From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
X-To: ADRIENNE REGARD
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:42:00 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
AR> In article <1992Dec1.214154.20894@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.
AR> d.org> writes:
AR> >regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
AR> >AR> What *are* they intended to do, Karl?  The current series of rules in p
AR> >AR> are intended to serve the best interests of the *children*, not the par
AR> .
AR> >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AR> >Ahem...and *women* too, I recall.

AR> Scuse, please, but where does the current family services act show a motive
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AR> to serve the best interests of women?  I haven't read the whole thing, so yo
AR> again have the opportunity to educate us, Will.

I didn't just mean "the rules in place" as referring to family law.  I also
meant the fact that if a pregnant woman doesn't want a child, the system is
pretty much there to support her wishes, but if a man makes this sort of a
choice, by golly, shoot the deadbeat bastard, sheesh!


AR> >It seems to be okay to put the interests of the woman over the child during
AR> >pregnancy, but not afterwards...

AR> Damn straight.  AFTERWARDS, there is a person born, under the law.  AFTER-
AR> WARDS, the care and feeding of this person *is* transferable.  That kinda
AR> makes a BIG difference to people who recognise such is not the case BEFORE.

Yes, but this should not give any inherent right to *force* the transferral
of responsibility to someone who is unwilling to do so.


AR> The rest of Will's strawmen, deleted.
                       ^^^^^^^^

If *I* use strawmen, what exactly should I call the fact that you are attempting
to slander Don's arguments by attacking him *personally* through declaring,
*without providing proof* that he wishes to force women to stay pregnant?  You
should know pretty damn well by now, that while he is defending himself from
*that* charge, he will have a lot less time and energy to devote himself to the
issues which he *does* care about.

It's rather an effective way of keeping someone off balance, I'd say, and I'd
wager that you already know that...


AR> I'm beginning to wonder if *Will* is
AR> sincere in his attempt to improve the current standards of our country, sinc
AR> he isn't actually discussing the standards so much as railing against 'those
AR> feminists', 'most pro-choicers', etc.

Oh please...you certainly seem to spend enough time railing against the motives
of *our* side as well, what with you declaring Karl and Don to be "pro-force"
without a slice of proof, (although I admit that in Karl's case, it is easier
to use a Devil's Advocate argument against someone - I should know ; I learned
*that* lesson the hard way...  Even so, I still believe that you have grossly
misinterpreted Karl's Devil's Advocate into a "pro-force" position, especially
considering his recent exchange with James Keegan, where he suggested actually
codifying abortion rights into written law!), not to mention that you're now
calling even *my* motives into doubt, which you *must* consider daring,
considering that you seem to have appointed me as the leader of the Freedom
of Choice For Men movement on Usenet (but I never *applied* for the job...?!?).

To this I say again - If you *have* appointed me as "leader" - FIRE ME, DAMMIT!

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Toto, I don't think this is Kansas anymore!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52463 alt.flame:17135