bluesmama wrote:
> Casey wrote:

> > > The guy who is "tricked" into paternity is one thing and one
thing
> > > only. Stupid. Unless you want to tack on
"irresponsible" as well.
> >
> >     Stupid for believing and trusting his girlfriend ? At what
point
> does
> > trust become not a stupid thing for you ?
>
> 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.

You've now shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest because
now you're even trying to deny the meaning of the word "trust".
It's like Bill Clinton's "defends upon how you define 'is'"

> Your seed, your responsibility. My egg, my responsibility.

This argument could very easily be used to argue that
he's not responsible _at all_ for what she chooses to
do with her fertilized egg.  You're arguing that women
should do as they please but heaven forbid men walk away.

But that's what men heard 30 years ago: "We don't
want men to tell us what to do with our bodies!!!
We're independant!!!  We don't need sexist men!!!"
It's no surprise that "stupid" men took women's
equality seriously.  At least at first.

Then, when women discovered what working for a living
meant, they suddenly discovered chivalry was a good idea
after all.  Good going for proving all the sexists of
the 19th century correct that you ladies couldn't cut
the apron strings to daddy.

> 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?

Your argument seems to be one of moral equivalency often
used by criminals who argue they're a "victim of society".
Why, since EVERYONE has committed a crime, even a minor
one at one time or another, they argue, whose to judge?

> > > Yes, she's wrong for lying. Where in the hell did I say she
wasn't?
> I
> > > hate the wrong, stupid woman as much as I hate the stupid,
> > > irresponsible guy.

#1) You're lying through your teeth.  You are defending her
actions because she's a woman.  You wouldn't be engaging
in these moral equivalence shananigans if it was the
man betryaing the woman.

#2) The guy isn't necessarily irresponsible.  He may be naive
or trusting, but I don't think that equivalent to him
being careless or irresponsible.

#3) Even if he is, that doesn't make his actions equivalent to hers.
He may be irresponsible with his seed, she clearly WAS irresponsible
with her gestation choices.  You're comparing apples and oranges.

> >     If I lie to you about some swamp land and defraud you as a
result,
> the
> > law doesn't consider whether you've been "stupid" for
falling for a
> line
> > by an accomplished liar and con artist...they just pursue and
> prosecute
> > me for fraud...and you are and will be indemnified against any
> > consequences arising from the fraud...for example, an injured third
> > party cannot sue you for damages even if your actions (under the
> > influence of the fraud)caused his/her damage. So why should a woman
> who
> > commits paternity fraud be treated any differently and why should
the
>
> > injured man be held responsible for the consequences of her
> fraudulent
> > actions ?
>
> The woman who commits paternity fraud should not be treated any
> differently. I'm not sure if you're implying I said she was, or just
> pointing out the inequality of the laws. I believe we're in agreement
> on this point.
>
> 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.

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.

#2) Even if she does have the child, she can often
legally abandon him or use him to collect welfare.  Kaching!

> > > No one's getting favored here, except maybe the
> > > smart, honest women and the smart, responsible men - which seems
> like
> > > justice to me.
> >
> >     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 ?
>
> 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:

#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.

#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.)

A better analogy might be for you to not trust your husband
to push you out an open window when you're watering the plants.
I would suggest he invest in some life insurance for you... :-)

> It wasn't intended to be a rant, but now that I re-read it, it
> certainly is, and thank you for pointing it out.
>
> I believe a victim can be complicit in their own victimisation,
because
> they irresponsibly place themselves in a dangerous situation.
>
> A woman who dresses in revealing clothing and walks alone down a dark
> downtown street is not "asking" for trouble, but certainly placing
> herself in a situation where trouble, unfortunately, could easily
> happen. I wish women had the freedom to dress as sexy as they liked
and
> walk wherever they liked whenever they liked, but I'm realistic about
> the state of the world.
>
> I think a man who "trusts" his girlfriend to take care of
contraception
> and ends up being an unwilling and surprised father is another
example
> of a victim who has to take some responsibility for his situation.

Ok then.  So are you saying then that a rapist who attacks such a woman
should have their sentence reduced since the woman was partially
responsible?

This "responsibility" reminds me, once again, of a political
situation where Janet Reno took "responsibility" for
her violent police tactics resulting in death and civil
rights violations.  She got up and "bravely" took responsiblility
for what had happened but when people pointed out they wanted
heads to roll, she argued that it wasn't _her_ fault
(hey, someone else made those choices) and when those
people wanted those people who had made the choices
held responsible she weasled and said that they should
have listened to her taking responsibility and leave
them alone.

So nobody was held responsible.

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?

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/22/05 1:50:13 PM ---