From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:58:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.164754.6557@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.011809.17271@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes...
>>>Don't expect sympathy or support from me for your failure to be a
>>>responsible adult. The sexual equality argument is bullshit. What you
>>>are really asking for is public financial support for certain men's lack
>>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>of responsibility. Forget it. No way. They owe; they pay.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>If a woman doesn't want a child, and doesn't think that she can support
>>him/her herself, then she is under NO OBLIGATION to bring him/her into
>>this world, just as I recognise NO OBLIGATION to pay for a child whom
>>I have chosen during pregnancy, not to support, either.
>

NOTE:  ALL THOSE WHO HAVE EVER PUT A CHILD UP FOR ADOPTION OR ABORTED A
FETUS, PLEASE PERUSE THE FOLLOWING:

>	What you feel is your own business. I'll tell you this: if a
>person refuses to help his own child, the flesh of his own flesh, when
                        ^^^                         ^^^
>that child is too young to care for itself, is there really anything
>further he need do, any other line he must cross, to rate as a
         ^^                         ^^
>completely selfish bastard? Is there some demonstration of amoral
                    ^^^^^^^^  - born out of wedlock?
>selfishness which is stronger or more definite than this? Some more
>extreme rejection of the no-man-is-an-island idea? If there is I must be
>overlooking it.

Oh, I guess it only applies if you are a dangler.  Sorry about that.
All you aborters and adopters are off the hook (unless you are men).
Whew.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

P.S.  Kenn Barry @ Mayberry, R.F.D., hates men who shirk on their
financial responsibility to their children.  But KB would defend a
mother's right to abort or put a child up for adoption to the death.
You see, women cannot be guilty of shirking on their "responsibilities"
towards their children.  Is denying a child's right to access to the
child's "other" parent as offensive to KB?  Is ensuring that the
financial support is actually used to support the children an issue
that KB would champion?  I doubt it.  Even when statistics from the US
Census Bureau show that 90.2% of all fathers with joint custody and
ample visitation with their children pay their child support on-time,
all the time.  Considering that 11% of the population lives below the
poverty line, I would almost consider this to be full-compliance.  Yet,
when children are denied visitation with a non-custodial parent (AKA as
Dad), child support compliance drops to a mere 44%.  Yet, over and
over, I keep seeing that people separate these two issues.  The
statistics are telling.  If you want full compliance of child support,
let fathers be involved with their children, let them see their
children, let them care for their children.  When that happens, child
support is paid.  No need for draconian measures, no need for a huge
bureaucracy that sucks YOUR (oh, and don't tell KB, but his too) tax
dollars into a vast abyss, providing non-productive jobs (oh, I forget,
there is a product of Child Support Enforcement Agencies, it's a log of
child support transactions, much like a check receipt) for incompetent,
ne'er-do-wells leeching perpetually off society.

So, KB, is it a woman's "responsibility" to ensure that her children
maintain a relationship with their father after a divorce--if anything,
just so the child support will be paid?  Are any of them guilty of
shirking on this responsibility?  What do we do about them?  I know, I
know, we shouldn't have had sex with any woman who would treat us so
viciously and callously in the first place.  It's all our fault.
Xref: sparky soc.women:22240 soc.men:22261 alt.child-support:4180