mostly on the basis of _stare decisis_ rather than any
> ideological commitment to Privacy on the part of the Court.
_Casey_ was not decided mostly ont he basis of _stare
decisis_, Kevin.
> I agree with you
> that involuntary parental status *should* be vulnerable on Privacy grounds,
> but in the current judicial climate, such an attack would probably be suicidal.
Not according to _Casey_ or _Compassion in Dying_
(9th Circuit)..
> >Leave abortion out of it entirely.
>
> Abortion is intertwined only to the extent that the legislature has coupled
> legal parental status with biological parental status. Should I apologize for
> something the legislature has wrought, and which I seek to UNDO?
This is a rather bizarre looking strawman, since
no state legislature has linked abortion and
paternity.
> You speak as if abortion were an embarrassment, an excrescence that
> Choice for Men should avoid at all costs.
It's not helpful for you to paint me as an anti for
rhetorical effect (or convincing). I've offered
an improvement to your proposal that avoids abortion
because it is not relevant to your complaint (perhaps
your ego is simply bigger than your desire to assist
men?).
> I agree that the linkage is an embarrassment, but by all
> rights it should be the state legislatures who are embarassed by this linkage
> that they themselves have created. I decline to be a surrogate for their
> embarassment. I decline to forfeit any of my rights for fear that some may
> misinterpret *my* words as seeking to link two things -- abortion and Choice
> for Men -- that should not be linked. Let the legislatures be embarassed and
> vilified instead, for their ridiculous linkage. Let them reap what they have
> sown. Perhaps, then, next time they are tempted to make shortsighted,
> stereotype-driven statutory linkages between essentially disparate things,
> they will think better of it. Legislate and learn.
The linkage is only in your mind.
Kristen
Robert Mobbs
In article <schaferD...@netcom.com>, sch...@netcom.com says...
>: >that he or she is not. If left unmolested, an obvious person emerges.
>
>: Or not. Many, if not most, zygotes/embryos either fail to implant or
>: subsequently miscarry.
>
>But not usually as a result of being molested from her/his loving
>mother. Or are you responding to some other post?
No, he's responding to your unfounded conclusion (and unfounded
original statement). Not all zygotes develop into "obvious persons" if
"left unmolested". Nor is there "more scientific evidence that a fetus
is a person". If there were, you could state it.
>:And notice also that left alone, an embryo
>: will die. It needs the active assistance of another person to
>: survive.
>
>Earth to Ray, earth to Ray...come in! An emryo only needs it's mother's
>*passive* assistance. Perhaps extra active effort was you mother's
>experience putting up with you, but I would generalize to everyone. :)
What is your point? The passivity of the assistance is irrelevant;
if the mother doesn't want to do it, there's no reason she should.
>: >For those who desire to destroy this, I would say the burden of proof is
>: >on you.
>
>: I don't wish to destroy anything.
>
>Well, YOU haven't been given the legal privilage of that "choice," Ray.
Irrelevant.
>: You wish to enslave women to the
>: needs of fetuses. Justify yourself.
>
>Happens to men all the time. Men have to work at the point of a gun (the
>law) to pay support for years for those kids who make it passed mom's knife.
Ah, so because it happens to some, it should happen to others? I
oppose forced CS, but that is by no means a reason to impose an unjust law
on others.
Robert Mobbs
In article <Pine.SUN.3.94.96071...@access2.digex.net>, kr...@access.digex.net
says...
>
>On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>> Kristen Hansen <kr...@access.digex.net> writes:
>> >On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>
>> > [...S]ince the man's body is not
>> >directly involved in abortion or gestation,
>> >abortion and c4m are not analogous anyway.
>>
>> They are analogous in that, when considered within the structure of statutory
>> parentage definitions, both the effects of abortion, on the one hand, and an
>> exercise of Choice for Men rights, on the other, are examples of pre-natal
>> unilateral waivers (you prefer that term to "relinquishment", I assume?) of
>> parental status.
>
>Even if I agreed with you (I do not),
>your model is faulty: the *effect* of
>abortion is that no child is born.
>The effect of c4m is that the biological
>father of the child gains immunity from a
>paternity adjudications and the rights and
>responsibilities that flow therefrom,
>despite the existence of the man's child.
>
>Could you please clarify whether you
>believe that c4m would be available to
>all men or only unmarried men?
However, the end results are analogous; neither person is a parent
after the decision has been made.
>> Yes, of course abortion directly involves the woman's body
>> and Choice for Men does not involve anyone's body. That's a very real,
>> concrete difference. But IMO not a legally-relevant one. What we seek is not
>> "bodily" equality, merely equal opportunity to relinquish (or "waive")
>> parental status. So whence the relevance of "bodies", or the autonomy thereof?
>
>The relevance is that the "opt out" you identify
>is not severable from abortion, which involves BODIES.
>Abortion is legal only because the state may not
>constitutionally compel pregnancy (i.e. so interfere with a
>woman's BODY & AUTONOMY) by proscribing the procedure.
>In other words, women have a right to control their
>innards, they do NOT have the right to unilaterally
>relinquish/waive parental status.
They go hand-in-hand in the case we are discussing. Since it is
not possible to allow men to abort, since they cannot gestate, then we
should grant men the remaining rights -- the right to be free of the
responsibilities of parenthood.
>> >Thus, arguing that criminalization of abortion would moot c4m allows
>> >the means (i.e. the timing of the waiver being pre-birth versus w/i 72 hours
>> >after birth, as in adoption) to trump the ends (i.e. a unilateral waiver of
>> >parental rights for men).
>>
>> Kristen, you know that we have been over this ground many times before, so
>> let me just restate my position: I support the right of a man OR a woman
>> to unilaterally relinquish ("waive") parental status, at any time subsequent
>> to conception.
>
>Yet this is inconsistent with your statement above that
>c4m has nothing to do with bodies or autonomy, since
>a woman's body is still implicated regardless of
>whether she "relinquishes" on paper.
>
>> Your position, as I understand it, is to limit the exercise of this
>> right to after birth. Despite repeated attempts, I still fail to
>> appreciate the value of limiting the relinquishment right in this way.
>
>1) There is no "relinquishment right" for men
>or women.
Yes, there is.
>2) I have tried to show you that you cannot use the
>Equal Protection Clause to obtain c4m b/c abortion
You have failed.
>is irrelevant to your complaint.
Incorrect.
>I'm not trying to
>limit you, I'm trying to redirect your analyses to
>their proper place--paternity and CS adjudications.
>Things which happen after birth.
You are incorrect in your assessment. Thus, you do not have the
authority to redirect the argument.
>> What if a spiteful man conceals his unwillingness to be a father until
>> it is too late for the woman to abort? Is that fair to her? Is that fair
>> to the child? If a waiver of parental status is available, I feel it
>> should be available to both (potential) parents, from the first
>> practical point in the whole process, i.e. conception.
>
>Of course I've never suggested that a post-birth
>option is "fairer" to anyone. I've said that
>a post-birth option has a better chance of being
>held constitutional that your c4m proposal. I
>figured that even you would agree than post-birth
>choice is better than no choice.
And being tarred is probably a lot worse than being feathered. The
idea here is not getting the better of two bad ideas, but to get the best
idea.
>Furthermore, as I've stated before, c4m as you
>advocate is ripe for abuses(, too).
So are
- welfare
- the right to abortion
- student loans
- social security
- government contracts
- free lunch policies
et al. Should we cancel all of those? Your argument does not
hold.
[snip]
>My view, is that the presence or absence of
>a uterus IS RELEVANT in the context of *gestation*
>and *abortion*. It is NOT RELEVANT after birth,
>in the context of parenthood; THEREFORE c4m
>should stop trying to apply the "law" of
>abortion to men via the Equal Protection
>clause; rather, c4m should argue that men's
>rights are infringed by paternity statues b/c
>the "fit" between an adverse paternity adjudication
>and the provision for the needs of the man's child
>w/o support from the state (the state's purported goal)
>is so poor that the system me be unconstitutional.
This is a "view" which you have repeatedly been unable to ground,
justify, or effectively argue. Until you can do this, please stop
asserting it as true.
>[Insultingly inaccurate "extrapolating" deleted]
>
>> Now, obviously, I'm extrapolating here. I'm not saying that you would
>> justify, say, depriving old people of the right to vote, by pointing out
>> that they have more wrinkles than young people. The Choice for Men issue
>> is admittedly a MUCH MUCH closer call than that. But what I wish to
>> impress on you is that "similarly situated" analysis is not simply a
>> blank check: IT IS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE RELEVANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE
>> CITED, RELATIVE TO THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE CLASSIFICATION AT ISSUE.
>
>That the purpose of the 14th amendment is to
>allow women, but not men, to "relinquish
>parental status"? I don't think so, Kevin.
>Is there another source for abortion rights you
>had in mind?
Court decisions. There is a difference between a constitutional
amendment or statute and the court's interpretation of that amendment or
statute.
>> I have tried to explain this to you many times in the past, yet it seems
>> to trickle from your consciousness like water off a duck's back. I
>> implore you to reflect on the above (capitalized) words for a few
>> moments. "Similarly situated" analysis is not a blank check. It is not a
>> catch-all. It is not a panacea. Like most other legal constructs, it has
>> qualifications and limits to its use. Relevance analysis bounds
>> "similarly situated" analysis.
>
>I'm telling you you CANNOT use the Equal Protection
>Clause as a "blank check," not the other way around!
Yet, you have yet to prove this.
>> My thesis is that the biological differences between men and women are not
>> sufficiently relevant to the distinction at issue -- women can unilaterally
>> relinquish, but men cannot
>
>This is good advocacy, but bad law. Women cannot
>"unilaterally relinquish." No such right exists.
Sure they can. They can terminate the fetus.
>> -- relative to the stated purpose of the
>> classification -- to raise funds for child support --
>
>Now you're mingling laws. Abortion is SEPARATE
>from paternity laws. Your formulation above
>ignores this.
The abortion decision can be causative of paternity laws. Thus,
they are not separate.
[snip]
mpa...@pacbell.com
sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) wrote:
SC> I say, if left alone to grow naturally and successfully, a fetus
SC> becomes a person.
And I would say that if left alone the fetus will quickly and naturally
die. I would also say that 100% of the fetuses that do become persons
do so ONLY because they are not left alone but are allowed by a woman to
use her bodily resources for it's growth.
---
ş SLMR 2.1a ş An' harm it none, do as thy will.
>> Slipstream Jet - The QWK solution for Usenets #UNREGISTERED
Lenny Schafer
mpa...@pacbell.com says:
: sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) wrote:
: SC> I say, if left alone to grow naturally and successfully, a fetus
: SC> becomes a person.
: And I would say that if left alone the fetus will quickly and naturally
: die. I would also say that 100% of the fetuses that do become persons
: do so ONLY because they are not left alone but are allowed by a woman to
: use her bodily resources for it's growth.
Stupid word games. A fetus, left alone to its natural environment,
eventually presents itself as a person, if it does not die of natural
causes. If the mother *actively*,
intervenes by poisoning it, crushing it's skull, stabbing it with metal
pins or scalples or other similiar acts of violence, then it won't.
Let me try and make this even easier for you. A boy will naturally grow
into a man if something doesn't kill him first. This progression is not
a difficult concept unless you try to create unusual and stupid
contingencies in a puerile attempt to make a point.
At some point a fetus becomes an obvious person. Burden of proof is on
those who would argue that a fetus is no more a person than a tumor.
Tumors do not turn into obvious people.
Love, lenny
Lenny Schafer
Robert Mobbs (t-rm...@microsoft.com) says:
-snip-
: No, he's responding to your unfounded conclusion (and unfounded
: original statement). Not all zygotes develop into "obvious persons" if
: "left unmolested".
No he isn't and neither are you. I never said *all* zygotes. The usual
progression of zygotes/fetus is to grow into obvious persons if they do
not die of natural causes (miscarriage) or by active violent intervention
by the mother.
Nor is there "more scientific evidence that a fetus
: is a person". If there were, you could state it.
There is and I've just stated it. Feminists do tend to ignore facts not
convenient to their ideology, even male feminists.
: >:And notice also that left alone, an
embryo : >: will die. It needs the active assistance of another person to
: >: survive.
: >
: >Earth to Ray, earth to Ray...come in! An emryo only needs it's mother's
: >*passive* assistance. Perhaps extra active effort was you mother's
: >experience putting up with you, but I would generalize to everyone. :)
: What is your point? The passivity of the assistance is irrelevant;
: if the mother doesn't want to do it, there's no reason she should.
There is a difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. Puerile
male feminism not withstanding. Mothers cannot kill their born
children. There are reasonable arguments for extending the protection to
the unborn. Male feminism may not agree with those arguments, I understand.
: >: You wish to enslave women to the
: >: needs of fetuses. Justify yourself.
: >
: >Happens to men all the time. Men have to work at the point of a gun (the
: >law) to pay support for years for those kids who make it passed mom's knife.
: Ah, so because it happens to some, it should happen to others? I
: oppose forced CS, but that is by no means a reason to impose an unjust law
: on others.
My point is to point out the hypocricy behind feminists crying "slavery!"
when it conveniences them, but ignoring the same guns pointed at men.
Abortion and child support are related, but separate issues. If a woman
does not actively get the consent of the man for providing parenthood
(formerly known as the marriage contract), he has no obligation for child
support. But then he should also have no personal say in the life of
that child, period. If the couple have contracted to raise their mutual
children (marriage contract again) niether should be able to abandon or
relinquish the children.
And abortion would be irrelevant as it would be illegal, IMO.
Children born outside of marriage used to be called "illegitimate" for a
reason: the mother did not provide a legitimate protective environment
for her children before self-indulging in sex. The very same
self-indulgence practiced today by feminists at the expense of children,
the unborn and men.
Men who challenge feminism on every front except abortion are irrelevant
hypocrites. Abortion -- and its violent selfishness -- is the
cornerstone of feminism. That men would demand relief from feminism for
themselves while allowing their unborn children to be destroyed by the very
same social virus is little more than cowardly self-serving postering,
AKA male feminism.
While you let the blood drip from the hands of today's Lady MacBeths and
their abortions, do not come to me whining about your loss of job, child
support, family,
etc. at the hands of feminists. For you are little more than one of them.
Ray Fischer
Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Robert Mobbs (t-rm...@microsoft.com) says:
>: No, he's responding to your unfounded conclusion (and unfounded
>: original statement). Not all zygotes develop into "obvious persons" if
>: "left unmolested".
>
>No he isn't and neither are you. I never said *all* zygotes. The usual
>progression of zygotes/fetus is to grow into obvious persons if they do
>not die of natural causes (miscarriage) or by active violent intervention
>by the mother.
No, the "usual" result is miscarriage.
> Nor is there "more scientific evidence that a fetus
>: is a person". If there were, you could state it.
>
>There is and I've just stated it.
No you haven't. You keep making incorrect statements.
> Feminists do tend to ignore facts not
>convenient to their ideology, even male feminists.
And you are a stupid bigot who obviously cares nothing for the facts.
>: What is your point? The passivity of the assistance is irrelevant;
>: if the mother doesn't want to do it, there's no reason she should.
>
>There is a difference between a miscarriage and an abortion.
There's a difference between a spontaneous abortion and an induced
abortion?
> Puerile
>male feminism not withstanding.
You _are_ an insulting ass, aren't you?
> Mothers cannot kill their born
>children.
Neither are they forced to care for them.
> There are reasonable arguments for extending the protection to
>the unborn.
But there are no reasonable arguments for enslaving women to the needs
of fetuses.
> Male feminism may not agree with those arguments, I understand.
You don't understand shit.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Lenny Schafer
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) says:
: >: No, he's responding to your unfounded conclusion (and unfounded
: >: original statement). Not all zygotes develop into "obvious persons" if
: >: "left unmolested".
: >
: >No he isn't and neither are you. I never said *all* zygotes. The usual
: >progression of zygotes/fetus is to grow into obvious persons if they do
: >not die of natural causes (miscarriage) or by active violent intervention
: >by the mother.
: No, the "usual" result is miscarriage.
I said "if they do not die of natural causes (miscarriage)." I have
already noted your apparent problem with reading comprehension. Further
discussion with you is of questionable value.
Robert Mobbs
>: original statement). Not all zygotes develop into "obvious persons" if
>: "left unmolested".
>
>No he isn't and neither are you. I never said *all* zygotes. The usual
>progression of zygotes/fetus is to grow into obvious persons if they do
>not die of natural causes (miscarriage) or by active violent intervention
>by the mother.
You did not qualify your original statement with "usual" (I see
you've trimmed it out of embarassment).
> Nor is there "more scientific evidence that a fetus
>: is a person". If there were, you could state it.
>
>There is and I've just stated it.
Stated what? That fetuses may or may not become people? That does
not make them people, any more than the fact that a sperm may become a
person makes it a person.
>Feminists do tend to ignore facts not
>convenient to their ideology, even male feminists.
Heh heh heh. I am ANYTHING but a feminist.
> : >:And notice also that left alone, an
>embryo : >: will die. It needs the active assistance of another person to
>: >: survive.
>: >
>: >Earth to Ray, earth to Ray...come in! An emryo only needs it's mother's
>: >*passive* assistance. Perhaps extra active effort was you mother's
>: >experience putting up with you, but I would generalize to everyone. :)
>
>: What is your point? The passivity of the assistance is irrelevant;
>: if the mother doesn't want to do it, there's no reason she should.
>
>There is a difference between a miscarriage and an abortion.
Um, duh.
>Puerile
>male feminism not withstanding. Mothers cannot kill their born
>children. There are reasonable arguments for extending the protection to
>the unborn.
No, there are not -- not in the eyes of this society.
>Male feminism may not agree with those arguments, I understand.
What on Earth are you talking about?
>: >: You wish to enslave women to the
>: >: needs of fetuses. Justify yourself.
>: >
>: >Happens to men all the time. Men have to work at the point of a gun (the
>: >law) to pay support for years for those kids who make it passed mom's knife.
>
>: Ah, so because it happens to some, it should happen to others? I
>: oppose forced CS, but that is by no means a reason to impose an unjust law
>: on others.
>
>My point is to point out the hypocricy behind feminists crying "slavery!"
>when it conveniences them, but ignoring the same guns pointed at men.
Since I am not arguing this from the position of a feminist, and
neither is Ray, your argument does not fit.
>Abortion and child support are related, but separate issues. If a woman
>does not actively get the consent of the man for providing parenthood
>(formerly known as the marriage contract), he has no obligation for child
>support. But then he should also have no personal say in the life of
>that child, period. If the couple have contracted to raise their mutual
>children (marriage contract again) niether should be able to abandon or
>relinquish the children.
I agree with this.
> And abortion would be irrelevant as it would be illegal, IMO.
Why would it be illegal? A fetus is not a child.
>Children born outside of marriage used to be called "illegitimate" for a
>reason: the mother did not provide a legitimate protective environment
>for her children before self-indulging in sex.
No, it's a cornball bible-beater phrase, which has no legitimate
(pardon the pun) application.
>The very same
>self-indulgence practiced today by feminists at the expense of children,
>the unborn and men.
There is nothing wrong with self-indulgence. The fact that you
are writing this on a computer proves this.
>Men who challenge feminism on every front except abortion are irrelevant
>hypocrites. Abortion -- and its violent selfishness -- is the
>cornerstone of feminism.
Um, no it's not. I despise feminists, but I will not mislabel
them -- their "cornerstone" is female power, at any cost. Abortion is
just one of the rights for which they contend.
>That men would demand relief from feminism for
>themselves while allowing their unborn children to be destroyed by the very
>same social virus is little more than cowardly self-serving postering,
>AKA male feminism.
Um, no it's not. There is nothing cowardly about allowing a woman
to have an abortion.
>While you let the blood drip from the hands of today's Lady MacBeths and
>their abortions, do not come to me whining about your loss of job, child
>support, family,
>etc. at the hands of feminists. For you are little more than one of them.
You reveal your ignorance every time you open your mouth, Lenny.
Robert Mobbs
>: Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: >Robert Mobbs (t-rm...@microsoft.com) says:
>
>: >: original statement). Not all zygotes develop into "obvious persons" if
>: >: "left unmolested".
>: >
>: >No he isn't and neither are you. I never said *all* zygotes. The usual
>: >progression of zygotes/fetus is to grow into obvious persons if they do
>: >not die of natural causes (miscarriage) or by active violent intervention
>: >by the mother.
>
>
>I said "if they do not die of natural causes (miscarriage)." I have
>already noted your apparent problem with reading comprehension. Further
>discussion with you is of questionable value.
Bear in mind that Lenny is probably still ticked off because Ray
and I caught him in a lie ...
Kevin Darcy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <4s0pc1$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> luna...@aol.com (LUNAR1610) writes:
>In article <1996Jul10.0...@rotag.mi.org>, ke...@rotag.mi.org
>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Within the limits of biology, both men and women could be allowed to pre-
>>natally, unilaterally relinquish their parental status. It takes only a
>>stroke of the statute-drafting pen, not any cosmic change to the immutable
>>laws of biology, to remove the LEGAL prerequisite to pre-natal relinquishment.
>>Such would bring about EQUALITY. Far more equality than what we have now. Why
>>do you oppose such an arrangement?
>
>There can BE no equality..
There *CAN* be equality under the law. Give both genders the right to pre-
natally, unilaterally relinquish parental status. That's equality under the
law. Why would you be against it?
>it will always be in favor of women as it
>*should* since WE are the ones most affected by a child..whether aborted
>or carried to term.
I fail to see how gestation relates to preferred treatment vis-a-vis parental
status. One need not gestate to be a legal parent, nor does one's gestation
*guarantee* the status of legal parenthood. Any linkage between gestation and
legal parental status is purely arbitrary. Such linkages can be created,
destroyed or modified at will by strokes of the legislative drafting pen.
>The only rights men have as far as procreation goes is
>this: 1) Don't get her pregnant .
That's not a "right", that's a warning.
>And that's it.
Hence the problem. Women have more legal rights than men. Let's rectify that
situation.
>Once he gets her pregnant she has the ball in her court.
Having sex with a woman does not imply giving up any and/or all of one's rights
as they relate to procreation, reproduction and/or parental status. I certainly
agree that the man has no right to force the woman to abort, or to carry the
child to term. *THOSE* rights are, by constitutional necessity, forfeited. But
as for _other_ rights which do not impinge on the woman's Bodily Autonomy, such
as the right to pre-natally relinquish parental status, I see no reason why we
should assume that they are forfeited by the act of consensual coitus. Can you?
>She can decide to abort (her body her right), she can force him to pay-child
>support (child's right).
Under the _status quo_, you are correct: the woman has rights, and the man
has none. This is an unconstitutional state of affairs that we intend to
correct. Giving BOTH genders the right of pre-natal relinquishment is the
preferred way of bringing things closer to equality.
>End of story. If you object..review right one.
No-one in Choice for Men is arguing against "right one". Straw man argument.
The woman certainly deserves the right to pre-natally relinquish her parental
status, and if abortion is the way she chooses to exercise that right, then
more power to her! But at the same time, let's acknowledge that the man *ALSO*
has the *EQUAL* right to pre-natally relinquish *HIS* parental status.
Currently, this right is not recognized by any of the 50 states of the Union.
This problem -- this imbalance of rights -- cries out for correction. Justice
*will* have its day.
- Kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: finger ke...@msen.com for public key
iQCVAwUBMeW3r/POMH8rIaFRAQFBsAP/fJVtdQOsWF21yR1GuMB/IHDq15z6/FeN
qJeQU+qAphu3uBg+bNkb0RxakkK08/DqPBkaRRh4EXXX/olmmDzuibuc/qqj9S87
HBQMgPANk2mP5LVjM3XDh/KzTAxJtVWPhNMjyquJWn8z+M/4EtdqW65dCZwsLYd7
j6voqDx/+tA=
=29hG
Lenny Schafer
Robert Mobbs (t-rm...@microsoft.com) says:
: In article <schaferD...@netcom.com>, sch...@netcom.com says...
: >
: >Robert Mobbs (t-rm...@microsoft.com) says:
: >-snip-
: >
: >: No, he's responding to your unfounded conclusion (and unfounded
: >: original statement). Not all zygotes develop into "obvious persons" if
: >: "left unmolested".
: >
: >No he isn't and neither are you. I never said *all* zygotes. The usual
: >progression of zygotes/fetus is to grow into obvious persons if they do
: >not die of natural causes (miscarriage) or by active violent intervention
: >by the mother.
: You did not qualify your original statement with "usual" (I see
: you've trimmed it out of embarassment).
Wrong. This scenario has always been my intent. You want to play weasle
word games to avoid the issue.
: > Nor is there "more scientific evidence that a fetus
: >: is a person". If there were, you could state it.
: >
: >There is and I've just stated it.
: Stated what? That fetuses may or may not become people? That does
: not make them people, any more than the fact that a sperm may become a
: person makes it a person.
Wrong again. A sperm does not become a person without the willfull act
of sex leading to conception. Leave sperm to its natural passive state,
it does not become a person. .
: >Feminists do tend to
ignore facts not : >convenient to their ideology, even male feminists.
: Heh heh heh. I am ANYTHING but a feminist.
As big a one as the rest of them. A male feminist.
: Um, duh.
Hell you aren't. The essence of feminism is violent selfishness -- as
exemplified by abortion. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, smells
like a duck....
: >Abortion and child support are related, but separate issues. If a woman
: >does not actively get the consent of the man for providing parenthood
: >(formerly known as the marriage contract), he has no obligation for child
: >support. But then he should also have no personal say in the life of
: >that child, period. If the couple have contracted to raise their mutual
: >children (marriage contract again) niether should be able to abandon or
: >relinquish the children.
: I agree with this.
: > And abortion would be irrelevant as it would be illegal, IMO.
: Why would it be illegal? A fetus is not a child.
Guess what? The ideology of feminism which discounts the humanity of
unborn children is the very same mindset which seeks to discount and
enslave your male ass for their convenience. It really is a pity that
men who get so outraged at feminist sleeze turn such a blind eye to the
ultimate self-serving feminist act of rage: abortion -- whether it's
legal or not..
: >Children born outside of marriage used to be called "illegitimate" for a
: >reason: the mother did not provide a legitimate protective environment
: >for her children before self-indulging in sex.
: No, it's a cornball bible-beater phrase, which has no legitimate
: (pardon the pun) application.
: >The very same
: >self-indulgence practiced today by feminists at the expense of children,
: >the unborn and men.
: There is nothing wrong with self-indulgence. The fact that you
: are writing this on a computer proves this.
Please read what I wrote again. I said self-indulgence "at the expense of
children, the unborn and men."
: >Men who challenge feminism on every front except abortion are irrelevant
: >hypocrites. Abortion -- and its violent selfishness -- is the
: >cornerstone of feminism.
: Um, no it's not. I despise feminists, but I will not mislabel
: them -- their "cornerstone" is female power, at any cost. Abortion is
: just one of the rights for which they contend.
You are ignoring the history of modern feminism. It started, most
noticibly in the 60s and its self-defined cornerstone purpose of
existence was "reproductive rights." Read their literature of the time.
Only after they secured the privilage of killing unborn babies did they
start coming after your job,
your assests and your children and your freedom.
The only, I repeat only, serious countercheck to feminist fascism is the
pro-life movement. Abortion is the place where feminism is most
vulnerable, because legal or no, abortion is a vile, wounding violent act --
and they know it. It is an act which robs feminists of their moral
authority to speak in the name of the "best interests of children" one of
their primary propaganda positions.
: >That men would demand relief from feminism for
: >themselves while allowing their unborn children to be destroyed by the very
: >same social virus is little more than cowardly self-serving postering,
: >AKA male feminism.
: Um, no it's not. There is nothing cowardly about allowing a woman
: to have an abortion.
Or to own your balls, apparently.
: >While you let the blood drip from the hands of today's Lady MacBeths and
: >their abortions, do not come to me whining about your loss of job, child
: >support, family,
: >etc. at the hands of feminists. For you are little more than one of them.
: You reveal your ignorance every time you open your mouth, Lenny.
Four years ago when I started posting on the newsgroups, I was almost
alone in my efforts to expose feminism for what it truely is. The
feminists also guffawed at my mere protests against feminist inequality.
I considered myself a "progressive" of the Warren Farrell camp, then. I
voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. I thought that if I could just show how
things weren't fair, equal for men, progressives and Democrats would
abandon this bunch of con artists who called themselves feminists.
I came to see that lies and self-deceptions feminists and their
supporters used to defend their privilages and enslave me was no
different than the lies and self-deceptions used to justify abortion.
I came to see that if they could find a way to murder their very own
children, they surely could find the way to enslave me, a complete
stranger. I came to see my grievances against feminism paled against
the abortion holocaust the feminists have created. Feminism cannot be
stopped while they have been granted the privilages to kill those who
they preceive as their biological ball-and-chains.
It is not enough a battle cry against the rages of feminism to shout
"Selfish! Unfair!" The cry against feminism is "Murderers!"
It took me a few years to come to my conclusions and join the pro-life
movement as a part of my efforts to protect men's rights, father's
rights, children's rights and family rights. Here's hoping it won't take
you and the other "anti-feminist" male feminists as long.
Lenny Schafer
Robert Mobbs (t-rm...@microsoft.com) says:
: In article <schaferD...@netcom.com>, sch...@netcom.com says...
: >
: >: Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >: >Robert Mobbs (t-rm...@microsoft.com) says:
: >
: >: >: original statement). Not all zygotes develop into "obvious persons" if
: >: >: "left unmolested".
: >: >
: >: >No he isn't and neither are you. I never said *all* zygotes. The usual
: >: >progression of zygotes/fetus is to grow into obvious persons if they do
: >: >not die of natural causes (miscarriage) or by active violent intervention
: >: >by the mother.
: >
: >
: >I said "if they do not die of natural causes (miscarriage)." I have
: >discussion with you is of questionable value.
: Bear in mind that Lenny is probably still ticked off because Ray
: and I caught him in a lie ...
Dear Robert,
I hope you don't try to nourish yourself from the flimsy straws you are
grasping at...
Ken Lupo
>In article <schaferD...@netcom.com>, sch...@netcom.com says...
>>
>>Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) says:
>>: Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>: >Robert Mobbs (t-rm...@microsoft.com) says:
>>
>>: >: No, he's responding to your unfounded conclusion (and unfounded
>>: >: original statement). Not all zygotes develop into "obvious persons" if
>>: >: "left unmolested".
>>: >
>>: >No he isn't and neither are you. I never said *all* zygotes. The usual
>>: >progression of zygotes/fetus is to grow into obvious persons if they do
>>: >not die of natural causes (miscarriage) or by active violent intervention
>>: >by the mother.
>>
>>: No, the "usual" result is miscarriage.
>>
>>I said "if they do not die of natural causes (miscarriage)." I have
>>already noted your apparent problem with reading comprehension. Further
>>discussion with you is of questionable value.
> Bear in mind that Lenny is probably still ticked off because Ray
>and I caught him in a lie ...
> Robert L. Mobbs
> Microsoft WPG Software Development Engineer
> t-rm...@microsoft.com
> -
> "Got blues drawing crosses on my front door
> Blues a' bringing buckets round the back
> Blues trying to push me from me white fence
> And tar me a darker bluey black"
> XTC
Shouldn't you be writing some more buggy Mirco$shit software?
Kristen Hansen
Follow-ups set to T.A. & A.A.I.
On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Kevin Darcy wrote:
[...]
> Any linkage between gestation and legal parental status is purely
> arbitrary.
This is pure hyperbole. No court will accept the
argument that there is no rational basis for
making the woman who gestates a pregnancy to
term the legal parent of the resulting child (i.e.
that this default is "purely arbitrary").
> Such linkages can be created, destroyed or modified at will
> by strokes of the legislative drafting pen.
Omit the "at will" and you're getting closer to
reality.
You don't have to show that the uterus is irrelevant
to parenthood to make your case that men's privacy
rights are infringed by paternity statutes. Why the
fixation on gestation, Kevin?
[Remainder deleted]
Kristen
Robert Mobbs
In article <schaferD...@netcom.com>, sch...@netcom.com says...
>
>Robert Mobbs (t-rm...@microsoft.com) says:
>: In article <schaferD...@netcom.com>, sch...@netcom.com says...
>: >
>: >Robert Mobbs (t-rm...@microsoft.com) says:
>: >-snip-
>: >
>: >: No, he's responding to your unfounded conclusion (and unfounded
>: >: original statement). Not all zygotes develop into "obvious persons" if
>: >: "left unmolested".
>: >
>: >No he isn't and neither are you. I never said *all* zygotes. The usual
>: >progression of zygotes/fetus is to grow into obvious persons if they do
>: >not die of natural causes (miscarriage) or by active violent intervention
>: >by the mother.
>
>: You did not qualify your original statement with "usual" (I see
>: you've trimmed it out of embarassment).
>
>Wrong. This scenario has always been my intent. You want to play weasle
>word games to avoid the issue.
Sir, there are no "weasel word games" when it comes to written
communication. You made an error. Admit it. Had you said "usual", or
"occasionally" (which is more correct), you would have been right. You,
however, did not.
> : > Nor is there "more scientific evidence that a fetus
>: >: is a person". If there were, you could state it.
>: >
>: >There is and I've just stated it.
>
>: Stated what? That fetuses may or may not become people? That does
>: not make them people, any more than the fact that a sperm may become a
>: person makes it a person.
>
>Wrong again. A sperm does not become a person without the willfull act
>of sex leading to conception.
And a fetus does not become a person without the willfull act of
the mother to carry it to term.
>Leave sperm to its natural passive state,
>it does not become a person. .
Leave fetuses to their passive state, and a good number of them
will be spontaneously or otherwise aborted.
>: >Feminists do tend to
>ignore facts not : >convenient to their ideology, even male feminists.
>
>: Heh heh heh. I am ANYTHING but a feminist.
>
>As big a one as the rest of them. A male feminist.
Ah, yes. Sir, if you actually had the intelligence to grasp the
arguments in most of my posts, you would see from the viewpoints that I
post that I am anything but a feminist. I despise feminism, and speak
out against it whenever I get a chance.
Now, if you want to call me a feminist, that's fine. You can
call me whatever you want -- but that doesn't make you right.
See, there you are wrong. "Violent selfishness" is a purely
subjective trait, and can be seen as the "essence" of almost every
belief -- so that is not conclusive proof of anything.
>: >Abortion and child support are related, but separate issues. If a woman
>: >does not actively get the consent of the man for providing parenthood
>: >(formerly known as the marriage contract), he has no obligation for child
>: >support. But then he should also have no personal say in the life of
>: >that child, period. If the couple have contracted to raise their mutual
>: >children (marriage contract again) niether should be able to abandon or
>: >relinquish the children.
>
>: I agree with this.
>
>: > And abortion would be irrelevant as it would be illegal, IMO.
>
>: Why would it be illegal? A fetus is not a child.
>
>Guess what? The ideology of feminism which discounts the humanity of
>unborn children is the very same mindset which seeks to discount and
>enslave your male ass for their convenience.
Prove or retract.
>It really is a pity that
>men who get so outraged at feminist sleeze turn such a blind eye to the
>ultimate self-serving feminist act of rage: abortion -- whether it's
>legal or not..
Prove or retract.
>: >Children born outside of marriage used to be called "illegitimate" for a
>: >reason: the mother did not provide a legitimate protective environment
>: >for her children before self-indulging in sex.
>
>: No, it's a cornball bible-beater phrase, which has no legitimate
>: (pardon the pun) application.
>
>: >The very same
>: >self-indulgence practiced today by feminists at the expense of children,
>: >the unborn and men.
>
>: There is nothing wrong with self-indulgence. The fact that you
>: are writing this on a computer proves this.
>
>Please read what I wrote again. I said self-indulgence "at the expense of
>children, the unborn and men."
Those are qualifiers. You speak in a pejorative sense about self-
indulgence, and I was responding to that.
>: >Men who challenge feminism on every front except abortion are irrelevant
>: >hypocrites. Abortion -- and its violent selfishness -- is the
>: >cornerstone of feminism.
>
>: Um, no it's not. I despise feminists, but I will not mislabel
>: them -- their "cornerstone" is female power, at any cost. Abortion is
>: just one of the rights for which they contend.
>
>You are ignoring the history of modern feminism. It started, most
>noticibly in the 60s
Feminism started way before our society, sir. You really need
to read more.
>and its self-defined cornerstone purpose of
>existence was "reproductive rights." Read their literature of the time.
>Only after they secured the privilage of killing unborn babies did they
>start coming after your job,
>your assests and your children and your freedom.
No one is "killing unborn babies".
>The only, I repeat only, serious countercheck to feminist fascism is the
>pro-life movement.
Bollocks.
>Abortion is the place where feminism is most
>vulnerable, because legal or no, abortion is a vile, wounding violent act --
>and they know it. It is an act which robs feminists of their moral
>authority to speak in the name of the "best interests of children" one of
>their primary propaganda positions.
Prove or retract.
>: >That men would demand relief from feminism for
>: >themselves while allowing their unborn children to be destroyed by the very
>: >same social virus is little more than cowardly self-serving postering,
>: >AKA male feminism.
>
>: Um, no it's not. There is nothing cowardly about allowing a woman
>: to have an abortion.
>
>Or to own your balls, apparently.
Pardon?
Sir, you are not an "anti-feminist", nor do you speak truth. You
are yet another fascist-wanna-be with an agenda, hiding behind the idea
of equal rights.
Lenny Schafer
Robert Mobbs (t-rm...@microsoft.com) says:
: Sir, there are no "weasel word games" when it comes to written
: communication. You made an error. Admit it. Had you said "usual", or
: "occasionally" (which is more correct), you would have been right. You,
: however, did not.
I have already agreed with your exceptions for those fetus that do not
make it to birth. My point is that the fact a fetus becomes an obvious
person offers some weight to the argument that a fetus is a person. I would
concede that this is not conclusive proof, but weasle as you will, a
fetus' linear path of development brings it to a state of obvious personhood.
If you really need more proof of this, I suggest you attend a birth.
: And a fetus does not become a person without the willfull act of
: the mother to carry it to term.
In case you haven't noticed, abortion takes an act of violence to
commit: whether you stab it with steel pins, crush its skull, or poison
it. The willfull act a pregnant woman must do to bring her baby to term
is eat well, take care of herself and maybe take a Lamaze class.
Still need proof? I suggest you attend a Lamaze class, then attend a
third term abortion (ask one of your feminist friends if they know of
anyone). Make your own comparisons.
: Ah, yes. Sir, if you actually had the intelligence to grasp the
: arguments in most of my posts, you would see from the viewpoints that I
: post that I am anything but a feminist. I despise feminism, and speak
: out against it whenever I get a chance.
: Now, if you want to call me a feminist, that's fine. You can
: call me whatever you want -- but that doesn't make you right.
By their own accounts, reproduction rights, aka abortion, is the
principle agenda item of modern feminism (a term feminists use to define
what was Woman's Liberation in the 60's). Try the 60's original "Our
Bodies, Our Selves" if you require proof. Pro-abortion = pro-feminism.
: >: > And abortion would be irrelevant as it would be illegal, IMO.
: >
: >: Why would it be illegal? A fetus is not a child.
: >
: >Guess what? The ideology of feminism which discounts the humanity of
: >unborn children is the very same mindset which seeks to discount and
: >enslave your male ass for their convenience.
: Prove or retract.
It goes like this: men are violent, sub human-like and thus they need to
be exploited and enslaved to compensate for thousands of years of
patriarchy and the opression of women. Part of that oppression has been
how the patriarchy and nature has conspired to chain women to their
breeder roles. To make things equal, feminists believe they need to be
free of biological reproduction to compete with men. Same feminists
demand a whole host of handicaps and privileges in the name of equality
so that they can compete with men. Affirmative action, alimonial child
support, gender norming, primary custodial rights, etc. Feminist will
violently force you into slavery, and violently rend their wombs with
abortion, whatever it takes to empower them.
: >It really is a pity that
: >men who get so outraged at feminist sleeze turn such a blind eye to the
: >ultimate self-serving feminist act of rage: abortion -- whether it's
: >legal or not..
: Prove or retract.
Attend an abortion. It is a violent act.
: >: >Men who challenge feminism on every front except abortion are irrelevant
: >: >hypocrites. Abortion -- and its violent selfishness -- is the
: >: >cornerstone of feminism.
: >
: >: Um, no it's not. I despise feminists, but I will not mislabel
: >: them -- their "cornerstone" is female power, at any cost. Abortion is
: >: just one of the rights for which they contend.
I would call it privileges, not rights feminists demand. Women already
have equality under the law. As Bob Dylan once said, "I gave her my
heart, but she wanted my soul..."
: >
: >You are ignoring the history of modern feminism. It started, most
: >noticibly in the 60s
: Feminism started way before our society, sir. You really need
: to read more.
I said "modern" feminism. Feminists themselves define this at the phase
which emerged in the sixties.
: >and its self-defined cornerstone purpose of
: >existence was "reproductive rights." Read their literature of the time.
: >Only after they secured the privilage of killing unborn babies did they
: >start coming after your job,
: >your assests and your children and your freedom.
: No one is "killing unborn babies".
And no feminists are trying to rip you off either, eh?
: >The only, I repeat only, serious countercheck to feminist fascism is the
: >pro-life movement.
: Bollocks.
Then who? Ralph Nader? Ross Perot? Robert Blye? The ACLU? Maybe,
just maybe, if things get bad enough for men and their kids, Amnesty
International might issue a tsk-tsk towards the feminists. Meanwhile
conservative talk host Rush Limbaugh attacks and ridicules the retro-fems
on a daily basis to a national audience. I don't see one
liberal/progressive politician willing to take on the professional
henpeckers.
: >Abortion is the place where feminism is most
: >vulnerable, because legal or no, abortion is a vile, wounding violent act --
: >and they know it. It is an act which robs feminists of their moral
: >authority to speak in the name of the "best interests of children" one of
: >their primary propaganda positions.
: Prove or retract.
Attend an abortion and find out for yourself how vile it is. Fetus
mulitators/self mutilators have little moral authoritative standing in my
eyes to claim they are only acting in the best interests of children.
: Sir, you are not an "anti-feminist", nor do you speak truth. You
: are yet another fascist-wanna-be with an agenda, hiding behind the idea
: of equal rights.
Prove it or retract. Isn't that one of your favorite phrases? Or have
you retreated to Ray's clever retorts of invective slurs and puerile name
calling? Are you mad that I called you a male feminist? I have nothing
against male feminists, I just wouldn't want my brother to marry one. ;-)
Kevin Darcy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <4s09sl$j...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) writes:
>In <1996Jul10.0...@rotag.mi.org> ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>Darcy) writes:
>>(deletia)
>>Um, no. Women have the substantive right to unilaterally, pre-natally
>>relinquish their parental status. Men do not. Abortion has been made
>>the prerequisite to this relinquishment, but only by arbitrary LEGAL
>>fiat, not as the result of any BIOLOGICAL imperative. Too fast for
>>you? Here, I'll try to encapsulate the line of reasoning:
>
> Legal fiat has nothing to do with the ability of women to abort...
And I did not say that it did. Please read more carefully. I said that legal
fiat made abortion a *prerequisite* to relinquishment of parental status.
It would be a relatively simple matter to remove that legal prerequisite.
What one legal fiat does, an equal and opposite legal fiat can just as easily
undo.
>>Substantive right: unilateral, pre-natal relinquishment of parental status
>>Biological prerequisites: none
>>Legal prerequisites: abortion or miscarriage
>>Availability of right:
>> (for women): must be willing and able to procure abortion, or be
>> "lucky" enough to miscarry
>> (for men): not available at all
>>
>>Within the limits of biology, both men and women could be allowed to
>>prenatally, unilaterally relinquish their parental status. It takes
>>only a stroke of the statute-drafting pen, not any cosmic change to the
>>immutable laws of biology, to remove the LEGAL prerequisite to
>>pre-natal relinquishment. Such would bring about EQUALITY. Far more
>>equality than what we have now. Why do you oppose such an arrangement?
>
> Lefty's interruption: The law cannot address inequality of nature
>by giving one group of people a "special" right.
Sloppy reading again. Where in the above encapsulation did I imply that there
was an "inequality of nature"? I listed a legal prerequisite, but *NO*
biological prerequisites. So where is this alleged "inequality of nature"?
Certainly nowhere implied by me...
>That is what would
>take place in c4m. The law would essentially relieve men of their
>contribution to the birth process and place the entire burden of
>childbirth on the woman.
Excuse me, but opting out of being a legal parent is not the same as opting
out of "childbirth". Childbirth is a biological process; legal parenthood
is a statutorily-created package of rights and responsibilities. You're
comparing apples to oranges.
>The "right" to choice is a limited one. In
>CA., for example, minors must have "parental consent" to abort; thus,
>your desire for "f___k and run law" would place that woman in a most
>precarious situation.
I can certainly empathize with the precariousness of such a situation.
Personally, I'm not in favor of parental consent laws myself, nor do I
suspect that such laws are particularly popular with Choice for Men as a
whole. But I'm having a little trouble trying to figure out what your
point is here: are you making a Deterrence argument, i.e. that Choice for Men
removes one of the major deterrents preventing these situations in the first
place, or are you trying to imply that, post-conception, Choice for Men
somehow *aggravates* the precariousness of the woman's situation? Please
clarify.
>Even if all women had open access to abortion,
>the choice to abort or not is a physical consideration, and not one any
>person (male or female) would have a duty to determine either way.
I agree, but, again, I'm having trouble figuring out what your point is
vis-a-vis Choice for Men. I'm not asserting that the woman has any legal
duty to physically abort. Choice for Men is about the RIGHT of a man to
relinquish his parental status, not the DUTY of a woman to do anything in
particular. How the woman chooses to react to the man's relinquishment is
a private matter.
>In other words, a woman who feared the procedure and could not be "forced"
>to have it done, might still not choose to be a parent, nevertheless,
>she will be.
So can we agree that abortion should be REMOVED as a prerequisite to
pre-natal relinquishment of parental status? As you have noted, this
change would benefit (some) women in addition to the obvious benefits to
(a much wider class of) men.
>>>Except, of course, for the child's right to be supported by both it's
>>>parents.
>>
>>Choice for Men does not diminish or in any way impinge on the child's
>>right to be supported by its legal parent(s). At worst, it only
>>reduces the monetary value of that right. No child has a fundamental
>>right to a MAXIMIZATION of their standard of living, at the expense of
>>someone else's. *Nobody* in our society has that right.
>>
> As it exists a "father" has every legal right to walk away from
>his child and allow someone else to raise it; what he doesn't have is
>the right to avoid his own responsibility to that child.
Parenthood is a package of both rights *and* responsibilities. At least,
it's been that way for the last few millenia, and I don't see that changing
anytime soon. If a person relinquishes parental status, it only makes
sense that this terminates both the rights *and* the responsibilities
associated with that status. A nice clean break.
As for your characterization of sexual intercourse between consenting
adults as inherently "irresponsible", I wasn't aware that that the Religious
Right had taken over the country. I really should read the newspapers more
carefully...
>If you bring
>a child into this world (by your own irresponsible behavior) you owe
>that child part of your bounty.
No, only the PARENTS owe the child part of their bounty. If a person opts
out of parental status, however, then they forfeit their parental rights
in exchange for being released from parental duties. A woman who aborts
forfeits certain rights that she would have otherwise have acquired if she
had carried the pregnancy to term, and at the same time she is released from
certain responsibilities, e.g. support responsibility, with which she would
have been charged, in that event. We are asking only for the same treatment
for men (minus the abortion prerequisite, of course, which it is
unreasonable to expect of men).
And the man doesn't "bring a child into this world" anyway, not in any
meaningful sense. It is the woman's voluntary decision to carry the child to
term which in legal terms most closely corresponds to that description.
>This is something most people know in
>their hearts and souls; no need for a legal term of art here, but if
>you need one, let's call it a "fiduciary duty".
I think you are misapplying the term. "Fiduciary duty" is *voluntary*; it is
never a *punishment* that would be imposed, as you have formulated it above,
for "irresponsibility".
As for what's in people's hearts and souls... In *MY* heart and soul, I
know that involuntary parenthood is *WRONG*. Perhaps you would do well
to only speak what is in your *own* heart and soul, instead of trying to
speak for the hearts and souls of millions.
- Kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: finger ke...@msen.com for public key
iQCVAwUBMefr+PPOMH8rIaFRAQHNHwP/dC7gzB9LvqSXy0abssv3EIJF1Tq12t1s
xM+g/4qT4WPteBDOKitc+KEMjKxj9k0244RPxsh/t0jgAxoVbwWO6E7staijbNOo
LK9wj1tP2UjWhOe7hLoo9vSKkO9zWtdtsdIu3nEvprdde6gSU9gFOBMkyWNxo2e/
2Or4ziSTIZg=
=yLoo
Ray Fischer
followups
Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Robert Mobbs (t-rm...@microsoft.com) says:
>: Sir, there are no "weasel word games" when it comes to written
>: communication. You made an error. Admit it. Had you said "usual", or
>: "occasionally" (which is more correct), you would have been right. You,
>: however, did not.
>
>I have already agreed with your exceptions for those fetus that do not
>make it to birth. My point is that the fact a fetus becomes an obvious
>person offers some weight to the argument that a fetus is a person. I would
>concede that this is not conclusive proof, but weasle as you will, a
>fetus' linear path of development brings it to a state of obvious personhood.
It's a silly argument. You argue that because $10 will grow to
$100,000 if left in an interest earning account, that it really
is $100,000.
>: And a fetus does not become a person without the willfull act of
>: the mother to carry it to term.
>
>In case you haven't noticed, abortion takes an act of violence to
>commit: whether you stab it with steel pins, crush its skull, or poison
>it.
Or simply expel it. No, it does not always take an act of violence.
And if that's your only objection, then I suggest you attend a
childbirth and notice what happens there.
Careful where you stand, or you may get blood on you.
> The willfull act a pregnant woman must do to bring her baby to term
>is eat well, take care of herself and maybe take a Lamaze class.
And give birth. Did you forget that part?
[...]
>: No one is "killing unborn babies".
>
>And no feminists are trying to rip you off either, eh?
Correct on both counts.
[...]
>---
>Privacy, not pornography is the greatest threat presented by the Internet.
>Too much (anonymity) and too little (harassments and dossiers) will
>invite government regulation, if at all possible to enforce.
>sch...@netcom.com
Hey Schafer - what's your phone number and address?
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Kevin Darcy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <Pine.SUN.3.94.960712...@access2.digex.net> Kristen Hansen <kr...@access.digex.net> writes:
>On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>
>[...]
>> Any linkage between gestation and legal parental status is purely
>> arbitrary.
>
>This is pure hyperbole. No court will accept the argument that there is no
>rational basis for making the woman who gestates a pregnancy to term the
>legal parent of the resulting child (i.e. that this default is "purely
>arbitrary").
Well, okay, maybe "purely arbitrary" is a little strong. Technically, it *is*
"arbitrary", in the sense that it takes a legal fiat to make the linkage, and
IMO all law is, at bottom, arbitrary (I am not a strong adherent to the Natural
Law viewpoint, can you tell? :-). But in a broader sense, you are correct --
"purely arbitrary" carries with it a negative connotation that makes it
roughly equivalent to "irrational". I am not prepared to say that the linkage
is "irrational" (although the recent _Romer_ decision seems to signal a
willingness by the Supreme Court to expand the scope of Rational Basis Review;
either that, or it was just an unprincipled decision).
I therefore retract the phrase "purely arbitrary", and substitute in its
place "insufficient to withstand Heightened Scrutinty". Better?
>> Such linkages can be created, destroyed or modified at will
>> by strokes of the legislative drafting pen.
>
>Omit the "at will" and you're getting closer to reality.
>
>You don't have to show that the uterus is irrelevant to parenthood to make
>your case that men's privacy rights are infringed by paternity statutes.
>Why the fixation on gestation, Kevin?
Because I don't base my opposition to the paternity _status quo_ solely on
Privacy, that's why. The only way that I can see a reform proposal satisfying
*both* the requirements of Privacy *and* Equal Protection is to allow pre-
natal relinquishment for men. I know you oppose pre-natal relinquishment for
men, but I still don't understand *WHY*. Is it *ONLY* because you don't buy
the Equal Protection argument against the _status quo_? Or are there some
other (perhaps less theoretical and more practical?) reasons behind your
opposition?
- Kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: finger ke...@msen.com for public key
iQCVAwUBMehTJPPOMH8rIaFRAQGH4gQAuRizwI3ffVAf5lFVpRd65AMl5PyAjKmt
aPEwKtYn73223lEIoyPWka646++DOu/xeg/dgdeVfpe/H3dh3un1EK10dKgCZKjp
5SeJESQevpJoyjgjXlWlD2+iLJU1AQL8XOCoFxM30ijoUEk4RMocE0IwCu4M085B
JUfGxnIKyas=
=Mdab
Kevin Darcy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <4s2ufm$r...@lori.albany.net> tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) writes:
>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>>In article <4rrf2t$c...@lori.albany.net> tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) writes:
>>>
>>>In other words, Kevin wants men to be able to refuse to support the
>>>children they help create.
>
>>What I object to, first and foremost, is gender-based involuntary legal
>>parenthood. Child support is a secondary issue. If the states INSIST on
>>maintaining the current linkage between child support and legal parental
>>status, then obviously if involuntary legal parenthood perishes as a result
>>of a successful constitutional attack, then it will throw the whole child
>>support infrastructure into a tailspin. I would HOPE that the states wouldn't
>>put all of their eggs into one basket like that. I would HOPE that the states
>>would decouple child support from parental status. That would be the smart
>>thing to do. Supporting our children is, after all, very important. Much too
>>important to hitch to a leaking, sinking ship like involuntary legal
>>parenthood...
>
>Translation: you're correct, David.
No, David, you are *NOT* correct. You made a statement about my intent that is
untrue. As I explained (perhaps not well enough?), I support a change to the
legal _status quo_ which may have the EFFECT of relieving men of their child
support responsibilities. But that is not the INTENT of the change, at least
not the *primary* intent. Saying that I want men to be able to get out of
child support would be roughly analagous to saying that David Truland, as
a Pro-choicer, wants women to be able to abort for trivial reasons. This may
be a (rare) EFFECT of the Pro-choice _status quo_ you support, but it is not
necessarily the primary INTENT of your Pro-choice stance. Capische?
>>>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>... give men the SAME rights as women, to the extent that biology allows.
>>>
>>>They already have the same rights "to the extent that biology allows."
>
>>Um, no. Women have the substantive right to unilaterally, pre-natally
>>relinquish their parental status.
>
>Which biology allows.
Which LAW allows. Abortion is only a prerequisite to a woman's relinquishment
because that is the way the laws are written. It would be just as possible to
redraft the parentage laws in such a way that a woman or a man could
relinquish parental status _without_ having to abort.
>>Men do not.
>
>Which biology does not allow since they don't get pregnant.
Biology IN NO WAY prevents legal recognition of a man's pre-natal
relinquishment of parental status.
>>Abortion has been made the prerequisite to this relinquishment,
>
>Nonsense. A child is the prerequisite to parenthood.
You statement is correct, but your reasoning is incomplete:
A child is a prerequisite to parental status
AND Abortion precludes the existence of a child
--------------------------------------------
THEREFORE..... Abortion precludes parental status
I am equating "voluntary preclusion of one's status" and "relinquishment".
If you think this is a misuse of the term "relinquishment", then please feel
free to suggest a substitute (Kristen seems to prefer the term "waiver",
but I don't really see that as an improvement). Otherwise, I'll stick with
the terminology I have.
>>Substantive right: unilateral, pre-natal relinquishment of parental status
>>Biological prerequisites: none
>>Legal prerequisites: abortion or miscarriage
>>Availability of right:
>> (for women): must be willing and able to procure abortion, or be
>> "lucky" enough to miscarry
>> (for men): not available at all
>
>You've still got it backward (see above). A woman isn't
>"relinquishing" anything be terminating a pregnancy.
Of course she is. If she aborts, she does not acquire parental status (at
least not wrt THAT child). If she fails to abort, then in the natural course
of events, she DOES acquire parental status. Abortion is a voluntary act on
her part by which she can prevent the acquisition of parental status. Nothing
more or less is intended by the term "relinquishment".
>>It takes only a stroke
>>of the statute-drafting pen, not any cosmic change to the immutable laws of
>>biology, to remove the LEGAL prerequisite to pre-natal relinquishment. Such
>>would bring about EQUALITY. Far more equality than what we have now. Why do
>>you oppose such an arrangement?
>
>A child (someone who has been born and is alive) has a right to be
>supported by both it's biological parents, or to have one or more of
>those parents substituted for either through adoption or placement in
>foster care.
State statutes proclaim such a "right", I agree, and those statutes, by and
large, enjoy popular support. But state statutes -- even popular ones -- must
conform to the limits placed on them by the U.S. Constitution. The man's
Privacy and Equal Protection rights are not to be sacrificed to majoritarian
sentiments of what the "best interests of children" are, and how best to
protect those interests.
>>>>Specifically, Choice for Men advocates allowing men to
>>>>unilaterally, pre-natally relinquish their parental status.
>>>
>>>I told you.
>>>
>>>>This puts them
>>>>more on a par with women in legal terms, without diminishing _anyone's_
>>>>fundamental rights.
>>>
>>>Except, of course, for the child's right to be supported by both it's
>>>parents.
>
>>Choice for Men does not diminish or in any way impinge on the child's right
>>to be supported by its legal parent(s).
>
>Translation: Kevin wants men to be able say they aren't the parent of
>a child which they are the parent of.
Do you understand the distinction between legal parenthood and biological
parenthood? I agree with your "translation" only insofar as it is read with
the understanding that "parent" in the first line means "legal parent",
and in the second line means "biological parent". Upon such a reading, it is
not, as you have presented it, self-contradictory.
>>At worst, it only reduces the monetary
>>value of that right. No child has a fundamental right to a MAXIMIZATION of
>>their standard of living, at the expense of someone else's. *Nobody* in our
>>society has that right.
>
>The RNC might disagree with you on that last one.
Please elaborate.
- Kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: finger ke...@msen.com for public key
iQCVAwUBMehazfPOMH8rIaFRAQEU0gQAu8P7+uc3mOGTB6etb4RL5d4D6bvfLgfR
3EowjXwBL/QYRIwNjhO/98Q68iPYmEcWN+jhU4E5wG2dyZ/2lj+tiF910Zc7kbcd
3N1KZGRU8GXEdKpY1WD3zBKT7lK71eateAxCT2+dceEpB0WrHJ5Qux0ZDnadxPet
8byJh5Hy6Ag=
=LyF9
Siegen
ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>In article <schaferD...@netcom.com> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer) writes:
>>Kevin Darcy (ke...@rotag.mi.org) says:
>>
>>: In article <schaferD...@netcom.com> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny >>:schafer) writes:
>>-snip-
>>: >But that wouldn't equalize reproductive rights.
>>: >Best would be to make abortion illegal.
>>
>>: Excuse me, that might make things "equal", in a simplistic sense, but it
>>: wouldn't make them *just*. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because >>: men currently suffer a deficit in the area of reproductive rights does >>: not justify depriving women of rights in the same realm; better would be >>: to leave women's rights alone, but give men the SAME rights as women, to >>: the extent that biology allows.
>>
>>Abortion deprives the unborn child, if otherwise left unmolested, the
>>"right" to life.
>Yadda yadda yadda. Do you have ANY IDEA how many times I've seen this stuff
>argued? Thousands. No, make that tens of thousands. Look, I'm simply not
>interested in the same old Pro-life arguments about whether the fetus is a
>"person" or not, whether it has a "right to life" or not, whether gestation >is the Manifest Destiny of all womankind, whether what is "natural" is >necessarily "good" or "right", whether abortion restrictions constitute >active or passive coercion. Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.
[snip]
Here's a man who possesses an unusually passionate determination
not to learn anything and remain wrong at all costs.
-- Siegen
Kristen Hansen
On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> Kristen Hansen <kr...@access.digex.net> writes:
> >On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> >> Any linkage between gestation and legal parental status is purely
> >> arbitrary.
> >
> >This is pure hyperbole. No court will
> >accept the argument that there is no
> >rational basis for making the woman who
> >gestates a pregnancy to term the
> >legal parent of the resulting child
> >(i.e. that this default is "purely
> >arbitrary").
>
> Well, okay, maybe "purely arbitrary" is a little strong. Technically, it
> *is* "arbitrary", in the sense that it takes a legal fiat to make the
> linkage, and IMO all law is, at bottom, arbitrary (I am not a strong
> adherent to the Natural Law viewpoint, can you tell? :-).
Well, I think you're still exaggerating a bit.
It is, I suppose, *technically* by "legal fiat" that
physically stronger persons are prevented from wresting
custody of newborns away from their birth mothers and
leaving the mothers w/o children and w/o remedy. Still,
I wouldn't overemphasize this technicality in your arguments.
You're not making your case in a vacuum and some people
(inc. courts and legislatures) see the linkage between birth
mother and child as involving much more than this legal
technicality.
FYI, I don't know that I would characterize all
law as "arbitrary"; I will grant you "at bottom"
*subjective*, however.
> But in a broader sense, you are correct -- "purely arbitrary" carries
> with it a negative connotation that makes it roughly equivalent to
> "irrational". I am not prepared to say that the linkage is "irrational"
[_Romer_ sidebar deleted]
> I therefore retract the phrase "purely arbitrary", and substitute in its
> place "insufficient to withstand Heightened Scrutinty". Better?
Yes. I think that you can legitimately make your
case under a heightened scrutiny test. I still do
not entirely agree with your conclusions under this
more exacting standard, though.
[...]
> >You don't have to show that the uterus
> >is irrelevant to parenthood to
> >make your case that men's privacy rights
> >are infringed by paternity statutes. Why
> >the fixation on gestation, Kevin?
>
> Because I don't base my opposition to the paternity _status quo_ solely
> on Privacy, that's why. The only way that I can see a reform proposal
> satisfying *both* the requirements of Privacy *and* Equal Protection is
> to allow pre- natal relinquishment for men.
But an Equal Protection claim is not in and
of itself a substantive right. You are
arguing that the substantive *privacy*
rights of men and women are different
and that this denies men equal protection
of the law, right?
> I know you oppose pre-natal relinquishment for men, but I still don't
> understand *WHY*. Is it *ONLY* because you don't buy the Equal
> Protection argument against the _status quo_?
Primarily, yes. I believe that your legal
theory is fundamentally--and fatally--flawed.
> Or are there some other (perhaps less theoretical and more practical?)
> reasons behind your opposition?
You probably recall I've noted some (I can't
remember them all at the moment, so I'll highlight)
other probable pitfalls facing c4m as advanced by
yourself, Will Steeves, Dymitri K., and NCM, generally.
First of all, I think that it's unlikely
that a court would be interested in
hearing the case pre-birth when there isn't
a "live" controversy--i.e. there are potential (not
necessarily insurmountable) problems with standing.
Just as one (woman or man) cannot gain legal custody
of the fetus, I don't think one can waive PR&R
before birth. This is true in the matter of
adoption, as well (many states, AFAIK, require that
the birth parents have 72 hours post-partum
to change their minds, although I think that
this waiting period has as much to do with due
process of law as standing). This is discussed
at greater length in another post to this thread.
Furthermore, your model presumes both that 1) there is
a right to abortion on demand; and 2) that abortion
and "waiving" are equivalent. The first is wrong
as a matter of law and the second is almost absurd.
I suspect that in response you'll be tempted to
say "that's because she gestates!" to justify the
inherent physical burden placed on the woman, but not
the man. Please note that this rationale is what
provides the basis for my belief there is no
Equal Protection claim available to obtain c4m: men
don't gestate, so the 14th amendment just doesn't
operate to give them post-conception choice. It's
merely a matter of biology, not law.
Finally, I also think that you are ignoring
a potentially powerful argument in your favor:
the welfare of children. Although many people
who read your proposal react with abject horror,
I did not because I think that parents unwilling
and/or unprepared for kids often fail to treat
them very well. Anedoctal evidence (not sufficient
for me to advocate parental choice, but certainly
enough for me to study its feasibility and worth)
suggests that we as a society pay a lot now to
maintain a system that doesn't work (provide for
the welfare of children) and for its failures,
i.e. those kids whom the system fails. Some insist
that the problem lies in enforcement, not in the
structure of the system. I'm not sure I agree.
Anyhow, I ask: would we pay much more in cash and
lives if we abdandonned the model of the "unitary
family" and adopted some form of parental choice
akin to c4m? Maybe not. Might even save some of
both.
Kristen
David W. Truland
ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>In article <4s2ufm$r...@lori.albany.net> tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) writes:
[...]
>>
>>You've still got it backward (see above). A woman isn't
>>"relinquishing" anything be terminating a pregnancy.
>Of course she is.
NO she isn't
>If she aborts, she does not acquire parental status (at
>least not wrt THAT child).
Correct.
>If she fails to abort, then in the natural course
>of events, she DOES acquire parental status.
Correct.
>Abortion is a voluntary act on
>her part by which she can prevent the acquisition of parental status.
Correct.
>Nothing
>more or less is intended by the term "relinquishment".
Then it is quite cleear that men cannot "relinquish"
parental status as you are using the term because they
do not become pregnant.
[...]
>>
>>Translation: Kevin wants men to be able say they aren't the parent of
>>a child which they are the parent of.
>Do you understand the distinction between legal parenthood and biological
>parenthood? [...]
It is an artificial distinction you are trying to make to avoid child
support (not necessarily you personally.)
>I agree with your "translation" only insofar as it is read with
>the understanding that "parent" in the first line means "legal parent",
>and in the second line means "biological parent". Upon such a reading, it is
>not, as you have presented it, self-contradictory.
>>>At worst, it only reduces the monetary
>>>value of that right. No child has a fundamental right to a MAXIMIZATION of
>>>their standard of living, at the expense of someone else's. *Nobody* in our
>>>society has that right.
>>
>>The RNC might disagree with you on that last one.
>Please elaborate.
Yawn. Well Kevin, putting your sentences together gives us the
statement that 'Nobody in our society has the right to a maximation
of their standard of living at the expense of someone else's.'
Back in the 50's that statement would get you a subpoena
from Sen. McCarthy. And today, no one is more supportive
of big business capitalism (with the possible exception of Bill
Clinton) than the Republican Party.
Roberto Avila
It's kind of funny that men are finding themselves trapped by the same
patriarchal bureaucracy that cause kept women in a position of legal
inferiority since the inception of this government.
Sorry, just had to give a giggle!
Men lie to women, women lie to men, people change their viewpoints when
the hypothetical becomes the reality, birth control fails, the divinity
intervents, and the government is interested in investing our tax
dollars where it gets the highest yield from lobbyists, which is not
in caring for our nations fatherless children.
Whatever. I think that what it comes down to, is that people have to start
to realistically look at the possible consequences of their action and if
they can't handle it, don't take the risk. And no matter what position
you're coming at it from ;) ... sex is risky business.
We can all beat our breasts about what is fair and unfair. But it seems that
the only people who truly does not have a choice in the whole affair are the
resulting children. We may want to go around using each other for cheap
entertaiment, but the children left in the wake of this frivolity are not
amused.
I have never seen a child support check yet that could properly substitute
for the support provided by the love, devotion and guidance of good parents.
Every child deserves good parents.
It's strange for a person who was as wild as I was, to take such a
conservative view. But, has any one else noticed that the more we
veer off the path our ancestors held to, the more we find ourselves
in territory that we have neither the emotional or ethical capacity
to deal with?
Ah, but we are only human, born with the capacity, ergo, the right to screw
up. To bad it isn't, also, inherent in our nature to rise to the occasion
and accept the challenges. And apparently one of the biggest challenges
is keeping our pants on!
But I do raise my sons with this thought, sex has it's consequences. I
ask them to think about whether they are willing to commit to
at least eighteen of raising a child with the young lady that they are
so eager to jump in the sack with. Maybe they will at least be choosy
about who they pick for the potential mother of my grandchildren!
Peace,
Cathy
Kevin Darcy (ke...@rotag.mi.org) wrote:
: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Robert Mobbs
>
>: Sir, there are no "weasel word games" when it comes to written
>: communication. You made an error. Admit it. Had you said "usual", or
>: "occasionally" (which is more correct), you would have been right. You,
>: however, did not.
>
>I have already agreed with your exceptions for those fetus that do not
>make it to birth. My point is that the fact a fetus becomes an obvious
>person offers some weight to the argument that a fetus is a person. I would
>concede that this is not conclusive proof, but weasle as you will, a
>fetus' linear path of development brings it to a state of obvious personhood.
And I contend that the very fact that a fetus must BECOME a person
negates the possibility of it BEING a person. A tadpole is not a frog.
>If you really need more proof of this, I suggest you attend a birth.
As it would prove nothing, I see no point.
>: And a fetus does not become a person without the willfull act of
>: the mother to carry it to term.
>
>In case you haven't noticed, abortion takes an act of violence to
>commit: whether you stab it with steel pins, crush its skull, or poison
>it. The willfull act a pregnant woman must do to bring her baby to term
>is eat well, take care of herself and maybe take a Lamaze class.
Then you admit that there is a willful act. Thank you. There are
others -- the refusal to ingest harmful substances, proper pre-natal care,
etc.
>Still need proof? I suggest you attend a Lamaze class, then attend a
>third term abortion (ask one of your feminist friends if they know of
>anyone). Make your own comparisons.
As it would prove nothing, I see no reason to.
>: Ah, yes. Sir, if you actually had the intelligence to grasp the
>: arguments in most of my posts, you would see from the viewpoints that I
>: post that I am anything but a feminist. I despise feminism, and speak
>: out against it whenever I get a chance.
>: Now, if you want to call me a feminist, that's fine. You can
>: call me whatever you want -- but that doesn't make you right.
>
>By their own accounts, reproduction rights, aka abortion, is the
>principle agenda item of modern feminism (a term feminists use to define
>what was Woman's Liberation in the 60's). Try the 60's original "Our
>Bodies, Our Selves" if you require proof. Pro-abortion = pro-feminism.
You state "By their own accounts", then you offer no backup for
this statement. I do not like feminists one bit, but even I am not
idiotic enough to make claims I cannot back up. If you truly have proof
that feminists, as an organized group, believe abortion to be their
principle agenda item, please post that proof.
>: >: > And abortion would be irrelevant as it would be illegal, IMO.
>: >
>: >: Why would it be illegal? A fetus is not a child.
>: >
>: >Guess what? The ideology of feminism which discounts the humanity of
>: >unborn children is the very same mindset which seeks to discount and
>: >enslave your male ass for their convenience.
>
>: Prove or retract.
>
>It goes like this: men are violent, sub human-like and thus they need to
>be exploited and enslaved to compensate for thousands of years of
>patriarchy and the opression of women. Part of that oppression has been
>how the patriarchy and nature has conspired to chain women to their
>breeder roles. To make things equal, feminists believe they need to be
>free of biological reproduction to compete with men. Same feminists
>demand a whole host of handicaps and privileges in the name of equality
>so that they can compete with men. Affirmative action, alimonial child
>support, gender norming, primary custodial rights, etc. Feminist will
>violently force you into slavery, and violently rend their wombs with
>abortion, whatever it takes to empower them.
This is not proof -- this is your own inane pontification, and
it proves nothing.
>: >It really is a pity that
>: >men who get so outraged at feminist sleeze turn such a blind eye to the
>: >ultimate self-serving feminist act of rage: abortion -- whether it's
>: >legal or not..
>
>: Prove or retract.
>
>Attend an abortion. It is a violent act.
As it would prove nothing, I see no reason to. Heart bypasses are
pretty darn "violent", too.
>: >: >Men who challenge feminism on every front except abortion are irrelevant
>: >: >hypocrites. Abortion -- and its violent selfishness -- is the
>: >: >cornerstone of feminism.
>: >
>: >: Um, no it's not. I despise feminists, but I will not mislabel
>: >: them -- their "cornerstone" is female power, at any cost. Abortion is
>: >: just one of the rights for which they contend.
>
>I would call it privileges, not rights feminists demand. Women already
>have equality under the law. As Bob Dylan once said, "I gave her my
>heart, but she wanted my soul..."
The difference between a privilege and a right is, at best, shady
in our society.
>: >You are ignoring the history of modern feminism. It started, most
>: >noticibly in the 60s
>
>: Feminism started way before our society, sir. You really need
>: to read more.
>
>I said "modern" feminism. Feminists themselves define this at the phase
>which emerged in the sixties.
Then you are using circular logic. Since you are defining "modern"
feminism as that which started "most noticibly [sic] in the 60s", then of
course "modern" feminism will be, to you, that feminism which started "most
noticibly [sic] in the 60s". The term is meaningless.
>: >and its self-defined cornerstone purpose of
>: >existence was "reproductive rights." Read their literature of the time.
>: >Only after they secured the privilage of killing unborn babies did they
>: >start coming after your job,
>: >your assests and your children and your freedom.
>
>: No one is "killing unborn babies".
>
>And no feminists are trying to rip you off either, eh?
One has nothing to with the other.
>: >The only, I repeat only, serious countercheck to feminist fascism is the
>: >pro-life movement.
>
>: Bollocks.
>
>Then who? Ralph Nader? Ross Perot? Robert Blye? The ACLU? Maybe,
>just maybe, if things get bad enough for men and their kids, Amnesty
>International might issue a tsk-tsk towards the feminists. Meanwhile
>conservative talk host Rush Limbaugh attacks and ridicules the retro-fems
>on a daily basis to a national audience. I don't see one
>liberal/progressive politician willing to take on the professional
>henpeckers.
That is irrelevant. It is not proof to say, when challenged,
"If I'm not right, who is?" It is proof to show the logical tenets
behind one's position, which you have yet to do. I firmly believe the
only way to stop the rampant destruction feminism is causing is to
educate people.
>: >Abortion is the place where feminism is most
>: >vulnerable, because legal or no, abortion is a vile, wounding violent act --
>: >and they know it. It is an act which robs feminists of their moral
>: >authority to speak in the name of the "best interests of children" one of
>: >their primary propaganda positions.
>
>: Prove or retract.
>
>Attend an abortion and find out for yourself how vile it is.
I assure you that the draining of cancerous boils is an equally,
of not more, "vile" act.
>Fetus
>mulitators/self mutilators have little moral authoritative standing in my
>eyes to claim they are only acting in the best interests of children.
We are not discussing what matters in "your eyes", sir.
>: Sir, you are not an "anti-feminist", nor do you speak truth. You
>: are yet another fascist-wanna-be with an agenda, hiding behind the idea
>: of equal rights.
>
>Prove it or retract. Isn't that one of your favorite phrases?
It is a simple challenge. It means don't make statements which
you cannot support.
>Or have
>you retreated to Ray's clever retorts of invective slurs and puerile name
>calling? Are you mad that I called you a male feminist? I have nothing
>against male feminists, I just wouldn't want my brother to marry one. ;-)
Your point is still not proven, and I await either your logical
proof or your admission of error.
Robert L. Mobbs
Microsoft WPG Software Development Engineer
t-rm...@microsoft.com
-
"Got blues drawing crosses on my front door
Blues a' bringing buckets round the back
Blues trying to push me from me white fence
And tar me a darker bluey black"
XTC
-- the opinions expressed herein are the opinions of the author, and
not of Microsoft corporation
Lenny Schafer
Robert Mobbs (t-rm...@microsoft.com) says:
: In article <schaferD...@netcom.com>, sch...@netcom.com says...
: And I contend that the very fact that a fetus must BECOME a person
: negates the possibility of it BEING a person. A tadpole is not a frog.
An adolescent becomes an adult. So that negates the
possibility of it BEING an adult?
I think your thinking is too polarized and you are trying too hard to win
this debate as an exercise of academicsthan to consider the consequences of
the issues at hand.
There are ample writings from the 60's and 70's from feminist literature
defining abortion as their key issue of the time. I even suggested "Our
Bodies Ourselves" as a reference which you ignored, conveniently.
A heart operation is to fix a disease. An unborn child is not a disease.
Yet you readily equate the two; sharing your feminists sister's
devaluation of the beginnings of human life. You are not their enemy,
rather their ally in their quest for power at any costs.
The feminist anti-fetus believes are not much different than their
distain and their dehumanization of men. That you do not see this is your
blind spot and will render you and the rest of the male feminist movement
irrelevant as well.
Scream and weasle "Where's the Proof!?" all you want. But it is the
conservative father's rights movement who are standing up and organizing
against the feminists. While male feminists (masculinists?) like
yourself are reduced to pleading with liberals and Democrats to be fair
and equal to men. Feminism is a liberal/socialist movement that has
NOTHING to do with equality other than for tactical purposes. Feminism
cannot be divorced from the rest of the liberal political camp. In case
you haven't noticed, one of the main components of the Democratic Agenda
is the political spitting on of men. It's a tactic, not a goal and it's
working -- for a little while.
Hillel
In article <schaferD...@netcom.com>,
Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Privacy, not pornography is the greatest threat presented by the Internet.
>Too much (anonymity) and too little (harassments and dossiers) will
>invite government regulation, if at all possible to enforce.
If the government wants a fight it can have a fight.
I refuse to accept any "self-imposed" censorship.
If the government wants to censor then it will have to
fight the battle alone.
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by
daring to use them --- Milo to Yossarian
Robert Mobbs
In article <schaferD...@netcom.com>, sch...@netcom.com says...
>
>Robert Mobbs (t-rm...@microsoft.com) says:
>
>: And I contend that the very fact that a fetus must BECOME a person
>: negates the possibility of it BEING a person. A tadpole is not a frog.
>
>possibility of it BEING an adult?
Yep. If it must become an adult, it is not an adult -- this should
be self-evident, as an adolescent is most certainly not an adult.
>I think your thinking is too polarized and you are trying too hard to win
>this debate as an exercise of academicsthan to consider the consequences of
>the issues at hand.
Well, I don't know what an "academicsthan" is, but sticking to facts
is a trait of mine.
>There are ample writings from the 60's and 70's from feminist literature
>defining abortion as their key issue of the time. I even suggested "Our
>Bodies Ourselves" as a reference which you ignored, conveniently.
I ignored nothing. "Our Bodies, Ourselves" is NOT the document on
which the feminist movement is entirely based. If this is the only reference
you can offer, please save time and just admit you are wrong -- you even
admit that it is only a "key issue", and not the "basis" as you originally
stated.
>A heart operation is to fix a disease. An unborn child is not a disease.
That's a matter of opinion, and it is irrelevant. Your point (which
I'm sure you only deleted for brevity, and not to hide your own error) was
that abortions are "disgusting", to which I responded that most operations
are not attractive.
>Yet you readily equate the two; sharing your feminists sister's
>devaluation of the beginnings of human life. You are not their enemy,
>rather their ally in their quest for power at any costs.
One cannot devalue something with truth, sir.
>The feminist anti-fetus believes are not much different than their
>distain and their dehumanization of men. That you do not see this is your
>blind spot and will render you and the rest of the male feminist movement
>irrelevant as well.
Well, blow me down.
>Scream and weasle "Where's the Proof!?" all you want.
As you have yet to give any, I'm sure you'll find most people will
"scream and weasle [sic]" about proof.
>But it is the
>conservative father's rights movement who are standing up and organizing
>against the feminists. While male feminists (masculinists?) like
>yourself are reduced to pleading with liberals and Democrats to be fair
>and equal to men. Feminism is a liberal/socialist movement that has
>NOTHING to do with equality other than for tactical purposes. Feminism
>cannot be divorced from the rest of the liberal political camp. In case
>you haven't noticed, one of the main components of the Democratic Agenda
>is the political spitting on of men. It's a tactic, not a goal and it's
>working -- for a little while.
Whatever. It is a trademark of a defeated person to fall back to
name calling and mislabeling; your doing so does not insult me, it merely
shows how unprepared you are for a factual debate.
Robert L. Mobbs
Microsoft WPG Software Development Engineer
t-rm...@microsoft.com
-
"Got blues drawing crosses on my front door
Blues a' bringing buckets round the back
Blues trying to push me from me white fence
And tar me a darker bluey black"
XTC
-- the opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not of
Microsoft Corporation
Robert Mobbs
In article <4sh8im$i...@news3.realtime.net>, av...@bga.com says...
>
>It's kind of funny that men are finding themselves trapped by the same
>patriarchal bureaucracy
A bureaucracy is not inherently patriarchal.
>that cause kept women in a position of legal
>inferiority since the inception of this government.
Remember, "kept" is in the past tense. Prior to the founding
of this nation, many of our "people" were oppressed by the English.
We don't see any laws running through our courts to right those wrongs,
do we? I don't see how two wrongs make a right in this situation,
which is what the most powerful "underdog" political movements seem
to believe.
[diatribe snipped]
Robert L. Mobbs
Microsoft WPG Software Development Engineer
t-rm...@microsoft.com
-
"Got blues drawing crosses on my front door
Blues a' bringing buckets round the back
Blues trying to push me from me white fence
And tar me a darker bluey black"
XTC
-- the opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not of
Microsoft corporation
Hillel
>In article <4sh8im$i...@news3.realtime.net>, av...@bga.com says...
>>It's kind of funny that men are finding themselves trapped by the same
>>inferiority since the inception of this government.
Once upon a time feminism was a revolutionary movement that tried to
change the world. Today the movement looks like the middle age drunk
who sits in the bar and explains that nothing is his responsibility,
he did not create the world...
In article <4sm38r$i...@news.microsoft.com>,
Robert Mobbs <t-rm...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Remember, "kept" is in the past tense. Prior to the founding
>of this nation, many of our "people" were oppressed by the English.
>We don't see any laws running through our courts to right those wrongs,
That's because the Framers of Constitution wanted to get the job done,
not to look for ways to blame everybody else. Yes, it is easy to see
that (fortunately!) they were not feminists...
Runu Knips
In article <4smk5u$1...@hal.cs.duke.edu>, ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
|> >In article <4sh8im$i...@news3.realtime.net>, av...@bga.com says...
|> >>It's kind of funny that men are finding themselves trapped by the same
|> >>patriarchal bureaucracy that cause kept women in a position of legal
|> >>inferiority since the inception of this government.
|>
|> Once upon a time feminism was a revolutionary movement that tried to
|> change the world. Today the movement looks like the middle age drunk
|> who sits in the bar and explains that nothing is his responsibility,
|> he did not create the world...
I wonder why someone with such ideas posts in alt.feminism ? Should
everybody know how stupid he is ???
Feminism is about 500 Years old, modern feminism about 150 years, and
during all the time, there where always people which explained it is no
longer necessary. But still it had not reached many of it's aims, and
still it is a growing movement.
However, to state feminism is dead is as if you state democracy is dead,
its influences are currently stronger than ever before in known history,
as it is with democracy.
Hillel
## Once upon a time feminism was a revolutionary movement that tried to
## change the world. Today the movement looks like the middle age drunk
## who sits in the bar and explains that nothing is his responsibility,
## he did not create the world...
In article <4sor3v$q...@si-nic.hrz.uni-siegen.de>,
Runu Knips <plr...@informatik.uni-siegen.de> wrote:
>However, to state feminism is dead is as if you state democracy is dead,
Feminism is not dead, it is only brain-dead.
It can't come with any new ideas, it can't decide if it is an "equal-
rights movement" or a "woman-rights movement;" it can't even understand
the difference. We will probably see feminism around for quite some
time, but we will not see too many new ideas from feminists...
>its influences are currently stronger than ever before in known history,
Marxism influence was pretty strong 30 years ago, but it was brain-dead
from the time that the bureaucrats in the USSR, China and Cuba abused
the state power to enforce their ideas. Feminism is on a similar path.
Robert Mobbs
In article <4sor3v$q...@si-nic.hrz.uni-siegen.de>, plr...@informatik.uni-siegen.de says...
>
>In article <4smk5u$1...@hal.cs.duke.edu>, ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>|> >In article <4sh8im$i...@news3.realtime.net>, av...@bga.com says...
>|> >>It's kind of funny that men are finding themselves trapped by the same
>|> >>patriarchal bureaucracy that cause kept women in a position of legal
>|> >>inferiority since the inception of this government.
>|>
>
>everybody know how stupid he is ???
>
>Feminism is about 500 Years old, modern feminism about 150 years, and
>during all the time, there where always people which explained it is no
>longer necessary. But still it had not reached many of it's aims, and
>still it is a growing movement.
>
I don't think he was saying feminism is dead. I think he was
stating, as I do, that feminism is ridiculous. There's nothing real
to fight for, and all they're doing now is enjoying a power play of
backlash discrimination.
Lithium
I read an article recently of a man who hit his pregnant girlfriend to
deliberately cause an abortion, he admitted as much and claimed that
he only did it after she threatened to make him pay child-support. He
was sentenced to nine years jail for having an abortion. So no, men
can't choose to abort their child.
Alan B. Mac Farlane
///
Wait for it to be overturned. His only crime is assault to the woman, not
to the fetus. The fetus is not living, has no soul, didn't even feel the
abortion, it is dead meat. See Exodus 21:22.
Alan
Lenny Schafer
Alan B. Mac Farlane (abm...@sonic.net) says:
-snip-
:... The fetus is not living, has no soul, didn't even feel the
: abortion, it is dead meat. See Exodus 21:22.
I don't think I'll R.S.V.P. to your next barbecue. Anybody can call
anything "dead meat" when it suits their agenda. Plenty of genociders
in history to prove it. Enjoy your company.
Love, lenny
--
---
Privacy, not pornography is the greatest threat presented by the Internet.
Too much (anonymity) and too little (harassments and dossiers) will
invite government regulation, if at all possible to enforce.
Vasile Aciobanitei
That is too bad if men cannot choose to abort their child. Today most
people mess with the will of women to have an abortion, also that is too
bad!!
> lit...@world.net (Lithium) wrote in article
<4sqaq8$1...@news.aus.world.net>...
Kevin Darcy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <Pine.SUN.3.94.96071...@access2.digex.net> Kristen Hansen <kr...@access.digex.net> writes:
>On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>> Kristen Hansen <kr...@access.digex.net> writes:
>> >On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>
>> > [...S]ince the man's body is not
>> >directly involved in abortion or gestation,
>> >abortion and c4m are not analogous anyway.
>>
>> They are analogous in that, when considered within the structure of statutory
>> parentage definitions, both the effects of abortion, on the one hand, and an
>> exercise of Choice for Men rights, on the other, are examples of pre-natal
>> unilateral waivers (you prefer that term to "relinquishment", I assume?) of
>> parental status.
>
>Even if I agreed with you (I do not), your model is faulty: the *effect* of
>abortion is that no child is born.
That is the primary and physical effect; a secondary, legal effect is that
the woman is excused from any parental obligations arising from that
causation of pregnancy.
>The effect of c4m is that the biological father of the child gains immunity
>from a paternity adjudications and the rights and responsibilities that flow
>therefrom, despite the existence of the man's child.
That's a rather strange way to put it, I must say. "Immunity"? In my
understanding (and I don't claim to be any sort of whiz when it comes to
issues of legal procedure), "immunity" is a category of legal defense against
what would otherwise be a legitimate cause of action. A relinquishment under
the Choice for Men regime, on the other hand, would, as a matter of law,
nullify the cause of action itself. Thus I find it rather odd to refer to the
relinquishment as conferring "immunity". But if you want to think of it in
those terms...
>Could you please clarify whether you believe that c4m would be available to
>all men or only unmarried men?
Well, that gets us into sticky territory. See, I believe that the substantive
content of the marriage agreement is something that the states should have
significant latitude to determine. Thus, if a state determines that the
marriage agreement includes a promise to be the parent of any child resulting
from the marital union, then for the duration of that marriage, the man and
the woman would be estopped from relinquishing parenthood wrt any such child.
On the other hand, if the state does not consider such a promise to be part
and parcel of the marriage agreement, then relinquishment would be available
to married persons just as it would to unmarried persons.
Now, you might consider it inconsistent for me to say that the state should
have great latitude to determine the substantive content of the marriage
agreement, but carefully circumscribed ability to determine the substantive
prerequisites for parenthood or relinquishment of same. Please let me assure
you that this is not the case. The consistent, guiding principle in both
situations is that of INDIVIDUAL CHOICE. Parenthood IMO should be a chosen
status, just as marriage is. The state may increase or decrease the *value* of
a legal status, and as long as the individual can take or leave it, then,
generally speaking, this is fine by me. The big constitutional problems occur,
however, when the state attempts to FORCE a particular status on someone. And
it is forced parental status that is the target of Choice for Men.
>> Yes, of course abortion directly involves the woman's body
>> and Choice for Men does not involve anyone's body. That's a very real,
>> concrete difference. But IMO not a legally-relevant one. What we seek is not
>> "bodily" equality, merely equal opportunity to relinquish (or "waive")
>> parental status. So whence the relevance of "bodies", or the autonomy
>> thereof?
>
>The relevance is that the "opt out" you identify is not severable from
>abortion, which involves BODIES.
Why is it not severable? What fundamental legal principle NECESSARILY links
the two?
>> >Thus, arguing that criminalization of abortion would moot c4m allows
>> >the means (i.e. the timing of the waiver being pre-birth versus w/i 72
>> >hours after birth, as in adoption) to trump the ends (i.e. a unilateral
>> >waiver of parental rights for men).
>>
>> Kristen, you know that we have been over this ground many times before, so
>> let me just restate my position: I support the right of a man OR a woman
>> to unilaterally relinquish ("waive") parental status, at any time subsequent
>> to conception.
>
>Yet this is inconsistent with your statement above that c4m has nothing to do
>with bodies or autonomy, since a woman's body is still implicated regardless
>of whether she "relinquishes" on paper.
How so? Under the hypothetical, the woman could choose to relinquish or not,
abort or not, and the neither decision would be legally dependent on the
other. I fail to see this "implication".
>> Your position, as I understand it, is to limit the exercise of this
>> right to after birth. Despite repeated attempts, I still fail to
>> appreciate the value of limiting the relinquishment right in this way.
>
>1) There is no "relinquishment right" for men or women.
Formally, you are correct. Substantively, you are incorrect. A woman has the
legal means to voluntarily evade parental status. This is what I mean by
"relinquish".
>2) I have tried to show you that you cannot use the Equal Protection Clause
>to obtain c4m b/c abortion is irrelevant to your complaint. I'm not trying to
>limit you, I'm trying to redirect your analyses to their proper place--
>paternity and CS adjudications. Things which happen after birth.
Abortion is relevant only insofar as it has been made a prerequisite to
pre-natal relinquishment. There is currently a linkage between abortion and
paternity, though it is not a NECESSARY one.
>> What if a spiteful man conceals his unwillingness to be a father until
>> it is too late for the woman to abort? Is that fair to her? Is that fair
>> to the child? If a waiver of parental status is available, I feel it
>> should be available to both (potential) parents, from the first
>> practical point in the whole process, i.e. conception.
>
>Of course I've never suggested that a post-birth option is "fairer" to
>anyone. I've said that a post-birth option has a better chance of being
>held constitutional that your c4m proposal. I figured that even you would
>agree than post-birth choice is better than no choice.
So it basically just comes down to the fact that we disagree over the
application of the Equal Protection argument? All of this acrimony over
*THAT*??? Geez, here I was thinking that you had some deep-seated moral
problem with pre-natal relinquishment, and all the time, it was just an
intellectual difference of opinion. I apologize.
>Furthermore, as I've stated before, c4m as you advocate is ripe for
>abuses(, too). I think that if a man waived and the woman went to term, then
>the man has all the power to set the terms WRT their relationship with the
>child: e.g. he can pay CS if and when he wants as leverage, he can come to
>see the baby w/o ever being forced to take responsibility.
I favor IRREVOCABLE relinquishment. No visitation. No C/S (the woman has to
return the money if he gives it to her, just as people have a legal duty to
return stolen property). If the parents have a change of heart, then as a non-
parent, the man of course has the right, just as anyone else does, to petition
for custody, or to adopt the child. But under the terms of the relinquishment,
he would not enjoy any of the usual legal advantages given to a biological
parent in a custody or adoption hearing, and he must make his case WITHOUT
having any meaningful physical contact with the child, or economic
contribution to the child's support. In practical terms, this puts him at a
disadvantage, of course. That is as it should be, IMO; relinquishment is not
something that should be undertaken lightly.
>And if she says
>"no" to both b/c she doesn't need the $ and/or physical support, he can guilt
>her about "denying the child his father!" ...
*How* can he "guilt" her? By calling her up on the phone? That's harassment.
She can get an injunction against that. By showing up at her house? That's
harassment too, and she can get an injunction. Furthermore, if he shows up
while the child is there, it is also a violation of the terms of his
relinquishment, i.e. no contact with the child.
>... or he could bring suit against her
>saying that he didn't make a "knowing waiver" of his rights; he was denied
>due process because he was denied the opportunity to establish a relationship
>with his biological child.
He knowingly and voluntarily FORFEITED that opportunity. His case is meritless
and frivolous.
So far, all I see are nitpicky implementation/enforcement issues, Kristen.
Furthermore, I fail to see how any of these "problems" apply MORE to pre-natal
relinquishments than they do to post-natal relinquishments, which I understand
you favor. Sure, implementation and enforcement is always questionable in the
case of Family Law matters, but do you see any such problems here which are
INSURMOUNTABLE? I don't.
>[...]
>> >> Why not simply allow men OR women, married OR not, to relinquish
>> >> parenthood at any time prior to the birth of the child, regardless of
>> >> whether abortion is legal or not? This is the simplest and most
>> >> constitutionally-acceptable arrangement. Why get bogged down with
>> >> unnecessary distinctions of who can relinquish when?
>> >
>> >In essence, this is what adoption does, but AFTER birth.
>>
>> Well, not really. To my knowledge, no state in the Union allows one
>> (_post partum_) biological parent to relinquish parental status UNILATERALLY
>> by making their child available for adoption.
>
>If you re-read *your* paragraph, you didn't state "unilaterally" anywhere.
>I inferred it from your other writings ("In essence..."). What prevented
>you from extending me the same courtesy?
Sorry for the discourtesy.
>> They all, I think, require the consent of BOTH biological parents, in
>> the absence of any extenuating factors such as neglect, abuse or
>> abandonment. Which means that the willing parent gets a tremendous
>> amount of leverage and bargaining power over the unwilling parent.
>>
>> >So long as the Court and the legislatures
> insist upon promoting the "unitary
>> >family," the courts are going insist
> upon giving the biological parents every
>> >opportunity to change their minds in the
> name of due process (perhaps by
>> >discouraging abortion via informed consent,
> etc; definitely by forcing "relinquishing"
>> >parents to have the opportunity to "meet"
>> >their children before they are allowed to
>> >give up their rights to raise them).
>>
>> Whose "due process" do the courts think they are protecting? The parents',
>> whose petitions they are delaying?
>
>Yes.
>
>> That certainly sounds self-defeating.
>
>If the petitioner is truly informed and certain about this fundamantal
>choice, yes. If not, it prevents a big old lawsuit and deprivation
>of constitutional rights.
So again, we are back to implementation and enforcement issues?
>> The children's? This is *exactly* the sort of reason why I favor allowing
>> pre-birth waivers -- because in that case THERE IS NO CHILD YET, FOR ALL
>> PRACTICAL PURPOSES, and therefore no child's rights or "best interests" to
>> protect.
>
>Isn't this reasoning inconsistent with your continued use of "relinquishment"?
No, because I'm using, as the object of the verb "relinquish", a legal status
that doesn't yet exist.
>Furthermore, while I mostly agree with you that it is better for children not
>to be born into the custody of unwilling and unprepared parents, not all
>agree--including our state legislatures.
Are you trying to tell me that Choice for Men is not likely to be popular
anytime soon in state legislatures? I'm *SHOCKED*! I'm *CRUSHED*!
No, seriously, I already knew this...
>As you know, _Casey_ allows for enactment of pro-natalist laws on the theory
>that childbirth is better than abortion.
Sure, _Casey_ *allows* states to implement that theory, but it does not
endorse the theory itself. There's a little thing called "federalism" and
the Tenth Amendment for the Court to be concerned about. _Casey_ did not
so much strike a blow for pro-natalism as for the idea that there should be
some variation in state laws -- that states should be given some latitude
to experiment with their own forms of Democracy.
>Finally, there is a school of thought that upon seeing his child, the man
>will have a change of heart and become a caring father. I don't put too much
>faith in this, but I do think that absent this sighting the man can argue
>that he was denied due process (i.e. didn't make a knowing waiver).
See above. The idea would be to make sure that the man is fully-informed and
signed an irrevocable waiver before the child is born. Assuming all of the
ducks are in a row, the man won't have a legal leg to stand on if he has a
change of heart.
>Also, I note that n the alternative, newborn babies are easier to locate
>adoptive parents for.
I'm not sure of the relevance of that comment.
>> In the pre-birth case, the issues are much clearer and simpler.
>
>For whom? The man, but no one else. Not the state, not the woman, ...
For the woman too. She *knows* that she can't expect any support from the
man. She *knows* that the man won't be coming back around wanting to be a
father (he won't be ALLOWED to do that). She can dispense with all of the
white-picket-fence fantasies and face facts as they are.
I didn't say "easier" -- I said "clearer and simpler". And I sincerely believe
this to be true.
>... not the child.
Well, the child is a fetus at the time the relinquishment is filed, and
later it is born without a father. What could be simpler? Do you really think
it is "simple" for a child to grow up with half-a-father, someone who is
biologically their father, but doesn't live with Mommy, and is only seen once
in a while? Do you think that's "simple" for a child to understand, to
explain to his or her friends? Speaking from firsthand experience, it is
*NOT* simple. It is complex and confusing for the child. I would have preferred
that my father disappeared completely from my life. It would have been easier
to not have a father at all, than to have a man in my life who occupied some
strange, ambiguous status that vaguely resembled fatherhood.
> [Re: the Equal Protection argument for Choice for Men, particularly the
> "similarly situated" defense to that attack. NOTE: the bidirectional
> barbs between Kristen and myself, as to who is or is not informed on
> the topic, have been deleted in the name of brevity and civility]
>
>> Our basic point of disagreement, as I see
>> it, is that I consider the "similarly situated" analysis to be
>> circumscribed by the relevance of the difference cited, relative to the
>> stated purpose of the classification at issue.
>
>This is very narrow, but not incorrect.
>
>> For example, in the
>> classic case of gender-specific ordinances against toplessness, the
>> "similarly situated" analysis comes into play if the stated purpose of
>> the ordinance is (as one would normally expect) to preserve public
>> decency. But "similarly situated" would *not* come into play if the
>> stated purpose were, say, to promote the sales of upper-body garments,
>> or to help reduce the risk of skin cancer. Neither of those goals would
>> seem to require treating the genders significantly differently -- men
>> and women *both* buy upper-body garments, and they *both* run the risk
>> of contracting skin cancer. Thus "similarly situated" would not enter
>> into the picture.
>
>That was utterly unhelpful, Kevin. Why not try using the example at hand,
>c4m? Try to make it work--it doesn't.
How conclusory of you. It doesn't work, eh? Well, whether it works or not
kinda depends on what the state offers as the purpose behind its statutes,
does it not? Apparently, you have some purpose in mind, since you have already
concluded that it doesn't work. Would you mind sharing that state purpose
with the rest of us?
While you're coming up with that, however, please allow me to conduct the
analysis using a state purpose I'm basically going to pick out of thin air.
The state purpose I'm going to use is
To minimize the public cost of child support
In my analysis, this is supposedly the reason behind the parentage/paternity
laws.
Now on to the crucial question:
Does the fact that women gestate, and men do not, have any significant,
direct bearing on the ability of the state to accomplish its stated
goal, i.e. minimization of the public cost of child support?
It seems rather difficult to answer this question in the affirmative. What
possible connection could there be (other than a *circular* one, of course)
between the facts of gestation, and the desire of the state to minimize the
public cost of child support? I can't think of any. Ball is in your court.
>> Your view, on the other hand, seems to be that relevance does not matter --
>> that *ANY* difference can render two classes "dissimilarly situated" with
>> respect to *ANY* differential treatment they receive under state law.
>
>Absolutely wrong, and, as you've said, we've been arguing
>this long enough that I'm sure you know that the above does
>NOT accurately reflect my analysis of Equal Protection law.
>
>My view, is that the presence or absence of a uterus IS RELEVANT in the
>context of *gestation* and *abortion*.
Does Choice for Men seek to change the *gestation* laws? No.
Does Choice for Men seek to change the *abortion* laws? No.
Again, you cite a very *real* difference, but not one which is *relevant* to
the Choice for Men Equal Protection attack. The target of that attack is
the parentage/paternity laws, not gestation or abortion _per se_. Wrt to
*those* laws, specifically the stated purpose for their enactment, the
presence of absence of a uterus IS NOT RELEVANT.
>It is NOT RELEVANT after birth, in the context of parenthood; THEREFORE c4m
>should stop trying to apply the "law" of abortion to men via the Equal
>Protection clause;
We are not trying to apply the "'law' of abortion"; we are trying to apply
the "'law' of relinquishment". The fact that the legislature has linked
abortion and relinquishment should not be permitted to immunize the
discrimination against an Equal Protection attack.
>rather, c4m should argue that men's rights are infringed
>by paternity statues b/c the "fit" between an adverse paternity adjudication
>and the provision for the needs of the man's child w/o support from the state
>(the state's purported goal) is so poor that the system me be
>unconstitutional.
I *AGREE* with everything you say in that clause. I *CONCUR* with all of the
Privacy arguments for Choice for Men. But, in *ADDITION*, I also believe that
there is a legitimate Equal Protection argument to made also, and that this
Equal Protection argument militates for the existence of a pre-natal -- rather
than just _post partum_ -- relinquishment right.
>[Insultingly inaccurate "extrapolating" deleted]
Sorry you found it "insulting". Personally, I find it "insulting" whenever
you suggest that I have "overlooked" the "similarly situated" defense. I had
read case and commentary on _Michael M. v. Superior Court_ long before I ever
saw you post to Usenet. I *AM* quite familiar with the defense, and how it is
is handled. Maybe I haven't always done the best at _demonstrating_ my
knowledge of the subject matter, but that is no reason to accuse me out of
hand of *ignorance*.
>> Now, obviously, I'm extrapolating here. I'm not saying that you would
>> justify, say, depriving old people of the right to vote, by pointing out
>> that they have more wrinkles than young people. The Choice for Men issue
>> is admittedly a MUCH MUCH closer call than that. But what I wish to
>> impress on you is that "similarly situated" analysis is not simply a
>> blank check: IT IS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE RELEVANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE
>> CITED, RELATIVE TO THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE CLASSIFICATION AT ISSUE.
>
>That the purpose of the 14th amendment is to allow women, but not men, to
>"relinquish parental status"?
No, no, you've got it all mixed up. The Fourteenth Amendment is the *WEAPON*;
the state parentage/paternity laws are the *TARGET*. It is the stated purpose
of the *latter*, not the *former*, which must be scrutinized in the course of
a "similarly situated" analysis. In _Michael M_, for instance, the Supreme
Court never questioned whether the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to
allow underaged boys to have sex. They did, however, question whether
males and females were "similarly situated" wrt the purpose of the sex-
specific statutory rape law which was being attacked.
>> I have tried to explain this to you many times in the past, yet it seems
>> to trickle from your consciousness like water off a duck's back. I
>> implore you to reflect on the above (capitalized) words for a few
>> moments. "Similarly situated" analysis is not a blank check. It is not a
>> catch-all. It is not a panacea. Like most other legal constructs, it has
>> qualifications and limits to its use. Relevance analysis bounds
>> "similarly situated" analysis.
>
>I'm telling you you CANNOT use the Equal Protection
>Clause as a "blank check," not the other way around!
Exactly right! The Equal Protection isn't a blank check, nor is the "similarly
situated" defense to an Equal Protection attack a blank check, either. THERE ARE
NO BLANK CHECKS HERE. Every argument, and every counter-argument, is a complex
beast that needs to be laid on the table, discussed, analyzed, dissected, if
it is to be fully understood. Such a level of in-depth analysis is what I have
been trying to bring about for months now, but every time we came to the brink,
somebody accuses me of being ignorant wrt the subject matter, and so,
unfortunately, I lapsed into Auto-react Mode. Let's avoid that trap this time,
shall we? LET'S GO TO THE NEXT STEP OF THE DEBATE. I'm up for the challenge.
Are you?
>> My thesis is that the biological differences between men and women are not
>> sufficiently relevant to the distinction at issue -- women can unilaterally
>> relinquish, but men cannot
>
>This is good advocacy, but bad law. Women cannot
>"unilaterally relinquish." No such right exists.
There you go again with the conclusory statements. My position is that the
right DOES exist. Not *formally*, of course, only *substantively*. The woman
can unilaterally perform a voluntary action which has the effect of
avoiding/preventing/negating the acquisition of parental status. I call this
voluntary avoiding/preventing/negating "relinquishment". You may prefer a
different term. The woman has a right of unilateral pre-natal relinquishment.
The man, on the other hand, finds it biologically impossible to perform any
act which has the same effect. He thus, because of his gender, cannot exercise
a right of unilateral pre-natal relinquishment.
Is the fact that men cannot exercise this right merely a "side-effect" of
the laws at issue -- an "accident"? No, of course not. Even if the laws were
passed in the Nineteenth Century, the legislatures of that time knew -- or
should have known -- that women and only women can abort. They knew exactly
what effect their laws would have. This is not an "accident". This is,
constructively, an effect that was intended by the legislature. A gender-
specific effect.
>> -- relative to the stated purpose of the
>> classification -- to raise funds for child support --
>
>Now you're mingling laws. Abortion is SEPARATE from paternity laws. Your
>formulation above ignores this.
What laws am I mingling with paternity laws? Abortion laws? I made no mention
of abortion laws, i.e. laws which seek to proscribe or limit the woman's access
to the means of terminating her pregnancy. You see "mingling". Where is this
"mingling"?
>> >While often confused, Due Process and Equal Protection are *not* the same.
>> >IMO you could use the former more effectively than the latter by pointing
>> >out that men's privacy rights are infringed by paternity laws and that this
>> >intrusion does not effectively achieve its purported goal (provision for
>> >the welfare of children).
>>
>> Privacy jurisprudence has really never been the same since _Hardwick_. Even
>> _Casey_ was decided mostly on the basis of _stare decisis_ rather than any
>> ideological commitment to Privacy on the part of the Court.
>
>_Casey_ was not decided mostly ont he basis of _stare decisis_, Kevin.
Well, maybe "mostly" was a bit strong, but certainly _stare decisis_ played
a huge role in the decision. All of Section III of the plurality opinion, for
instance, was devoted to an extended discussion of the _stare decisis_
doctrine, laden with examples of same, and how the doctrine applied to the
instant case.
This is all mostly beside the point, however. My intent was not to denigrate
the _Casey_ decision in particular, but to compare the relative strengths of
Privacy versus Equal Protection strategies. In cases where *either* strategy
is available, many academics seem to favor Equal Protection over Privacy.
Take Larry Tribe as a case in point. Here is an academic whose credentials in
Privacy jurisprudence are impeccable (he was, after all, the one who
unsuccessfully argued _Hardwick_ before the Supreme Court). Yet in the
"Privacy and Personhood" chapter of his _magnum opus_ tome _American
Constitutional Law_ (Second Edition), he has two sections: "Physical
Invasions" and "Decisions about Birth and Babies". In the "Physical
Invasions" section, he discusses cases having to do with forced vaccination,
removal of criminal evidence from people's bodies (blood, bullets, narcotics)
and the like. In the "Birth and Babies" section appear the more familiar
cases having to do with forced sterilization, contraception and abortion.
This division is more than just coincidental -- there is very little mention
of "bodily" concerns in the "Birth and Babies" section. There is, however,
much talk of intersections with Equal Protection, especially wrt abortion,
with many footnote references to the succeeding chapter, which deals with
Equal Protection. Tribe laments over the relative absence of Equal Protection
jurisprudence in the abortion cases:
The failure of both plaintiffs and courts to frame the abortion
controversy in terms of sexual equality has profoundly affected the
law in this area. Having won abortion rights in _Roe v. Wade_ in the
name of abstract person privacy, women were poorly situated in
_Harris v. McRae_ to demand public funds for the exercise of such
rights. Abortion has not been perceived by the Court as involving the
intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through
the exploitation of pregnancy. (p. 1353)
In a footnote to the above quote, Tribe quotes some vaguely-encouraging
Equal Protection-sounding language from the _Thornburgh_ decision:
Our cases have long recognized that the Constitution embodies a
promise that a certain private sphere of individual liberty will be
kept largely beyond the reach of government. That promise extends to
women as well as men. Few decisions are more personal and intimate,
more properly private, or more basic to individual dignity and
autonomy, than a woman's decision ... whether to end her pregnancy.
A woman's right to make that choice freely is fundamental. Any other
result, would protect inadequately a central part of the sphere of
liberty that our law guarantees equally to all. (cited as _Thornburgh_,
105 S.Ct at 2184-85)
One gets the distinct impression that Tribe would have preferred _Roe_ to have
been decided on Equal Protection grounds, rather than Privacy. He goes on to
hint at how such a successful Equal Protection challenge could have been
constructed. According to his view, women have a "special vulnerability"
because the biological facts of reproduction require them, once pregnant, not
only to perform *affirmative* acts to avoid the burdens of gestation, but also
to enlist the services of other people to accomplish the task. To Tribe, this
sets up a power relationship in which men can "exploit" this special
vulnerability by passing abortion restrictions, thus forcing women to bear
children unwillingly, which, in turn, "delegates to some a sweeping and
unaccountable authority over the lives of others".
Given the current legality of abortion, of course, virtually the same Equal
Protection arguments can be levelled against the paternity _status quo_.
Men have a "special vulnerability" inasmuch as they are incapable of aborting.
This special vulnerability can be exploited by carefully defining "parenthood",
with the end result that women have sole control over parental statuses, and
are thus "delegate[d] [...] a sweeping and unaccountable authority over the
lives of others".
Tribe seems to dimly sense the possibility of such Equal Protection reversals
when, a few pages later, he talks about the distinction between "a woman's
right to control her own body and a woman's right to control her reproductive
destiny". In a standalone paragraph, he opines:
Recognition of a true right to decide whether one's body shall be the
source of another life would also be problematic on equal protection
grounds, since such a right cannot be recognized in a man without
empowering him to compel the abortion of any fetus conceived with his
sperm -- something forbidden under the Court's current doctrine.
(p. 1359)
He shies away from taking this issue squarely on, however -- "Not all of these
problems need to be puzzled out now".
What is my point? That Larry Tribe would support Choice for Men? I highly
doubt that. He's pretty much a card-carrying Feminist, with a capital "F", and
generally speaking they don't approve of Choice for Men. However, Tribe and
others *are* representative of a growing faction of academics who seem to
believe that the Equal Protection Clause is a better tool for sorting out
certain constitutional issues of family, reproduction and sexuality, than the
wavering "penumbral emanations" of classic Privacy jurisprudence. This faction
may still be in the minority, but it is a very vocal minority, and gaining in
strength over time.
>> I agree with you
>> that involuntary parental status *should* be vulnerable on Privacy grounds,
>> but in the current judicial climate, such an attack would probably be
>> suicidal.
>
>Not according to _Casey_ or _Compassion in Dying_ (9th Circuit)..
Oh, now we're back to _Casey_ again, are we? That decision really blazed no
new trails as far as Privacy jurisprudence goes. The "undue burden" standard
was borrowed from another part of Constitutional Law, and as far as rejecting
the trimester framework, that framework was an anomaly in the first place and
long overdue for repudiation in favor of a pure "viability" dividing line.
Sure, _Casey_ confirmed what everyone had been saying for years anyway --
that the abortion right was based not only on the "familial" strain of
Privacy jurisprudence (as _Roe_ had, for precedential reasons, emphasized
almost to the point of exclusivity), but also on the "bodily autonomy" strain
of that same body of jurisprudence. But it did not give primacy to one strain
over another, and thus, as advertised, did not reverse or substantially modify
the "central holding of Roe".
>> >Leave abortion out of it entirely.
>>
>> Abortion is intertwined only to the extent that the legislature has coupled
>> legal parental status with biological parental status. Should I apologize
>> for something the legislature has wrought, and which I seek to UNDO?
>
>This is a rather bizarre looking strawman, since no state legislature has
>linked abortion and paternity.
Not EXPLICITLY. But inasmuch as paternity statutorily *depends* on the
existence of a child, and abortion physically *precludes* the existence of a
child, the two are clearly linked in substantive terms.
>> You speak as if abortion were an embarrassment, an excrescence that
>> Choice for Men should avoid at all costs.
>
>It's not helpful for you to paint me as an anti for rhetorical effect (or
>convincing).
It was not my intent to "paint [you] as an anti", and if that's the impression
you received, then I apologize for it. What I meant by "embarrassment" was
not "moral evil", but rather, something having the tendency to erode the
credibility of whatever argument with which it is associated.
>I've offered an improvement to your proposal that avoids abortion because it
>is not relevant to your complaint (perhaps your ego is simply bigger than
>your desire to assist men?).
Well, despite your good intentions, I don't see your offerings as an
"improvement". Why should we not combine the potent weapon of an Equal
Protection challenge with that of a Privacy challenge? Is a double-pronged
attack less likely to succeed than a single-pronged one? Your argument seems
to be that the Equal Protection argument erodes the credibility of the
Privacy argument. But any decent judge is going to consider the merits of
ALL arguments offered. It is not sound judicial practice to write off an
argument just because one thinks some _other_ argument offered in the same
case is far-fetched. So, even if the Equal Protection argument is, as you
believe, a throwaway, it should not impair the chances for a Privacy argument
(which you prefer) to succeed. Why then all the hostility towards it?
- Kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: finger ke...@msen.com for public key
iQCVAwUBMfKWk/POMH8rIaFRAQFCiAP+LjF9prExC5k8JppRNxZ0QN4oJsE9PNeu
brlAJI78Iv4D9b/X+w2umbPqELeSpQrCGKKLbQRiOVfG6fDDbmOlaCnaP1riSxZW
oJgFm0NLdomKhl6OIhWtMVkzFYX6fZiM6gOeJpp+SyWAcMNBoiq6Ny2lMl6J1Hzl
UxOq+D2Nt1A=
=yGjM
Kevin Darcy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <4sdpck$3...@lori.albany.net> tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) writes:
>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>>In article <4s2ufm$r...@lori.albany.net> tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) writes:
>[...]
>>>
>>>You've still got it backward (see above). A woman isn't
>>>"relinquishing" anything be terminating a pregnancy.
>
>>Of course she is.
>
>NO she isn't
>
>>If she aborts, she does not acquire parental status (at
>>least not wrt THAT child).
>
>Correct.
>
>>If she fails to abort, then in the natural course
>>of events, she DOES acquire parental status.
>
>Correct.
>
>>Abortion is a voluntary act on
>>her part by which she can prevent the acquisition of parental status.
>
>Correct.
>
>>Nothing more or less is intended by the term "relinquishment".
>
>Then it is quite cleear that men cannot "relinquish"
>parental status as you are using the term because they
>do not become pregnant.
No, you are unnecessarily narrowing my definition of "relinquishment" to
smuggle in an abortion prerequisite. In this context, I am defining
"relinquishment" to mean "voluntary prevention/termination of a legal status".
Women can relinquish parental status; men cannot. The reason for this
asymmetry is statutory rather than biological.
>>Do you understand the distinction between legal parenthood and biological
>>parenthood? [...]
>
>It is an artificial distinction you are trying to make to avoid child
>support (not necessarily you personally.)
You flatter me. The distinction between legal and biological parenthood is an
artificial distinction, to be sure, but not one which I singlehandedly invented.
It has been quite deeply entrenched in Family Law for generations.
>>>>At worst, it only reduces the monetary
>>>>value of that right. No child has a fundamental right to a MAXIMIZATION of
>>>>their standard of living, at the expense of someone else's. *Nobody* in our
>>>>society has that right.
>>>
>>>The RNC might disagree with you on that last one.
>
>>Please elaborate.
>
>Yawn. Well Kevin, putting your sentences together gives us the
>statement that 'Nobody in our society has the right to a maximation
>of their standard of living at the expense of someone else's.'
>
>Back in the 50's that statement would get you a subpoena
>from Sen. McCarthy.
Are you under the impression that Sen. McCarthy was a monarchist, then, or an
oligarchist? You appear to have profoundly miscomprehended my point. What I
am condemning is the idea that one PARTICULAR person has the right to demand a
maximization of their standard of living, at the expense of another PARTICULAR
person. This describes a caste system, with the former person being in a higher
caste, and the latter in a lower caste. Our form of government does not permit
caste systems.
As for the principle that people IN GENERAL have the right to maximize their
standards of living at the expense of other people IN GENERAL, then, sure,
that's one of the basic tenets of Capitalism, as commonly understood. But
what I was describing was not that, but more of a legally-enshrined one-to-
one relationship whereby one person is legally obligated to maximize another's
standard of living. I highly doubt that Sen. McCarthy, if he were alive, or
the RNC, would approve of such an arrangement...
- Kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: finger ke...@msen.com for public key
iQCVAwUBMfRXvfPOMH8rIaFRAQFOWgP+P97Ht+nrfhUC3jINh6I5gqv9HbrV235H
xu75IBiiBJj/3uAfZNbrIgi9qj4TGGxQrmOOHM1c5VeuNEeWD4qhhxQ0Cgcml+1/
obpDCAsggHKCsSs4ANiSTSso+Wa/DnXWMDBBBlW8mofu2T6HcFrqTGzAM98pJKLx
ZvQSGU0bG54=
=Gxu0
Kevin Darcy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <Pine.SUN.3.94.960714...@access2.digex.net> Kristen Hansen <kr...@access.digex.net> writes:
>On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>> Kristen Hansen <kr...@access.digex.net> writes:
>> >On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>
>> >> Any linkage between gestation and legal parental status is purely
>> >> arbitrary.
>> >
>> >This is pure hyperbole. No court will
>> >accept the argument that there is no
>> >rational basis for making the woman who
>> >gestates a pregnancy to term the
>> >legal parent of the resulting child
>> >(i.e. that this default is "purely
>> >arbitrary").
>>
>> Well, okay, maybe "purely arbitrary" is a little strong. Technically, it
>> *is* "arbitrary", in the sense that it takes a legal fiat to make the
>> linkage, and IMO all law is, at bottom, arbitrary (I am not a strong
>> adherent to the Natural Law viewpoint, can you tell? :-).
>
>Well, I think you're still exaggerating a bit.
>
>It is, I suppose, *technically* by "legal fiat" that physically stronger
>persons are prevented from wresting custody of newborns away from their birth
>mothers and leaving the mothers w/o children and w/o remedy.
I may not be a fan of Natural Law theory, but even I recognize that some
legal precepts are more fundamental than others. One of the more fundamental
precepts is that of protecting the weak from the strong. No raw exercise of
physical strength should allow one to directly gain a socio-economic advantage
over another. Such a principle clearly precludes the "wresting" _reductio ad
absurdum_ that you present above. Can you cite a similarly fundamental legal
precept that links gestation and parental status, one which is consistent
with other facets of Family Law, such as adoption, in-vitro fertilization,
forced termination of parental status in cases of abuse/neglect/abandonment,
etc.? I can think of no similarly fundamental precept linking the two. The
best that comes to mind is "children are usually better off with their natural
parents". But this precept is weak and probabilistic, and sounds more like a
means than an end (the end presumably being "children deserve special
protection", which, in turn, sounds like a refinement of the abovementioned
"protecting the weak from the strong" precept). Hardly a bedrock fundamental
principle upon which to base a deprivation of someone's sensitive and personal
rights. Can you come up with something better?
>Still, I wouldn't overemphasize this technicality in your arguments.
>You're not making your case in a vacuum and some people (inc. courts and
>legislatures) see the linkage between birth mother and child as involving
>much more than this legal technicality.
Yes, I'm sure everyone -- even the best jurist -- enters a courtroom with a
certain amount of bias and preconception. It is the job of the advocates,
however, to get down to the rational bases of their respective arguments,
a domain in which bias and irrational preconceptions have no place.
>> But in a broader sense, you are correct -- "purely arbitrary" carries
>> with it a negative connotation that makes it roughly equivalent to
>> "irrational". I am not prepared to say that the linkage is "irrational"
>[_Romer_ sidebar deleted]
>> I therefore retract the phrase "purely arbitrary", and substitute in its
>> place "insufficient to withstand Heightened Scrutinty". Better?
>
>Yes. I think that you can legitimately make your case under a heightened
>scrutiny test.
Then why all the prior quibbling over legitimacy? The claim, as presented,
would be one of gender discrimination wrt a fundamental right. Heightened
scrutiny would be a given, would it not?
>I still do not entirely agree with your conclusions under this
>more exacting standard, though.
We'll have plenty of time to hash out the rest of the analysis. But I do
consider it a breakthrough of sorts that you finally understand why I think
Heightened Scrutiny is the proper standard of review. This makes my day.
>[...]
>> >You don't have to show that the uterus is irrelevant to parenthood to
>> >make your case that men's privacy rights are infringed by paternity
>> >statutes. Why the fixation on gestation, Kevin?
>>
>> Because I don't base my opposition to the paternity _status quo_ solely
>> on Privacy, that's why. The only way that I can see a reform proposal
>> satisfying *both* the requirements of Privacy *and* Equal Protection is
>> to allow pre- natal relinquishment for men.
>
>But an Equal Protection claim is not in and of itself a substantive right.
Agreed.
>You are arguing that the substantive *privacy* rights of men and women are
>different and that this denies men equal protection of the law, right?
Yes, but I think I see where you're headed with the line of reasoning, though:
if we have to make a Privacy argument *ANYWAY*, why not just make that argument
ALONE? Why defocus by dragging in an Equal Protection argument that ends up
relying on the existence of a Privacy right anyway? Have I got your drift?
To answer those questions, one needs to imagine how a pure Privacy argument
for Choice for Men would be constructed. It would no doubt go into extended
socio-historical discussion about the importance of parenthood to a person's
mental well-being and social standing. It would quote at length from previous
Supreme Court decisions having to do with procreation, reproduction, parenting,
as well as secondary sources on the same subject matter. It would set up
parenthood as a special status occupying a unique and important niche in our
social structure. It would forbode serious societal consequences for any
continuance of legislative meddling in that area. It would cite Brandeis'
"right to be left alone". Now, we may *BELIEVE* in all of these things, but
how well would they play in a court case? It sounds all rather one-dimensional,
rather tunnel-visioned, claustrophobic. It starts from a bedrock legal
foundation -- the acknowledged fundamental rights of a person in matters of
family, procreation and reproduction -- and link-by-link builds a chain all
the way to a rather radical concept, i.e. Choice for Men. A chain is only as
strong as its weakest link. The court only needs to refute ONE of the steps of
the argument, and the entire argument fails. It is an elegant argument, but a
very thin and fragile one.
When Privacy is combined with Equal Protection, however, the argument may be
more diffuse, and less elegant, but it is more robust. When Equal Protection
is emphasized, it is not necessary to argue at length that the underlying
privacy right is special or paramount. Instead of setting it up on a pedestal,
it can be viewed as an "ordinary" right, like the right to mow one's lawn,
or the right to operate a ham radio, which the government can acknowledge or
deny, as long as it does not do so IN A DISCRIMINATORY WAY. When the emphasis
is equality, the exact nature of the underlying right at issue is a secondary
concern. The primary concern is whether the state is treating people equally
wrt that right.
Now, part of the communication problem we are having here stems from the fact
that we are trying to conduct legal analysis in a vacuum. We don't have a real
case in front of us; only vague, conflicting ideas of what such a case would
look like. The decision of whether, and how much, to emphasize Equal Protection
versus pure Privacy, would turn largely on what defenses the state would offer.
Some defenses would be more vulnerable to a pure Privacy attack; other defenses
more vulnerable to an Equal Protection attack. EXAMPLE: if the state were to
justify their legislation as a means of deterring fornication, then this might
not be very vulnerable from an Equal Protection standpoint (since _Michael M._
already establishes that males and females are "dissimilarly situated" wrt
state deterrence of sexual activity), but is ripe for a pure Privacy attack,
since it reeks of an attempt by the legislature to enforce personal codes of
sexual conduct. EXAMPLE: if the state were to give a purely *economic*
justification for the legislation, e.g. minimizing the public cost of child
support, then this might be all but beyond the reach of a pure Privacy
argument, but it would be quite vulnerable to an Equal Protection attack, since
Mommy's dollars are presumably just as efficacious as Daddy's dollars at
reducing the public cost of child support, and yet the state arbitrarily
exempts aborting women from the child support "tax". Different justifications
call for different counter-attacks. It is important to include both of the
major arguments (and maybe an array of minor ones as well) in the initial
litigation, so that if, at a later stage, the state shifts ground in its
justifications, one is not left without a leg to stand on.
>> I know you oppose pre-natal relinquishment for men, but I still don't
>> understand *WHY*. Is it *ONLY* because you don't buy the Equal
>> Protection argument against the _status quo_?
>
>Primarily, yes. I believe that your legal
>theory is fundamentally--and fatally--flawed.
>
>> Or are there some other (perhaps less theoretical and more practical?)
>> reasons behind your opposition?
>
>You probably recall I've noted some (I can't remember them all at the moment,
>so I'll highlight) other probable pitfalls facing c4m as advanced by
>yourself, Will Steeves, Dymitri K., and NCM, generally.
>
>First of all, I think that it's unlikely that a court would be interested in
>hearing the case pre-birth when there isn't a "live" controversy--i.e. there
>are potential (not necessarily insurmountable) problems with standing.
I see this as a trivial procedural nit. The petition can be filed pre-birth,
a "stay" placed on it, and the actual hearing can take place after birth. As
far as the legal merits of the petition are concerned, those would still be
viewed from the pre-birth standpoint (since that's when the petition was
filed, and thus it would be the EFFECTIVE date of the petition), but there
would be no problems with standing or ripeness, since the child would in fact
exist. Do you see any problem with this sequence of events?
>Furthermore, your model presumes both that 1) there is a right to abortion on
>demand;
No such presumption is made. The model demands EQUALITY, not "relinquishment
on demand" for men. If a state forbids abortion in the third trimester, then,
under this model, men would be forbidden from relinquishing parental status
during the third trimester of pregnancy. Alternatively, if the state forbids
abortion after the point of fetal viability, then men would be forbidden from
relinquishing parental status after the point of fetal viability. If women
have to give "informed consent" before aborting, including being bombarded
with Pro-life literature, then maybe men would also have to give "informed
consent" to relinquish, possibly having to suffer through being bombarded with
Pro-fatherhood literature. Under an equality argument, men would have to take
the bitter with the sweet. They would have to operate under substantially the
same limitations and qualifications of their right, that women currently have
of theirs. The only change Choice for Men makes, under the Equality model, is
the removal of one *HUGE* prerequisite, abortion -- the "impenetrable barrier"
which otherwise makes pre-natal relinquishment a woman-only right. Lesser
limitations and qualifications are still permissible and negotiable, under the
Equality model.
>and 2) that abortion and "waiving" are equivalent.
No such equivalency is made. Relinquishment of parental status is obviously
a SUBSET of what currently happens when a woman aborts. Did you honestly
think that I was unaware of the *physical* changes that occur when a woman
aborts?
>I suspect that in response you'll be tempted to say "that's because she
>gestates!" to justify the inherent physical burden placed on the woman, but
>not the man.
Your suspicion was incorrect. My position all along has been that the abortion
prerequisite is an *UNNECESSARY* and an *ARBITRARY* one. Why on earth should
one have to undergo a medical procedure in order to effect a change (or
prevention) of legal status? Do we make folks get nosejobs in order to adopt?
Do we make them get tummy tucks in order to emigrate? Do we make them get
unnecessary appendectomies in order to join the army? Absurd! Yet we require
abortion in order to relinquish parental status.
No, I do *NOT* see the abortion prerequisite as a legitimate way for the
legislature to accommodate the fact that women gestate and men do not.
Essentially, I see no "dissimilar situation" here that needs to be
accommodated. Some women do not wish to be parents. Let them relinquish. Some
men do not wish to be parents. Let them relinquish. Men who don't want to be
parents are similarly situated with women who don't want to be parents. Why
should abortion, and/or the ability or inability to gestate, have anything to
do with it?
>Finally, I also think that you are ignoring a potentially powerful argument
>in your favor: the welfare of children. Although many people who read your
>proposal react with abject horror, I did not because I think that parents
>unwilling and/or unprepared for kids often fail to treat them very well.
>Anedoctal evidence (not sufficient for me to advocate parental choice, but
>certainly enough for me to study its feasibility and worth) suggests that we
>as a society pay a lot now to maintain a system that doesn't work (provide
>for the welfare of children) and for its failures, i.e. those kids whom the
>system fails. Some insist that the problem lies in enforcement, not in the
>structure of the system. I'm not sure I agree. Anyhow, I ask: would we pay
>much more in cash and lives if we abdandonned the model of the "unitary
>family" and adopted some form of parental choice akin to c4m? Maybe not.
>Might even save some of both.
By deterring the production of unwanted (or UNDERwanted) children, I sincerely
believe that Choice for Men will enhance rather than impair the welfare of
children as a whole.
- Kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: finger ke...@msen.com for public key
iQCVAwUBMfZPUfPOMH8rIaFRAQEY2QQAmg125FadHXw19X5KQLa4/OAlj5IJr/Hq
oZW0+PR8wVcJ9JrBwY9Eijb2IE9Q6iskZMYLsjOGsrKg56meHNaWRSl6uN1Alhq9
ZahCDRLammSrD9BaD0UITmxFIWRKJYv5qmXQ8bqARB980a/mgVHSop5/Z3KcwvNr
1F/bSnfJXUQ=
=eTKM
David W. Truland
ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>In article <4sdpck$3...@lori.albany.net> tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) writes:
>>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>>>In article <4s2ufm$r...@lori.albany.net> tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) writes:
>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>You've still got it backward (see above). A woman isn't
>>>>"relinquishing" anything be terminating a pregnancy.
>>
>>>Of course she is.
>>
>>NO she isn't
>>
>>>If she aborts, she does not acquire parental status (at
>>>least not wrt THAT child).
>>
>>Correct.
>>
>>>If she fails to abort, then in the natural course
>>>of events, she DOES acquire parental status.
>>
>>Correct.
>>
>>>Abortion is a voluntary act on
>>>her part by which she can prevent the acquisition of parental status.
>>
>>Correct.
>>
>>>Nothing more or less is intended by the term "relinquishment".
>>
>>Then it is quite cleear that men cannot "relinquish"
>>parental status as you are using the term because they
>>do not become pregnant.
>No, you are unnecessarily narrowing my definition of "relinquishment" to
>smuggle in an abortion prerequisite.
I don't think so. The definition you gave is right above.
Now you want to change what you meant. I don't blame you.
>In this context, I am defining
>"relinquishment" to mean "voluntary prevention/termination of a legal status".
>Women can relinquish parental status; men cannot. The reason for this
>asymmetry is statutory rather than biological.
Women can prevent becoming parents. Men cannot, by themselves,
do so. That is correct. The SOLE reason for this is women get
pregnant and have a right to terminate that pregnancy, men don't.
I'd call that biological.
>>>Do you understand the distinction between legal parenthood and biological
>>>parenthood? [...]
>>
>>It is an artificial distinction you are trying to make to avoid child
>>support (not necessarily you personally.)
>You flatter me. The distinction between legal and biological parenthood is an
>artificial distinction, to be sure, but not one which I singlehandedly invented.
>It has been quite deeply entrenched in Family Law for generations.
Only with respect to adoption - which we are not discussing.
Ray Fischer
David W. Truland <tru...@albany.net> wrote:
>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>>Women can relinquish parental status; men cannot. The reason for this
>>asymmetry is statutory rather than biological.
>
>Women can prevent becoming parents. Men cannot, by themselves,
>do so. That is correct. The SOLE reason for this is women get
>pregnant and have a right to terminate that pregnancy, men don't.
And with that termination, they also terminate any parenthood
obligations. Then there are the many de facto ways in which women can
retain custody AND get child support. In effect, women can be parents
when they want, and not be parents when they want, and get paid to be
parents, and men get none of these options. And that is mostly an
artifact of the current laws.
>I'd call that biological.
I'd call it legal, since legal parenthood is entirely a matter of law.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
David W. Truland
r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>David W. Truland <tru...@albany.net> wrote:
>>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>>>Women can relinquish parental status; men cannot. The reason for this
>>>asymmetry is statutory rather than biological.
>>
>>Women can prevent becoming parents. Men cannot, by themselves,
>>do so. That is correct. The SOLE reason for this is women get
>>pregnant and have a right to terminate that pregnancy, men don't.
>And with that termination, they also terminate any parenthood
>obligations.
You can't have parenthood obligations if you're not a parent.
>Then there are the many de facto ways in which women can
>retain custody AND get child support.
You can't GET child support if you don't have custody.
[...]
Kevin Darcy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <4tanhd$g...@lori.albany.net> tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) writes:
>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>
>>In article <4sdpck$3...@lori.albany.net> tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) writes:
>>>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Abortion is a voluntary act on
>>>>her part by which she can prevent the acquisition of parental status.
>>>
>>>Correct.
>>>
>>>>Nothing more or less is intended by the term "relinquishment".
>>>
>>>Then it is quite cleear that men cannot "relinquish" parental status as you
>>>are using the term because they do not become pregnant.
>
>>No, you are unnecessarily narrowing my definition of "relinquishment" to
>>smuggle in an abortion prerequisite.
>
>I don't think so. The definition you gave is right above.
Indeed it is. I defined "relinquishment" as "prevent[ing] acquisition of
parental status". There's nothing about "abortion" in that definition. Now,
granted, in the very same sentence I did enumerate abortion as one *MEANS* of
attaining relinquishment; but I never made abortion *PART* of my definition of
that term. I never made it a prerequisite. You have simply misunderstood my
words.
>>In this context, I am defining
>>"relinquishment" to mean "voluntary prevention/termination of a legal
>>status". Women can relinquish parental status; men cannot. The reason for
>>this asymmetry is statutory rather than biological.
>
>Women can prevent becoming parents. Men cannot, by themselves,
>do so. That is correct. The SOLE reason for this is women get
>pregnant and have a right to terminate that pregnancy, men don't.
We are talking about legal parenthood here. No-one becomes a legal parent
SOLELY as a result of any biological process or combination of biological
processes. Such a status also requires the application of a particular legal
definition. It is the legitimacy of such legal definitions which Choice for
Men challenges.
>>You flatter me. The distinction between legal and biological parenthood is an
>>artificial distinction, to be sure, but not one which I singlehandedly
>>invented. It has been quite deeply entrenched in Family Law for generations.
>
>Only with respect to adoption - which we are not discussing.
We are discussing your inference that biological parenthood and legal parenthood
are necessarily linked. Legal realities such as adoption, and also forced
termination of parental status, e.g. in cases of neglect, abandonment or abuse,
are valid refutations of that inference, despite your attempts to handwave them
away as being irrelevant.
- Kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: finger ke...@msen.com for public key
iQCVAwUBMfmmI/POMH8rIaFRAQG/8wQAsjzGPJeKoDQ112mtCnVrbv6Pt+lGMoOm
sYHAjZJFffCTLXvI8xVfopf67b6s95vU05WlLaAaQ3LZGr9eNG9PzsnbpJ1M7Dhk
kkhLSA+uMxXfSRjpJ7UHWcP6a1Xu9VbLwsCDEeGDp858Lupgg/G03GL8SUOPQhNr
0+/8/PaID3U=
=B660
David W. Truland
ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>In article <4tanhd$g...@lori.albany.net> tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) writes:
>>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>>
>... No-one becomes a legal parent
>SOLELY as a result of any biological process or combination of biological
>processes.
Sure they do, Kevin. It's called birth.
Kingsley G. Morse Jr.
tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) writes:
>Women can prevent becoming parents. Men cannot, by themselves,
>do so. That is correct. The SOLE reason for this is women get
>pregnant and have a right to terminate that pregnancy, men don't.
>I'd call that biological.
Whether someone has a uterus or not, forced parenthood can mean disrupting
one's education, mental health, and indeed one's entire family life.
No matter what gender one is, parenthood or additional offspring, may
force upon individuals a distressful life and future. Psychological harm
and heartbreak may result to someone with or without a uterus. Mental and
physical health may be taxed in guys too. There is also the distress, for
all concerned, associated with the unwanted child. The continuing stigma
of unwed parenthood may be involved.
It doesn't take a uterus to have a vested interest in one's education,
mental health, family life, future and health.
If the Fourteenth Amendment can protect someone from having to sit at
the back of a bus, then it should definitely give guys equal protection
from the stress, despair, stigma and responsibility of something as
fundamental as forced parenthood. Biology isn't destiny. Let's recognize
men's procreational autonomy too by legalizing choice for men.
LEGALIZE CHOICE FOR MEN!
for more information contact
NATIONAL CENTER FOR MEN P.O. BOX 555 OLD BETHPAGE, NY 11804 (516) 942-2020
http://www.nas.com/c4m
--
Kingsley G. Morse Jr.
gold...@ipa.net
tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) wrote:
>
In discussing the fact that women have all the control over
the abortion decision and men have none, he said:
> Translation: Let's let men abandon children who have been born and
> who are their offspring simply because they don't feel like paying
> child support.
>
> Either that or they want to be able to force women to have abortions.
> What a scary thought.
David, a non-republican, has made an error in logic
There seems to be at least one other option.
Women's rights to have abortions could be restricted. Then, the
enormous disparity between women's control and men's control would
be reduced.
David W. Truland
cha...@nas.com (Kingsley G. Morse Jr.) wrote:
>tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) writes:
>>Women can prevent becoming parents. Men cannot, by themselves,
>>do so. That is correct. The SOLE reason for this is women get
>>pregnant and have a right to terminate that pregnancy, men don't.
>>I'd call that biological.
>Whether someone has a uterus or not, forced parenthood can mean disrupting
>one's education, mental health, and indeed one's entire family life.
Yes it can.
>No matter what gender one is, parenthood or additional offspring, may
>force upon individuals a distressful life and future.
Yes it may.
>Psychological harm
>and heartbreak may result to someone with or without a uterus. Mental and
>physical health may be taxed in guys too.
Yes it may.
>There is also the distress, for
>all concerned, associated with the unwanted child. The continuing stigma
>of unwed parenthood may be involved.
Yes it may.
>It doesn't take a uterus to have a vested interest in one's education,
>mental health, family life, future and health.
How true.
>If the Fourteenth Amendment can protect someone from having to sit at
>the back of a bus, then it should definitely give guys equal protection
>from the stress, despair, stigma and responsibility of something as
>fundamental as forced parenthood.
Of course. Any law prohibiting men from aborting a fetus inside them
should be struck down as unconstitutional.
>Biology isn't destiny.
?
>Let's recognize
>men's procreational autonomy too by legalizing choice for men.
Translation: Let's let men abandon children who have been born and
who are their offspring simply because they don't feel like paying
child support.
Either that or they want to be able to force women to have abortions.
What a scary thought.
Stephanie Smith
In article <4tie1g$n...@lori.albany.net>, tru...@albany.net says...
[snip]
>Translation: Let's let men abandon children who have been born and
>who are their offspring simply because they don't feel like paying
>child support.
The issue is what makes a parent -- biology alone or something more.
Under the current law, legal parents are not always the same as
biological parents by definition, so apparently it is not just biology.
The _Michael H. v. Gerald D._ Supreme Court decision makes this most
clear [denying rights to a biological father who had a relationship with
and had helped support a child, since the mother was married to another
when the child was born, and her husband also wanted to be recognized as
the father], but from a recent 7th Circuit case:
"[T]he Constitution forbids a state to deprive parents -- fathers as well
as mothers, including natural fathers -- of their children without good
reason for doing so. But in the word "their" is concealed an important
qualification. It is not the brute biological fact of parenthood, but
the existence of an actual or potential relationship that society
reconizes as worthy of respect and protection, that activates the
constitutional claim." _Pena v. Mattox_, 84 F.3d 894, 899 (1996).
This case involved a man who had been convicted of misdemeanor statutory
rape (sex with someone between 13 and 16 when you are not at least 5
years older -- the woman was 15, the man 19). The woman's parents took
her to Indiana (from Illinois) where she gave birth (having the man
arrested under false pretenses to conceal their actions), since under
Indiana law the father's consent to an adoption is not needed if the
mother is under 16 when the child was conceived. The baby was adopted.
The court went on to state: "*There is no relationship between plaintiff
and child beyond the genetic* and the wrong [statutory rape, as opposed
to fornication, which is no longer considered a bar, but used to be] is
not of a technical, trivial nature." (emphasis added) Note that this
logic would not proclude fornication being a sufficient reason were
states to start taking it more seriously.
It also explains (in the context of this case, but the same logic applies
to all the other cases where a man would not have any parental rights to
the child, even through no fault of his own, but could be sued for
support, which would then give him legal rights): "When a state court
does grant parental rights...thinking that as a practical if not legal
matter it will be possible to enforce a duty of child support against the
father without giving him rights to the child, this is a pragmatic
judgment..." _Pena_, 84 F.3d at 901.
I am not claiming that the _Pena_ case is supportive of the c4m cause;
it's not particularly. But legally, biological fatherhood is not the
same as fatherhood.
My concern is just that I have a hard time understanding the huge
importance placed on the biological connection alone (as opposed to
involvement in the choice to have or attempt to conceive the child or
actual relationship with the child) in creating a parent.
>Either that or they want to be able to force women to have abortions.
>What a scary thought.
That would be. Luckily, that has already been resolved and is in no way
Constitutional.
Stephanie
Jason Leatherman
: >cha...@nas.com (Kingsley G. Morse Jr.)
: >Let's recognize
: >men's procreational autonomy too by legalizing choice for men.
: David W. Truland (tru...@albany.net)
: Translation: Let's let men abandon children who have been born and
: who are their offspring simply because they don't feel like paying
: child support.
: Either that or they want to be able to force women to have abortions.
: What a scary thought.
The choice that men should have is whether or not to support the baby.
Women have a way out -- the right to have an abortion. If she chooses to
have the baby, the father is obligated to support it, whether or not he wants
to be a Dad. That isn't fair.
If women want the right to have abortions, that's fine, but they must also
accept the responsibility of raising the children on their own if they want to
keep them.
Jason
David W. Truland
us01...@interramp.com (Stephanie Smith) wrote:
>In article <4tie1g$n...@lori.albany.net>, tru...@albany.net says...
>>
>>cha...@nas.com (Kingsley G. Morse Jr.) wrote:
>>
>>>tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) writes:
>[snip]
>>Translation: Let's let men abandon children who have been born and
>>who are their offspring simply because they don't feel like paying
>>child support.
>The issue is what makes a parent -- biology alone or something more.
That depends on what you mean by "parent."
>Under the current law, legal parents are not always the same as
>biological parents by definition, so apparently it is not just biology.
Only in cases of adoption is someone else put in the same
place as a natural parent. What the chooice for men crowd
would like to be able to do is half an adoption. Abdicate their
responsibility without substituting someone else.
[...]
Stephanie Smith
In article <4tl0nb$g...@lori.albany.net>, tru...@albany.net says...
>
>us01...@interramp.com (Stephanie Smith) wrote:
>
>>In article <4tie1g$n...@lori.albany.net>, tru...@albany.net says...
>>>
>>>cha...@nas.com (Kingsley G. Morse Jr.) wrote:
>>>
>
>>>Translation: Let's let men abandon children who have been born and
>>>who are their offspring simply because they don't feel like paying
>>>child support.
>
>>The issue is what makes a parent -- biology alone or something more.
>
>That depends on what you mean by "parent."
True. I am talking about parent in the sense considered important under
the law. The type of relationship that gives rise to rights and is
protected. That is what I consider a parent, not a genetic relationship
alone.
>>Under the current law, legal parents are not always the same as
>>biological parents by definition, so apparently it is not just biology.
>
>Only in cases of adoption is someone else put in the same
>place as a natural parent. What the chooice for men crowd
>would like to be able to do is half an adoption. Abdicate their
>responsibility without substituting someone else.
You are right in that I also analogize it to half an adoption -- if
either biological parent objected to an adoption that the other favored,
he/she would have the option of assuming the rights of the parent who
favored the adoption. That seems to be the only sex-neutral way of
handling it.
But you are wrong that biological and legal parenthood differ only in the
case of adoption. Leaving aside the obvious example of sperm donors, that
was the point of the cases I mentioned in the previous post. They
frequently differ.
What we are talking about is that in many cases a man may not have
sufficient relationship/connection with a child to be considered a legal
father in order to give him rights, yet still have responsibilities, if
the legal mother or the state desires. This may not be through his own
fault, it may just be because he did not know of the child's birth,
because the woman was married to another, or other reasons. Of course,
imposing the responsibilities (usually) give him some rights (in a
technical sense, anyway), but he could not claim these rights on his
own, and as the cases point out, these rights are given not because he
is entitled to them, but because the states consider that the pragmatic
solution.
This seems problematic to me. It seems apparent that the point is not
that there is a relationship between the "father" and child which is
being protected or enforced, but instead that child support is being
assessed as a type of damages. Do you disagree?
This does not lead to any particular conclusion on its own, since it is
possible that the cost to society of getting rid of this system would be
too high, but I just want to be honest about what it going on, and not
use emotional/moral language regarding the "father" abandoing the child,
when he would perhaps have no rights to the child -- the state itself
may admit that it does not consider the relationship worth protecting in
the absence of a need for support.
Stephanie
David W. Truland
gold...@ipa.net wrote:
>tru...@albany.net (David W. Truland) wrote:
>>
>In discussing the fact that women have all the control over
>the abortion decision and men have none, he said:
>
Translation: In discussing a warped movement to allow men
to disclaim the paternity of their children when they don't feel
like supporting them, he said:
>> Translation: Let's let men abandon children who have been born and
>> who are their offspring simply because they don't feel like paying
>> child support.
>>
>> Either that or they want to be able to force women to have abortions.
>> What a scary thought.
>David, a non-republican, has made an error in logic
Do tell.
>There seems to be at least one other option.
>
>Women's rights to have abortions could be restricted. Then, the
>enormous disparity between women's control and men's control would
>be reduced.
Two problems. First, women have a right to terminate a pregnancy and
that can't be altered just to satisfy a bunch of whiney, rejected men.
Second, that wouldn't satisfy the choice for men crowd anyway.
You see, they would still be stuck paying child support.
Try again.
Ray Fischer
>>Let's recognize
>>men's procreational autonomy too by legalizing choice for men.
>
>Translation: Let's let men abandon children who have been born and
>who are their offspring simply because they don't feel like paying
>child support.
Wrong.
A man who has never wanted a child, who has clearly stated his
intention not to father a child, should not be forced to pay for a
child against his wishes. A man who _has_ agreed to be a father
should be held to that commitment.
>Either that or they want to be able to force women to have abortions.
>What a scary thought.
Strawman, and a particularly sleazy one at that.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
David W. Truland
ja...@ccs.neu.edu (Jason Leatherman) wrote:
>: >cha...@nas.com (Kingsley G. Morse Jr.)
>: >Let's recognize
>: >men's procreational autonomy too by legalizing choice for men.
>: David W. Truland (tru...@albany.net)
>: Translation: Let's let men abandon children who have been born and
>: who are their offspring simply because they don't feel like paying
>: child support.
>: Either that or they want to be able to force women to have abortions.
>: What a scary thought.
> The choice that men should have is whether or not to support the baby.
That pretty much says it all. How pathetic.
>Women have a way out -- the right to have an abortion. If she chooses to
>have the baby, the father is obligated to support it, whether or not he wants
>to be a Dad. That isn't fair.
It's quite fair to the child. It isn't supposed to be fair to anyone
else.
> If women want the right to have abortions, that's fine, but they must also
>accept the responsibility of raising the children on their own if they want to
>keep them.
Hardly.