🚀 go-pugleaf

Steve Mueller <shm@garlic.com> wrote:

>Word Warrior wrote:
>> >   Don't you allow the possibility that, no matter how careful a man (or
>> >woman) is, an *accident* can occur?
>> I allow the possibility that THOSE men and women can
>> allow the possibility.  No one else need do so for them.
>   More gobbledy-gook that doesn't address the question.  Are "yes" or
>"no" not in your vocabulary?
Yes and no.
>> >> >Why should I, as a woman, have
>> >> >a right to abort it or give it up for adoption,
>> >> You, as a woman, might not have those "rights" at all.
>> >   Since when?
>> Religion and more meaningful forms of personal conviction,
>> for starters ...
>   Sorry, religion and personal convictions are choices.
Not always.  If you don't understand that such environments
put pressure on their occupants, you don't understand them.
>  Those choices
>are available *because* of the rights we have.  The fact that you choose
>not to exercise those rights is exactly that -- a choice.
People don't make choices as often as they submit to the
requirements of their circumstances.
>> >  Otherwise why keep harping on the
>> >"it's their decision to use protection" argument?
>> They're the ones saying that "gee, she's knocked up
>> and I had nothing to do with it so she can pay for
>> it all by herself" and I'm pointing out that that
>> is complete bullshit.
>   Give me a break. 
What would you like broken?
> What's complete bullshit is your claim that people
>are saying that.  Nobody is saying the man had nothing to do with it,
>and the fact that you claim that is nothing more than a lie.  We're
>saying that, since the woman has the choice to have the baby or not, the
>responsibility for supporting that baby should be a man's choice.  A man
>should not be forced to pay for something he did not intended to create
>and does not want to support when alternatives are available.
A man who knocks women up has NO claim that he did not intend
to create such life.
The problem you're having with the consequences of your actions
is that you have to manage your actions if you don't want to deal
with the results of them.
>> >  But,
>> >similarly, a woman shouldn't be able to force a man to be a father if he
>> >doesn't want to be.
>> She =can't= unless she has raped him.
>   Again, your definition of "force" is limited.
I haven't offered one.
Willing participants in sex know they might be creating children.
No one can assume that the other party will "take care of things". 
>  Fatherhood (at least
>the responsibilities of fatherhood) can be forced upon him by the court
>if the woman wants the baby. 
Getting the woman pregnant is what caused the problem.
Blaming the "court" is as stupid as it gets.
> If the woman does not want the baby, the
>court can't force the responsibilities of motherhood on her (and
>shouldn't be able to).  Men want an alternative, which is discussed
>below (so don't bother refuting anything here -- be patient).
Men have the alternative of protecting themselves by
using a serious combination of birth control methods.
>> If a man doesn't want to be a father, he doesn't
>> have to be a father.  He can use contraception
>> and some care and avoid it entirely.
>   This is that old, tired argument you keep using, and it is false.
Sorry, but it's true.
Men who don't want to pay for their children
simply don't have to sire them in the first
place.  It's called "responsibility".
>  No
>matter how carefully he uses contraception, it is not 100% effective. 
>So he *can not* avoid the risk of pregnancy entirely.  Stop using that
>B.S.
There are plenty of people out there who manage
to have great sex without producing children.
They understand that combining methods of birth
control offers appreciable protection.
>   Women can't avoid the risk entirely either, but they can eliminate
>the consequences (supporing a child).  
Not necessarily.  There are consequences anyway.
>Men want the same option. 
Men do not need the right to force either pregnancy
or abortion on women.  Get that straight.
> The
>fact that their methods for avoiding the consequences take different
>forms is based on the biological differences between men and women.
Men who know how to use contraception will not have
to worry about what to do with pregnancies at all.
>> >   By the way, the argument about selling it is really beneath
>> >contempt. 
>> Really?  Have you never seen any evidence of the
>> 'market' for healthy babies for adoption?  Why
>> do you suppose surrogate mothers get money?
>   I didn't say it didn't exist.  You said that a man might want to
>adopt the baby and possibly sell it.  You didn't even acknowledge the
>other side -- that the man might want to adopt the baby because the
>woman wanted to sell it.  To cast aspersions on the man's motive without
>acknowledging the other side (and more likely as I point out below) is
>what is beneath contempt.
I don't need to cast any aspersions on male motivation when
you've been so busy implying that they're too stupid to make
birth control methods work and too irresponsible to pay for
the wellbeing of the children they thus create.
>   As for surrogate mothers, they get money because the mother can't
>conceive (usually).  There is no guarantee the baby will be healthy.
Nope.
>> >  But, since you brought it up, since women can currently
>> >choose whether to deliver a baby or not, *women* have the most
>> >likelihood of selling a baby.  A man can't sell what he doesn't have. 
>> He can arrange alternate support for the child if
>> possible; otherwise it's his fatherhood and that
>> of no one else.
>   That is either irrelevant to the point I made, or sounds like you are
>arguing that the man arranging to sell the baby is OK.  
Nope.
Men who father children are the fathers of those children.
They have no one else to blame for their "problems".
>> >   Look, back before Roe v. Wade, abortion was *illegal*.  Now it is
>> >legal (which is fine by me), and women have more choices.  Now men are
>> >arguing that, because women have that choice, they should have the
>> >choice not to be the father of a child they don't want.  If a woman
>> >wants the child, she can either support it herself, or find a
>> >step-father.  If she can't afford it, she can have an abortion or give
>> >it up for adoption.
>> Women can abort because women carry fetuses. 
>> Men can't carry fetuses so they can't abort them.
>   Wow, thanks for that condescending bit of information.  By that
>logic, women can't simply walk away from some decision because women
>carry fetuses; men *can* walk away because men can't carry fetuses.
Nope.
>   And you always stick to that one point.  There are two other
>alternatives if the man doesn't want it -- support it herself, or give
>it up for adoption.
A man who really doesn't want children doesn't father them.
>> What's fair and reasonable is for men who get women
>> pregnant to stand up on their hind legs and admit
>> that they're responsible for having done so, and
>> not whine about being unable to abort.
>   We're *not* whining that we can't abort.  We saying that, since women
>have alternatives to giving birth and raising the babies, men should
>have that alternative, too.  Women's options include abortion and
>adoption; men's include walking away from the pregnancy if the woman
>insists on having a baby he doesn't want.
Men have the alternative of not fathering children
they don't want in the first place.  Those too stupid
to manage that have no excuse to whine about enduring
the consequences of their own actions.
>P.S.  The first two newsgroups were removed from followups due to
>whining.
Your whining isn't welcome anywhere, no doubt.
>P.P.S.  Whoever created the condescending, sexist title of this thread
>should be forced to spend their life reading all the posts in it.
I read everything posted to rom.


_____________________________________________________________________________
|Respectfully, Sheila          ~~~Word Warrior~~~         green@pipeline.com|
|Obligatory tribute to the founding fathers of the United States of America:|
| This is not to be read by anyone under 18 years of age, who should read up|
| on history and the First Amendment to the Constitution, as an alternative.|
| *Animals, including humans, fart, piss, shit, masturbate, fuck and abort.*|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^