From: keegan@rosebud.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:28:09 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
-> >-> >I've always felt that a man who gets a woman pregnant should
-> >-> >be responsible for alimony (for the child, AND the mother if
-> >-> >she was employed and is unable to work for any period of her
-> >-> >pregnancy...)
-> >-> >   Basically, whether you are married or not, sex should be a
-> >-> >legal AND moral responsibility for us all. If you are going
-> >-> >to have sex, it can't be a one sided ride. Men must be
-> >-> >responsible for the child, just as much as the woman. It
-> >-> >should not be right that a woman is FORCED to have an
-> >-> >abortion because the man is not there to support her
-> >-> >financially through the problem (or emotionally...)
-> >-> 
-> >-> In what sense is anyone being "FORCED" [sic] to abort,
-> >-> Steve?  Certainly we're not talking about guns and chains
-> >-> and incarceration here, so in what way shape or form is
-> >-> she being "FORCED"???
-> >
-> >she is being "FORCED," kevin, through fear and economic
-> >pressure. you know, the kind of fear and economic pressure
-> >you want to impose but are always uncomfortable about being
-> >called on.

-> Economic pressure? Surely it's not "economic pressure" to
-> require people to pay their debts, Keegan; that's just
-> "financial responsibility". As I see it, the absolute worst
-> that can happen is she'll declare bankruptcy and/or go on
-> welfare. Sure, that's not all sunshine and roses, but if the
-> woman really WANTS to go it alone, such options exist.
-> 
-> And let us not forget that many women CAN afford to raise
-> children by themselves. Where's the "fear" there? The
-> "economic pressure"? Yet the current laws still don't absolve
-> the man even under these circumstances.  So much for the "fear
-> and economic pressure" rationale. Nice theory, but it isn't
-> applied in practice...

kevin, you've been trying to absolve men from child support
responsibility since 1990.  you don't much care if you impregnate
someone, although in your case that would be a long reach, so
long as you can absolve yourself of any responsibility for a
child or force the woman to abort.

-> It is also my opinion that society has every moral right to
-> financially DISCOURAGE indiscriminate baby-making. I see that
-> as falling within its sphere of legitimate functions.

wouldn't that be convenient for you.

-> At the same time, however, I would argue that society does NOT
-> have the right to FORBID any woman from bearing any child. The
-> latter would violate her rights to privacy just as much as the
-> pre-RvW abortion laws did, IMO.

heck, i'll bet women through the world are jumping up and down
with glee now that they know you's oppose a rule forbidding them
to bear a child.

-> P.S. Does the above qualify me as "pro-abortion" supporter #2?

pro-force is more like it.

        "I do *not* want to discuss any child support issues in
        alt.flame any more.  Not "Re: Hillel", not "Re: Paying
        for Pleasure", not any of them."
	<1990Nov10.170334.5406@cfctech.cfc.com>
	kevin@cfctech (Kevin Darcy)


--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion