From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:44:35 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <25056@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
%%>John

%%>Sigh. . . Once again, they are forcing the father to allow his child to be
%%>aborted.  He has no say in the matter, and no choice.  Which is why the
%%>label 'pro-choice' is an out and out lie.  pro-female-choice, yes.

>>I also believe that you're attempting to perpetuate a myth, that men
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>have no choice. Men have always walked away from relationships when
>>children are involved in the past, and I don't really see them getting
>>dragged back in any significant numbers to be held accountable for children
>>they've spawned, except in cases where there was some sort of promise
>>made, either explicit or implicit. So let's lay that to rest, shall
>>we? Men have always had a choice, whether legally granted or not, and
>>now men like you wish to take a similar choice away from women, after
>>they recently won that right back.

>Bill Clinton, 7/16/92, Nomination Acceptance Speech:

>  I do want to say something to the fathers in this country who
>  have chosen to abandon their children by neglecting their child support;
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  take responsibility for your children or we will force you to do so.

Ahh, but there's the rub in your argument, Don. They neglect/abandon
their children by neglecting their child support. Nothing is said about
those who met someone, had sex, and walked away either knowing/not knowing
that their partner is pregnant/had a child by them. This was court-ordered
support of their children, which, if you read real close, you'll see
I mention as the exception in the above case.

>So you're voting for Bush, then?  Or do men like you wish to take
>a choice away from men that they (according to you) have held
>until recently?

As this statement is based on a fallacy, it is immaterial. But if you
must really know, I can't vote for Bush, not only for what he stands
(claims to) for, but for his outright falsehoods that he's propogated.

What?!? you ask. Bush? Not the moral specter of rightness. No!! <shock>
There's a little ditty they play here in DC on an alternative station,
99.1 WHFS, which starts off with things like:

	 "Read my lips....no new taxes...read my lips"
	 "If that was my position before, then it isn't now,
	  positions change you know" in reference to (I forgot)
	 and a heap of other things, that I can't remember at the moment,
but it is all a series of contradictory quotes. And you wonder why he's
falling in the polls around here. Clinton with his I didn't inhale quote,
has come across as a much more sincere candidate, esp with Bush's latest
Catholic push for votes attempting to promise Catholics who send their
kids to private schools will get a $1000 credit (I guess towards taxes,
beats me if that is direct or from gross). His speech in front of the
Christian Bloatalition didn't gain him any respect either. That group
is trying openly to give this country a christian government, although
which faction will finally get to make the rules hasn't been stated
yet, and is obvoiusly being kept secret, so as not to throw the movement
into complete disarray.

>Or perhaps your exception for "explicit or implicit" promises
>covers most paternity cases.

Those cover the cases where the courts usually find the man responsible
in some way and decides that he owes child support. 

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion