In article ,
 "Hyerdahl"  wrote:
> mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> > bluesmama wrote:
> > > Casey wrote:
> > > >
> > >> >
> > If everyone took responsibility for their own reproductive lives,
> there would be> no> surprises of the kind we're discussing.
> >
> > Not running to the state to demand men pay mommy-support because
> > she's in trouble because of her choices with her body
> > would be a good start, don't you think?  Hmmm?
>
> No, because he also made choices with HIS body, Mark.  They both have
> the right to make choices over their own bodies.

So?

He didn't choose to make babies.  Are you saying that
babies are made at conception then? :-)

> If a child exists,
> both must pay;

We discuss the way she doesn't pay below:

> it's just that simple.   But horray for the new BC.

Great.  If it's so simple answer this question:

When is the _baby_ made by the man?

You should be able to answer that simple question, yes? :-)

> (edit)
>
> > > But whether the woman is guilty of paternity fraud or not, the man
> > > still has the ultimate responsibility for his seed, just as the
> woman
> > > has for her egg.
>
> That is true.
> >
> > Once again, I'll have to list the number of ways your statement
> > is false:
> >
> > #1) You're trying to muddle the issue by talking about
> > "eggs" and "sperm" and sweep the gestation issue
> > of the zygote under the rug.  She is not responsible for
> > her "egg" since she can get an abortion.
>
> Her options give her ZERO duty to abort, Mark.  So the causation goes
> to both, equally.

Er. sure it does.

You just said she "pays", remember?  She has a duty to abort
if she doesn't want to pay for a child.  Oh, wait, you
were lying above about this so-called duty because
you know she can abandon the infant anyway.  Nevermind.

> > #2) Even if she does have the child, she can often
> > legally abandon him or use him to collect welfare.  Kaching!
>
> You are confused.  Abandonment is agaisnt the law for both parents;
> protection of newborns is another issue altogether since newborns are
> adoptable under protection programs.

Protection from whom?  I guess I'm confused then.  What
person would have the infant baby in this case?

> And men still can be charged for
> their 100% responsibility over their sperm should a child result.
> Kaching!
> (edit)

Does this include when the baby is "protected" and dumped
on the state?

> Who are those "smart" guys ? Are they the guys who don't
now> and> >
> never> > > will trust a woman because they feel, as you seem to, that
> there> are> > no> > > trustworthy women out there ?
>
> Child support laws are not built upon "trusting women", but
rather upon
> being 100% responsible for your own reproductive choices.

Yeah!  Don't kill that baby!  You must dump it off instead!

Yeah, real high moral standard there.

> If you don't
> want t a child, don't place your sperm in a position of making you a
> father.

"Hey little baby!  You better hope there's a firestation
nearby or you're dead because mommy will kill her neonate..."

Yeah, Parg.  It's a wonder that society gives men credit
for fighting in war but doesn't recognize you cluck-cluck
and squeezing out babies and being so "brave".  I wonder
why...

> > > They are the men who believe in, and practice, contraceptive
> > > responsibility.  I can trust my husband to try and catch me if I'm
> > > falling off a ledge. But if I don't go out on the ledge in the
> first
> > > place, I remove the potential for a big fall, in case he can't or
> > won't
> > > catch me. That seems sensible enough to me.
> >
> > Once again, we'll have to do this by the numbers:
>
> ...and once again you fail to make your point.
> >
> > #1) The women who squeeze out bastard babies are also getting
> > favored since they get the state and men to bankroll
> > their choice.  So your original statement is false.
>
> A child is co-created by two; poor baby can't see that, I guess.

Indeed.  Poor baby winds up with it's life in danger lest
mommy murder her or living in poverty as a power tool.

> > #2) You're engaging in another argument of misdirection by
> > comparing sexual activity to walking on ledges (an activity
> > which is rediculous to imply normal people do for fun.)
>
> Normal people know that childbirth is the biological imperative for
> sex. So, as far as childbirth goes, it's even riskier than walking on
> ledges. :-)

Hmmm, sounds like a pro-life argument there.  You're saying
women choose to have babies when they engage in sex? :-)

> > In this case, the only people being held responsible are men.
> > Oh, ok, and the poor children who are victims of this.
> > But if mommy dearest can't exploit them, what's the world
> > coming to?
>
> Not so, Mark.  Women who have children are 100% responsible for their
> part in the birth,

HAHAHAHA!

"Germany has much better healthcare than the US" --
women's reproductive rights marcher, DC 2004

Indeed! Welcome to equality... ladies!  Tee hee!

> and must support those children just like the
> fathers.

So let men go to the firestation and have their
parenting duties discharged lest something
happen to the infant... :-)

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/26/05 9:33:46 PM ---