NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53994

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 5.4 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53994 soc.men:22072 alt.dads-rights:3133
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!geac!zooid!goid
From: Will Steeves <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
X-To: ADRIENNE REGARD
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 21:43:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: Will Steeves <[e-mail]>
Lines: 110

[e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jerry Roe):
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]:
>>>After all, it couldn't be true, could it, that keeping abortion legal
>>>means FEWER men are 'stuck' with the bills, could it?
>>Pretty cynical, Adrienne.  I don't recall reading anybody on this group
>>who made the point that they'd like someone to abort just so they then
>>wouldn't have to pay any bills.
>You're kidding!  Then you haven't been reading much, have you?

>Or is it rather the case that the man who doesn't want to get 'stuck' with
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the bill (that was not my choice of terms -- I borrowed it from the male-
>choicers, bub) STILL wants the woman to bear a child so it can grow up in
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>poverty, since he has his "choice" not to support it?

NO!  This is a strawperson, and you know it!  You are saying that supporters
of Choice For Men are also secretly in favour of forcing women to remain
pregnant, which is NOT the case.  Indeed, most Pro-Male Choice supporters
are also Pro-Women's Choice supporters as well.

>(2.) when you find your partner is pregnant, beg, plead, and hope
>she will get an abortion.  Offer to pay for it.  This is the option the
>goons of male-choice seem to think is a logical point of blackmail.

I don't consider this as "blackmail".  And I resent being called a "goon".
Do I call *you* a "goon"?


>(3.)Get out of paying for the existing child.  This is the legal change male-
>choicers would like to see happen.  With the resulting fall out:  (a) either
>a child is born and it doesn't receive financial support from him or (b)
>a child is not born.  You contend that people haven't supported position 3b.

Your contention that this is *his* contention, is incorrect.  I recall him
also saying that a child should only be brought into the world if there are
parents who are WILLING to have the child.


>you are then contending that people support 3a, which in all practicality,
>and observing the situation in the United States, seems to me to be almost
>worse than 3b.

Well, as I just said, most Pro-Male Choice supporters do NOT support 3a,
and frankly, we do NOT want to see children go hungry.  If their parents
cannot support their children, there is either the choice of adoption or
not having the child in the first place.


>> The argument always has been, and
>>always will be, that if women insist on controlling the strings when
>>it comes to the decision of whether to bear or abort the child, that
>>men also should have some decision-making power.

>Hmmm.  It's a power game, huh?

Yes, actually.  Feminists *have* complained about men having too much
power in some areas of society, and now when we complain about women
having too much power in the area of the family, you slam us for calling
it a "power game"?  Really now...


>Some of us (meaning women in general) are also quite puzzled that you can't
>seem to understand that the responsibility is conferred upon the parentS
>by social expecations once a child EXISTS.  And that the responsibility is
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, but no woman is under ANY obligation to make sure that a child
"exists," nor do I recognise anyone's right to force responsibilities
upon me which I do not consent to.


>due to the CHILD, not to the mother.  But, I suppose the myth of the nasty
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a clever diversion, but unless there is some mechanism in place to
ensure that EVERY DOLLAR is accounted for, and is legitimately spent on
a child's NECESSITIES (and I don't count ponies as "necessities," either),
then the transfer IS essentially to the *mother*.


>I even know some MEN who are puzzled by your lack of understanding that
>this kind of legal change would be a step AWAY from them gaining full
>father's rights.

Oh, please, it is NOT!  This is like saying that abortion rights are
an intrusion upon a mother's rights.  Besides which, since you don't
consider "foetuses" to be children, then during pregnancy, a man isn't
a father, so indeed, we aren't even TALKING about "father's rights,"
now are we?  (Or are you going to admit that you believe that a foetus is
a child only once the mother declares that she wants "it"?)


>There are plenty of men on this planet who would prefer
>to strengthen their bonds to their children, not weaken them.

I don't consider weakening bonds with UNWANTED children, to have ANYTHING
to do with *wanted* children.  You have yet to show why you are not just
comparing apples and oranges, Adrienne.

---
Will Steeves, [e-mail]                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
[phone]

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

 * SLMR 2.1a * (((((((((((((((SURROUND SOUND TAGLINE))))))))))))))))