From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:43:14 GMT

In <1992Nov3.025548.21625@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
>AR> Don and me:

>/* set sarcasm on */

>Isn't it wonderful how, when laws are on your side, you can quote your defeated
>enemies?  Ah, what a wonderful thing ... poetic justice.

Let me jump in here before you set the sarcasm to "off":

Adrienne: "Peter, get your attributions right.  I did not say the above.
Will did."

>/* set sarcasm off */


>AR> >The woman's unalterable obligation to support begins,
>AR> >at the earliest, after the last legal moment to abort.
>AR> >This is usually 6 or more months later than the moment
>AR> >the man's rights are restricted.

>AR> Horseshit.  The man has *no* legal obligation until a child is born.

>This is equivocation of the *highest* order... If the woman *chooses* to keep
>the child, the man is ipso facto responsible from *that* moment, save for a
>miscarriage or an untimely and unintented administration of RU-486...  (Save
>your flames, I was *not* advocating that RU-486 be used to "evade your fatherly
>responsibilities" - I was merely referring to the argument posed by a detractor
>of RU-486).

RU-486 has a lot of feminist detractors, including some who are strongly
pro-choice: see _RU 486 Misconceptions Myths and Morals_ by Renate Klein,
Janice G. Raymond, and Lynette J. Dumble, pro-choice feminists all.
[Australia, Spinifex Press, 1991]

>In other words, it doesn't matter when the child is born.  Once she chooses
>that there *is* to be a child, she has chosen *for him*, that he has to be a
>father, whether he wants to or not.  This sure sounds like a lot of "choice"
>here, eh?

>AR> >In very real and practical terms, child support burdens are imposed
>AR> >far more greatly on men than on women -- not just in numbers but amounts.

>AR> I respect your right to your own opinion, Don, but this particular sentence
>AR> is sheer value judgement, and there are millions of women who would argue
>AR> the point with you.  Not that such an argument would be productive , you
>AR> understand....

>Okay, fine, if you disagree with him, dig up some statistics showing how much
>child support is paid by men and how much by women, and try to prove him wrong.

First time I said something like that to Adrienne, she said the statistics
were easily available from the library, and she won't do it for me: I get
to do it.

>AR> Men don't have the same biological capabilities, and this leads to one
>AR> important difference in terms of the legal application of parenting laws:
>AR> they aren't required to be present at birth (they may not, in fact, even
>AR> know about the birth until months later).  This means that, in any
>AR> argument for possession, or custody, women have an edge on claiming
>AR> prior possession.                                          ^^^^^^^^
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>So you would treat children as property, then?  I don't mean to be rude,
>(although considering your attitude towards me so far, has been "Shoot first,
>don't bother asking questions later, just keep shooting and take no prisoners,"
>by rights I *ought* to be insulting), but was it not you who started a rather
>short-lived thread on talk.abortion, called "Will's Appalling Attitude Towards
>Women"?

Was that really she who started it?  Then there is poetic justice in that
even more short-lived thread that I started called "Adrienne's Appalling
Attitude Towards the Unborn."

Any requests for a repost?

BTW your characterization of her attitude towards *you* also describes nicely
her attitude towards Martin Guerrero.

>AR> Which merely undermines the whole of family law and western culture in
>AR> one fell swoop.

>Hmmm... I recall that you aren't exactly friendly towards "family values,"
>that is, unless "family values" are only a bad thing when they are used to
>oppress women, but not men?

>Granted, I am willing to believe that you were being sarcastic...

>"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
>                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris

I hope Clinton is an improvement on Cthulhu. :-)

Peter Nyikos


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46929 alt.abortion.inequity:4905 soc.women:18966 soc.men:18780