From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Killmeyer with blinders on
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: talk.abortion
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:17:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.223119.22140@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr6.230505.14671@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>People who support both:
>>>            * legalized abortion
>>>	              and
>>>            * weakening current child support law:
>>>
>>>                  Eric Rescorla
>>>                  Gordon Storga
>>>                  Kevin Darcy
>>>                  Larry Margolis
>>>                  Jennifer Brown
>>>                  E.E. Bartley
>>>                  Nora Rivkis
>
>>NO, STEVEN!!!!!
>
>>I've repeated about seven times now that I do not favor "weakening"
>>current child support law, I favor ALTERING it. This will in some
>>weird instances make it weaker, in a lot of instances make it stronger,
>>and be basically dedicated to clearing up some of the inconsistencies
>>present in an outdated law. Get it right.
>
>NO, NORA!!! YOU get it right.  Creating situations  in which the man
>does not have to pay child support, and claiming that this makes
>it stronger because there are "fewer violations" is nonsensical.
>It's like permitting people to kill other people as long as they
>use a handgun (nothing else, just a handgun is legal) and then
>claiming that you've really reduced the number of murders in the 
>country.  

Yes, I know this is what you think, Steven. It isn't what I think. And
you keep trying to tell people it is what I think, as with the "people
who support BOTH positions..." above. I do NOT support both positions;
I support legalized abortion, at the moment, and I favor **strengthening**
current child-support laws in most cases. Quit lying about what I believe
to make it sound like what you think I should believe.

>The law is only "outdated" because abortion is legal and nobody thought 
>through the really nasty consequences that might have on society.

The parts of the law that I consider outdated have nothing to do with
abortion; they have to do with abuse of born children by custodial parents,
and with joint custody. The first wasn't acknowledged when the law was
written, and the second didn't exist. 

I do not want to weaken child support laws, Steven. Whatever you may think
of the view, admit that it *is* the view I hold.

>>I'm also not yet decided about favoring legalized abortion, either;
>>I'm just accepting it until I make up my mind, because I don't want
>>to legislate prohibiting *anything* until I'm absolutely positive
>>it has to be done.
>
>You know that's a crock.  A lot of people "just accepted" a lot of things
>throughout history, because they weren't sure if it was all that wrong.
>Saying you personally oppose abortion, but wouldn't do a thing to stop
>anyone from indulging in it is, in practice, indistinguishable from
>supporting it.  Like the old saying goes, if you ain't a part of the
>solution, you're part of the problem.

Fine; so from your perspective I'm part of the problem. There are pro-
lifers who may have objections to your repeated attempts to alienate
everyone who might be convincable, but that's their issue to deal with
you about.

>>>Eight so far.  How many more want to join the list?
>>>Write and let me know.
>
>>Seven, if even that. You have so consistently ignored what people
>>tell you about their own positions that you have singlehandedly
>>made me accept Dean's term for you and other net.nitwits who pull
>>such garbage -- willfully ignorant. You're free to be so on your
>>own time, but don't do it with my life or my opinions.
>
>Nora, you're the one who told me that you were leaning toward the
>pro-abort side.  God knows you're not pro-life.  And the rest of
>them clearly support both positions.  You're waffling because you
>don't like the implications I've pointed out in those two positions.
>Too bad.  They are there.

I'm leaning toward the pro-choice side (I'm nowhere close to pro-abortion,
which as people keep telling you is a separate category with very few mem-
bers) mostly because of the behavior of the idiots like yourself, more of
whom seem to be on the pro-life side by a lot. 

Killmeyer count: time six I have had to say I do not support weakening
the current child support laws. It took David nineteen repetitions of
an equally simple fact to get it through his head well enough that he
dropped the subject. Anyone who wants to make book on how many it will
take Kellmeyer before he recognizes that neither I nor Larry -- nor,
probably, other people; but those are the ones who've said it this
blatantly this time around -- want in the slightest to weaken the
current child support laws, let me know.

>SK

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.