🚀 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?

Well, 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.  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.

Sorry, but some people don't choose to feel compelled
to abide by religious principles.

Some people are thoroughly indoctrinated to the effect
that they're required to worship human life.

>> >  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'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.  

Men who turn their backs on their own children
end up costing everyone else.

>We're
>saying that, since the woman has the choice to have the baby or not, 

Getting an abortion because a baby is nonviable or a 
direct threat to the life of the mother isn't a choice,
it's a necessity for some.

Getting an abortion because having a baby will mean
losing one's income and perhaps even watching one's
other children go hungry isn't a choice, it's a
necessity for some.

Getting an abortion because a man one thought would
be a good father decides to abandon the pregnancy
=and= the former partner isn't a choice, it's a
necessity for some.

Giving birth to a baby because one's religious
community will ostracise one isn't a choice,
it's a necessity for some.

>the
>responsibility for supporting that baby should be a man's choice. 

It is.  Those men who father children have
decided to support them.

> 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.

Men who impregnate women intend to create 
those pregnancies.  The fallibility of
single methods of birth control does
not constitute contrary evidence.

>> >  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.  Fatherhood (at least
>the responsibilities of fatherhood) can be forced upon him by the court
>if the woman wants the baby.  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).

'Patience, hell', as the saying goes.

Pregnant women get childbirth, miscarriage, or abortion.

Those who bear children get motherhood or adoption.

None of those happens to be an easy option.

>> 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.  No
>matter how carefully he uses contraception, it is not 100% effective.

So what?  Men can be =aware= of that fact and combine
rubbers with spermicide with additional measures to be
certain that they won't have the problem.
 
>So he *can not* avoid the risk of pregnancy entirely.  Stop using that
>B.S.

There is no reason for a man to risk unwanted pregnancy.
If he's that sure about it he can get a vasectomy after
storing frozen sperm for a later change-of-heart.

He could, alternatively, learn to use physical and chemical
protective measures and even combine them with the care and
concern involved in determining where his partners are in
fact coming from on the issue.

>   Women can't avoid the risk entirely either, but they can eliminate
>the consequences (supporing a child). 

Abortion and adoption are still =consequences= that no woman
enjoys or takes lightly, to my knowledge.

> Men want the same option.

Men have the option of avoiding pregnancy to the degree
that their participation is required.

>  The
>fact that their methods for avoiding the consequences take different
>forms is based on the biological differences between men and women.

Keep working with that concept.

>> >   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.

You're dreamin'.

It isn't likely that the mother of a child would
be more intent on putting baby on the block than
the father, for starters.

>   As for surrogate mothers, they get money because the mother can't
>conceive (usually).  There is no guarantee the baby will be healthy.

Ever.

>> >  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. 

If the mother can't keep the baby and the father doesn't
want it either, anything that gets the kid a loving home
is preferable to the alternatives.

Even that isn't a reliable outcome, however.

What's more reliable is the unwillingness of most others
to step in for most parents of either gender.
 
>> >   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.

It doesn't work that way.  No one can really walk away
from the results of their actions.

>   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.

She supports it herself the child loses the parenthood
the father is obligated to provide.

She adopts it out the father gets off the hook to the
degree of his unwillingness to cover his debts.

>> 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 can get killed in the process: men can't.

That's a big reason for women having alternatives.

If the man wants to adopt his child out, he has every
opportunity to talk the mother into it.  Should he be
unable to do so, he wasn't careful enough choosing 
himself a sex partner.

> 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.

Bullshit.

I'm not footing the bill for every bastard you sire
in your careless pursuit of hastily-contrived personal
gratification, no matter how badly you'd like me to do
that.  You're first in line to offer paternal support
to any and all children you father.

Should you prove incapable of avoiding such paternal
responsibility, you have only yourself to thank for it.

>P.S.  The first two newsgroups were removed from followups due to
>whining.

Actually, they weren't properly removed, but then again
I don't give a shit about that anyway.

>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 already 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.*|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^