From: goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: The Evil Conspiracy Behind this "Male Choice" thing...
Date: 24 Dec 92 11:47:00 GMT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Organisation: GOiDS "R" We, Inc.
X-To: GORDON STORGA

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes...
GS><1992Dec5.041249.19584@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com said:
GS>>In article <Byr1Ky.J9D@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, hpzg0650@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Hale P
GS>ngingonul) writes:
GS>>#     I agree with Kevin here. Why should anybody pay for a kid he didn't
GS>>#  want? If abortion was available to the mother of course.It is the mother
GS>>#  who wanted to have the child, and she should be the individual who would
GS>># take care of the child alone.
GS>>
GS>>Lemme see if I can 'splain it...

GS>Ok, 'Ricky'. :-)

Ricky???!!???


GS>>Here's what women can do to avoid having children they don't want:
GS>[options deleted]
GS>>Here's what men can do to avoid having children they don't want:
GS>[options deleted]

GS>>This about covers it for each gender.  For both men and women, the
GS>>options are slim for people who fail to avoid having children they
GS>>don't want.
GS>>
GS>>I don't think it should be easy for men or women to abandon their
GS>>children to the hands of the other natural parent just because the
GS>>steps they took to avoid having children they don't want failed.
GS>>
GS>>Do you?

GS>No.  But then that doesn't appear to be exactly what Hale was talking
GS>about.  If a man has made it clear to his 'mate' that he doesn't want
GS>children, and uses appropriate contraception, then why should he be
GS>responsible for any resulting children?  If the woman didn't want children
GS>either then the man should help pay for an abortion.  But, if the woman
GS>decides *she* wants children then why should he be held responsible for
GS>her decision?

Indeed!


GS>Now, "what about the child"?  Well, since the woman in this scenario has
GS>opted to keep the fetus and have children against the man's wishes she
GS>should be completely responble for all financial needs.  If she can't
GS>provide for a child that she wants then she should be having children and
GS>that child should be removed from an incompetent parent.

GS>A poor analogy:  If you drive a woman friend to a mall are you responsible
GS>for half the cost of anything she buys there?  I mean, you *knew* there
GS>was a possibility she might buy something even though you made it clear
GS>that you didn't want to buy anything.  Maybe she told you she just wanted
GS>to look around but changes her mind.  Do you feel that you should be
GS>liable for half her expenses?

GS>Note: I obviously wouldn't code anything as ambiguous as this into law.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why not, Gordon?  I agree with the great majority of what you just said
(amazing that we can agree on something... <-: ), but why wouldn't you
want to code it into law?  How would you provide for a man to divest himself
from forced responsibility, *without* putting it into law?  Indeed, why not
just make paternity suit regulations much stricter, making sure that there
has not been a declaration of intent to divest from parenthood, *before*
beginning the Inquisition?

Surely, *that* sort of solution can't be all that ambiguous, could it?


GS>Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.

I recall asking, but I don't recall that you ever replied...?  I'm curious, if
you're willing to explain it...

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

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * REALITY.SYS not found, now using VIRTUAL REALITY DRIVER.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6087 talk.abortion:52581 soc.men:21592 alt.dads-rights:3056