From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 16:47:37 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Dec16.155723.17181@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...

>AR> If neither took precautions, Will, and neither wanted kids, I'd call 'em
>AR> BOTH pretty goddamn stupid, you bet.  Do I 'blame' them?  I dunno, depens
>AR> on the circumstances.  Do I "force" them to be responsible?  Better them tha
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>AR> me.  Yes.  I do.  Both.  Hopefully, these incredibly stupid people will figu
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>AR> out that an abortion is in their own best interest, but since they've been
>AR> so stupid, I'm not sure I have a whole lot of hope for 'em.
>
>Given the current controversy regarding what I now consider to be perhaps more
>than just an accidental misinterpretation of some of Don Beaver's remarks, I
>*could* just *choose to interpret* what you just said, as implying that you
>would also force the woman to stay pregnant, as part of the "responsibilities"
>which you *would* force on her.

Well, Will, you could, I suppose.

But it would be an awfully damned stupid statement to make, since the very 
next sentence contradicts it.

But, hey, if you asked me for clarification, I'd give it to you.


>It's no fantasy, Adrienne.  You admit to be willing to force "both", "to be
>responsible," but you give no clear idea of how you apply such a forced
>responsibility to women, though it would not include forced pregnancy, but in
>the case of men, you seem to have *no problem* with forcing him to be a father
>whether he would have chosen to, or not.

That's horseshit, Will.  Because, you see, I don't ignore women, like some
of the people who engage in this topic.  Whereas men have responsibility
for children (i.e., feeding, clothing, and educating, either in person or
by paying a proxy) so do women, likewise, bear the responsibility to feed
clothe and educate their children, up to the point where they relinquish
their children to the social services set up explicitly for the purpose
of continuing the feeding, clothing, and educating of children whose parents
cannot or willnot continue to do.

But that's ALSO kinda sorta because I recognise a child to be a child 
AFTER it has been born, ya know.

>Ahem, but weren't the problems of sexual harassment and certain other problems
>experienced by women, first discovered by *anecdotal* evidence.  The evidence
>was then researched, and in many cases was found to be true. 

I'll be quite happy to review the further data when it arrives.
Please feel free to post it.

Until that point, I think the proposals made to this net do more harm
than good, and cost society more overall than the status quo.


As for "why not do some more...", you can choose how to spend your time
for yourself, and I'll choose how to spend my time for myself.  Thanks.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion