From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:22:18 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <HARKCOM.92Aug11130047@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp> harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom) writes:
>In article <1992Aug3.173224.8266@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org
>   (Charles Perez) writes:
>
> =}So, if, instead of participating in an impregnation, you end up catching
> =}gonnorhea, are you responsible for seeing to the well-being of the
> =}bacteria inside you? Or do you take penicillin?
>
>   Considering the mentallity of some of the pro-shirking-responsibility
>people then the comaprison of a child to a 'bacteria' is understandable...

People who argue for different domains of responsibility from you are
not "shirkers".

>
>   If you would take the time to think logically then you would see
>that the infected person is not responsible for the well-being of
>the 'bacteria' as he did not spawn them.  The major responsibility in
>this case is that of the source of the 'bacteria' to provide medical
>treatment for the infected person.

He enabled them to be spawned! He provided circumstances conducive
to their being spawned, so he has to take care of them. ;-)

>
> =}Seriously, if the man "made his choice when he dropped his pants",
> =}shouldn't he therefore have a say in the woman's choice whether to
> =}have an abortion?
>
>   It depends.  If he took the time to find a woman that will allow
>him that choice then yes he does.  If he didn't and ended up with a
>woman who refuses an abortion then he must face up to his responsibility.

In other words, no way. He only gets that choice if he kneels in front
of the woman and says, "pretty please", and if she is feeling generous
she gives him some say in whether to abort.

>
> =}If not, then NO CHOICE HAS BEEN MADE.
>
>   He chose to 'drop his pants' didn't he.  He chose who to drop his
>pants with didn't he.  Sounds like he had plenty of opportunity not
>to get himself in such a mess...

So, how come she's not in the same mess?

Show us what the responsible connection is between a man having sex
and his having to take care of a child because the woman chose to abort.
You seem to think that anyone who has sex is willing a child into
being. Considering how common birth control is, this is laughable.
No one *engineered* human fertility, so such fertility qualifies as a
side effect, rather than the purpose, of sex.

Having to submit to another's will just for joining in consentual
sexual activity is tyrannical.

>
> =}No child
> =}results until the woman and THE WOMAN ALONE chooses to permit it.
> =}That means that the biological father has not therefore chosen to be
> =}a parent and is, therefore, not responsible.
>
>   Whether or not he is resonsible is not important (a confusing way
>to use a confusing word).  It is his responsinbility to support that
>child...  If he isn't responsible (live up to his responsibilities)
>then let her rake his ass over the coals...

Stop equivocating. I was arguing for the nonexistence of a
responsibility, not that a certain father did not take his
resonsibilities seriously.

>
>   What deserves discussion more than this ignorance is into the amount
>that motehrs are allowed to rake father's asses over the coals.  Some
>fathers who live up to their responsibilities get raked for ridiculously
>high child support payments...  Some get raked for ridiculously low
>child support payments...
>
>Al

The basic issue is this: the man cannot choose to be a father, and he
cannot choose not to be a father. Therefore, he has no choice.


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================
Xref: sparky soc.men:15184 soc.women:15455 soc.penpals:1826