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.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/27/05 5:34:02 PM ---