bluesmama wrote:
> Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> > In article ,
> >  "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.
> >
> > It appears you're engaging in some linguistic gymnastics here.
> >
> > The responsibility you claim I'm transferring is the responsibility
> > to not trust women.  In other words, you're saying that
> > responsible men don't think of women as trustworthy.
> >
> > Not a very nice thing to say, is it?
> >
> > Feminists wanted women to have "equality" with men and
> > to even trust them as leaders and superiors.  Yet,
> > the moment women get any special choice, such
> > as abortion rights, you don't want them to accept
> > full responsibility for it.
> >
> > It comes across incredibly, well, girlish. :-)
> >
> > But a responsible man shouldn't be surprised by that,
> > should he?
> >
> > regards,
> > Mark Sobolewski
>
> The linguistic gymnastics are contortions entirely of your own
> imagining.
>
> The fact remains

I'm reminded of the scene in "A Few Good Men" where
the prosecutor says a similar thing: "The FACT remains that
Corporal Chavez is dead and these two men killed them.
The FACTS are not in dispute."

But the FACT isn't at issue.  We're not disputing that
he has seed.  The question is whether he should be
responsible for what SHE chooses to do with it.

> that a man is responsible for his seed, and the
> distribution or non-distribution of it. Whether it falls on fertile
or
> barren ground, whether a woman is trustworthy or untrustworthy,
whether
> the relationship is within the boundaries of marriage or with some
> floozy he met in a bar.

Is the seed a child?

If you buy an apple at the grocery store and choose to plant
seeds from it in your garden, does this make the grocery store
responsible to help you trim the tree?

> None of these circumstances change the facts of
> his ultimate ownership of, and responsibility for, his own ejaculate.

So do babies pop out of his penis? :-)

> Continue to try to cloud the facts with talk about trust, if you're
so
> inclined.

I guess sperm is kind of cloudy. :-)

What you've done is reduced ALL women in your eyes
to the level of "some floozy he met in a bar".
I don't have any problems with bastard babies.
None whatsoever.  I can live in the world of my own
creation.  You, however, live in a world where men
should regard you as a potential baby-exploiting whore
or they're "stupid".  Not a very nice place.

I suppose in a way, that does make you "equal" with such men.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/28/05 5:35:03 PM ---