soc.women

R. Steve Walz wrote:

> Ken Chaddock wrote:
>
>>R. Steve Walz wrote:
>>
>> Yet this is *EXACTLY* what you support...women's CHOICES resulting in
>>involuntary obligations and responsibilities for men.
>
> ------------------------------
> And for her AS WELL!! Even MORESO for her, if he leaves her!

The point you are either missing, or deliberately avoiding is that,
under the current legal bias, HER choice may result in an unavoidable
involuntary obligation for HIM, whereas HIS choice can, at worst, result
in her having to make a second CHOICE. There is NO comparison between
the two...

> The "choice" to NOT terminate the pregnancy is actually a NON-choice.

Bull feathers, the choice to gestate is a choice, just like any other

>
> She's choosing to let Nature take its course.

and the operative word here is "CHOOSING"...and since she HAS a choice
where he does not, the consequences of the CHOICE should be hers.

> So the reason the man incurs liability is because he HAD HIS choice,
> to release sperm.

You are trying to compare apples to watermelon. Assuming consensual
sex, the choice to have sex was mutual and assuming that pregnancy
wasn't the objective, the consequences of a sexual misadventure are
mutual. From that point on however, they are NO LONGER mutual. Since ALL
of the power to make decisions and take actions to ensure that HER
CHOICE is empowered is the woman's, then fairness and justice demand
that she be solely liable for the consequences of those decisions and
actions.

> If she would TAKE her "choice" to YOUR benefit, you certainly would
> NOT complain, she wouldn't be pregnant!! Yet you dislike her having
> the NON-choice to leave it alone!

Bull feathers, I could care less WHAT her decision might be, I just
don't believe that it is right, fair or just that any man be held to
obligations that arise from the exercise of a woman's sole, sovereign
authority. If she CHOOSES to have the child great...but be an adult and
take responsibility for that choice and don't expect anyone else to
have to support you in doing so.

> You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Your motive is NOT
> freedom, but its evil handmaiden, VENAL GREED!

No, my motive is justice and the consistent application of natural
justice that (to put it simply) states that no individual should held to
be responsible for something over which they had no control.
This is one of the most fundamental underpinnings of western
jurisprudence and the foundation of our most basic concepts of liberty
and freedom and justice and to ignore it here puts us on a very slippery
slope indeed.

>>>They each have the choice at some point
>>>over whether they release their sperm, in the case of the male, in a
>>>way the female cannot do, and the female chooses last whether to keep
>>>the pregnancy to term or not, while the male does NOT get to choose
>>>that!
>>
>> At which point any "involuntary" RESPONSIBILITIES for the consequences
>>of that CHOICE should become hers alone...

> No. She is merely exercising the remainder of her choice, later than
> his, but nevertheless, there is nothing that can be done.

No, she is exercising a SEPARATE and SUBSEQUENT choice that only comes
about IF she becomes pregnant. It's not a "continuation" of her original
"choice" to have sex at a time when she (in all likelihood) knew that
she was fertile.
And yes, there are many things that "can be done" and she has a number
of options via which she can abrogate her parental obligations. We're
just demanding that the man have an equivalent option.

>>and this particularly makes
>>sense form the perspective that SHE (and ONLY she) has several legal
>>avenues where by she can relieve herself of an unwanted
>>obligation...it's a concept called "Natural Justice"...ever heard of it ?
>
> ----------------------------
> Doesn't matter, if you can't explain it and use it without it looking
> like a load of dogshit, then there's no purpose to recite any history
> about it, unless explanatory of its tenets.

You apparently don't understand the very basic concepts that underpin
western jurisprudence. Two of the most basic are; personal
responsibility which is the concept that individuals should be held
responsible for their decisions and actions and the concept of natural
or fundamental justice that (basically) says that no one should be held
responsible for something over which he/she has had no control or for
something over which someone else had control. BOTH of these basic
concepts are violated by holding a man responsible for a woman's
decisions and actions.

>> Yet, by asserting that a man should be held, involuntarily responsible
>>for her CHOICE to gestate, that is EXACTLY what you are
>>doing...enslaving a man to the wishes of a woman...

> He's not. He's being held to pay for HIS choice, he just can't see
> its outcome until she completes HER choice.

That's a twisted little concept isn't it ? But, for the sake of
argument, I'll assume that this argument has some veracity. But I would
vigorously argue that it can ONLY be a just situation IF everyone is
honest and forthright and keeps their word. So how do you explain
holding a man responsible for her changing her mind or deliberately
lying to him and misleading him ? For example, if she tells him that
she's "on the pill" but really isn't ? If she tells him that she doesn't
want a child and if she gets pregnant that she is going to have an
abortion, then "changes" her mind ? Consider that if she were behave
this way during a commercial transaction, she would likely be charged
with criminal fraud and the "victim" of her fraud would be indemnified
from harm as a result of the fraud...why do we ignore this is this case ?

>>>That said, both are responsible to a THIRD person, their progeny.
>>
>> This little "spin" is quite disingenuous of you Stevie.

> There's NO "spin" here. What did you do before about two years ago
> and the right-wing bussword "spin" came about,

You're pretty young aren't you ? The term "spinning" a story goes back
quite a bit further than two years ago...though that's perhaps when you
first became aware of it. I believe that the the Canadian media guru
Professor Marshall McLuhan first coined it in his groundbreaking book
"Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man"...in 1964.

> and why have you been so intellectually lame and lazy as to try it
> out on literally EVERYTHING, and just to see if someone will buy it
> so YOU don't have to THINK hard!??

My use of the term in accordance with his meaning of the term...the
fact that *you* don't understand it is of little import to me and only
further demonstrates your ignorance.

>>By your own "logic", spewed many times before, the man doesn't produce
>>"progeny" he and the woman produce a zygote/fetus, which, by your own
>>argument, isn't a "person".

> it is NOT Being or Person, it IS progeny,

From Merrian-Webster on-line
progeny
Main Entry: prog·e·ny
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: Middle English progenie, from Anglo-French, from Latin
progenies, from progignere
1 a : DESCENDANTS, CHILDREN b : offspring of animals or plants
2 : OUTCOME, PRODUCT
3 : a body of followers, disciples, or successors

So, how DO YOU justify allowing a woman to kill her "progeny"...OR the
"progeny" of some man ?

> however, and IF it is allowed to bedcopme a person, then iys parents
> are called upon to support it! You see, being of a class at one time
> has nothing that is connected to its class at another time.

Wow, alchemy ! Can they transmute lead into gold to ?!?

>>From the moment of conception, the decision to gestate, to
>>produce a "child", is SOLELY the woman's. If all of the decisions and
>>authorities and power are the woman's, it is a fundamental violation of
>>every concept of natural (or, if you prefer fundamental) justice to hold
>>HIM involuntarily responsible for the consequences of the exercise of
>>HER sovereign authority and sole power.

> He knew the dynamics of the situation "going in" as it were

We're NOT arguing about what the dynamics of the situation ARE, we're
arguing about whether the current dynamics of the situation are fair or
just.
I contend that they are not fair or just and they have been created out
of bias that sees women as less than men and as incapable of carrying
the full adult responsibilities of this society and because of this,
forcing the support of these child/women onto any convenient man who is
unfortunate enough to have some, even fleeting, connection to the woman.

> and she offered her egg and body to carry it, and NOT wholly voluntarily, as
> abortion is a difficult thing, it requires you to give up on a chance
> that may have meant a great deal to you.

You continue to conflate a choice for the man as the loss of a choice
for the women...that just isn't so.
If the man could legally terminate an unwanted parental obligation,
just exactly what choice would it be that the woman loses ? Would that
mean she could no longer have an abortion...no; does it mean that she
could no longer abandon the child at a "safe haven"...no; does it mean
that she could no longer put the child up for adoption...no; does it
mean that she could no longer have the child and raise it herself...no;
so what choice does SHE lose ?

> And some are simply not capable of it because of their personal
> suspicions or superstitions about life, the universe, and everything.

Irrelevant, she STILL HAS THE CHOICE, her religious or superstitious
beliefs will undoubtedly bear upon that CHOICE but it's still a CHOICE...

> He had his choice with his material, but she does too, and both incur
> the responsibility if any Being finally results.

I disagree and that fact that there are situations where men who are
NOT the biological father are held responsible in place of KNOWN
biological fathers and the fact that we allow single women to be
impregnated from sperm banks where the father is unknown argues quite
strongly against you assertion.

> Other than Communism and communal raising of all children paid for with
> taxation, there is no other way to do this, the children MUST be
> protected and the debr TO them MUST BE PAID!

Then why do we allow single women to be impregnated at sperm banks ?
Who's paying the "DEBT" to the child who is created ?


>> Really ? Then how do you justify indemnifying sperm donors from such a
>>fundamental obligation and debt...particularly when the woman is a
>>"single mother" ...what happened to the father's "debt" to the child
>>in this case ?

> Have to or they won't get any sperm. It's a reasonable answer in law
> that you or your wife or sister can avail themselves of.

Excuse me, but that last statement so completely exposes your anti-male
bias and agenda that it's startling...some might even say significant
freudian slip.
Consider what you just said...in the series of statements above you
assert that the "DEBT" owed to a child by it's biological parents is so
"sacred" that the man MUST BE responsible when she decides to have a
child he doesn't want, yet directly above you assert that a women can
"chose" to have a child with no consideration of this "sacred" DEBT owed
to the child by it's biological father...in other words, it's only a
"sacred debt" if SHE decides that it is...so it's all about what the
WOMAN wants...

>>Further, how do you justify holding an uncle, grandfather,
>>boyfriend (or, in fact, just about *ANY* convenient male) involuntarily
>>responsible for a child ? (and yes Stevie, there are quite a few well
>>documented cases where EACH of these situations have occurred...)
>>...Ken

> You'll need to document that, I've NEVER heard of such a thing.

Don't get out much do you ? Simply goggle "paternity fraud" and you'll
find far more documented cases than you will like...

> I know they have held a step-father responsible, but that was after
> he had a relationship with the child that obligated him morally.

A "step father" in a man who has voluntarily *legally* adopted a child.
This means that the biological father was either dead or voluntarily
terminated his parental rights so that the adoptive father could take on
that responsibility. After that happens, he IS responsible, just like
any other man who voluntarily takes on parental responsibilities should
be responsible.
One of the cases you'll find (if you look that is), is the case of a
man who was the (non-live in) boyfriend of a women who had joint custody
with her ex-husband. The woman and boyfriend "broke up" about 6 months
BEFORE the ex-husband was killed in a car crash. The woman sued the
ex-boyfriend for child support...and WON ! What POSSIBLE connection did
the this man have to the child ? He couldn't have been a "father figure"
since the *real* father was still firmly in the picture AFTER the
relationship with the child's mother ended. He never lived with the
child ? So by what rational (other than the fact that he was a
"convenient" male who had a passing connection to the mother) did the
court find him liable for CS ?

> But other relatives? No, they didn't spew the sperm.

Do the goggle search...you'll get an education...

...Ken