matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (08/22/85)
MARCEL SIMON writes: > But why should not women have the > right to reproductive freedom *and* guilt-free pleasurable sex. Men have > the option to walk away after sex, never to be heard from again (some do.) . . . > The essence of the abortion debate is tied to a feminist issue: are women > going to have the control of their bodies and equal to sexual pleasure > or is a male dominated society going to retain that control? As Mr. Simon points out, their is a biological inequality at work here. As Mr. Pete Wilson says in article 1705, this inequality is not the fault of the Government, or of men in general. The Government, yea, even the Government of the hated-in-Cambridge-Mass President Ronald Reagan, is going to great lengths and expense to track down fathers and make them pay, even to an extent that worries civil-libertarians. (Thought your tax return and Social Security number were "private," huh? Big Brother is after you, and he'll make you pay Momma to keep 2-year-old Junior alive. I mean, Junior is not a very "independent" human being, since he would die in a week unless others, i.e., Father, are imposed upon to feed and shelter him, but good old Uncle Sam wants even the dependent to go on living.) Mr. Simon here ably demonstrates the linkage between extreme feminism and abortion. If there is an inequality, that inequality is _per se_ an injustice. And if the only way, or rather, what Mr. Simon believes is the only way at tolerable cost, to establish equality involves the messy and, to Matt Rosenblatt and many other men and women, abhorrent destruction of little fetuses, that's just too bad. Mr. Simon, equality is just one of many competing values in society. I have heard abortion justified as a way of preventing great hardship to the pregnant woman, and while I generally come down on the pro-life side of the hardship-versus-fetus-killing argument, I have seen enough of pregnancy, labor and delivery that I can understand why many people come down on the pro-choice side. But justifying abortion on the grounds of equal access to sexual pleasure is outrageous. -- Matt Rosenblatt
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (08/23/85)
> > ME > Matt Rosenblatt > > But why should not women have the > > right to reproductive freedom *and* guilt-free pleasurable sex. Men have > > the option to walk away after sex, never to be heard from again (some do.) > . . . > > The essence of the abortion debate is tied to a feminist issue: are women > > going to have the control of their bodies and equal to sexual pleasure > > or is a male dominated society going to retain that control? > > Mr. Simon here ably demonstrates the linkage between extreme feminism > and abortion. If there is an inequality, that inequality is _per se_ > an injustice. And if the only way, or rather, what Mr. Simon believes > is the only way at tolerable cost, to establish equality involves the > messy and, to Matt Rosenblatt and many other men and women, abhorrent > destruction of little fetuses, that's just too bad. No. Biological inequality is not an injustice. Social policy can be unjust. The efforts of the Government to track down fathers are simply insufficient or ineffective; just look at the rise in single parent families headed by women. Besides, when the parents both are poor and barely able to support themselves, finding the father is not of much help, is it? The fact, sir, is that unwanted pregnancies and children have a cost, and that cost is borne by women, not as a consequence of biology, but because of social policies. By seeking to remove what recourse women have to reduce such a cost, pro-lifers are increasing it. I feel it is not surprising that most pro-lifers are male. At some level, they know that the consequences of their advocacy will be paid not by them, but by women. That, sir, is unfair, and unjust. Marcel Simon
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/24/85)
> > No. Biological inequality is not an injustice. Social policy > can be unjust. The efforts of the Government to track down fathers > are simply insufficient or ineffective; just look at the rise in > single parent families headed by women. Besides, when the parents both are > poor and barely able to support themselves, finding the father is not of > much help, is it? The fact, sir, is that unwanted pregnancies and children > have a cost, and that cost is borne by women, not as a consequence of > biology, but because of social policies. By seeking to remove what recourse > women have to reduce such a cost, pro-lifers are increasing it. I > feel it is not surprising that most pro-lifers are male. At some > level, they know that the consequences of their advocacy will be paid > not by them, but by women. That, sir, is unfair, and unjust. > > Marcel Simon *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** To what degree should fathers be tracked down? Ever hear of one nignt stands (I call it mutual masturbation)? It happens to a great extent in women getting pregnant. You don't know each other and don't owe each other anything the next morning or at 4am when you part and go your seperate ways forever. No one should bear the responsiblily of your irresponsiblity, and that includes the male involved. Both of you entered into an unwritten aggreement at the bar or where ever you met. We are strangers and mean nothing to each other after tonight, for tommorrow or next week I'll be at it again. If the male gets VD, he has no recourse in terms of making the women pay for his treatment. If the women gets VD or gets pregnant she as well should have no recourse in making the male pay. It would seem silly if a women tracked down the father of her baby and stated that out of the dozens or more guys I've been with you are the father and now I want you to build your life around me, marry me, or pay for my abortion, or pay child support, built me a house, go to work everyday for the next 20 years and pay one quarter of your wages to me and your child, and all this because of 30 minutes of idle meaningless dribble in a bar and a hop in the sack. Not a very sound base with which to build a life on. If you play you must pay means YOU must pay not someone else. But you say, what about the male, he goes merrily on his way? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. He may be emotionaly distraught at times because he's been hooked on one of his triumphs and there is no return of affection. Or perhaps there is a return of affection and a relationship develops, they fall in love only to discover she is pregnant by some other casanova, marries her, and supports her and someone elses child. No one gets off scott free in this world for anything, what goes around comes around. I've known many males who've married their dream girl who was raising a child out of wedlock. So he's not supporting someone he's made pregnant, but he is supporting some other males child. But again you may say; OK, great, now I'm pregnant. I have to build my life around an unwanted child because of those 30 minutes of blah, blah, blah. If you got herpes your life style would change, if you got AIDS your life would perhapsend. If you got pregnant and then an abortion and the abortion screwed up your reproductive system, you would still end up with an altered life style. The point is that it is not always a pregnancy that alters one's life style. Or that someone can come around and make it all better, such as finding the father and making him pay. There are things in this life that only YOU are responsible for and only YOU will be made to pay the price for because your actions are in fact YOURS. On abortion, I don't believe that the fetus should be made to bear the responsiblilty of the actions of the mother by aborting it. Yea, I know I'll get flamed for saying this and probably for a lot of the above,but on the subject of abortions and sexuality, how can anyone say anything without inflaming someone. I'll just have to take my chances.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/24/85)
> As Mr. Simon points out, their is a biological inequality at work here. > As Mr. Pete Wilson says in article 1705, this inequality is not the fault > of the Government, or of men in general. The Government, yea, even the > Government of the hated-in-Cambridge-Mass President Ronald Reagan, is > going to great lengths and expense to track down fathers and make them > pay, even to an extent that worries civil-libertarians. (Thought your > tax return and Social Security number were "private," huh? Big Brother > is after you, and he'll make you pay Momma to keep 2-year-old Junior > alive. I mean, Junior is not a very "independent" human being, since > he would die in a week unless others, i.e., Father, are imposed upon > to feed and shelter him, but good old Uncle Sam wants even the dependent > to go on living.) [ROSENBLATT] Amazing how Rosenblatt speaks of disdain with perhaps the only honorable thing the Reagan administration has done in this (or perhaps any) area: enforce child support laws. While asserting that "if it's legal, it must be right" in *other* cases. Hmmmm.... > Mr. Simon here ably demonstrates the linkage between extreme feminism > and abortion. If there is an inequality, that inequality is _per se_ > an injustice. And if the only way, or rather, what Mr. Simon believes > is the only way at tolerable cost, to establish equality involves the > messy and, to Matt Rosenblatt and many other men and women, abhorrent > destruction of little fetuses, that's just too bad. If the only way to ensure that everyone pays their fair share into a government is to go through the messy, abhorrent process of taxation and enforcement, perhaps we should stop doing it. This makes as much sense as his argument. "Extreme" feminism? (We've seen that to Matt any feminism is extreme, so I think we can understand this use of the term.) -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/27/85)
In article <11189@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >On abortion, I don't believe that the fetus should >be made to bear the responsiblilty of the actions of the mother by aborting it. Fine, as long as it is made to bear the responsibility of the actions of the father by being aborted. Sorry, but I was not convinced by the rest of your argument either. It all sounded like a poor excuse for men to have as much fun as possible and women as much punishment as possible as a result. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (08/28/85)
> > ME > Ray Frank > > The fact, sir, is that unwanted pregnancies and children > > have a cost, and that cost is borne by women, not as a consequence of > > biology, but because of social policies. By seeking to remove what recourse > > women have to reduce such a cost, pro-lifers are increasing it. Mr Frank writes a stream-of-consciousness article having much to do with one night stands and Mr. Frank's attitudes toward sex, but little with my point. Mr. Frank's article is included at the end of this, for reference. To repeat, then: Because of the tilts of current social policy, the father is able and allowed to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy; the mother is not. Mr Frank has cited the Reagan Administration's efforts to track wayward fathers and force them to ante up child support. That works for middle class fathers who are able to ante up, but not when the father is indigent, or in cases of rape (rare, yes, but it occurs), and meanwhile, the mother is still stuck with a pregnancy she does not want. I would have a good deal more sympathy with Mr. Frank's anti-abortion position if he were ALSO, and just as virulently, campaigning FOR the universal availability of birth control, for an expansion of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, for the universal availibility of day care, for expanded school facilities, and generally the strenghtening of the social safety net. Only AFTER you have done something to help the suffering of the born, sir, can you talk to me of the suffering of the unborn. Marcel Simon Mr Frank's article: > To what degree should fathers be tracked down? > Ever hear of one nignt stands (I call it mutual masturbation)? It happens to > a great extent in women getting pregnant. You don't know each other and don't > owe each other anything the next morning or at 4am when you part and go > your seperate ways forever. No one should bear the responsiblily of your > irresponsiblity, and that includes the male involved. Both of you entered > into an unwritten aggreement at the bar or where ever you met. We are strangers > and mean nothing to each other after tonight, for tommorrow or next week I'll > be at it again. If the male gets VD, he has no recourse in terms of making > the women pay for his treatment. If the women gets VD or gets pregnant she > as well should have no recourse in making the male pay. > It would seem silly if a women tracked down the father of her baby and stated > that out of the dozens or more guys I've been with you are the father and now > I want you to build your life around me, marry me, or pay for my abortion, or > pay child support, built me a house, go to work everyday for the next 20 years > and pay one quarter of your wages to me and your child, and all this because > of 30 minutes of idle meaningless dribble in a bar and a hop in the sack. > Not a very sound base with which to build a life on. > If you play you must pay means YOU must pay not someone else. > But you say, what about the male, he goes merrily on his way? Sometimes yes, > sometimes no. He may be emotionaly distraught at times because he's been > hooked on one of his triumphs and there is no return of affection. Or perhaps > there is a return of affection and a relationship develops, they fall in love > only to discover she is pregnant by some other casanova, marries her, and > supports her and someone elses child. No one gets off scott free in this world > for anything, what goes around comes around. > I've known many males who've married their dream girl who was raising a child > out of wedlock. So he's not supporting someone he's made pregnant, but he is > supporting some other males child. > But again you may say; OK, great, now I'm pregnant. I have to build my life > around an unwanted child because of those 30 minutes of blah, blah, blah. If you > got herpes your life style would change, if you got AIDS your life would perhapsend. If you got pregnant and then an abortion and the abortion screwed up your > reproductive system, you would still end up with an altered life style. > The point is that it is not always a pregnancy that alters one's life style. > Or that someone can come around and make it all better, such as finding the > father and making him pay. There are things in this life that only YOU are > responsible for and only YOU will be made to pay the price for because your > actions are in fact YOURS. On abortion, I don't believe that the fetus should > be made to bear the responsiblilty of the actions of the mother by aborting it. > Yea, I know I'll get flamed for saying this and probably for a lot of the above,but on the subject of abortions and sexuality, how can anyone say anything > without inflaming someone. I'll just have to take my chances.
unixcorn@dcc1.UUCP (math.c) (08/30/85)
In article <11189@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> >> No. Biological inequality is not an injustice. Social policy >> can be unjust. The efforts of the Government to track down fathers >> are simply insufficient or ineffective; just look at the rise in >> single parent families headed by women. [...] >> The fact, sir, is that unwanted pregnancies and children >> have a cost, and that cost is borne by women, not as a consequence of >> biology, but because of social policies. [...] >> Marcel Simon > >To what degree should fathers be tracked down? >Ever hear of one nignt stands (I call it mutual masturbation)? It happens to >a great extent in women getting pregnant. You don't know each other and don't >owe each other anything the next morning or at 4am when you part and go >your seperate ways forever. No one should bear the responsiblily of your >irresponsiblity, and that includes the male involved. Both of you entered ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What about the male's responsibility? >into an unwritten aggreement at the bar or where ever you met. [...] >[...] If the male gets VD, he has no recourse in terms of making >the women pay for his treatment. If the women gets VD or gets pregnant she >as well should have no recourse in making the male pay. >It would seem silly if a women tracked down the father of her baby and stated >that out of the dozens or more guys I've been with you are the father and now >I want you to build your life around me, marry me, or pay for my abortion, or >pay child support, built me a house, go to work everyday for the next 20 years >and pay one quarter of your wages to me and your child, and all this because >of 30 minutes of idle meaningless dribble in a bar and a hop in the sack. >Not a very sound base with which to build a life on. >If you play you must pay means YOU must pay not someone else. It seems that there are TWO (2) people 'playing' here. Why doesn't the male PAY as well? >[...] (how the sex act could change your life, aids, herpes etc.) >The point is that it is not always a pregnancy that alters one's life style. >Or that someone can come around and make it all better, such as finding the >father and making him pay. There are things in this life that only YOU are >responsible for and only YOU will be made to pay the price for because your >actions are in fact YOURS. On abortion, I don't believe that the fetus should >be made to bear the responsiblilty of the actions of the mother by aborting it. WHY ARE ALL THESE ACTIONS THE "MOTHER'S"? 'THEY' decide to have sex, but SHE made the decision and has to live with it. (how did they turn into she) If you want to support the idea that sex is a gamble that the man can (/should be able to) walk away from without any payment, and NO responsibility, then let the woman do WHATEVER she feels is necessary to handle the results. If these are your true feelings (and not just something to rouse the net) then you are the type of pro-lifer who destroys the credibility of the caring, hurting, truly worried about the sanctity of life, pro-lifers. I am PRO-CHOICE (and rabid on the subject) but I can understand (though not support) those whose life-code (from whatever basis) makes them feel abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong. The attitude displayed in your posting is the classic "you made your bed you dirty slut now raise your bastard yourself". This is in no way an attitude which will cut down on abortion/unwanted pregnancy etc. -- unixcorn (alias m. gould) "there's a unicorn in the garden and he's eating a lily" gatech!dcc1!unixcorn
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/31/85)
> In article <11189@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > >> > >> No. Biological inequality is not an injustice. Social policy > >> can be unjust. The efforts of the Government to track down fathers > >> are simply insufficient or ineffective; just look at the rise in > >> single parent families headed by women. [...] > >> The fact, sir, is that unwanted pregnancies and children > >> have a cost, and that cost is borne by women, not as a consequence of > >> biology, but because of social policies. [...] > >> Marcel Simon > > > >To what degree should fathers be tracked down? > >Ever hear of one nignt stands (I call it mutual masturbation)? It happens to > >a great extent in women getting pregnant. You don't know each other and don't > >owe each other anything the next morning or at 4am when you part and go > >your seperate ways forever. No one should bear the responsiblily of your > >irresponsiblity, and that includes the male involved. Both of you entered > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > What about the male's responsibility? > > >into an unwritten aggreement at the bar or where ever you met. [...] > >[...] If the male gets VD, he has no recourse in terms of making > >the women pay for his treatment. If the women gets VD or gets pregnant she > >as well should have no recourse in making the male pay. > >It would seem silly if a women tracked down the father of her baby and stated > >that out of the dozens or more guys I've been with you are the father and now > >I want you to build your life around me, marry me, or pay for my abortion, or > >pay child support, built me a house, go to work everyday for the next 20 years > >and pay one quarter of your wages to me and your child, and all this because > >of 30 minutes of idle meaningless dribble in a bar and a hop in the sack. > >Not a very sound base with which to build a life on. > >If you play you must pay means YOU must pay not someone else. > > It seems that there are TWO (2) people 'playing' here. Why doesn't the > male PAY as well? > > >[...] (how the sex act could change your life, aids, herpes etc.) > >The point is that it is not always a pregnancy that alters one's life style. > >Or that someone can come around and make it all better, such as finding the > >father and making him pay. There are things in this life that only YOU are > >responsible for and only YOU will be made to pay the price for because your > >actions are in fact YOURS. On abortion, I don't believe that the fetus should > >be made to bear the responsiblilty of the actions of the mother by aborting it. > > WHY ARE ALL THESE ACTIONS THE "MOTHER'S"? 'THEY' decide to have sex, but > SHE made the decision and has to live with it. (how did they turn into she) > If you want to support the idea that sex is a gamble that the man can > (/should be able to) walk away from without any payment, and NO > responsibility, then let the woman do WHATEVER she feels is necessary > to handle the results. > > If these are your true feelings (and not just something to rouse the net) > then you are the type of pro-lifer who destroys the credibility of the > caring, hurting, truly worried about the sanctity of life, pro-lifers. > My posting was in response to another posting concerning the issue of tracking down fathers, not in response to the issue of abortion. I did briefly mention my views on abortion, but the text mainly covered my feelings on tracking down fathers as a result of 'enlightened' sexual encounters. By the way, is it clear that it can always be determined with certainty who the real father is? > I am PRO-CHOICE (and rabid on the subject) but I can understand (though > not support) those whose life-code (from whatever basis) makes them > feel abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong. The attitude displayed in your > posting is the classic "you made your bed you dirty slut now raise > your bastard yourself". This is in no way an attitude which will cut > down on abortion/unwanted pregnancy etc. > You said 'dirty slut' not me. Is this what you think of people who engage in loveless sex? > -- > > unixcorn (alias m. gould) > > "there's a unicorn in the garden and he's eating a lily" > gatech!dcc1!unixcorn *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** What a hack job you've done on my posting. You completely edited out anything that I posted concerning the males responsiblity. Is this typical of people who are 'rabid' on the subjects being debated. You seem like an enlightened person, you must be for freedom of speech, why did you edit out the part about the males responsibility and then have the ignorance to ask the me about the males responsibility?
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (09/01/85)
> Ray Frank: > ....... By the way, is it > clear that it can always be determined with certainty who the real father is? > No. It is possible to determine with certainty that a man is NOT the father of a child (if the blood types are incompatible,) not quite vice versa. Marcel Simon
unixcorn@dcc1.UUCP (math.c) (09/05/85)
Ok, I tried before to trim the length of this article, this time I won't. Mr. Frank > >My posting was in response to another posting concerning the issue of tracking >down fathers, not in response to the issue of abortion. I did briefly mention >my views on abortion, but the text mainly covered my feelings on tracking down >fathers as a result of 'enlightened' sexual encounters. By the way, is it >clear that it can always be determined with certainty who the real father is? No, it cannot be determined with absolute certainty. >> I am PRO-CHOICE (and rabid on the subject) but I can understand (though >> not support) those whose life-code (from whatever basis) makes them >> feel abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong. The attitude displayed in your >> posting is the classic "you made your bed you dirty slut now raise >> your bastard yourself". This is in no way an attitude which will cut >> down on abortion/unwanted pregnancy etc. >You said 'dirty slut' not me. Is this what you think of people who engage >in loveless sex? No, but it is a phrase I have heard used. (A thought, what is the term used for a 'male slut' anyway. Is there one?) >What a hack job you've done on my posting. You completely edited out anything >that I posted concerning the males responsiblity. Is this typical of people >who are 'rabid' on the subjects being debated. You seem like an enlightened >person, you must be for freedom of speech, why did you edit out the part about >the males responsibility and then have the ignorance to ask the me about the >males responsibility? Mr Frank's article: (My remarks preceeded by *, so I won't edit out anything about the males responsiblity.) > To what degree should fathers be tracked down? > Ever hear of one nignt stands (I call it mutual masturbation)? It happens to > a great extent in women getting pregnant. You don't know each other and don't > owe each other anything the next morning or at 4am when you part and go > your seperate ways forever. No one should bear the responsiblily of your > irresponsiblity, and that includes the male involved. Both of you entered > into an unwritten aggreement at the bar or where ever you met. We are strangers > and mean nothing to each other after tonight, for tommorrow or next week I'll > be at it again. If the male gets VD, he has no recourse in terms of making > the women pay for his treatment. If the women gets VD or gets pregnant she > as well should have no recourse in making the male pay. ** The female in this account has the same risk as the male of contracting VD (in whatever form), only the female has the risk of pregnancy added. If the pregnancy is not terminated, and a child is born, someone must pay for its upbringing.(The mother, the father, the adoptive parents, the govt (which means all of us) but someone.) Since the father had just as much to do with the child's conception as the mother, why shouldn't he pay half? > It would seem silly if a women tracked down the father of her baby and stated > that out of the dozens or more guys I've been with you are the father and now > I want you to build your life around me, marry me, or pay for my abortion, or > pay child support, built me a house, go to work everyday for the next 20 years > and pay one quarter of your wages to me and your child, and all this because > of 30 minutes of idle meaningless dribble in a bar and a hop in the sack. > Not a very sound base with which to build a life on. ** I agree that a child alone is no reason to build a relationship between two people who don't desire one. I don't advocate such a relationship. I do think that the male bears one half of any responsibility for the child. > If you play you must pay means YOU must pay not someone else. > But you say, what about the male, he goes merrily on his way? Sometimes yes, > sometimes no. He may be emotionaly distraught at times because he's been > hooked on one of his triumphs and there is no return of affection. Or perhaps > there is a return of affection and a relationship develops, they fall in love > only to discover she is pregnant by some other casanova, marries her, and > supports her and someone elses child. No one gets off scott free in this world > for anything, what goes around comes around. > I've known many males who've married their dream girl who was raising a child > out of wedlock. So he's not supporting someone he's made pregnant, but he is > supporting some other males child. ** That was the part I had previously deleted. Here goes... Falling in love is AGAIN an equal danger for male and female. Marrying someone and supporting anothers child is also an equal probability for males and females. Fathers bring children into marriages too, many women take care of children they didn't bear, (In fact, what do you think adoption is???) why should it matter to someone who found their 'dream girl' if she has a child? If it does, she isn't their dream girl. > But again you may say; OK, great, now I'm pregnant. I have to build my life > around an unwanted child because of those 30 minutes of blah, blah, blah. If you > got herpes your life style would change, if you got AIDS your life would perhapsend. If you got pregnant and then an abortion and the abortion screwed up your > reproductive system, you would still end up with an altered life style. > The point is that it is not always a pregnancy that alters one's life style. > Or that someone can come around and make it all better, such as finding the > father and making him pay. There are things in this life that only YOU are > responsible for and only YOU will be made to pay the price for because your > actions are in fact YOURS. On abortion, I don't believe that the fetus should > be made to bear the responsiblilty of the actions of the mother by aborting it. ** NOW, here we go again... WHY is the responsibility cited here the FEMALES and only hers? The pregnancy talked about is affecting the woman, not the man (remember the one night stand). The decision to have sex was mutual, the dangers of VD were mutual, the possibility of unrequited love was mutual, the possibilities of birth control were mutual, SO WHY IS THE RESPONSIBILITY ALL HERS? Half of that genetic material came from the man. This article was primarily about hunting down absent fathers to make them pay child support so I address most of my comments toward that end. I still (I said I was rabid on it) say that since the woman is the one most affected, she is the one to make the decision whether or not to abort the pregnancy. Mr. Frank doesn't even want her to have child support to raise the child he requires her to bear since he doesn't want to allow abortion. > Yea, I know I'll get flamed for saying this and probably for a lot of the above,but on the subject of abortions and sexuality, how can anyone say anything > without inflaming someone. I'll just have to take my chances. So, I'm sorry I may have removed the important part about the man's responsibility the first time I replied. I still don't know what Mr. Frank thought was the male's responsibility. I am sure someone will point it out to me. (The bliss of ignorance is short on the net :-) -- unixcorn (alias m. gould) "there's a unicorn in the garden and he's eating a lily" gatech!dcc1!unixcorn
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (09/05/85)
Since "Equal Access to Pleasure" was MY article title, let me state my position on the argument between R. Frank and unixcorn: Consistent "Responsibility" positions: 1) No abortion on demand for the pregnant woman; 2) Enforcement of the father's obligation to support his child. Consistent "No-responsibility" positions: 1) Abortion on demand for the woman if she does not want the child. 2) The father can walk away scot-free from any support obligations if he did not want the child. I support the consistent "Responsibility" positions, as does the Reagan administration. My original article included an expression of the misgivings I feel, as a civil libertarian, about the Government's use of Social Security numbers and computer data banks to track people down for ANY PURPOSE, however laudable, when the data were collected for another purpose. I'm a pro-lifer, but I sure wouldn't want to live in a society where the Government kept track of the name and location of every pregnant woman (as in Bolshevik China), with a network of informants ready to rat on her if they thought she was planning to abort herself. -- Matt Rosenblatt
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (09/08/85)
> Matt Rosenblatt writes: > Consistent "Responsibility" positions: > > 1) No abortion on demand for the pregnant woman; > 2) Enforcement of the father's obligation to support his child. > > [Rosenblatt cites the opposite to 1 and 2 as "Non Responsibility" positions] > > I support the consistent "Responsibility" positions, as does the Reagan > administration. Valid views, but they do not solve the problem in cases where the father is indigent, can't be found or unknown. The third case might occur in cases of rape, or where the mother is a prostitute (whatever one may think of these women's profession, their pregnancies are real.) When the father just does not have the money to support the child (poor people are fertile too) or cannot be found despite the best efforts of Government, where does that leave mother and child? So a truly consistent "Responsibility" position should be amended by: 3) Availability of public funds for raising the children of unwanted pregnancies where the option to terminate same was not available because of public policies Then the pro-life viewpoint would become a viable public policy option. This pro-choicer at least would look at it as viable. The issue of whether an abortion is the private decision of the pregnant woman and is thus outside the realm of public intervention would remain unresolved, but the debate would then be framed by two viable policy options. That is progress in my book. Thank you, Mr Rosenblatt, for seeking it. Marcel Simon
unixcorn@dcc1.UUCP (math.c) (09/08/85)
In article <1261@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: >Since "Equal Access to Pleasure" was MY article title, let me >state my position on the argument between R. Frank and unixcorn: > >Consistent "Responsibility" positions: > > 1) No abortion on demand for the pregnant woman; > 2) Enforcement of the father's obligation to support his child. > >Consistent "No-responsibility" positions: > > 1) Abortion on demand for the woman if she > does not want the child. > 2) The father can walk away scot-free from > any support obligations if he did not want the child. > >I support the consistent "Responsibility" positions, as does the Reagan >administration. {continues} > -- Matt Rosenblatt I can see where you would get the 'Consistent Responsibilty' positions ie. your position, but I do not see how you came out with the other classification. If we use your classifications, you believe in R1 R2, Mr Frank believes in R1 NR2 and I believe in NR1 R2. While I will agree that your stand is consistent (the child will be born and the parents (both) will assume a responsibility (she to bear, he to pay)) and I think my position is consistent (She decides whether or not to bear, and he will pay if necessary) I cannot see the consistency/fairness of Mr Frank's position, (she must bear, he need not pay). I for one feel I have said everything reasonable I have to say on this limited subject and will now retire on my position. I really don't think this addresses any central issue anymore as I don't see a reason to differentiate between an abortion desired as the result of a 'one night stand' and one desired for any other reason. ( I must also prepare for the hordes of students returning to slake their thirst for knowledge. My feet sure get tired from stamping out ignorance :-( -- unixcorn (alias m. gould) "there's a unicorn in the garden and he's eating a lily" gatech!dcc1!unixcorn
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/09/85)
In article <1261@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: >Since "Equal Access to Pleasure" was MY article title, let me >state my position on the argument between R. Frank and unixcorn: > >Consistent "Responsibility" positions: > > 1) No abortion on demand for the pregnant woman; > 2) Enforcement of the father's obligation to support his child. > >Consistent "No-responsibility" positions: > > 1) Abortion on demand for the woman if she > does not want the child. > 2) The father can walk away scot-free from > any support obligations if he did not want the child. > >I support the consistent "Responsibility" positions, as does the Reagan >administration. And as I am pro-choice, I support option 2 with the reservations that the father should be under the obligation the pay for half of the abortion if the mother desires one, or that he should be obligated to support the child if he decided he did not want the child when it was too late for the woman to have an abortion (assuming he was aware of the pregnancy of course). -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (09/10/85)
> > Consistent "Responsibility" positions: > > > > 1) No abortion on demand for the pregnant woman; > > 2) Enforcement of the father's obligation to support his child. > > > > I support the consistent "Responsibility" positions, as does the Reagan > > administration. [MATT ROSENBLATT] > . . . a truly consistent "Responsibility" position should be amended by: > > 3) Availability of public funds for raising the children of > unwanted pregnancies where the option to terminate same was > not available because of public policies > > Then the pro-life viewpoint would become a viable public policy option. > This pro-choicer at least would look at it as viable. [MARCEL SIMON] I couldn't agree more. Whatever the nature of a woman's "right" to abort, one of the arguments for abortion-on-demand that I find most obscene is the one that goes, "Abortion prevents THEM from multiplying the welfare rolls." I happen to believe that there is room in this country for everyone who is born, and for everyone who immigrates, legally or not, and resources to support them. People are assets; people PRODUCE wealth; people are America's strength. -- Matt Rosenblatt, Republican
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (09/10/85)
In article <1261@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: >Since "Equal Access to Pleasure" was MY article title, let me >state my position on the argument between R. Frank and unixcorn: > >Consistent "Responsibility" positions: > > 1) No abortion on demand for the pregnant woman; > 2) Enforcement of the father's obligation to support his child. > > >I support the consistent "Responsibility" positions, as does the Reagan >administration. My original article included an expression of the >misgivings I feel, as a civil libertarian, about the Government's use >of Social Security numbers and computer data banks to track people down >for ANY PURPOSE, however laudable, when the data were collected for >another purpose. I'm a pro-lifer, but I sure wouldn't want to live in >a society where the Government kept track of the name and location of >every pregnant woman (as in Bolshevik China), with a network of informants >ready to rat on her if they thought she was planning to abort herself. > > -- Matt Rosenblatt How do you propose insuring the males carry out their responsiblity? Can this be done within a cival libertarian perspective?
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/13/85)
> [Matt Rosenblatt, Republican] > I couldn't agree more. Whatever the nature of a woman's "right" to abort, > one of the arguments for abortion-on-demand that I find most obscene > is the one that goes, "Abortion prevents THEM from multiplying the > welfare rolls." I happen to believe that there is room in this country > for everyone who is born, and for everyone who immigrates, legally or > not, and resources to support them. People are assets; people PRODUCE > wealth; people are America's strength. ---- There may be such room in THIS country, for now at least, but in Bangla Desh there isn't nearly enough room for those already there. Does this mean that it IS a good argument for abortion in Bangla Desh? -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (09/14/85)
In article <1409@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: >People are assets; people PRODUCE wealth; WEALTH FOR WHOM? The borgeious! That's who! Sure, let them be born and become a member of the oppressed PROLETERIAT! You'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes, Matt! > -- Matt Rosenblatt, > Republican Thought so. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "What? With her?" -Adam from _The_Book_of_Genesis_
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (09/18/85)
> >People are assets; people PRODUCE wealth; [MATT ROSENBLATT] >WEALTH FOR WHOM? The borgeious! That's who! Sure, let them be born and become >a member of the oppressed PROLETERIAT! You'll be the first against the wall >when the revolution comes, Matt! [CHARLES FORSYTHE] "Wealth" is the sum total of everything produced. It is produced by people -- even Marx won't argue with that. The more produced, the more there is for everyone to consume, not just us gorgeous "borgeious." You may not agree with how it's distributed, but will you say that it shouldn't even be produced? -- Matt Rosenblatt
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (09/22/85)
In article <1570@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: >> >People are assets; people PRODUCE wealth; [MATT ROSENBLATT] > >>WEALTH FOR WHOM? The borgeious! That's who! Sure, let them be born and become >>a member of the oppressed PROLETERIAT! You'll be the first against the wall >>when the revolution comes, Matt! [CHARLES FORSYTHE] > >"Wealth" is the sum total of everything produced. It is produced by people >-- even Marx won't argue with that. The more produced, the more there is for >everyone to consume, not just us gorgeous "borgeious." You may not agree >with how it's distributed, but will you say that it shouldn't even be >produced? > -- Matt Rosenblatt Lovely! I should employ 100 people to produce chemical weapons? I should employ 1000 to produce a pornographic magazine? You imperialist swine! Why don't you just take away the veils of morality in the name of "free enterprise"? We will have a free society when the workers are put to good use, comrade. No overproduction of goods + no overproduction of people = no abortion. Your arguments against abortion as a way increasing national "wealth" are just imperialist rhetoric. Viva la revolution! -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "What? With her?" -Adam from _The_Book_of_Genesis_