NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53783

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-01 | 5.3 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53783 soc.men:21978 alt.dads-rights:3128
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!ddsw1!karl
From: [e-mail] (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:49:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL
Lines: 101

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>
>>[e-mail] writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]>
>>>[e-mail] (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>>>If you are currently the underdog you can achieve equality two ways:
>
>>>>1)    Gain rights for yourself.
>>>>2)    Take them from the advantaged group until you are equal.
>
>>>Congratulations on convincing this member of talk.abortion that you
>>>would *prefer* the latter, but would reluctantly take the former
>>>instead if you can get more help that way and so get it easier.
>
>>Wrong Elizabeth.  I would prefer the former.  I begrudgingly accept that the
>>former >explicitly< and >implicitly< includes the latter (specifically: the
>>right of women today to attach a man's earnings for 18 years) and therefore
>>the realities of the situation are that women, particularly feminists, will
>>not support the granting of equal rights in this area to men.
>
>If you don't want to make people think you'd prefer to take away
>women's rights instead of give rights to men, maybe you shouldn't
>issue so many threats.  I *know* you've done nothing to me but make me
>emotionally more hostile to father's rights.  (I still support the
>same things, but now I do it grudgingly.)

The fact is that when men gain these rights women will lose "rights" that
they have today.  Women will lose:

1)    The "right" to determine a man's financial fate for 18 years on
    their whim.
        and
2)    The "right" to be the "overpowering" force in family affairs.

Don't play the "keep it in your pants" game.  That applies equally to both
genders.  Women are just as culpable here as men; that is a straw man that
feminists like to use in order to "prove" that they are reproductively
superior (and therefore deserve the right to financially ruin men).

These are facts.  Therefore, in the fight to gain rights for men (the right
to choose equally, along with that which women enjoy, as to whether or not
to be a parent) women will, indeed, lose "rights" they have today.

These are "rights" that women use insufferably on a daily basis.  They
obviously enjoy their exercise.  I doubt very much that these rights will
be given up willingly.

Call my a cynic if you will, but I just don't believe that women are willing
to work towards equality.  The NOW, which has the quiet if not active support
of many women, has demonstrated time and again that they have no interest in
equal rights at all; their interest is in gaining the upper hand.

The bringing of equality to places where it is currently not present >always<
involves someone losing "rights".

My view is that we ought not to focus so much on "gender differences".  We
ought to instead treat all humans as a single race, and make public policy
based on equality of >all< people without regard to sex.  This means that,
in the reproductive arena at least, that law reads something like this:

1)    Persons biologically involved in the creation of a zygote must
    affirm their intent to support the final product of that zygote by
    the (28th week?) of pregnancy for financial liability to attach.
    (The default shall be "I do not intend to procreate"; this is logical,
    as the default condition of a woman's cycle is "not fertile" the
    majority of the time during a year).  Persons not declaring an
    intent to support by the 28th week lose all parental rights and
    responsibilities.  Persons not wishing to abort a fetus, but
    unwilling to accept parental rights and responsibilities, shall turn
    over the born child at birth for adoption.

2)    A born child which is wanted by one but not the other parent will,
    in preference to adoption, be immediately recognized as the
    offspring of the parent which has declared intent to support.

3)    Persons may choose to biologically end their physical connection to
    potential offspring up to the point of fetal viability.

4)    A statement of intent to support a zygote or fetus shall be legally
    binding should that fetus or zygote be brought to term.  No action
    to terminate the life of a fetus or zygote may be taken by a person
    who has made an affirmative statement of intent to support.

In the custody and support areas for >existing children<, I cede that the
law is supposed to be "gender blind".  But its not.  Therefore, we should
institute affirmative action until such time as the balance is returned to
this arena.

>BTW -- where's your support of a woman's right with the help of a
>willing SO to have a child without going through pregnancy?

If you can figure out how, go for it.

--
Karl Denninger ([e-mail], <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [[phone]] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions