From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:00:25 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1992Nov4.134417.21287@zooid.guild.org>, Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes...
> KSL> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> 
> KSL> >Don and me:
> 
> KSL> >>Well, it may just be my belief, but I don't see this as being
> KSL> >>anywhere near symmetric with respect to the sexes.  Not with
> KSL> >>Tender Years and 90% custody given to mothers.
> 
> KSL> >Absolutely.  I think we'd be much more successful in stemming the tide
> KSL> >of nastiness in this department (AND in supporting children within our
> KSL> >society) by splitting custody right down the middle.  There'd be far
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> KSL> >less abuse of the biological reality if the 'payoff' to women was only
> KSL> >a 50/50 deal, and she faced an equal chance of having to pay her hard
> KSL> >earned dollars out.  And I see this as a much more *likely*, *possible*
> KSL> >change than to attempt to completely rewrite the social history of
> KSL> >our culture.
> 
> KSL> >Adrienne Regard
> 
> KSL> You are a hypocrite.  Women alone decide to produce a child.  If the
> KSL> choice to abort is based on, and can only be based on, her own estimates
> KSL> of her economic and physical future, then the choice to have a child is
> KSL> ALSO based on those same estimates.  The man has no part in the former,
> KSL> and no part in the latter.  He has no responsibility for what a woman
> KSL> decides to do with her own future, and he cannot be held legally
> KSL> accountable if logic had anything to do with law.
> 

Stephen, you are being totally unreasonable.  Exactly how would you explain
the situation that my co-worker, Leona, is in?  She and her ex ADOPTED two
children, then when they were babies, he decided to leave her for another 
woman.  She was granted custody, he didn't want it, but he was granted liberal
visitation, which he has been somewhat spotty at taking.  He makes more
money than she does, and in SEVEN YEARS has not paid child support.  Every
time she gets his wages attached for the support payments, he changes jobs,
then she has to go through the whole thing all over again.  
How can you say that 'she alone decided to produce a child?'  They BOTH
adopted these kids!

Sue

> 
> Steven, before you blindly smack her out as a hypocrite, listen to what she
> really has to say without letting your biases about her, get in the way...
> 
> Yes, I realise that she isn't exactly big on male choice (which is your reason
> for calling her a hypocrite, and indeed, by my own standards, anyone who is
> for male or female choice, but not for the opposite gender, *is* a hypocrite,
> IMHO), but in this paragraph, she *did* in fact argue for fairer custody
> determinations, which proves that even *we* have something that we can agree
> on.
> 
> Granted, you're wondering "Why is this idiot defending someone who has refused
> to even bother hearing his side, and has just kept flaming him anyway?".
> Well...  While I don't think much of her apparent attitude of intolerance
> towards anyone who doesn't agree with her 100%, I *still* make a serious attempt
> to read what she says, without "reading the worst" into it, as I believe that
> you have just done.  And in this case, this issue just happens to be one which
> we agree on...
> 
> ---
> 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 * Picard/Ryker in '92 - Make It So!