Conference quark::mennotes-v1

For previous discussion on this issue, see 261.*.

DougO

    re .0, you know, the way you worded that, all I could picture was a guy
    walking off with a fetus in a jar, having won it in court, and
    thinking, "Gross!  Why would he *want* the unborn fetus?!!!"
    
    Well, the issue is - should a court have the right to force a woman to
    go through with a pregnancy, and then give the baby away?  I don't
    think so.  It's asking too much of a person.  If the mother agrees to
    have the baby, and then give it to the father, fine.  But, if she doesn't
    want to, then he's out of luck.  He can go find a woman who wants to
    have his baby.  There's plenty of available women out and about.
    
    I would think this situation would rarely come up, anyway.  It seems to
    me that most men, when accidentally getting women pregnant, want them
    to have abortions, and have no interest in the kid.
    
    Lorna
    

    Men have no rights in this issue. Sad. But thats the rights of the
    woman and her body. We are at their whims. 

    Sweeping statements, George.

    re .4
    
    but true.
    
    fred();

    It is always sad when we are struck by the basic unfairness of life.
    But there isn't diddly we can do about it, though, without being unfair
    to someone else.
    
    re: the question posed in the basenote.
    
    If a women gets preggers, doesn't want the baby, but is willing to
    carry it to term, it seems to me the father should get first dibs on
    the baby.  The father also has a reasonable right to expect the mother
    to contribute to the baby's support.
    
    If a women gets preggers, doesn't want the baby but daddy does, and she
    doesn't plan to continue the pregnancy, there isn't much the father can
    do.  One of those basic unfairnesses I mentioned.
    
    If a women gets preggers, wants the baby, and expects the father to
    contribute to the baby's support, a moral father is left with little
    choice but to provide said support.  Another one of those basic
    unfairnesses I mentioned. 
    
    The assumptions on which I based the above statements are:
    
    1. The baby is an innocent party to this, and has the right to expect
       that those responsible for bringing him into the world will see to
       it that his/her financial and emotional needs are met.
    
    2. People who bring a baby into the world have a moral obligation to 
       fulfill their responsibilities toward the baby.
    
    3. People cannot hold another's body in chattel.  Slavery is morally
       and legally repugnant.
    
    Mike

    Mass law requires that the biological father be offered the chance
    to adopt his child before the child is adopted by anyone else. This
    goes back to a case over 20 years ago now. A young father had informal
    custody of his child and the mother came, took the child from him
    for a 'visit' and took him to an adoption agency and released him for
    adoption. A long and eventually futile campaign was waged in the
    local papers to return "Bobby Molnar" to his father. The law was
    passed in response to this particular case. 
    
    Bonnie
    

    
>    Well, the issue is - should a court have the right to force a woman to
>    go through with a pregnancy, and then give the baby away?  I don't
>    think so.  It's asking too much of a person. 



I'm so sick of hearing how poor women have to be force to carry a child for
9 months to allow the baby to live, should the father want to keep it.

Men have been forced to leave home for years, and die for this country? Men have
not had alot of choices when it comes to their children. What do men get that
women don't other than the bill?  I don't think it is to much to ask a women to
take a chance and go through a pregnancy if the man really want his child.  I
agree with the statement that few men would be willing to accept this
responsibility, but then those who would should have that option. We always hear
about the women feelings, but how much harm is being done to a man who doesn't
want to see an abortion done to their child!

Then if women feel men should have no say so about abortion, why haven't they
pushed for a law that states that men are not responsible for a child that they
never wanted, but the women did?  When it come to rights, regarding their
children, men have always been on the short end of the stick.

                                        LEC    

    re .8, men have not always been on the short end of the stick when it
    comes to rights regarding children.  For years, thousands and thousands
    of men walked away from the children they fathered, out-of-wedlock,
    and, despite current laws, some still do.
    
    Besides, many women, if forced to go through a pregnancy, would
    probably decide to keep the baby anyway. It's one thing to have an
    abortion, when a person may be able to convince themselves that the
    fetus isn't human, and it's an entirely different thing to give away a
    baby that's already born.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
    
    The thousands and thousands line of walking out is in lew of the fact
    that women allow them or want the men to get lost. 
    
    I have had tenants who refuse to rat on the father(s) of their children
    for child suport. Don't give me that line of crappie. Mean time some
    guy who give a dam doesn't get a chance. Wake up and smell the coffie!
    
    Mean time, another friend of mine, an elderly couple have lost thier
    home to rising tax's due to these people.

    Oh, horse hockey.  Your friends are not losing their home because of
    those fathers who don't pay child support.
    
    Mike

    No, they are loosing their home because of increased tax's and welfare.

    >>>...thousands line of walking out is in lew of the fact that women allow
    them or want the men to get lost.>>> HUH?
                                               
    Get real George.  If more men accepted responsibility for getting women
    pregnant the abortion rate would probably drop 90%.  In most cases, the
    man wants NO part of this situation, leaving the woman with 100% of the
    decision and the responsibility.  And I really don't believe any woman
    WANTS to have an abortion, but finances, housing problems, REALITY sets 
    in and the choices narrow down pretty fast.  I've NEVER seen a woman tell 
    the man who got her pregnant to "get lost"! 
    
    

  	<-------------- go get him inga   :-)



	kits

    RE: .13 What a crock of crap.  It takes 2 to tango.

    And now I remember why I did delete  entry mennotes and that is cuz
    it's really just an extension of womannotes.

huh.  Mike, I felt the same way about .3.  If men were responsible with
their sperm, then we wouldn't have all these pregnancies around, would we?

DougO

    re .15, she never said it didn't take two.  She just said that the men
    usually aren't interested in the babies.
    
    Are there any men reading this, right now, who ever got a woman, they
    didn't love and didn't want to marry, pregnant, who *wanted* the baby? 
    Are there any men reading this who ever got a woman pregnant, who had
    an abortion, and the man was broken hearted over this?
    
    I have *never* met a single man, in my entire life who felt this way!
    
    On the other hand, I've met plenty of women who got abortions, mainly
    because the father of the baby didn't want anything to do with them or
    the baby!
    
    There wouldn't be so many single mothers on welfare if most men wanted
    all the children they fathered.
    
    I, personally, have *never* been involved with a man who wanted a child
    to come out of the deal.  Every man I've ever dated seemed to assume
    that if an accident occurred that I would happily get an abortion.
    
    George, from what I understand, you have custody of your daughter, but
    you're definitely in the minority on that.  And, even in your case,
    you're divorced, right?  Not many men have any interest in the children
    they accidently father while having casual sex.
    
    Lorna
    

    .16 Ditto! I have trashed out this entry many times! Only to get sucked
    back into it. This file is always been biased and always will be biased
    agianst men.

Hey, the file is just a bunch of bits.  The contents are what you make of it.

In my opinion, if a man gives his sperm to a woman, it's hers to do with as
she wishes.  If he doesn't want to give his sperm, he has a number of 
ways of keeping them to himself.  If he can't be bothered to protect himself,
then he shouldn't complain if the woman doesn't do what he wants with it.

				Steve

    If women were more responsible with their eggs it would be the same
    result.

    re .21, as Elvis Costello said, "accidents will happen..."
    
    Lorna
    

    And if both parties had an electron of gray matter between the both of
    them they could work out something. But it doesn't work that way in
    real life. Its one way. And we are at the whims of that way. Abortion 
    has no justice to life that is so fradgle. So short, and we treat it
    like its some sort of disposable object. And we do it not only with
    fetus we do it with young mens lives to wars. We do it to families, of
    which the women win on the filing game. 
    
    Lorna, I got some women on AFDC in my apartments. Two of the three
    are working on child #3. Casual sex and casual children? Born into
    more poverity? With abortion clinics? Whats wrong? Whom is whim-ming
    who? :)

    At least in the state of Colorado, there is no public money to pay for
    abortions.  Also the Dept of Human Services in its infinite wisdom
    doesn't counsel on BC or refer women to clinics that specialize in
    finding the right birth control method for the right person.  Also no
    BC method is 100%.
    
    Men need to take as much responsibilty for their reproductive tract and
    capabilities as women do.  Discussing birth control and actions if
    there is a possible failure is as much a man's respnsibility as a
    woman's.  If you don't like the potential end results of having sex,
    then don't engage with someone who has reproductive potential with you.  
    
    Meg  

> Note 789.18 


With 1 out of 4 women being raped, I don't know a rapes.

The fact that 50% of all women have been beaten by men, I haven't talked to
a women beater.

I don't know any dead beat dads.

I do know that 95% of all court cases give the children to the mother, and
not necessary the best parent.

I have a bother who wanted another child that his wife decided to abort.

I have talk to men who have had the court take every thing they worked for all
their lives and had so much of their income taken away that they no longer
have enough to live on.

The fact that you I have never met a single man, in your entire life who felt
the same love and need for their children does not say much to me.

I am sick of women assuming that men don't have the same feelings for their
children as women do. Some men want to be responsible but are not given the
chance.

As for the statement: If more men accepted responsibility for getting women
pregnant the abortion rate would probably drop 90%.  I say if both men and
women were more responsible abortion would not be a major issue.

                                        LEC

    

    re.0
    I have really strong feelings about this subject as my ex-wife
    aborted our child without consulting me after her mother told her to
    simply because she was "too young to be a grandmother". If they don't
    give fathers a legal choice in the decision they should at least have
    a law that allows husband to abort meddleing mother-in-law.
    
    FWIW- I can recall this question being discussed somewhere in here
    before.
    
    -j
    

    inre .25
    
    Well according to this morning's Boston Globe, 683,000 American women
    were raped in 1990 and 12.1 million women have been rape victims
    at least once.
    
    So perhaps the reason that you don't know any rapists is that most
    men who do so don't go around talking about it.
    
    Bonnie

    re .25, I realize that many, if not most, men love their children.  I
    never said they didn't.  I never said that men don't love the children
    they have with their wives as much as their wives do.
    
    I was talking about *unmarried* parents.  I have never met a man who
    had any interest in the offspring he created while having casual sex
    with women he wasn't in love with, and wasn't married to.  
    
    Those are two different situations.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .27
    
>    I was talking about *unmarried* parents.  I have never met a man who
>    had any interest in the offspring he created while having casual sex
>    with women he wasn't in love with, and wasn't married to.  
    
    I have met such men.  One in particular comes to mind.  A young
    couple in their teens.  Very in love.  She got pregnant.  They
    wanted to get married and keep the child.  Her parents decided 
    that the were "too young to get married" and forced her to get
    an abortion.  Absolutely devastated both of them.  The relationship
    broke up.  He went around in a daze for months, was involved in
    a motorcycle racing accident ( which I always attributed to his
    state of mind), and was semi retarded thereafter.  She went
    through several relationships.  Last I knew her, she never could
    form a healthy relationship.
    
    fred();

    
    	i think there's a real problem with perception here....
    	different little pieces make up the whole and not one
    	piece has a bigger value than the rest.
    
    	some of you folks are saying that your experiences are what the
    	vast majority feels, and that is not so. the problem lies in the
    	fact that a major consensus is formed by what the majority happens
    	to be....and that the minority of cases are being swept under the
    	carpet....but just because they are small doesn't give them 
    	less measure of importance over the majority.
    
    	::RAUH,
    	you have a very negative outlook based on your perceptions and you
    	are using them to try to influence the readership here. your
    	experiences are just that, YOUR experiences, and what they should 
    	do is to help give a clearer picture...but not the OVERall picture.
    
    	in regards to children and procreation... it would be a highly
    	idealistic world if everyone would take the resposibility necessary
    	to prevent the need for abortions and to prevent an unwanted child
    	to be born. but that as we all know is not so, what becomes our 
    	responsibility is to teach and make those aware of what their
    	reposibility is to the WHOLE picture.
    
    	in taking part in this education process, it's necessary to have
    	the choices out there available for whatever the need is at the
    	time....and this includes abortion, adoption agencies, family 
    	planning centers, etc...
    
    	

    Now now Denise! Lets not throw rocks at glass houses! I am not running
    for congress or for some other elected office. I am not a member of
    NOW. Just a regular joe like many others. 
    
    So the question, Denise, is what office are you running for??

    
    
    I have a friend (woman) who is pro-choice. She attends rallies and is
    very vocal about her stand on the issue.
    
    Every time she is confronted by pro-life people, she refers to the
    "thing" in a woman's womb as "fetus" and "zygote", never as "baby".
    
    She had an abortion once. She called the "thing" in her womb a "fetus",
    "zygote", "byproduct", never used the word "baby".
    
    She got pregnant the second time, this time she welcomed this
    situation. The funny thing is, she always called the "thing" in her
    womb, a baby.
    
    ART.

    Art
    
    From a biological point of view, it is correct to call the developing
    conceptus, first a zygote, then an embryo and then a fetus and then
    when it reaches viability, a baby..
    
    nothing particularly villanous about that
    
    Bonnie

    reply .33
    
    I think thats the same reason that military invent derogatory 
    names for the enemy.  It becomes easier that way.
    
    fred();

    Fred,
    
    Those names haven't been invented, they've been around as long as
    the study of embryology.
    
    B

    
    A rose by any other name....
    fred()
    

.27> So perhaps the reason that you don't know any rapists is that most
.27> men who do so don't go around talking about it.
    
    Perhaps the rapists are a limited bunch who commit many rapes in a
    lifetime.
    
    If a rapists commits 10 rapes per lifetime, then the number of rapists
    is 10 times smaller than one would might assume just from the data
    that was quoted.

    Bonnie (re: .33)
    
    She called "it" a baby since day one (of her known pregnancy).
    
    The way in which she expressed her ideas to me, it seemed that "it" is
    a baby if you want to keep it, and something else if you don't.
    
    I found that and her particular stand on this issue, rather
    conflicting.
    
    She is a very good friend,  I don't (can't) judge her or her
    opinions/actions as villanous.
    
    Art.

     
.37>    Perhaps the rapists are a limited bunch who commit many rapes in a
   >    lifetime.
    
        You bring up a good point. I have always wondered how many of us men
        are really the bad guys?  What is the percentage of men that rape, beat,
        and abuse their children?  I myself have not noted these problems
        within the area I live first hand, but looking at the numbers I should
        be able to see it, or at least hear it.  Is it really a small number of
        men creating the large problems, does anyone have an answer?

       As for the note about the fetus and baby, I look at it this way.

       If when you crack open an egg and a egg falls out, then it is an egg.
       If when you crack open an egg and a chicken falls out then it is a
       chicken.

       I was born at 7 months.  Am I a chicken or an egg. (I have always been
       told I was a good egg, "Ha".) 


                                        LEC

    children have a right to two willing parents. many statements here
    portray men as jerks when they don't want to go along with a womans
    desire to carry a pregnancy to term. 
    man meets woman. they decide to become sexual and discuss and agree
    upon responsibilities around avoiding accidental pregnancy. but as we
    all know accidents do happen. now what?
    society has to accept the imperfections of life. to say that all
    conceptions must be continued is to assume everyone has perfect
    judgement.
    i feel abortion is a tragedy and must be avoided by responsibility and
    diligence. but there are people who do not act accordingly. 
    what about the woman who's clock is ticking and feels she wants a
    child yet is not in a relationship with a man who wants kids at this
    particular point in his life. she decides to willingly get pregnant and
    keeps the child against the mans wishes. and to top it of she drags him 
    into coart under a paternity suit,sues his ass and gets child support.
    how unfair can you get? 
    obviously the child is the big loser. there is no "family unit" that
    the child can draw support from. the father may or may not get
    involved. the mother may or may not even want a male influence in the
    childs life. what a mess! i don't have the answer but if society would
    view this situation differently than children of divorce this situation
    may not happen as often. my bottom line is you don't have kids unless
    there are two willing parents. if not then wait until you do.

    Fred, a baby implies the ability to live independantly...

    in re.38
    
    conflicting perhaps, but not uncommon..

>    Fred, a baby implies the ability to live independantly...
    
    Baby in an incubator, baby in an iron lung, baby on IV all cannot live
    independantly.  

    
    	....from the mother, ::HATASHITA....
    
    	stop mincing words.

    re .41
    
    By whose definition.  The definition I go by says that a human being
    begins at conception.  Just because you find something else to call
    "it" to make it easier to stomach what you do doesn't mean that it
    is right.  I recall a lot of screachings a few back about 
    "de-humanizing".
    
    fred();

>    Fred, a baby implies the ability to live independantly...
     
   Hum.. if this is true then a baby after it is born is still not a baby,
           nor is a 5 year old etc., etc. None of us can live independently
           till at lease 10 and maybe not then.  One could point out the
           fact that a baby before it is born is living independently. It
           is using the mothers body like many other forms of life.  Once the
           baby is born it looses its independence. Your statement is a week
           one for taking its life or not believing it is a baby.

           The only time I hear the word fetus is when some one wants to
           destroy a life.  I have never heard someone say anything but
           "baby" when I had my four children before birth or after. This
           includes hospitals, radio, TV, and general conversation. The only
           time people choose to use something other than baby is when it
           is not wanted.  We play the same name game in life with alot of
           other things we don't like the name of, because we would not want
           to eat it if we used the correct name.

                                LEC

    
    
    re: .42
    
    I never said that a reaction like my friend's could be considered
    uncommon.
    
    I guess that is exactly what makes it so more conflicting than if it
    only happened or was the reaction of only one person.
    
    Art.

    
    I sometimes wonder if it ever occurs to people that there are just some
    people who DON'T WANT CHILDREN.  A friend of mine recently had a tubal
    ligation at age 25.  She had to go to three doctors before one would
    perform the operation.  Like it was a total waste to just throw her
    fertility away.
    
    Should people who just don't want children not get married?  Does it
    ever occur to people that those who really think hard about the whole
    deal might come to the conclusion that "I absolutely want no children
    now, I don't want to be pregnant, nor support a child.  However, I
    still have 15 years of fertility and maybe 10 years down the road I
    might change my mind."  Should those people join a convent/monastery
    for ten years?  
    
    There are people right now out in Buffalo screaming at each other,
    blocking buildings, walking around with examples of human fetal tissue. 
    This happens at family planning clinics all over.  Obviously there is
    no consensus about the abortion issue.  And as deeply as the
    anti-choice folks think a two-week old fetus is equivalent to an
    infant, there are pro-choice people who feel just as deeply that the
    two-week old fetus has not developed sufficiently to be label a viable
    human being.
    
    If you asked 100 people whether someone slicing the throat of a 3-month
    old baby is murder, you'd most likely get 100 "Yes" responses.  There
    is a general consensus that this is unacceptable behavior, and hence it
    is legislatable.  If you asked whether the abortion of a two-month old
    fetus is murder, you'd get a host of different responses, all deeply
    felt by the respondent.  You can't legislate something so intimately
    intertwined with someone's life when there's no clear agreement whether
    it's right or wrong.
    
    Lisa

    re .46, if changing the name of something, makes it easier for people
    to do what they have to do to get by in life, whether it's having an
    abortion, or eating a hamburger, then I don't see anything wrong with
    it.
    
    Lorna
    

>    re .46, if changing the name of something, makes it easier for people
>    to do what they have to do to get by in life, whether it's having an
>    abortion, or eating a hamburger, then I don't see anything wrong with
>    it.

 Oh, you mean like "teaching the old girl some respect" instead of
"wife beating"?

    
    I'd like to add here that referring to a developing "thing" using
    different names, such as fetus, zygote, embryo, etc. is not really
    changing the name.  Those are technical terms used to denote the level
    of development, like the difference between toddler, teenager, and
    middle-aged.
    
    As an added opinion, I disagree with Lorna.  Renaming something for
    convenience can lead to some pretty ugly situations, mostly stemming
    from the fact that the new name often mis-labels what actually is being
    described.  Like changing "beaten into submission" into "persuasion".
    
    Lisa

    re .50, no, I don't mean things are basically wrong, as well as
    unnecessary, like wife beating.  If carried to an extreme, I agree name
    changing can become dangerous, but to a limited degree I see nothing
    wrong with it.
    
    Lorna
    

    I meant to say things *that* are basically wrong...
    

    
    
    I'd like to add something in relation to the terms (biological) used to
    describe the stages of pregnancy.
    
    This is something my wife brought up once, she is like me, neither
    pro choice, nor pro life. She feels that both stands are extremely
    radical, and that neither can address all possible
    scenarios/circumstances.
    
    Conversation between mother and daughter (pregnant):
    
    MOTHER: How are you sweetie?, and how is the baby doing these days?.
    
    DAUGHTER: Mother!, in this stage of my pregnancy, it is called a
              "zygote", it is not a baby yet.
    
    MOTHER: Oh, sorry dear. How is the "zygote" doing?.
    
    A few months later,
    
    MOTHER: Hi, it's me again, How is the baby doing?.
    
    DAUGHTER: Mother!, stop it. In this stage of my pregnancy, it is
    	      called a "fetus". Oh, but we know the sex of it, and we are 
              already buying stuff for it.
    
    A few days before her due date,
    
    MOTHER: So, how is the "thing" doing these days?
    
    DAUGHTER: Mother!, it is not a thing, it's my baby. And we'll call it
              __________. Isn't that something??.
    
    MOTHER: You better believe it is!!.
    
                            ------- o -------
    
    In my case I can't see that conversation ever happening between an
    expectant mother, and her mother.
    
    But, I guess that some people would think otherwise.
    
    Art.
                                                       

    I think that a man should be able to have a say in whether his child is
    put up for adoption.  I think that there are as many men who care about
    their children as there are woman and that there are as many neglectful
    and indifferent mothers as there are "deadbeat" dads.
    
    That being said, I do think that as long as it is a legal option, the
    choice to abort should be between a woman and her doctor.  Why?  I
    don't think anyone has mentioned the fact that even in this era ar of
    modern medicine, pregnancy can be debilitating and life threatening.  I
    know several women who have had to stay in bed throughout the majority
    of their pregnancies if they wanted to carry it to term.  I know that
    MS can be exacerbated by carrying a child to term.  There are
    medications a woman could be taking for phsycal or mental health
    problems that should could not take while pregant.  A woman could have
    a history of "high resk" pregnancies and been told by her doctor she
    should not have any more children.  So, while I can see why men get
    angry and frustrated about the unfairness, it is the woman who has to
    face the consequences to her health of carrying and giving birth.
    
    Aslo, it has been said in this note and others that women get custoday
    in 95% of the cases.  I have read that when you only look at the cases
    whrer custody is contested by the father, the figures are closer to
    50/50.  The 95% figure (if that is accurate) is skewed by the fact that
    fathers are not seeking custody in the majority of the cases,
    "anectdotal" evidence aside..    But, as a non-custodial mother, I can
    see why men feel they are getting the short end of the stick. 
    Non-custodial parents, the majority of which are fathers, have a raw
    deal most of the time.
    
    Excues the typos, I am NOT an ignoramus, b my terminal is not in the
    correct mode to edit in the notes file.
    
    Kristin   

    Please try to stick to the questions asked in the base note and try
    not to turn this note into yet another abortion referendum.  Thanks.
    
    				Steve - co-moderator

re .48

>    felt by the respondent.  You can't legislate something so intimately
>    intertwined with someone's life when there's no clear agreement whether
>    it's right or wrong.

Actually you can.  It has been done, quite successfully, particularly in the 
rest of the civilised world.  Why America insists on rehashing these old, old 
arguments when the rest of us have moved on ahead is quite beyond me.

re .55

>    in 95% of the cases.  I have read that when you only look at the cases
>    whrer custody is contested by the father, the figures are closer to
>    50/50.  The 95% figure (if that is accurate) is skewed by the fact that

Where did you see these figures?  I have posted similar numbers in this 
conference, but they are (as I noted at the time) based on Australian Family 
Law Court stats, and have no relationship with America.

    Steve,
    
    The base note doesn't not define to stay within those limits. So if the
    conversations lead that way it is in lew of the fact. Abortion does 
    have an effect upon what is the outcome. 
    
    

    re: .56  I got the impression the base note was asking whether a man
    should have a say in a woman's decision to have an abortion as a part
    of his parental rights.  Was I wrong?
    
    re .57  I got the 50/50 figure in an American publication concerning
    the rights of non-custodial parents after divorce.  It was published by
    the Women's Legal Defense fund.  They actually stated that fathers got
    custody in over 50% of the cases when they fought for it in courts. 
    Are the numbers biased?  Unfortunately, I don't have the publication
    anymore to get the source of the study.  Has anyone else in America
    heard these statistics?  

    re .59
    
    >re .57  I got the 50/50 figure in an American publication concerning
    >the rights of non-custodial parents after divorce.  It was published by
    >the Women's Legal Defense fund.  They actually stated that fathers got
    >custody in over 50% of the cases when they fought for it in courts. 
    >Are the numbers biased?  Unfortunately, I don't have the publication
    >anymore to get the source of the study.  Has anyone else in America
    >heard these statistics?  
    
    I'd say that considering the source, these figures are extremely
    baised.  With considerable personal experience in the matter, and
    every statistical publication that I've seen, men only get custody
    in 10% of the *contested* divorces.
    
    fred();

    
    I feel that the base note is related to the abortion topic, and that a
    woman's response to a man's request to have/not have an abortion is 
    strongly tied to her stand on this issue.
    
    My point of view/opinion (of the base note situation) would be
    incomplete (unfair) until the entire scenario is presented, i.e, her
    background, his background, etc.
    
    Art.

    re .60
    
    Hi Fred-
    
    It's hard to compare statistics when the source and demographics are
    unknown.  We really need to know the time period and area the
    statistics were taken from in order to compare.  I mean what if my
    numbers come from a six month time period in a city and yours come from
    a ten year period for the country?  It doesn't mean anything.
    
    I do take your figures seriously and I would like to look into them
    myself.  What types of publications were you referring to?   I think
    that there are so many factors and so many ways of looking at this. 
    For instance, how many mothers have voluntarily given up their children
    because they couldn't afford to live as decently as the father after
    the divorce?  How many fathers who were primary caretakers lost custody
    to the mother just because she was the mother?  
    
    How do you men feel about the current situation of father's rights?  Is
    it getting better, worse or stagnating, in your opinion?

    re .27
    <Well according to this morning's Boston Globe, 683,000 American women
    <were raped in 1990 and 12.1 million women have been rape victims
    <at least once.
    
    I don't believe that is an accurate summary of what The Globe said. I
    believe that what would be an accurate summary would be that
    approximatel 228,000 American women were raped in 1990 and approx
    455,000 American female children were raped in 1990.
    

    Always nice to have someone around who actually READS the story,
    rather than repeating inaccuracies.

    re .62
    
    I don't have any of the publications handy for direct quote, but
    my experience shows that the numbers are probably pretty close.
    
    Of the fathers that do have custody that I know, most got custody
    because she did not, for one reason or another, contest the custody.
    
    >How do you men feel about the current situation of father's rights?  Is
    >it getting better, worse or stagnating, in your opinion?
    
    	The father's rights situation is rapidly growing worse.  Much
        is being said/done about increasing and collecting the "child
        support" and a little is done about parental kidnapping, but
        absolutely nothing is being done about visitation rightes and
        trying to make support equitable to the Father.  Probably
        because visitation doesn't affect the tax rolls. 
    
    fred();

	re .27 (Bonnie, 24-Apr-1992)

>    Well according to this morning's Boston Globe, 683,000 American women
>    were raped in 1990 and 12.1 million women have been rape victims
>    at least once.
        
	re .63 (Herb)
            
>    I don't believe that is an accurate summary of what The Globe said. I
>    believe that what would be an accurate summary would be that
>    approximatel 228,000 American women were raped in 1990 and approx
>    455,000 American female children were raped in 1990.
        
	The first paragraph of the Globe article from Friday 24:
        
        	A government-funded study released yesterday
        	estimated that 683,000 American women were raped
        	in 1990 - a far higher number than other
        	government reports have said - and that 12.1
        	million women have been rape victims at least
        	once.
        
        Herb, I think Bonnie's note summarized that adequately.
        
	re .64 (Mike)
        
>                               -< thanks, Herb >-
>    Always nice to have someone around who actually READS the story,
>    rather than repeating inaccuracies.
        
        Yes.  Otherwise someone might mistake your incessant
        baiting for something relevant.
        
        Dan

    Looks like you may have the article in front of you...
    If so, ...
    
    As I remember, something like 62% of the rapes were to females under
    18 roughly equally divided between 11-17, and under 11.
    Can you confirm that?
    (or did I read this in an earlier Globe? article?)

        
>>        Yes.  Otherwise someone might mistake your incessant
>>        baiting for something relevant.
        
>>        Dan
    
    	who is baiting who???

    There is a similar article in womannotes. (from the N.Y. Times)
    It reports that the 683,000 was the number of adult women raped last year.
    It also reports that 61% of all rapes on females are perpetrated upon
    females under 18, 29% under 11, 32% 11-17.

    Herb - I copied what I entered directly from the newspaper article.
    
    Bonnie

    re:.66
    
    Daniel, if you keep following me around like this, people will think
    we're a couple.  :")

    And after digging out last Friday's paper, I concede that I was wrong
    in .64.
    
    The 683,000 figure is for women over 18.
    
    The confusion was that the very next sentence (in my paper) said
    that "62% of all rapes are committed against girls 17 or younger."
    I misread the paragraph last week.

        re .73,
        
        That's the same mistake Herb made, reapplying the
        percentages to the 683,000 figure as if it was the
        total, when in fact it was already the adult portion
        of the total.  Easy enough mistake to make on the
        Monday afternoon after an article read on Friday.
        
        Herb acted on the mistaken impression by telling
        Bonnie that "I don't believe that is an accurate
        summary of what The Globe said.".  You acted on it
        by taking a cheap shot at her.  Why?
        
        Dan

        re .75	(Mike)		-< 789.72 >-
        
        Mike, I did consider replying to your comment in .72
        about being followed, but I figured why bother, you'd
        probably just deny having written it.
        
        Dan

    Hmm, security says there are roses waiting for me at the front desk.

        But instead of evading the question, Mike, this time why
        don't you answer it?
        
>.74
>       Herb acted on the mistaken impression by telling
>       Bonnie that "I don't believe that is an accurate
>       summary of what The Globe said.".  You acted on it
>       by taking a cheap shot at her.  Why?
        
        Dan
        

   FYI - 5% of all reported rapes are to men or male children.
    

    Arg! We are definatly off into a tangent and where is Mr. Mod to tell
    us to change this topic to meet the base note??? I'm confused! 
    We are discussing rape. We are not discussing babies, pregnancies, or
    assoc topics.. ......
    
    Someone pass me the plate of hot buttered throat clusters....

    re .79
    
    <5% of all reported rapes are to men or male children>
    
    what is your source for that?

            <<< IKE22::NOTE$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V4.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 37.45          "In the News" (clips only, no discussion)           45 of 45
DELNI::H_SPENCER "Holly Spencer"                     94 lines  27-APR-1992 12:00
                              -< Rape Statistics >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


New York Times 
National Section
Friday, April 24, 1992


Survey Shows Number of Rapes Far Higher Than Official Figures


Washington, April 23 - A Government-financed survey released today
estimated that 683,000 adult women were raped in 1990, a figure 
more than 5 times as high as the number of sexual assaults reported
for the same year by the Justice Department.

	The National Women's Study estimated that at least 12.1
million women have been the victims of forcible rape at least once
in their life and found that 61 percent of the victims said they 
had been raped as minors.

	Researchers who have studied sexual assault said the survey
findings tracked earlier specialized studies of rape and provided
addtional evidence that the Justice Department's National Crime
Victimization Survey, a key analytical indicator used by officials
to gauge the seriousness of crime, has for years underreported the
incidence of rape.

4,008 Women Interviewed

	"These data show us what experts have been saying for a while,"
said Mary P. Koss, a professor of family and community medicine at the
University of Arizona, who completed a national survey of rape 
involving college women in 1987.  "There is a lot more rape than has
been reflected by Federal statistics, and that observation is more
important than whether these are the exact right numbers."

	The study, financed in part by the National Institute on 
Drug Abuse, which is a part of the Department of Health and Human
Services, relied on telephone interviews with more than 4,000 women
about rapes that occurred in the past year and their experiences
with sexual assault during their lifetimes.  The survey included
interviews with 4,008 women who were designed to represent a cross-section
of all adult woman [sic] in the United States.

	The researchers asked explicit questions about rape, a factor
cited by some experts to expain the difference in the National Women's
Study and the Justice Department figures.

	The study found that 0.7 percent of women surveyed reported
a forcible rape in the past year, which when multiplied by Census Bureau
estimate of more than 96 million women in the United States during the
survey period equates to 683,000 adult American women who were raped in
the 12-month period.  The margin of error of the study is 1.5 percentage
points.

No Figures on Children

	The estimate of the number of rapes in 1990 did not include female
children and adolescents or rapes of boys and men.   As a result, the
survey said the estimates probably constitute less than half of rapes
experienced by all Americans during 1990.

	...The study reported the following findings:

    o	Based on the numbers of respondents who said they had been 
raped sometime in their lives, the researchers estimate that about 
6.8 million women nationwide would say they had been raped once,
4.7 million more than once and almost 600,000 would say they did
not know how many times they had been raped.

    o	Only 22 percent of women who saidy they had been raped were
assaulted by strangers.  Twenty-nine percent said they were attacked
by non-relatives known to the victim, 16 percent said they were raped
by a relative not in the immediate family, 11 percent by a father or
stepfather, 9 percent by a boyfriend or former boyfriend, and 9 percent
by a husband or former husband.

    o	More than 6 out of 10 of all rape cases, 61 percent, took place
before the victim reached the age of 18.  Twenty-nine percent of all
rapes occurred when the victim was less than 11 years old and 32 percent
when the victim was between the ages of 11 and 17.

    o	More than two-thirds of the women who said they had been raped
reported no physical injuries, four percent sustained serious physical
injuries, and 24 percent said they received minor physical injuries.

    o   More than 70 percent of the victims said they were concerned 
about their families discovering that they were raped, about two-thirds
said they were worried they might be blamed for being raped.

	A woman classified as a rape victim in the survey was one who said
that she had had sexual contact against her will, where force or the
threat of force was used, and where penetration had occurred, and that
the rape had been completed, not just attempted.

    Whats yha gonna do when you graduate from More Science High there
    Porgie??
    
    Sit in a tree, cut the souls off my shoes, and learn to play the
    flute!:)
    
    

    re .20

    <Hey, the file is just a bunch of bits.>
    <The contents are what you make of it.>
    
    Most of the users of Digital's electronic conferencing tool NOTES do
    not understand the difference between calling this thing a file and
    calling this thing a conference. 

    And you know what?
    I don't think they could care any less than they actually do.
    Indeed it wouldn't surprise me if they consider those who make a public
    distintion between the two to be patronizing (and techno-nerdish).

Herb, Steve was replying to George's complaint in .19 that

> This file is always been biased and always will be biased agianst men.

He used a parallel sentence construction to counterpoint:

> Hey, the file is just a bunch of bits.  The contents are what you make of it.

That's not a techo-nerdish distinction; that's an answer to one absolutist
interpretation, an invitation to acknowledge that we'll all have our own
interpretation of the contents of this file.  Is this file biased against
men?  Not in my opinion.  I thought Steve's answer to George was fairly mild.

DougO

    If your interpretation is correct, I made a mistake.
    
    I took .20 to be castigating George for not understanding the
    difference between a 'file' and a 'conference' (the contents)

    This reminds me of another joke. Where I was at a urinal, passing the
    time of the day. And a gentleman walks up to the next stall. Looks
    into mine and says, "No wounded you can't get no respect......"

    Boom-Boom!:)

    I'm with Steve on this one.  If men are going to give their sperm to a
    woman and risk a pregnancy, they ought to have enough of a relationship
    with this woman in the first place to have discussed her plans with
    respect to a pregnancy *before* deciding to give her his sperm.  If
    they're just going to indescriminantly give it away, like many of them
    really like to, then I just don't have any sympathy for them. 
    
    Likewise, if a woman's going to risk pregnancy with a man, she'd better
    know damn well ahead of time what his and her thoughts are on a potential
    pregnancy *before* she takes the risk.  Neither deserves the right to
    make any sudden demands on the other.  He for the kid, she for the money.
    
    Beyond that, there are accidents.  If it *is* an accident, obviously the 
    parties involved were using birth control and therefore admitting they are 
    not prepared for conception.  I don't see where he can turn around and
    then say, "But..."  Likewise, she shouldn't, either.  If she isn't
    prepared to parent or abort should conception arise, she should take no 
    risks.  No one should go into a sexual situation assuming the other
    will bail them out should a problem arise.  That's just stupidity.
    
    The only "problem" area I see is one of intentional deception.  And in 
    that case, the pregnancy itself isn't really the issue - it's just the
    weapon in some larger battle.  
    
    Bottom line, sex can cause pregnancy.  People know that.  And those who 
    don't do some private soul searching first and decide how they want to 
    handle that, (from the day they become sexually active!), are just 
    immature and irresponsible - and deserve what they get.  Women should 
    never be forced to gestate and men should never be forced to pay - with
    rape the exception.  He should pay.  Big.  For whatever she decides to
    do about it.
    
    Sandy

    re:.78
    
    I probably will, sooner or later.

Re: .88

Doug's interpretation is correct.  It is possible for a conference/notesfile/
file to be "biased" if the moderators systematically make it so, but I
don't believe we do that here.  We're unfair to everyone.

When I read a comment such as "this file is biased" I interpret it as "this
file has lots of notes I don't agree with."

				Steve

    re .92
    
>It is possible for a conference/notesfile/
>file to be "biased" if the moderators systematically make it so, but I
>don't believe we do that here.  
    
    I think we'd probably disagree about that.
    
    fred();

    re .79
    
    <5% of all reported rapes are to men or male children>
    
    what is your source for that?

    I attended a woman's self defense seminar here at LKG. The local Littleton
    police conducted it.  

    at the risk of responding to the basenote...I'd just like to say that
    I agree with the ideas expressed in .90...
    
    Lynn

    I resent your resentment and will raise yha two! :) You don't even know
    who said it and are, again, operating on hear-say. Please get your
    facts in order.

    re .96
    
    When you point fingers, you should take note of the tree pointing back
    at yourself.
    
    fred();

Let's stop the mutual bashing society, please.  Personal attacks of any kind
do not belong in this notes conference.

			Steve

    Steve Lionel says,"Don't throw rocks at glass houses!" :)

Help me out, menNOTErs:  Is this note and its 100 replies representative 
of the contents of this conference?

I spotted this file yesterday when I was searching for information 
on/for survivors of child sexual abuse, and one or two other topics.  I 
extracted a couple of notes that seemed germane, added the conference to
my notebook, and did a SET/SEEN.

When I saw the most recent replies to this note, I went back to .0 and 
read the whole thing.  What a disappointment.  

There are numerous sensitive issues addressed in this conference, and I 
understand that emotions can run high about them.  But I see all sorts 
of bashing (including women bashing and claiming the file is biased; I 
personally find the opinions of women to be invaluable), I see replies 
with no content other than a smiley face, I see replies with a lot of 
words but no content....  

It seems that this conference has great potential for goodness, and this 
note seems to have degenerated quickly, and pretty completely.  Is this 
typical?

Paul

Re: .101

It's actually pretty typical of most "Valuing diversity"-type conferences.
I think the chaff is useful if nothing else than to educate one about the
different types of people out there, and how one has to deal with (or ignore)
them.

After a while, you'll learn to apply your own private filter and will know
whose replies to pay attention to and whose to ignore.  Unfortunately, it's
not possible to have a "no turkeys" policy - we do the best we can to avoid
slugfests, but otherwise have to let people sort things out on their own.

If you're expecting this conference to be as "supportive" as a group
therapy session, you'll be disappointed.  If you see it as representative
of a cross-section of DEC employees and their opinions, you'll be on the
right track.

				Steve

    
    you might find them more supportive in da box ..

Re: .102 (Steve Lionel)  Thanks for the information.

Re:                       <<< Note 789.103 by TENAYA::RAH >>>
    
>    you might find them more supportive in da box ..

I'm guessing that this is directed to me (.101).  Can someone translate?

Paul

    re .103, that's a laugh.
    

    I was wondering....
    
    if an unmarried woman is pregnant, could the father claim the unborn
    baby on his insurance/health care policy for the pregnancy care and costs?
    
    Or is it that the unborn child is not lawfully his until it is born and
    then allowed on the policy?
    
    
    
    

    re:.98
    The "tree" ???
    
    
.104>I'm guessing that this is directed to me (.101).  Can someone translate?
    
    Bob suggests you may find more compassion in PEAR::SOAPBOX, but
    I'm not so sure of that ...

    Re: .106
    
    It all depends on the rules of the father's insurance program.
    Looking at the Digital Medical Plan, as an example, the father
    could probably sign the baby up as a dependent once the child was
    born, but the mother's hospital expenses would be covered by her own
    insurance, if any.  The DEC benefits book only says that the child
    must be your "natural" child or a child of adoption, though it
    offers an out for a child who lives with you in a "parent-child"
    relationship if approved by DEC.
    
    So I think the answer is "it depends".
    
    				Steve

>    I resent the noter who stated that this file is an extension of the
>    wommannotes, as if that conference is negative.

 The noter expressed an opinion of the political flavor of this file. Why
is that such a problem for you? Womannotes has a very distinct political
flavor and an obvious bias (as the name implies.) That is neither good nor bad,
it just is. The opinion that this file "is an extension of womannotes" is
a claim that this file shares to a significant degree the politics and bias
of womannotes. I think that a strong case can be made for such an argument
(though it is not without holes.)

>To the noters who don't like this conference do a del entry mennotes and 
>get off it. 

 Ah, the old "take your ball and go home" approach. As it turns out, such an
approach is not supported by corporate p&p.

>    My opinion...If men could get pregnant, abortions would be drive-thru
>    service.

 An interesting opinion. Do you care to support it or are you just blowing off
steam?

I wonder what Dan Quayle would have to say about all this...  :-)

			Steve

    re: .110
    
    >With the ego that man has as a general rule would affect the outcome
    >of unwanted pregnancy. 
    
    Now that is a revealing comment as I was completely unaware that women
    had no ego.  
    
    >Pregnancy in my view is not a men's issue, let me restate that...it's
    >not a direct men's issue.  It's not his body that is nuturing the fetus.
    
    A man's body may not directly nurture fetuses, but pregnancy is far
    from being an exclusive women's issue.  The last I knew, pregnancy was
    quite impossible without a man's input somewhere along the line. 
    
    Mike

    re .110 & .112
    what a clear illustration of different communication styles!
    
    
    
    				herb

    
    re .113
    
    You seem to be arguing from a standpont that men have no legal
    or emotional attachment to their children.  WRONG!!!!!!!!!
    on both counts.
    
    fred();

    
    
    If it really was a man's world, polygamy would still be legal ;^) ;*).
    
    fred();

.113>                          -< My 2 cents >-
.113> Men and woman have different kinds of ego's. Can we agree on that??? 
.113> The reason being, man and women are different.  By nature and by
.113> society.  

      I would be interested in reading about 25 cents worth on your above
      statements...

    re: .114
    
    Come on now, you can be more communicative than that!
    
    Mike

    re .114
    
    I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious. Please advise

    re: .113

    Men and women have different kind of egos?  I don't think I can agree
    with that comment as stated.  If you mean we have different styles of
    communicating and thinking, then perhaps I agree.

    When you say that society would never support anti-abortion laws if men
    could get pregnant, you are indulging in a rather massive leap in
    faith.  Such a statement presumes that human society would develop as
    it has, with the only difference being the gender that bears the
    children.  Of course, it isn't possible to state that with any
    certainty at all. 

    However, if it will make you feel any better, I am a pro-choice kind of
    guy who is eternally grateful that I cannot get pregnant.

    Mike  

    
    
    re the last few
    
    I think what she is trying to say is the following:
    
    if men could get pregnant and woman could not 
    the men would be just as pissed off about the political
    structure of this country trying to legally dictate 
    what men can and can not do with Their bodies as women
    are today
    
    so if it were only the men who would be affected by the
    anti-abortion laws, don't you think they would feel
    the same way as women do with respect to this?
    
    
    be honest.  there is no way in hell that overnight all of
    the men in power are going to be replaced by women who
    will then be in power.  obviously men and women look at
    life from two distinct points of view.  If women were
    the in the majority of power, the laws would be drastically
    different in many instances.  
    
    i find it hard to understand how men can become so enthralled
    in the abortion debate merely due to the fact that it is
    a decision that they themselves will never be forced to make.
    Mind you,they will be affected by these decisions made by women.
    I agree they deserve input, but when you get into the clinic
    and the agreement has to be signed, there is no line for the
    "father" to sign.  At that point, it is solely the woman's
    responsibility.
    

    re .122
    
>    It is a man's world...And polygomy is legal in other countries.  Yes,
>    let's look at other countries..Look at the under developed ones...there
>    are lots of men who have several wives, in a lot of cultures(like it or
>    not)  the woman is nothing compared to the man.  It's more a man's
>    world than a woman's, it is not equal.  Now you have to agree with me
>    on that one!
    
    
    But not THIS culture.  So this is irrelevant to this discussion.
    
    fred();

    
    re .124
    
    So what is your point?  Do you thins women in the U.S. should get
    some kind of extra considerations because women in tembucktu 
    are opressed?  I have nothing to do with those women.  Neither
    do you for that matter.
    
    fred();

    Actually there are cultures or societies where the wife has more than
    one husband. But so what? I think as a general rule and observation,
    men are more sexual arousal seeking creatures. 
    What's the point?  Do you want more partners? Go for it.
    
    RE: Woman are nothing compared to man....BUT IT IS...big responsibility 
    to carry that power (pregnancy).  Seems somewhat of a contradiction. 
    
    I wonder if that by excluding men from the decision process of the
    "power" to carry a pregnancy to term, if that isn't in effect
    influencing men to take a lesser stance in the parent or father role.
    
    The deal about mothers raising their children on their own is really a
    tragedy to me.  It's a tragedy for the woman, man, children and our
    society. I speak as a once married mother, an once single mother and a 
    now mother with the father of the kids.
    
    Single parenting by either sex is not an experience that should be
    encouraged or sought after. Not to say, that it's the totally wrong
    solution to other alternatives, but I don't think single parenting is
    as rewarding compared to having a partner.
    The stress involved in single parenting is a night mare. Without an
    extended family for support, taking care of yourself and your children 
    is not easy.
    
    It bothers me to hear that if men could bear children, abortion would
    be commonplace. Or that men could not stand the pain or the hardships.
    So what?  What are you trying to teach our children? That men don't
    want children. That if it weren't for women, our poor children would
    surely be unwanted? 
    
    If our society hopes for mothers and fathers to become more balanced in
    the total parenting role, patronizing remarks like those need to be
    abolished. Our factories, corporations and business must acknoledge
    that both fathers and mothers are important and valuable to the well
    being of our children, and our future world makers.
    
    If it takes 2 to tango and 2 income producing couple to
    maintain comfortable household, then it damn sure takes 2 parents to
    raise the kids. 
    
    cindy

    re .110, .112 and much of what came later.
    
    MY OBSERVATIONS.
    
    Like a bolt out of the blue, into a conference that for days has barely
    arisen from its torpor jumps with both feet a new (?) woman who
    immediately starts barging around throwing down the gauntlet. 
    One person (in .112) says who the hell does she think she is and
    replies with the kind of logical sarcasm that we men are famous for.
    
    ....
    
    
    	....
    and the walls came tumbling down

    i'm not offended.
    
    If your intent was to do some rabble-rousing you probably succeeded. On
    the other hand if your intent was to do some conscience raising you
    probably failed.
    
    And the logical nit-picking sarcasm didn't accomplish much but continue
    the high-level of the jousting.

    
    789.128
    
    > Why do men want to control it??
    
     Cuz it effects us. 
    
    > Women were given the power to give birth
    
     No. Women were given the egg and the uterus to facilitate the 
    process of producing children. Power is an entirely different issue
    . Woman have the power to decide to keep the child, to abort
    the child, to give the child up for adoption. Men on the other hand
    have none of the above. And it's here that I think alot of injustice
    is done. Why can't a man say  no to keeping the child and offer to
    pay for the abortion" upon refusal to mitigate damages( I think thats
    the correct legal term? ) or in other words have the abortion, the 
    mother becomes solely responsible for the childs welfare( just asking
    no flames please). If the arguement is that she is morally opposed
    to abortion, well hell, why were they not opposed to the sexual
    act that led up to the situation? 
    
     David          

    	The comments in .113 and .128 claim that the differences between
    men and women extend far beyond the relative capabilities in producing
    children. We have different egos,
>    I believe men and women to be very different.  Sometimes I wonder if we
>    aren't from different planets.  Both sexes are necessary to reproduce
>    in some form, but they aren't and never will be equal.
    
    	Now if we can agree on what type of ego (and other characteristics)
    are required to make a good managing director, or a good secretary I
    believe we have a good formal basis for sexual discrimination in jobs.
    
    
    	On another topic raised by the same author, Mohammed declared
    polygamy to be legal as a result of a petition from a group of women.
    The early Islamic wars had really created the situation where there
    were four women to every one man. On the other hand, Tibet, which
    hadn't had a war in centuries before the Chinese invaded, being well 
    protected by mountains, and having a celibate male priesthood, had a 
    tradition of polyandry. It looks to me as if availability is the main 
    factor between whether polygamy, monogamy or polyandry is regarded as 
    the society norm.

    
    
    
    I don't think either sex is trying to win power in a control
    game.  Nature made it so woman can give birth and men can not.
    Whether this is fair or not really has no impact because we can
    not naturally change this fact.  I don't believe it is men who
    are trying to "control women" with respect to being prolife
    and not wanting women to have abortions.  I honestly feel these
    folks believe the fetus is more important than the woman.  
    What I do see as trying to win power over control is the
    legal system trying to legislate what I can and can not
    do with my body regardless of just what it is I choose to do.
    It is the govt that is trying to control the choices available
    to women with regard to pregnancy.
    
    With that said, as potential fathers, do you believe that it is
    the quality of life that is most important?   if so why?
    or do you believe that it is the life itself that is most important?
    if so why?
    
    Suppose today you get a phone call from a woman claiming you are
    the potential father (I do not believe you are a parent until you
    have a child to parent)?  She may be your wife, your girlfriend,
    your so, or a woman you had sex with on the first date.  So she
    tells you she is pregnant.  Now do you think of the potential
    child's life first and how that life will be in each possible
    situation given the options below:
    
    a.  continue pregnancy and keep child and get married
    b.  continue pregnancy and keep child and not get married
    c.  continue pregnancy and she keeps child and you dont get to be
        a part of his/her life
    d.  continue pregnancy and you keep child and she doesnt get to 
        be a part of his/her life
    e.  continue pregnancy and give child up for adoption
    f.  discontinue pregnancy by abortion
    
    Or is your first reaction how this will affect your life given
    each of the choices above? 
    
    I am genuinely trying to understand how men feel about this issue.
    At the same time, I am trying to show folks just how involved 
    this issue is with respect to making any decision on it.  Before
    you answer any of the questions, try to see both the positive
    as well as the negative involved for the child in each situation.
    Then try to see both the positive and the negative for yourselves
    as fathers.  I won't ask you to try to see it from a mother's
    point of view because that is just not possible.  Just as women
    truly can not view this from the fathers point of view which
    is the reason behind all the questions.
    

    	This is a hypothetical answer. My wife is no longer capable of
    having children and I have never been unfaithful to her, so I don't
    expect to have any more children.
    
    	I would encourage the woman to have the child, and I would
    encourage my wife to accept the child into our family unless the woman
    insisted on keeping it herself.

>I honestly feel these folks believe the fetus is more important than the 
>woman.  

 Actually, I think "these folks" believe the fetus is no less important
than the woman unless her life is in danger.

>    What I do see as trying to win power over control is the
>    legal system trying to legislate what I can and can not
>    do with my body regardless of just what it is I choose to do.

 The way I see it, in order for women to claim that this is just a "what I
do with MY body" thing, the fetus has to be just a part of her body like
a finger or intestine up until the time the umbilical cord has been severed.
I cannot intellectually rationalize such an obvious fallacy; surely at some
point before the separation of the child from the mother the entity must
be considered to be a separate organism. A separate organism is afforded
certain legal and social rights by our society, hence the denial by pro-choice
women that at any time prior to birth that a separate organism exists.

 The Supreme Court has truly let us down on this issue. They must reverse
Roe v. Wade and supplant it with a decision based on Constitutional principles.
They must make a decision regarding when a growing mass of tissue becomes
a separate organism, a decision they have declined to make.

 Frankly, I cannot envision a decision which does not support the contention 
that a separate organism exists once the fetal viability has been attained.
And the whole point is not to give the fetus overriding worth, but to give
the fetus equal� worth.

 I believe that most of the control over abortion law belongs in the 
legislatures, where the people have the most direct representation, not
in the courts where an oligarchy has nearly autonomous control.

 The Doctah

 � Actually, it's "nearly equal" since I believe that in cases where a
significant risk to the mother's health exists and abortion is less risky
than alternatives, that the mother should still be able to abort even if
the fetus is viable. 

    .128 "Men and women are inately different".  You might want to go over
    to Parenting and read the endless argument that went on 18 months ago
    about WHETHER men/women, boys/girls are inately different. To read
    some of those replies one would get the impression that there are some
    VERY slight culturaly induced (not physical) mental differences between
    the sexes... and that we men and women are mentally essentially the same
    as the opposite gender.  The argument also went on to imply that it is
    wrong to encourage specific gender roles, lest someone be encouraged not
    to be themselves.   
    
    Now this string goes on and on to stress the differences and even admit
    that the different roles of men and women boys and girls may actually
    be appropriate.  The polarity one sees in notes never ceases to amaze
    me. 
    
    I do agree with the gist of this string though.
    
    
    Jeff

    re .130, I don't understand your last comment - If they are morally
    opposed to abortion, why weren't they opposed to the sex act that led
    to the pregnancy????  I don't know what you mean.  Why should you think
    that just because someone is morally opposed to abortion (which I'm
    not, btw), they should be opposed to having sex??  Maybe they should
    have used birth control - true - but that's carelessness, not morals.
    
    I think men and women are different in some way, (whether innate,
    socially induced), but I wouldn't say that men and women are "very
    different."  I've know some men I feel I have more in common with than
    I do with some women.  
    
    Basically, I just think that people who know they don't want any more
    kids should use birth control, whether it's the man or the woman.  The
    person who knows they don't want any more kids, should not depend on
    the other person to use birth control.  If a man does not want to have
    to support a child he is uninterested in, then he shouldn't take the
    chance of trusting that a woman he doesn't know very well is using
    birth control unless he knows for sure.  (This is not to say that
    sometimes women in these situations aren't telling the truth, if they
    say that can't have anymore kids.  All men who trust women they don't
    know very well don't get burned or lied to. But, it is a risk.)
    
    Lorna
    

.135> The way I see it, in order for women to claim that this is just a "what I
.135>do with MY body" thing, the fetus has to be just a part of her body like
.135>a finger or intestine up until the time the umbilical cord has been severed.
.135>I cannot intellectually rationalize such an obvious fallacy; surely at some
.135>point before the separation of the child from the mother the entity must
.135>be considered to be a separate organism. A separate organism is afforded
.135>certain legal and social rights by our society, hence the denial by pro-choice
.135>women that at any time prior to birth that a separate organism exists.
    
    Mark, I don't see your point.  What does it matter if the
    zygote/fetus/baby is considered to be a separate entity from the mother
    or not?  That separate entity, by residing and growing in a woman's
    body, is greatly effecting both her health and social situation and
    quite possibly having a negative effect on the entire rest of her life. 
    Your argument is like saying that, if the only way I could stay alive
    was by being constantly physically connected to you by tubes for nine
    months, though I greatly sapped your strength and reduced your mobility
    and your ability to get and keep a job, you should be forced to
    cooperate by law.  After all, it's not *my* fault that you and only you
    can keep me alive.
    
    The reason why this is for woman "just a 'what I do with MY body'
    thing" is that the developing "separate organism" is making changes to
    the woman's body and her life, many of them permanent.  And carrying a
    child to term is still at least a small health risk for *any* woman:
    creating a new life is the human body's biggest and most complicated
    trick, and any of a great number of things can go wrong.  I just don't
    understand where you've cited any justification for legally forcing
    people to unwillingly submit themselves to either these changes or
    the health risks.
    
                                                  -- Mike
    

    
    Lorna,
    
    > that just because someone is morally opposed to abortion(which I'm
    > not btw), they should somehow be opposed to having sex??
    
     Good point. I guess I imagine most pro-lifers as fundamentalists
    Christians, and I mistakingly applied this conviction to all woman.
     
    
    
    Thanks for pointing this out
    
    David                 p.s. What do you think of my "mitigation"
                             suggestion??

    Just to put my 1p in here (haven't got time to read the 100+
    replies on the subject) 

                   <<< Note 789.0 by YOSMTE::SCARBERRY_CI >>>
                             -< whose baby is it? >-

>    Should fathers(wed or unwed) have a right to the unborn fetus?  

    No. Without expressing my own opinion either way on the abortion
    issue, I take the view that women must ultimately make up their 
    own minds. 

>    If mothers (wed or unwed) can sue for child support from the father,
>    because afterall he was a party to it, shouldn't fathers have some
>    right to the unborn fetus, should the mother wish to put it up for
>    adoption or abortion?

    This doesn't compare like with like. Child support applies to 
    children that have already been born... after which the child
    clearly has (undisputed) rights of its own.
    
>    Yes, no...?  Would fathers' rights create more of an equality in the
>    court system toward Parents' responsibilities?
    
    I don't believe there will ever be equality, in that the mothers
    viewpoint will on average figure the strongest. On the other hand, I 
    also believe this is usually in the childs best interests anyway.
    (There are exceptions)

    Dave

    (Thats my 1p, now I can get back to work!)

>What does it matter if the zygote/fetus/baby is considered to be a separate 
>entity from the mother or not?

 Legally speaking it's a huge difference. And legally speaking is the only
speaking that counts in our society, as far as practical consequences go.

>    Your argument is like saying that, if the only way I could stay alive
>    was by being constantly physically connected to you by tubes for nine
>    months, though I greatly sapped your strength and reduced your mobility
>    and your ability to get and keep a job, you should be forced to
>    cooperate by law.  After all, it's not *my* fault that you and only you
>    can keep me alive.

 The not so subtle differentiating aspect that you are neglecting to
relate the fact is that you knowingly and voluntarily put yourself in this
position by choosing to perform an action whose biological purpose is to
cause this very situation.

>    The reason why this is for woman "just a 'what I do with MY body'
>    thing" is that the developing "separate organism" is making changes to
>    the woman's body and her life, many of them permanent. 

 The woman made the choice to have sex, a choice which is nearly universally
recognized to be the only natural cause of pregnancy. This didn't just happen
out of the blue. Absent a voluntary behavior, pregnancy is not an issue
(ignoring, for this discussion, non-consentual intercourse.)

 What is your position on at what point the majority may infringe on
women by regulating her choices to abort? Should the woman have carte blanche
to have an abortion up until the baby's umbilical cord has been cut (after 
delivery)? Or should it be at an earlier point? How much earlier? At what
point does the second life matter, in a legal sense?

 Obviously, the two "no brainer" answers, the two answers that require the
least thought are that life "matters" at the moment of conception or that
it matters once the baby is completely free of the woman's body. Those are
the easy, but uninteresting answers. 

    
    
    re -1
    
    are you saying that because a woman had sex and she became pregnant
    that she must carry the pregnancy to term merely due to the fact that
    she knew that to be a possible outcome of sex?  please justify your
    reasoning behind this.      
    
    If you know the possible consequences you should be prepared to
    accept them?  An unplanned pregnancy being the consequence here.  
    So the woman is faced with accepting the fact that she is pregnant.
    By acknowleding the fact that she is pregnant do you beleive she
    has fulfilled her "accepting the consequences"?  After this point
    she takes responsiblity for the unplanned pregnancy by whatever
    means she chooses.  Or are you just saying if a woman who willfully
    engages in sex gets pregnant, then the only way she can accept
    the consequences is by giving birth?
     
    
    so if I walk out into the street and get hit by a car, then I deserve
    to be in the hospital because I knew there was a possiblity that
    I could get hit if I were in the middle of the street???   
    
    
    

    <up to .142 responses>

    those responses (.97-.142) have precious little to do with the 'stink
    bomb' called .96.

    The 'meat' of the recent discussion was triggered by .110,.113 which
    you might observe, I have not responded to at all let alone criticized.

    .96 was rude (for lack of a better word) and people reacted to it as
    such. .110,.113 are just wrong, not rude. And the reaction to _them_
    seems different to me.
    
    
    				herb

    No doubt about it. If men could produce babies, there would be a
    differnt view. But to bash us with the ego part of this text sounds
    alittle broad brushing. Yes, women nurture children children in the
    fetus. Men and women nurture after the life in the fetus. Men have no
    say, ego or not, in the choice of the life or death of the child. I
    think that this issue has been beaten to death and feel that, as Herb
    has pointed, some one is just sturing the pot some.
    
    

    If men could give birth they would be women..... :-)
    
    I always find it a bit odd to read statements that state that
    things would be different if men could give birth. Perhaps what
    is really meant is that if the larger, stronger, more agressive
    sex was the one that could give birth, then things would have
    been different.
    
    Bonnie

The problem with statements like these ("If men could get pregnant then...)
is that they suppose a change to what is probably THE most fundamental
basis for the way human society is structured, and pretend that none of the
other related aspects would change.

If both sexes could give birth, then our society would look VERY different
in all aspects.  Science fiction writers often take a stab at imagining what
a culture would be like in which the "roles of the sexes" are shared, alternated
or in some cases, altogether different from what humans do.

				Steve

    Thanks Steve,
    
    It would also mean changing the foundations of the natural order
    going back to bacteria. All of which would have a profound effect
    on our society as well.
    
    Bonnie

RE:  .141

There are numerous reasons why I still disagree with your reasoning, but I don't
see any point in continuing the argument.  We all pretty much know where we stand
on the abortion issue by this time, and there's no swaying anyone.

The only problem is that your side seems to be winning.  When I think about what
that means for the future of this nation, it makes me want to give up and die.

                                                           -- Mike

>    are you saying that because a woman had sex and she became pregnant
>    that she must carry the pregnancy to term merely due to the fact that
>    she knew that to be a possible outcome of sex? 

 That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if the Supreme Court determines
that life begins at conception (for the purpose of conferring rights) then
that will be the logical conclusion. And it will be entirely justified as a 
matter of law.

 By the same token, if the Supreme Court determines life does not begin until 
the umbilical cord is severed, then the logical conclusion will be that
abortion can occur legally up until that time.

 

>There are numerous reasons why I still disagree with your reasoning, but I don't
>see any point in continuing the argument.

 How disappointing. I'd hoped you could answer the questions.

>The only problem is that your side seems to be winning. 

 An equally large problem seems to be that you don't know what "my side"
is, except that you apparently assume that if I don't support your side
100% then I am the enemy.  I don't know why but I expected less trivial
thinking from you.

     re. 151
    
    Do you honestly beleive that the Supreme Court has the power or
    right to determine when life begins?  Isn't this putting them in
    the position of playing Creator?  What could they possibly use as
    a quanitfiable reason?  To my knowledge, there has been no 
    consensus on this question because there is not a concrete medically
    or scientifically proven answer.  
    
    My understanding of this current case which has the possibility 
    of overturning Roe V Wade would not make abortion illegal. It will
    merely seek to give the legal process a place in the state government.
    Then this fight will be fought on the state level instead of the
    national level.  
    
    Now given your statements, if life was determined by the supreme
    court to be defined as conception, and thus gives the fetus rights,
    this will mean that the woman would then have to waive her rights
    for the rights of the fetus and continue the pregnancy to birth?
    Then the question will be whose rights outweigh the others.  Upon
    which legal means would this decision be made?  And who has the
    right to make such a decision for two other beings with rights?
    Who is going to decide which beings "rights" are more important?
    
    Why is it so hard to stay out of other peoples business and let
    them make their own decisions?

    .153

    When it comes to the laws of the land, whether its abortion, or the
    death penalty. They are 'God'. Are lives are determined by the opinions 
    the interpretation, and the wording. The Supreme Court is the Creator 
    and the Terminator.

    re: .127
    
    >One person (in .112) says who the hell does she think she is and
    >replies with the kind of logical sarcasm that we men are famous for.
    
    I don't recall saying (or asking) that, nor would I characterize my
    rather blunt style as sarcasm.  
    
    Mike

    re .154, what if I happen to disagree?  Don't expect me to abide by
    rules I disagree with, if I can possibly get around them.  Like she
    said in .153, the supreme court is not God.  They all put their pants
    on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    re .154
    
    George,
    
    With respect to legal issues, yes the lawmakers are in a position
    of choosing for the masses.  However, they are far from "God".
    They do not decide when life begins, only a creator can do such.
    And since this creator has not decided to let the rest of
    the world in on her/his secret, this question will remain unanswered.
    
    
    

    .156
    
    Good. Go throw your body in front of the guards when they take a
    prisioner to the gas chambers. Go avoid what ever they say and remember
    that if you do what they say is a no-no you can go to jail over it.
    
    Sturing the pot or is she smoking the pot?? :)
    
    .157
    
    Its your call do what you want. Have fun.

    
    
    re -1
    
    George,
    
    Do you live your life solely according to what the Supreme Court
    has decided you should or should not do?  Are there no other
    forces that shape your daily life?    
    
    Not being argumentative, just trying to see why you feel the
    Supreme Court is the end all to how each of us chooses to live
    our lives.  I don't purposely go out and do things that are
    against the law.  However, there are some areas of my life
    that are nobodies business but mine.  I don't feel that any
    body of people regardless who they are or just what they do
    has the power to infringe on my private life.  They do, unfortunately,
    have the right to infringe on my public life because at that
    point there are others involved and one must decide what is
    best for all involved.
                                        

>    Do you honestly beleive that the Supreme Court has the power or
>    right to determine when life begins?

 They have the authority to determine _for legal purposes_ when life
begins. They not only have the right to do so, they have the _responsibility_
to do so.

>Isn't this putting them in the position of playing Creator?

 Not at all.

>What could they possibly use as a quanitfiable reason?

 Fertilization of the ovum, onset of brain waves, commencement of a heart beat,
quickening, birth, severing of umbilical cord, first day of school- you name it.

>    Now given your statements, if life was determined by the supreme
>    court to be defined as conception, and thus gives the fetus rights,
>    this will mean that the woman would then have to waive her rights
>    for the rights of the fetus and continue the pregnancy to birth?

 The woman would not have to waive her rights. The simple fact is that
not all rights are created equal. If the Supreme Court ruled that fetuses
of a certain age were considered to be human beings, then the state could 
regulate abortions of those fetuses if it chose. 

>Upon which legal means would this decision be made? 

 I imagine the doctrine of "least harm" would be employed.

> And who has the right to make such a decision for two other beings with 
>rights?

 Sometimes the legislature. Sometimes the court. Such the the social compact.

>    Why is it so hard to stay out of other peoples business and let
>    them make their own decisions?

 Southern slave owners in the 1860's frequently asked this very question.
They didn't believe that slaves were human beings, nor did they believe they
had any rights. Today, we believe otherwise. What makes you think abortion 
is any easier of an issue to deal with?

    .159
    
    If the Supreme court says that everyone moons a feminazi cause you
    if you do not you will go to jail. No doubt I am gonna drop shorts 
    and smile. :)
    
    Peace

>I don't feel that any
>    body of people regardless who they are or just what they do
>    has the power to infringe on my private life.

 While you may believe that a pregnancy involves you and nobody but
you (and hence is part of your private life), not everybody agrees.
Many people consider the fetus to be a second, albeit silent, party.
That's why it is inmportant for the Supreme Court to decide whether
there really is a second party involved or not; the issue must be
settled. Otherwise there will forever be those who wish to eliminate
abortion rights working against you. If the Court determined that
there was no life until birth, then you'd have expanded abortion rights.

 Many women (and men even) are happy to retain the dictum contained
in Roe vs. Wade. As the decision was not based on Constitutional
grounds, it is very likely to be overturned. And the abortion rights
fights will then turn to the state legislatures, where the majority
will have the force of law. This is as it should be; where the Constitution
is silent, we must use the legislatures to create law.

     I find Roe vs. Wade to be a loathsome example of a runaway court, as
    it is not based in solid Constitutional law. However, I am not opposed
    to the effect of Roe vs. Wade.
    
     As a matter of public policy, Roe is not unreasonable. But I do not
    agree with the doctrine of deciding Constitutional cases based on a
    the current moral sentiment of 9 people making things up on the fly as
    suits their political beliefs. As the activist justices of the past are
    replaced by less legislative justices, eventually the precarious
    Constitutional nature of the decision will catch up with it. So while I
    don't have a big problem with Roe as public policy, I do have a big
    problem with the decision as a matter of law.

    .165 
    
    Yes to the first question. But then again, doing things that have
    caused harm to the common person, like the present problems of
    banking, I see little with present goverment and any banana republic.
    
    

    
    
    re -1
    
    I think our government is completely screwed up.  This country
    was at the top of the list economically and as far as a standard
    of living.  Now we have people living in the streets and the 
    taxpayers money is being spent not to help those people,but
    to help people who do not even live here!  Sorry,but I can't see
    how anyone could say our govt has done a good job.  They have
    screwed up royally and are continuing to get away with it.
    
    I do agree that as far as freedoms, this country still ranks
    up there.  We luckily are allowed much more freedom to make our
    own decisions on how we should live our lives.  I would thank
    a Vet for that, not this current body of govt.  The Constitution
    was decided upon when life was different.  There needs to
    be a system by which it can and should be modified to effectively
    work within our society.  Afterall, it was the ideas of the
    society that were the very fabric of the Constitution.  
    
    However, on this particular decision of when life begins, I do
    not believe that the Supreme Court members (who are only lawyers
    turned judges) do have the medical or scientific backgrounds
    (and therefore understanding) to come to a conclusion on this
    question.  This question can not be decided on morals beliefs
    only.  
    
    re .161
    I don't know what your intent of that note was meant to be,and
    you certainly are free to make that statement.  However, you should
    be aware that one thing it most certainly does seek to do is to
    cut off communication.  Which ultimately defeats the purpose of
    this file.  
    
    
    "It is never wrong however to question, replace or challenge
    them."    Amen to that!!!

    .167 Guess you had to have been there. :)

    re .155
    <I don't recall saying (or asking) that, nor would I characterize my
    <rather blunt style as sarcasm.  
    
    Well, look at .112 ...
    <Now that is a revealing comment as I was completely unaware that women
    <had no ego.  
    <The last I knew, pregnancy was quite impossible without a man's input
    <somewhere along the line. 
    
    I think 'sarcasm' is a fair characterization of those words.
    
    				herb

    re: .169
    
    As you wish.  It is hardly worth arguing about.
    
    Mike

    your crazy

>The Constitution
>    was decided upon when life was different.  There needs to
>    be a system by which it can and should be modified to effectively
>    work within our society.

 There is a system in place to modify the Constitution. You didn't
know that?

   > The Constution was decided upon when life was different. 
    
    How profound. And did you know that there was a feminist
    who was also an author of the constution? 
    
    To get the duck to drop down and give you fifty bucks. Who was the
    person???? 
    
    Nope. No door prizes!!!:)
    
    Yes, your right he wore a three corner hat! :)

    
    
    re the last two
    
    Should have worded it differently.  There should be a working
    system in place.  
    
    George why do you always have to bring it down to your ideas
    of feminism.  What point are you trying to make with this?
    I believe that people are people and should be treated with
    the same respect.  If that is what you think feminism is then
    great.  However, I don't believe so.  From the tone of some of
    your notes it appears you think its them against us.  Why cant
    we all work together?  Why does it have to come down to sides?
    

>    Should have worded it differently.  There should be a working
>    system in place.  

 Perhaps you should explain what is disfunctional about the current system
for amending the Constitution. Do you think that amending the Constitution
ought to be as easy as passing laws?

    
    
    re -1  
    
    I don't think it should be on the same level as passing laws
    as far as importance.  Afterall, the laws are based partly on
    this body of knowledge.  Yet, there clearly are some areas
    of the constitution that could be modified to be of more benefit
    to the general population.  The end result hopefully being that
    the laws which will be generated or possibly changed due to the
    modifications of the Constitution could also benefit the masses.
    Hopefully with the intention of benefiting the majority of
    society instead of the minority of society members.
    
    Kind of like giving a teacher a new textbook.  There is new
    information that needs to be combined with old information.
    The end result is that the students receive more knowledge.
    Knowledge is the power that can change this world.

    I am not totally against feminism. I am a true believer of equality.
    But I have seen some walls put up in the name of equality that are
    truly hypercritical. I am knocking the system as to help us all come
    to understand these things. I have written enough to make these points
    of these walls and the justice that is an injustice. I really don't
    think that your reading me. You see the words but are not trying to put
    on the shoes that I have to wear. Or any other man who stands in the
    same set of shoes. When I read about militant women, and the ways they
    wish to castrate us, I think of some time ago when many of us were
    rounded up for that special camp in Germany. 

    I have also seen other side effects of your politics that are very
    seriously out of whack. And many of us have discussed it over and over
    again. You don't want to acknowledge it, instead you continue the same
    old rhetoric and so, I am out of words. 

    Peace

    
    
    re -1
    
    George I think we agree on things more than we disagree.  Maybe it
    is the style of your writing that rubs me the wrong way.  I agree
    that we all need to "knock the system to help us all come to 
    understand".  And truly neither of us can wear each others shoes.
    Yet we can seek to understand just what it may be like and why those
    opinions are formed while wearing those shoes.  
    
    I get the feeling you see me as a feminist.  I don't call myself
    by that label as I do not believe in all that it stands for.  There
    are some things in this world that nature made the way they are
    for a reason and hence can never, due to that fact alone, be equal.
    As for my political views, I would like to see the people in power
    start to work towards a common goal of benefitting everyone not just
    a priveleged few.  It shouldnt matter what sex, color, race, sexual
    orientation, cultural values, family values, morals, etc.  We are
    all one people.  Let's work to give the same amount of respect to
    each individual.  What's militant about that?  I think that is an
    idea that was shared by many people, and hopefully still is.  Yet,
    it seems to have gotten lost somewhere along the way.
    
    We are of two different generations and yet we agree on some things.
    It's nice to be able to tap into intergenerational situations.  One
    gets to witness different ideas and different thoughts.  You have
    life situations that have helped form your ideas and opinions,
    just as I do.  They probably are very different life experiences,
    but they are each equally valid.  It is the sharing of these
    experiences through our ideas and thoughts that helps make each
    of us understand.  Hopefully, that will bring this country back
    around again to one unified nation.
    

    
    .179
    Perhaps its is my style of writing. Its basic. It says the point, and I
    don't dance around with allot of words that to the common reader,
    confuse. So perhaps in my basic ways, my basic ver-bage gets allot of
    dandruff up. 

    Yes, sounds like we have allot in common. I am not militant either. I
    am just tired of seeing stuff shoved down peoples throats in the name
    of equality when it is blatantly wrong. Want to make a bridge? Or make
    walls? I like bridges. 

    Knocking the system is a way of making us all see, perhaps I have gone
    out on a few shorten limbs. But hopefully we are all adults and all
    will forgive when we are not behind the keyboard. :) Blind obedience
    leads us down paths that there can be some serious consequences. And I,
    hopefully, will not be accused of that. Hopefully some day, someone
    will give me that kick in the shorts when they see that I have. I know
    that Mr. Steve Lionel has done so, I respect him for it. Even though I
    will tell him other wise. 

    re .179, are you sure you two are of different generations????  :-)
    
    I'm just curious if that's true.  I'm under the impression that
    Michele is in her mid to late 20's and George in his mid to late 30's. 
    If I'm right, that's hardly a generation - 10 yrs. or so.  But, maybe
    I'm wrong.  
    
    Anyway, George, don't blame all feminists just because a few women are
    jerks.
    
    Lorna
    

    .181

    Thanks for the complements. But Jack Benny and self have allot in
    common. For ever 38 or was that 39??:) 

    By one of those guys who wrote the constitution, with the three corner
    hats, made mention of when you get older you become alittle more
    conservative. Where as when your younger your alittle more leaning
    towards the liberal sides. I don't know where I lean, except when I am
    standing in line at the credit union, and then I am leaning against the
    wall.

    I don't blame anyone who is open to things with their beliefs that are
    not absolute. Remember that absolute power can be absolutely corrupt
    power. As I have said, no one is perfect here.
    
    Peace

    
    
    re .179
    
    Lorna,
    
    Sure there might not be that much difference in our ages as far
    as years.  Yet look at the differences in the world at the times
    of our births.  Look at what was going on and the opinions of
    society when I was going through my teens and forming my ideas
    on life vs those of George.  Big difference.  All I experienced
    of Vietnam was a half paragraph in the history book.  I really
    can't relate to the feelings behind any of it.  Yet I'm sure 
    George can relate to the feelings.  Even the Kennedy thing.
    I can try to understand the nations feelings on his assasination,
    but I can't really feel them.  Furthermore, there really is no
    event that has since bound the country together again.  To me
    the Kennedys are a political family.  I wasnt old enough to 
    "catch the feeling".    
    
    10 years may not seem like a long time.  But in reality there
    was much that changed over those ten years.

 re: .177

 You didn't say what was wrong with the present system of making changes
to the Constitution, nor did you explain what you'd like to see for a
process.

    re .183, it's true that 10 or 15 yrs. can make a big difference as far
    as  political, and musical issues, and popular culture go, but I guess
    it's just that I think of a generation as being at least 20 yrs. or so. 
    (old enough to be the other generation's parents - but then judging
    from George's last reply, he may be older than I thought!)
    
    Anyway, I remember the Kennedy's, Vietnam (on TV), the 60's, etc, but I
    turned out very liberal, whereas George has turned out very
    conservative, so even being in the same generation doesn't mean people
    will see things the same way.  (We probably remember all the same songs
    and TV shows, etc.)
    
    Lorna
     

    re .184
    
    What is wrong with the present system of making changes to
    the Constitution?  The fact that the people who are in the
    position (i.e. members of our congress) have not done the
    jobs they were elected to do.  How can we expect the current
    "group" to make any changes if they can't even balance their
    checkbooks?   I'm sure that when this system was originally
    set up, the founding fathers never imagined such a corrupt
    group of individuals would be in office.  But the voting
    public also has a play in this too.  We let them stay in 
    office by not voting them out.  Thankfully that will change.
    
    
    There is no "policing" of congress.  
    I would like to see a process that somehow omits the corruption.
    Maybe they should have citizen review panels or some such thing?
    I really have not thought this one through just yet.  Good
    thing to ponder over the weekend.
    
    I guess what I would like to see is that the folks who are
    responsible for making the change be more in touch with the
    average american citizen.  This could be accomplished by 
    voting the old out and voting the new in.  Yet once these
    new folks come in, what is to stop them to repeat the 
    mistakes of the folks who were voted out?  That needs to
    be controlled in some manner by a non-governmental agency
    or group of folks.  
    
    

    Here is the text of Article V of the constitution, the part pertaining
    to changes.
    
    As you can see, we are not dependent on the Congress to pass
    amendments.
    
    However, it seems to me that it ought to be a fairly difficult thing 
    to make modifications to the Constitution, else we wind up nickle and
    diming the thing to death.
    
    Enjoy!
    
    Mike

    
Article. V.

     The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, 
shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the 
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for 
proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and 
Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of 
three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourth thereof, 
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; 
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand 
eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses 
in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its 
Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

       
    

    
    
    re -1
    
    Mike
    
    I purposely read that before I entered my notes.  Could you explain
    where you see it saying that members of congress are not responsible?
    Where am I confusing the wording?
    
    

    There are two ways to implement Amendments to the Constitution:

    1.  Have a bill of amendment pass by 2/3'rds majority of both houses of
        Congress, or

    2.  Have the state legislatures of 2/3'rds of the state legislatures 
        request a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments, which 
        the Congress must then convene.

    In either case, proposed amendments must then be ratified by 3/4'ths of
    the states before they become valid.

    Mike 

>The fact that the people who are in the
>    position (i.e. members of our congress) have not done the
>    jobs they were elected to do. 

 That's irrelevant to the process.

> I'm sure that when this system was originally
>    set up, the founding fathers never imagined such a corrupt
>    group of individuals would be in office.

 Of course they did. Hence the safeguards placed in the Constitution.

    To set the record streight. As so not to keep things in
    the closet...I am 41. AAaaa-eeem.... Wow! Was that tuff to say or
    what?:) 
    
    Yep. Saw much, felt much. Didn't do a tour of Nam. But went to
    a few friends funerals who came home, in little pieces. One thing that
    I think that makes me fly my flag all the time off the front of my
    house. It has been stolen a couple of time, but the next day or week
    there is another flag out there. Its for them, and all of us here. 
    
    
    Peace
    Safely from behind my keyboard. 

    olde pharte

    Wow, almost old enough to SERP.  :")

    No doubt about it. I am going to have to keep a low profile for a
    couple of years.:)