From: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 18 Nov 92 09:45:51 GMT
Reply-To: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas)
Organization: Prime Time Productions Aurora, Illinois

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

> In article <BxsMAv.93I@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) wri
> 
> >I suppose then that you won't mind if all of us men who see it as terribly
> >unequal that women can choose AFTER sex whether or not to have a child,
> >while we cannot, make damn sure you LOSE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
> 
> Ah, here's another one, Will.
> 
> This fellow isn't out to equalize the situation between parents.  He's out
> to take away a woman's bodily autonomy because he can't get a legal 'out'
> to a biological reality.

        I would never tamper with a woman's right to choose!!  She can choose 
        all she wants, but why should that decision not allow the man to opt 
        out of parenthood before the birth as well!

> Do you really think this argument is about male choice, Will?  Maybe in
> alt.dads_rights, but not in talk.abortion.
> 
> >Support reproductive rights for all, or none.  But don't be a hypocrite and
> >try to play the "I'm a woman and its my body" game and then turn around and
> >say that a man's choice ends when he pulls down his zipper.
> 
> "reproductive rights for all" completely ignores the biological reality of
> gestation, which is the only justification for abortion.
        
        I believe it is you who has no idea what you're speaking of! You are 
        ignoring the fact that most of "US" men have been denied visitation 
        with absolutely no recourse! Call the police and ask them, they'll
        say it's a matter between the two of you, but should I refuse to 
        hold up my end of the bargain, I go to jail, period, end of
        discussion!

        
> So, "ignore a woman's rights" == "reproductive rights for all"?  I don't 
> think so.
> 
> >This is unequal, wrong, and has nothing to do with "privacy".  It has
> >everything to do with making men a walking wallet.  It is time that this 
> >is stopped - permanently.
> 
> Which *again* ignores the woman's financial contribution!

        F.Y.I. my ex-$#@$% makes NO financial contribution at all she refuses
        to get a job and stays in the house I bought, and married a guy who 
        got her pregnant again so now he's on the hook for this and the future
        kids, and she just lives off the support money, good scam, support
        moms, kinda like welfare moms, only more vindictive!!!
> 
> AGAIN.  
> 
> You people who constantly make the mistake of ignoring the woman's financial
> contribution are going to be constantly IN ERROR by setting up a false
> dichotomy,
> 
> and are going to get precisely NO WHERE in affecting change!!!!!!!
        
        I don't think so, change will be effected in the upcoming legislative 
        session and if you don't believe me, watch the dust of lawyers for
        effective change, they all pay support and have the statistics, and
        WILL, repeat WILL get an investigation into the responsibility, with
        no authority issue!

> A woman's wallet AND a man's wallet play into the game.
> 
> A woman's body is the only body involved.
> 
> GET IT RIGHT!!!

        Really, she can have casual sex have a child and sue for support,
        it's the best scam yet have three kids and no job you get support 
        from 3 men, just in case one is late, plus welfare and food stamps
        cause you ain't got no job!!!!
        Investigate this Geraldo!!!
 
> >Women - you're on notice.  You want equality?  Fine.
> 
> Fine my ass.  You can't even see that her contribution not only equals the
> man in the eyes of the law, but significantly exceeds it and it is on hte
> basis of the PHYSICAL reality of pregnancy that she retains a rigth to
> abort.  It has zip, nada nothing to do with money.
> 
> Yet another example of the INVISIBLE woman, only this time it's her money
> that is rendered invisible.  We take here in this spurious argument to
> equating her PHYSICAL SELF with a man's wallet. Sheeeesh.

        Most support mothers don't have any of their own, they live off the
        very thing they hate the most, men!!!
 
> Adrienne Regard

-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
|jim@jimmc.chi.il.us   |   ...And I believe in long, slow, deep, soft wet  |
|Prime Time Productions| kisses that last three days...good night...OH MY! |
|Aurora, IL. 60504     |        -crash davis to annie savoy in BULL DURHAM-|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: talk.abortion