knoxy wrote:
> mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com says...
[stuff cut for readability]

> And the man is so stupid that he's not aware of the
> risks?

If he reads this newsgroup, it's highly unlikely that he
would be so naive.  The reason why there are so many deadbeats
out there is because only "kooks" obsess over the fact that
society condones women having casual sex and then expecting
the man to welcome unwanted children with open arms.  If most
men thought about this, society would look a LOT different yes?

Indeed, when men stop being "stupid" expect more of them
to agree with us in soc.men!

[clip out more stuff.  If you don't get the point I made,
I won't repeat it.]

> > Somehow, my heart doesn't bleed for these women or
> > their bastard children.
> >
> That you care more about your taxmoney than some
> innocent children says a lot about you.

HAHAHAHAHA!

When it's MY taxmoney I should be generous but when it's
YOUR taxmoney then you want the state to hunt down the
deadbeats. :-)

If you truly cared about the "innocent children", then
you would advocate, as I do, responsible social policies
that discourage such children being created in the first place!

One thing that's clear from this discussion is that women
having sex and gestating children creates expensive liabilities.
Women still need support from men.  Nothing has really
changed in the last 100 years or so from what sexists said all along.

> > > I also think it's a good idea if couples discuss what
> > > they want to do in case of a pregnancy, before engaging
> > > in sex.
> >
> > Back to the date rape scenario: Do you think a responsible
> > woman should discuss her personal safety issues when
> > meeting a man for a date?
> >
> No, rape isn't a natural outcome of a date, while
> pregnancy is the natural outcome of sex.  Sure, we have
> ways to prevent it today, but it's still the way it is.

So now it's no longer "sperm+egg=baby" but "sex=pregnancy".

How about this: If potential single mothers care about their
(violin playing) "innocent children" not having a father whose
a deadbeat, why doesn't SHE tell him before a sexual encounter
that if an accidental pregnancy occurs then she's coming
after him for money.  Will he still be turned on?

> > Actually, it turns out that Robert Blake did have a similar
> > discussion as you proposed with his girlfriend and she
> > said she would get an abortion if something happened.
> > She welshed and stuck it to him for marriage.  I guess
> > she made her "choice".
> >
> He had a choice too. You may feel sorry for him, but I
> don't.

Neither did Bonnie feel sorry for him.  Her choice, eh?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe these women wound
up with so many deadbeats because like attracts like?

> > > I've already said that women should take responsibility
> > > over their wombs and eggs, just as men should take
> > > responsibility over their sperm.
> >
> > That's the key here: It's her womb, not his.  He doesn't
> > spit babies out of his penis.
> >
> No, but there wouldn't be baby to "spit out" if *his*
> sperm wasn't involved.

So he's an enabler.  In theory, she could go to a sperm
bank and spit out a fatherless child that way too.  In both
cases, the men are not "abandoning" any children.  They
didn't choose to have the kid to begin with.  She did.

> > It's understandable if you're confused over this since
> > many people in the US are lawsuit crazy and sue
> > any connected party with deep pockets when possible.
> >
> You see, I'm talking about biology here, not legal
> matters.

So no wonder you keep repeating that "sex=pregnancy"
and "sperm+egg=baby" as if that proves something.  That's
"biology".

I guess using your "biological" reasoning, flour + eggs + milk + sugar
on my kitchen counter = "cookies".  :-)

> > People who buy stepladders and then use them in a negligent
> > manner have sued the company that made the ladder.  Or
> > the woman putting a hot beverage between her legs
> > at McD's and walking away with millions.
> >
> So? That has nothing to do with this issue.

Now you're either being incredibly dishonest or stupid.

We all know the biological issues.  Those are not in dispute.
We're discussing causation and the legal and moral framework
for holding men responsible for their participation in
a chain of events.  When you make such "biological statements"
as "man did X and without X, Y cannot happen so he's responsible",
even if stated using biological terms, that still a
legal argument.  You're making a legal case for the state
to hold the man liable.

Apparently you aren't doing a very good job of it hence
your need to retreat to a "biological" argument that
"sperm+egg=baby" as if that means something.

[cut more stuff]

> > Certainly, he is responsible for helping to create this
> > situation the woman is in and should foot the bill for
> > an abortion.  So your claim that he isn't going to take
> > any responsibility at all is, as usual, less than honest.
> >
> So he's only supposed to help her if she chooses to have
> an abortion? You guys seem to have this idea that having
> an abortion is like having a teeth pulled out, except
> for when you claim it's murder.

Nope.  It's you who argues that an abortion is like having
teeth pulled out when considering the moral implications
of the procedure EXCEPT when she wants to have the kid
and make the man pay up.  Then it's not something to
be tabled for discussion.

Note: Abortion rights are under serious threat in the states
precisely because the ladies here never really made up
their mind about whether they wanted to accept true
moral responsibility for the procedure.

Why should I support a so-called right for women that they
themselves cannot endorse as moral?

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/2/05 2:13:30 PM ---