NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48057

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 5.2 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48057 soc.men:19356 alt.dads-rights:2608
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 02:41:32 GMT
Lines: 96

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>
>>>> [deadbeat dad sob story]
>>>>
>>>
>>>But the issue under discussion is whether a father has to support his
>>>children.  It seems to me that the father I describe is not.
>>
>> Sheesh. Can't you see the difference between voluntary acceptance of
>> responsibility, and imposed obligations not grounded in any fair accounting
>> of liability? Prior consent of the one liable makes all the difference.
>
>So, there was no prior consent to sex?  The man was raped?  The law looks
>upon consenual sex as being the consent to being a parent.

The abortion laws do NOT look upon things this way. Why should the paternity
child support laws differ?

>Sigh, we've talked about this before in this group.

In talk.abortion?

>I'm the mother (and foster mother)
>of a housefull of boys.  I tell my boys that if they get a girl pregnant
>then they are responsible for the child that ensues.  They are told that the
>only safe sex is no sex.  There's always a chance of error in the contrecetives
>and they must take this risk into consideration.  If they don't realize that
>pregnancy happens then they are being stupid.

Have you also told them that if they are lied to or misled or defrauded about
birth control and/or fertility, that they are STILL "on the hook" legally
speaking? Have you told them that, in theory at least, they're still on the
hook, even -if- they are raped? Have you told them about the "free ride" effect
aka the illegitimate child incentive for women?

>>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jerry Roe) writes:
>>>> Stephen's point is correct, as far as I'm concerned, in that women have
>>>> total control over birth/abortion decisions, and men have virtually none.
>>>> Therefore it is inconsistent and inequitable to force a man to pay
>>>> support to a woman who, for example, decides to have a child after she
>>>> told him she would have an abortion if she got pregnant,
>>>>
>>>> It's the old saw:  "I'm a woman and I want equal treatment, but I'm a
>>>> woman so I want special treatment."  I would think feminists would be
>>>> embarrassed out of this kind of thinking, but I guess the draw of the
>>>> almighty dollar proves too strong.  The whole point of the feminist
>>>> movement was originally that treatment under the law should be blind
>>>> as to one's gender, that men should not be favored in business or else-
>>>> where just because of their gender.  I don't see feminists screaming
>>>> for equal treatment for men in family court now that they've largely
>>>> gotten what they want, which leads me to the conclusion that the feminist
>>>> movement was never about equality, it was about the acquisition and
>>>> imposition of power.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, as a woman and a feminist and a wife who has been happily married
>>>to one man for over twenty years now, I consider this remark very insulting.
>>
>> I don't see why. The point is mainly about _paternity_, i.e. unmarried parent,
>> child support. Post-separation or post-divorce child support is a whole
>> different ball game.
>>
>
>That was NOT what you said.  You said that' the feminist movement was never
>about equality'.  If that wasn't what you meant then you shouldn't have said
>it!

*I* most certainly did *NOT* say anything of the sort, Sue. Watch your
attributions.

>>>I've worked jobs for many years where I was not paid as much as the man
>>>who had the job before me, even though I had more experience and more
>>>education.  I never considered my fight for equality to have anything
>>>to do with 'stiffing some man for money', but rather a fight for the
>>>recognition that I was equally intitled to equal pay.
>>
>> What does this have to do with paternity child support?
>>
>>>BUT, I also see too many of the men in this group talking about going
>>>in to court and it's evident they are going in with an 'attitude'.  As
>>>a veteran mother of teens, (with the grey hairs to prove it), and as
>>>a volunteer advocate for troubled teens, it is obvious that some men
>>>haven't gotten it through their heads that displaying an attitude to
>>>a person in authority just compounds your problems.
>>
>> So you recommend that men should quietly go like sheep to the slaughter,
>> instead of trying to assert their rights as equal?
>>
>> This is not an "attitude" problem -- this is a systemic injustice/inequity
>> problem. Fix the system, and the attitudes will follow, magically.

No response?

                                - Kevin