In article ,
 "bluesmama"  wrote:

> rdubose{at}pdq.net wrote:
> > bluesmama wrote:
> > > mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > bluesmama wrote:
> > >
> > > > > A man who does not take responsibility for his own seed, and
> > leaves
> > > > > that responsibility to someone else, when he does
not want to
> > > father
> > > > a
> > > > > child, is stupid. Trust, or lack of trust, has nothing to do
> with
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > But that's what trust _IS_.  It's about believing someone's elses
> > > > word that they won't betray you.  It's about believing in their
> > > > morality and their abilities.
> > >
> > > What I'm saying is that responsibility is one thing, and
"trusting"
> > > someone else to take over your own responsibility and make it
> theirs,
> > > is something else entirely.
> >
> >    Let me put it this way. If a person tells another person that they
> > can be trusted in a matter ie, "I cannot get pregnant, fire
away" she
> > certainly has taken on a responsibility for the truth of it. She
> could
> > always say "maybe" or "I am not sure," etc.
if that is truer. She
> > chooses in this case to say certain misleading things to get what she
> > wants. She is not forced to give false reassurances to the guy.
> >    The guy here would not have skirked a responsibility. He merely
> > would have believed what his "lover" told him.
> >    All criminal fraud has these elements. One could, I suppose toss
> all
> > of these laws out because "people should know better than to trust
> > anybody with anything".     A feminist paradise.
> >     Of course, without a good quality video tape it will always be
> > possible to deny such conversations. But that is a dfferent question.
>
>
> Put it whatever way you want. Unless the guy knows for sure that HE is
> shooting blanks, he is responsible for his semen and its possible
> impregnating effects. The guy here "would not have shirked his
> responsibility"? Bullshit. It's his seminal fluid, not hers.
>
> Should he be able to trust the woman he's sleeping with? Well, that all
> depends on the situation. If she's a one night stand he picks up at the
> bar, he can probably trust her as much as she trusts him - so when he
> says "Hey, I'll call you" as he wipes himself off and saunters out her
> front door, his claim to call is probably just as trustworthy as her
> claims that "It's okay, I can't get pregnant, don't worry."
>
> If he does know her and they're in a romantic partnership of some kind,
> legally recognized or not, then you would hope he could trust her. But,
> sadly, people fall in love and sleep with untrustworthy people every
> day, and most of them don't know it until it's too late.
>
> You trust someone, you take a risk on your reading of their
> trustworthiness. Some people have bad built-in bullshit detectors.
> They're the ones sending their bank information off in e-mails. I take
> a risk trusting my husband because I believe in him, and I believe in
> him because he's proven his trustworthiness to me. I believe that he's
> worthy of my trust, but then again, I think he's worth more than all
> the men I've met in my life, except for my father, of course.
>
> I'm not saying that anyone who trusts is stupid.

But that's precisely what you're saying.  Now it's time for
you to back out of it:

> I AM saying that
> Person A who trusts Person B to take care of something that is Person
> A's responsibility is taking a risk, and has to be responsible for the
> choice he or she has made.

Unless she dumps off the child legally or uses her to collect
welfare.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/28/05 9:34:29 PM ---