From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime!
X-To: STEVE NOVAK
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 03:09:00 GMT

steven@jaynes.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes...
SN> > = Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
SN> >> = (Janice Kendall) writes...

SN> >>  I don't think the man has a right to know if the woman feels the best
SN> >>  action for her situation is to abort.

SN> >Well, as my good friend, Locutus of Borg :-), might say : "Feelings are
SN> >Irrelevant".

SN> Your "good friend" *has* said:
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hold on there, Steve... Just because I made a joke about something which
Patrick Stewart said on television, does *not* make me "buddies" with Steve
Chaney.  I do not speak for him, and he does not speak for me.  We are not
enemies, and we are not "buddies," either.  I am sure that he probably
understands the pain of men in this situation, but we disagree on actual
policy issues.

Besides, the man *hardly* has a monopoly on making Borg jokes - geez, Steve!


SN> >Indeed, if someone were to say "The man has the right to have
SN> >his child," you might say "Irrelevant!  It involves her body".  And in this
SN> >case, I, err Locutus :-) would that the woman does *not* have the right to
SN> >"decide" to deny the father the right to know the full truth of what he is
SN> >about to face.

SN> Sure she does.  It's her body.  All the *potential* father donated was
SN> a pleasurable squirt.  It doesn't even make SENSE to suggest this when
SN> we're talking about a situation where the two aren't even spouses (in
SN> fact, it doesn't make any sense in any case).

That "it's her body" is only relevant in terms of allowing her the right to
end the pregnancy.  The child, or whatever term you like to use, is at the
very least, half that of the father, so he should at least have the right to
*know*.  No more.  And I have never advocated any more than the right to
*know*.


SN> [re: possible abuse notifying the man BEFORE an abortion...]
SN> >BUT, I do not believe that this rare possibility totally abrogates his righ
SN> >to *know*.  Thus, I would say that notification should be VERY soon
SN> >afterwards,...

SN> Abusive males are hardly "rare"; and anyone can see that such a situation
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SN> would likely INCREASE the possibility of abuse.


You called my comments about *one* woman, "anti-women," yet you make a gross,
*sweeping* statement about all men (or at least the perceived characteristics
of men).  Just *who* is gender-bashing here?


SN> >...although I think that the woman should at least have the decency, respec
SN> >and trust to tell him beforehand!

SN> Gee, Will, maybe there IS no "respect" or "trust" felt by the woman.
SN> THEN what would you do?

If the couple made consenting love together, you might *think* that there was
at least a spattering of love, *somewhere* along the line...


SN> >(Note my words carefully : I am stating
SN> >that I believe that it is advisable to tell beforehand, but that I would
SN> >*require* it to be told afterwards).

SN> Why?  What except possible disappointment, hurt and abuse could
SN> possibly result from such a repressive law?  Why do you feel the need
SN> to so totally control a woman who doesn't agree with you, rather than

Since when is being told about a decision that affects your life, "control"?

I do *not* agree with forcing pregnancy on anyone, so why do you insist on
saying that I do?

(For the emotionally impaired : Remember the words : Speaking Figuratively...)
SN> >And with God or Allah (whomever) as my witness, I will say that in my own
SN> >situation, if the woman had *not* been so respecting as to tell me before,
SN> >but in fact had not only told me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!
SN> >or more, I probably would have snapped right there and killed her where she
SN> >stood.

SN> Whoa.  Get some help, Will.  This is *not* normal behavior.

Once again, Steve, I will say again : This was anger and hurt feelings
speaking.  I have never physically attacked *anyone*, but you should realise
that people who are not in normal emotional situations, say things that they
regret and feel things that they know are wrong.

I *never* said that it was "normal" to feel the way that I did *AT THAT TIME*,
so please drop the righteous indignation.  I am *trying* to respond to you
in a civilised manner, even though I strongly disagree with what you say ;
you can at least do me the same honor.  If you are incapable of it, then I
encourage you to put me in your kill file.

I am only on the net for the men who need the help that I am intending to
provide.  I do not *need* to take abuse from people who misunderstand or
misconstrue my *feelings* (intentionally or otherwise), so if you insist on
attacking me, then save yourself the energy and ignore me.  But, if you
want to talk and even debate in a reasonable manner, then I am here to
discuss it.


SN> >...but how would *you* feel if
SN> >someone deliberately kept something from *you* for such a long time?

SN> I'd feel it was time to leave, if the secret she kept made me doubt her
SN> committment to me.

What if it was something that was *very* important to you?  What if it was
the most important thing in your entire life?  Could you so confidently make
such a statement?


SH> Violence would never enter into it.  I don't
SN> consider the women in my life to be my property.  People like you and
SN> John Stevens apparently feel differently.

Wait a second, Steve.  While I feel great sorrow for John, I do not claim to
speak for him.  Also, he does not speak for me.  The same goes for Steve
Chaney, and Char Aznabul, and everyone else whom you think is "sucking up"
to me.  We are *all* individuals with some opinions that concur, and some
that do not.

I do not attempt to say that the people who agree with you, are "sucking up"
to you, so why do you insist on lumping me in with others with whom you
disagree?  We all have different opinions because we are individuals, not
clones whom you can attack as some sort of coherent unit.  It might make it
*look* easier to try to mudsling, but *I* have never done this to you,
(although some people *have* done this to you, and I think that it's wrong),
so I would prefer to be treated with the same respect that I have accorded to
you, in spite of our disagreements in opinion.


---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Never eat anything larger than your head.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion