Andre Lieven wrote:
> "bluesmama" (onebluesmama{at}gmail.com) writes:
> > Andre Lieven wrote:
> >> "bluesmama" (onebluesmama{at}gmail.com) writes:
> >
> >> > They can quibble away. My viewpoint is that whether it's planned
or
> >> > unplanned, once a woman is pregnant, it should remain her
decision
> >> > whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term, considering that
> > it's
> >> > her body that will be carrying the extra passenger for nine
months.
> >>
> >> And, no one here is argueing with that. The point is that HER
choices
> >> should NOT obligate anyone who had NO such say, one way or the
other.
> >
> > No one here is arguing with the fact that it is a woman's right to
> > choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term? I think some
people
> > might take exception to that.
>
> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
>
> > But won't her choices depend somewhat on the choices her partner is
> > making? If he does not take responsibility for his own sperm, but
> > chooses to leave it up to her, and she gets pregnant by accident or
> > design, hasn't he - by his irresponsibility - "made" his choice?
>
> You do realise that that is the EXACT argument *against any and all
> women post-coital choice* ?

Not remotely close. Sperm is sperm. A fetus is a bit more than that,
and if a woman chooses to get pregnant, she can choose to get
unpregnant, without so much as a phone call to the sperm donor. Just as
conception doesn't make someone a mother, it doesn't make someone a
father either. It just provides the possibility.

> No sauce for the gander ? Very well then, none for the goose, either.
>
> That is, after all... equality. 

No, that's a silly argument masquerading as equality. But if making it
amused you, then it's worthwhile, I suppose.

> >> > I'd hope that any woman who was in a committed relationship and
> >> > considering abortion would take her partner's concerns and
rights
> >> > to heart whe making her decision.
> >>
> >> But, theres NO legal mechanism to enforce this. There IS one, to
> >> *enforce her sole choice's consequence* upon someone... else.
> >
> > There's no legal mechanism to enforce many things people should do.
But
> > I can see where it appears unfair. But again, I'd argue that he
made
> > his choice when he _didn't_ take responsibility for contraception.
>
> Then, so did she: No abortions, no other post coital choices for her,
> either.

Post-coital choices must differ for men and women. Surely you can see
the difference between the two situations.

> >> > If she's not in a committed relationship, I don't
> >> > think the partner has rights in that situation anyway. And I'm
sure
> >> > neither of those opinions will be popular here, but that's where
> >> > some of us will just have to disagree.
> >>
> >> Sure: Your view is more rights for women, more responsibilities
for
> >> men.
> >>
> >> That, of course, is... sexism.
> >
> > That's certainly your view of my view. I think the man is claiming
a
> > right where he has abrogated a responsibility and I don't believe
it's
> > fair that you should be able to do both.
>
> ... Unless you're a woman... Got it.
>
> >> >> That said, what do you think, as a self-proclaimed feminist,
> >> >> about the possibility of many women who had previously
> >> >> only had access to motherhood through
"oopsing" remaining
> >> >> childless?  In a very short time, sperm banks will be hit
> >> >> by women who intend to go on state welfare support.
> >> >> What do you think the state will do then?
> >> >
> >> > Deception is deception. Wrong if a woman does it, wrong if a man
> >> > does it.
> >>
> >> No man's deception can *obligate* a woman to 18 years of legally
> >> enforced payments...
> >
> > Then again, men should be careful where they're depositing their
DNA.
>
> Why ? Is there a problem with *irresponsible egg holders* ?
>
> According to you, there is. Thanks for showing that YOU view women as
> being fundamentally *irresponsible*... 

Sure there are some irresponsible women. Just like there are
irresponsible men. Unlike you, though, I don't make the mistake of
thinking that "some" and "all" are synonyms.

> > The climax is the choice. If a condom is a barrier to pleasure, go
find
> > that male contraceptive. If you don't like the laws, fight the
> > lawmakers, not the women or the single mothers or the feminists. It
> > seems like the effort's wasted. If the laws change, behavior will
> > change.
>
> And, we're doing that: C4M. Deal with it.

I have no problem with it. I welcome men taking responsibility for
contraception. It's about damn time.

> >> > So any woman who intentionally "suprises" a
man with paternity
is
> >> > being deceitful, and wrong. Even a self-proclaimed feminist can
see
> >> > that.
> >>
> >> Then, lets see you lobby your legislators to give men equal rights
> >> to not be responsible for choices they had NO part in making...
> >>
> >> Uh huh.
> >
> > If it's an important fight to me, I'll fight it.
>
> Thanks for proving that empathy for others, ISN'T a trait you
possess.

I can be empathetic and not involved, the two words are not synonymous.
Thanks for proving that a grasp of vocabulary isn't a trait you
possess.

> > This isn't an
> > important fight to me, so waiting for me to lobby on men's behalf
will
> > mean a very long wait. Men are taking responsibility for their own
> > contraceptive options. That's admirable.
>
> Nice of men to have been more empathic to women, than women like you
> are, eh ? After all, MEN gave you all your post coital choices.

When will you realize that no one can force a person to act against his
will? Choice, free will, have you heard of those? Men more empathetic
to women? Again, it turns into a pissing contest with you.

> >> > Still, if there is no sperm, there is no oops.
> >>
> >> Still, if there are no eggs, there is no oops.
> >
> > Now you're being silly.
>
> 
>
> > An egg alone is no problem.
>
> A sperm alone is no problem.
>
> > Keep your sperm
> > where they belong and you make the choice and the responsibility is
> > yours.
>
> Keep your eggs safe, and alone, and you make the choice and the
> responsibility is yours.

I'm not the one arguing about contraceptive responsibilities. I take
responsibility for my own sexuality and procreative ability. So your
argument is silly. It's the unprotected sperm we're talking about.

> > Spread it here and there and hey - you play, you just might pay.
>
> And, there we have the Feminist view of women: WHORES.

No, there we have the anti-feminist's view of the feminist's view of
women, which probably - remarkably - resembles his own.

> > Can't have unbridled, unlatexed pleasure AND irresponsibility both.
>
> ... Unless you're a... woman. Got it.

Oh you haven't even come remotely close to getting it. But you do snipe
well, though. Always good to do in case of a lack of something useful
to say.

> >> Thanks for showing that *you* view women as totally
> >> non-responsible...
>
> Indeed.
>
> >> > Some men don't take responsibility for their own deception.
> >
> > I view some women as responsible, and some men as responsible. It's
a
> > character trait, not a gender trait.
>
> You demand responsibility for ALL men, that you do NOT require, from
> ALL women...

No, that's what you think I demand. Your confusion isn't my problem,
it's yours. And that's not ducking blame (another claim you love to
throw out), it's properly assigning responsibility. A word you're quite
fond of, though apparently unsure of its meaning.

> >> Lets try out that concept:
> >>
> >> " Ms. Smith, why were you wearing a short skirt in Central Park ?
> >> Why didn't you take responsibility for your own victimisation ? "
> >
> > The two situations aren't remotely similar.
>
> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
>
> > Try again.
>
> 

Ooh. That's an original.

> >> > I'm not sure why - heat of the moment?
> >>
> >> Too much trust in women...
> >
> > Too little self-control and responsibility, and maybe too much
trust in
> > an untrustworthy woman.
>
> Please provide a legally recognised method to distinguish such
women...
>
> None: got it.

Same as the legally recognized method to distinguish such men. None:
got that?

> > But, contrary to popular soc.men belief, all
> > women (and all feminists) don't meet that criteria.
>
> Irrelevent: It just takes one.

You have no idea how you contradict yourself. Or you do, and you don't
care. Which is it, just out of curiosity?

> > It just makes for a better rant.
>
> 
>
> >> > Seems a silly choice weighed against fatherhood.
> >>
> >> Indeed: men's marriage strike and refusal to work with a biased
> >> sperm bank system, which changes the rules, is working well.
> >
> > Glad it's working for you. With a happy marriage and no need for a
> > sperm bank, I didn't even realize the strike was on.
>
> Indeed: We are aware that you don't realise many things.

Weak.

> Like equal rights *and* responsibilities.

Weak. And unoriginal. So very you.

> >> > As far as the sperm bank/welfare question, I'm not sure if it's
> >> > rhetorical or not. I'm thinking it is, so I'll leave it for the
> >> > time being.
> >>
> >> Of course, you are: Thats another way to avoid viewing misandry...
> >
> > It seemed a facetious question, and so not worth a response.
>
> Flounce noted.

Who flounced? You? Must have been during one of those giggling fits
you're so prone to.

> > But feel free to give an answer of your own, if you're concerned.
>
> Why ? I didn't deny the present state of misandry wrt to rights.
>
> > Thanks for an interesting discussion. And you didn't even call me
bimbo
> > or tartlette once. It's appreciated.
>
> OK, I'll rightly call you a misandrist sexist. Due to your demand
that
> *men be more responsible than women*. As that demand IS misandrous
> sexism. QED.

Ah. An epithet in place of common courtesy. You must be Andre.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/15/05 9:23:56 PM ---