mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> > > In article
,
> > >  "Hyerdahl"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > ,
> > > > >  "Hyerdahl"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > mark_sobolew...{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
>(edit)

> > > This is a good example of the "men stopping women
> > > from running around with scissors" mentality.
> >
> > Not really, Mark.  The laws are there to prevent harm to neonates
as
> > well as a newly delivered mother who may have few options.
>
> "May have few options".
>
> Why does a child run around with scissors?  Why, because he
> has nothing else better to do! :-)

Not having options is a tad different than having a short attention
span, Mark.  But, again, you can see this as you will.  I'm suggesting
that society is doing the right thing by saving newborns, no matter how
you want to characterized it.
>
> Gee, the mother could maybe go to a church, social worker,
> or even policeman and ask him for help to protect her
> child.  Naaaah.

Mark can't seem to comprehend (let alone understand) the different
kinds of harm that exist for newly delivered mommies.  He is not
empathetic, nor can he put himself in her predicament.  That's ok tho,
because other in society, can , and do.  That is why we have safety
nets.
>
> > And women> > are indeed part of society; in fact, they are just
over 51% of> society  But neonates and their newly delivered mothers
are a very small > subsection of those needing help.
>
> Indeed.  You get around to the non-women and children in a moment
> when you:
>

> > And let's not forget, that for
> > every neonate in need of help there is also a father...out
> > there...somewhere.....
>
> need a scapegoat!  Indeed!  Maybe if men threatened to kill
> neonates, or infants more often, they might be able to
> get cut a break.

Men aren't newly delivered parents, Mark.  Men abandon children and the
women who bear them, all the time.  The law is designed to protect
human beings at a particular, narrowly tailored, period of time.  AND,
it's a very small number of women in crisis who end up taking advantage
of these safe havens.
>

> > So, you're still not just protecting women.
> > Que sera...sera...
>
> If mommy dearest primary-caregiver is caught trying to
> killer her 'neonate', she goes to jail alone.  The law can't
> hold the man co-responsible for merely helping to conceive
> the child.

The law doesn't punish a father in the capacity of being 'newly
delivered', nor does the law help such a person.  It works both ways.
A man should not be punished for the ACTIONS of another, and yet, the
law considers the actions of abandoning fathers when taking a legal
subjective look at the actions of a mother who has killed her own
child.
>
(edit)
> >   I don't "pick" and choose to abandon babies in dumpsters
resulting
> > > in their death, that's the "primary parent"'s choice.
> >
> > Again, a newly delivered mother not having options has just as much
> to> do with a new father...out there...somewhere. :-)
>
> The new father... out there... somewhere... isn't the one
> killing neonates.   Neither am I.

Society has determined that mothers placed in untenable situations are
partly placed there by the action or inaction of abandoning fathers,
which is partly why society has decided to pay for safe harbours for
the newly delivered neonate.

>
> If you're implying that mother wouldn't be so likely
> to kill her own infant if the father was there with
> his wallet open with no questions asked, then I can
> point out that the "ability" to gestate children
> into poverty isn't much of an ability.

You can point out whatever you please, but that still won't determine
the value of what women do for society when they are the only sex that
has those skills.   And you're also inferring that all single women
fail to support their kids, which is blatantly untrue.

 This may explain> why Patriarchy's tend to exist: people with
abilities
> tend to be in charge.

Patriarchy is dying, Mark.  Here in the west, it is almost gone
compeletly.  We can now look at examples of rampant patriarchy in other
civilizations, like Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan to see how far we,
ourselves, have come.   And, today, women are doing everything men are
doing PLUS gestating.

> Irregardless, is there a good reason to kill an infant because
> a person is in a difficult situation?  Hmmm, if you
> had financial problems, would you have killed your babies?

I'm educated, Mark.  So are you.  Neither of us would likely have to
resort to some desperate action.  Did you see the film, 'Beloved' with
Oprah Winfrey?  The film portrays a newly freed slave, just after the
Civil War.  She is working in a field when she sees the old slaver who
is coming onto the property.  She loses her mind for just a few
minutes, freaks out, runs to a shed, and (in her mind) rather than have
the slaver take her child, she ends up killing her own beloved child.
What makes desperate people do that?  I don't know.  I don't
....want...to know.
All I do know is that a law to help such people can't be a bad thing.

> > So that you want to
> > blame all womenkind is really your problem.
>
> Er, pot meet kettle: You seek to spread around blame for
> individual women's murderous deeds to fathers "...somewhere..."
> and to society for somehow not making life cozy for
> such women.

It's not about being "cosy", Mark;  it's about making sure neonates are
protected, and if that also results in young teens not being charged
with murder, is that such a terrible thing?  You are making it sound as
if this is a big coup for women everywhere.

(edit)

> In older, more Patriarchal times, kids were better behaved.
>
> But I have to be honest here, the kids who are the> rudest are
actually the kids from LARGE two parent homes.  Those fundy
> > parents don't have enough parent per kid.  And they are brats.
>
> HAHAHAHA! I doubt you see too many of these people in your
> neck of the woods. :-)

Well, I used to live in Sandy, Utah, with more kids per square inch
than any other American city.  :-)  One day, I was in the park with my
children, and I saw five kids pulling a wagon as fast as they could.
Inside the wagon was a newborn baby.  I asked the oldest kid, how old
the baby was and what they were doing with the baby.  They said that
their mom had the baby the week before and that she was taking a nap.
:-)  That's what I call child abuse, racing a baby around like that
before his neck was ready for such.

 (edit)
>
> FYI: I have a general gripe about parents who indulge their kids
> and allow them to run rampant and cannot seem to find a way
> to discipline them.  I suspect bluesmama and I are going to
> have a discussion soon (friendly, I want her input on this.)

Well, I don't like kids like that either, but you can't blame single
moms for all the world's woes.
>
More later if time allows.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/4/05 9:01:15 PM ---