Conference quark::mennotes

    
    I think that Katha Politt should have her tubes tide and save 
    the rest of us men and women from such craziness. I'd be 
    willing to pay an annual tax of keeping people like her
    from reproducing. 
    I agree with fathers and mothers providing financial and emotional
    support to there children, whatever the circumstance be in there
    lives, but blaming men is not the answer. 

    Given the agenda of welfare "reform" in this country for women, I fail
    to see how this is any more sickening than the modest proposal of
    putting mothers and children in group homes if the mothers are under a
    certain age limit, particularly give the fact that the younger the
    teen mother, the more likely the father of a child is to be of adult
    years.  
    
    Now I do believe her idea of compulsory sterilization for men who won't
    live up to their responsibilities goes a little far.  
    
    meg

I think that the author is engaging in non-so-subtle sarcasm.  Like Meg,
I agree with the basic notion that the current trend of punishing unwed
mothers is out of balance - though I do tend to side with the notion of
denying additional benefits for those who have more children while on Welfare.

Many men do need to be convinced to take responsibility for their actions.  
Women don't "get themselves pregnant".  Many women need also to take
responsibility for their actions.

					Steve

    RE .2 Meg
    
    Forced sterilization goes a little far? 
    
    Does that apply to forced sterilization of women who continue to have 
    children they cannot support? 'A little far' or look 'at what the crazies
    have proposed' (for women)?
    
    Steve

    Steve,
    
    While I deplore people having children they can't (or won't) support,
    being pro-choice and pro-privacy, I can't countenance mandatory
    sterilization for anyone, much as I know of people I would love to see
    it happen to.  This applies to both men and women.  
    
    We share equal responsiblity in not procreating when the time is not
    right.  For sexually active men this means using condoms and/or
    sterilization, and for women also using another method as well as their
    partners' for contraception.  The alternative is not being sexually
    active in a fashion which can result in pregnancies when one can't deal
    with the end result, or could spread an unknown STD to one's partner. 
    It also means discussing in advance and being in agreement with one's
    partner on what to do if an unintended pregnancy does occur, and if
    agreement isn't reached abstaining from activities which could result
    in a pregnancy.  
    
    meg

    
    Actually it has been the other way around.  The obligation for men
    to support their children is much heavier than that for women.
    It's just harder to catch up with the men.  Men who won't work
    and support their children are "deadbeats", get sent to jail.
    Women who won't work and support their children are "victims",
    get welfare.

    I hope they do make it tough on men.  Tough enough that men will
    finally get up on their hind legs and say, "Hey, wait just a 
    *&^% minute here".

    Actually it's the taxpayers who are saying, "Hey, waitaminute"--
    to _both_ sides.
    
    fred();

.3> Many men do need to be convinced to take responsibility for their actions.  
.3> Women don't "get themselves pregnant".  Many women need also to take
.3> responsibility for their actions.

.5> We share equal responsiblity in not procreating when the time is not
.5> right.

.6> I hope they do make it tough on men.  Tough enough that men will
.6> finally get up on their hind legs and say, "Hey, wait just a 
.6> *&^% minute here".

    As far as equal responsibility is concerned (and this being MENNOTES),
    only Men really need to be responsible...  Only Men impregnate.  What you
    do is increase "that stuff" which prevents all Men from being rapists
    and there's your solution...

    
    re:7
    
    There is some truth to both sides in this debate!
    
    One thing you can't deny, it takes two to make a child
    and two to act responsibly.
    Not sure what "that stuff" is but maybe you and Katha should get 
    some therapy.
                                          Bill
     

    I think that article was more to shock than to actually change things.
    The author must have been using sarcasm to get a point across.
    
    OK, there's a problem, we need solutions. This article sounds like 
    the flipside to Newt Gingrich "thinking". (or lack thereof) "If it
    costs money, cut it" (bad joke when you think of vasectomies). 
    
    Simple solutions = more problems. 
    
    j

    
    Kasha is just another in a long line of irresponsible feminist writers 
    who make a living trashing men. Seems like there's no end to this type!
    
    Although I agree with some of the things she says it would be a breath
    of fresh air if just one of them would write about the good 
    responsible men. Would that be asking too much?
    
                                                             Bill

    
    Step-daughter just told me about her friend, 18 years old, who is
    pregnant. The father, (term used lightly) also has 4 other children
    with 3 other girls, one set of twins.......

    Roll another news paper and swat us on the nose. I guess women have no
    responsibility. Its all mens fault. Bad dog! Baaaaad!
    
    If a women get pregnant, its her body, her call to keep or abort the
    child. Isnt that why we all want abortions? So to give a choice?
    Economics, choice, womans body. So confused here. Mixed messages, baaad
    dog! <insert news paper swatting dog sounds>
    
    

    
    re .11

>    Step-daughter just told me about her friend, 18 years old, who is
>    pregnant. The father, (term used lightly) also has 4 other children
>    with 3 other girls, one set of twins.......

    Does this girl happen to be blond??  You'd think she would have caught
    a clue about what would happen if she hopped in be with this guy.
    I'm not trying to defend the guy, but I think her actions were
    _equally_ irresponsible (OMG I've become an ERA supporter).

    fred();

    
    
    The guy ought to be snipped.  There is ownership of resonsibility on
    both side.
    
    

    All parties should be terminated.:) Thus saving us all from passing on
    to future generations the idiots of today. Support your local AMA!!
    Public steriolization!!:)
    
    There is a woman, who had her kids yanked from her because the state
    found her unfit to foster children. Soooo, she goes out and has two
    more that we, the tax payers, are paying for. So, she has these other
    children by two more differnt men. Punsih these men too! Swat their
    noses hard with rolled up news papers!!! So much for responsibility...
    But, its her body and her call to carry or terminate life as we know
    it.
    
    

    
    	Just sharing a story, that's all....
    
    	Fact is these woman are equally at fault but men, guys, boys such as
    this do little to add value to their children's lives and 
    have these women convinced that they will be together forever. 
    I also think that women "do" carry more of the burden is these
    situations...typically the guys just walk..... 

     re .16

>    Fact is these woman are equally at fault but men, guys, boys such as
>    this do little to add value to their children's lives and 
>    have these women convinced that they will be together forever. 

    The second half of your statement belies the first half of your 
    statement.  And it is very often that the fathers have no choice
    in the matter of added value.  When it comes to support they  are
    _his_ kids.  When it comes to visitaion/custody, they are _her_
    kids.  Most states _require_ the mother to reveal the father of
    the child so they can go after him for "child support" if she
    applies for AFDC.  Very often, the mother will conceal this information
    because the are afraid that the father _will_ want to be involved
    in his child's life.

>    I also think that women "do" carry more of the burden is these
>    situations...typically the guys just walk..... 

    No, the _taxpayers_ end up carrying with the burden in most these cases.  
    But, yes the woman does mostly end up caring for the child.  Given
    that ( probably unfair but ) fact of life, you'd think they would be
    more careful what hay they roll in.  But what the *&^% they will be
    given food, shelter, all kinds of government freebies, not have to 
    live with those ogers mom and especially dad, and be sent to school
    if they want if if they just pop out a couple of kids.  So what the
    *&^@, why be careful. 

    And, yes, guys are going to start being more careful too.  It is a
    Federal felony to not pay child support these days.  But, as I have
    said before,  if men ever do start thinking with their heads instead
    of their sex organs, women are going to be in deep do-do, and maybe
    this law will bring us one step closer to that day.

    fred();

    Bizarro.  Y'all are responding as though this "Katha Pollitt" is
    suggesting these things out of the blue.  Granted, the context is a
    little tough to establish, but read between the lines a little.  In
    particular, this is a huge hint that her transcriber skipped a big part
    of the story, the laying of the groundwork:
    
    > [warm-up deleted but will type it up for
    > you later if you're really interested]
    
    So what is Pollitt really talking about?  It looks to me like she wants
    to amend some welfare reform bill currently under consideration.  I
    think this because of the references she makes to how women are being
    treated, which they aren't, but would be under some current
    proposals in the House.  Here are some of those references:
    
    > If he is unable to pay, the government will, in which
    > case the father will be given a workfare (no wage)
    > job and a dorm residence comparable to those provided
    > homeless women and children --
    
    See that?  No such dorm residences are currently provided, so she seems
    to be talking about some other proposal, the "warm-up" you didn't get
    to read.
    
    Here's another:
    
    > Absentee dads, not overburdened single moms, will
    > be legally liable for the crimes and misdemeanors of their
    > minor children,
    
    Again, it is in current proposals, not current law, that single
    mothers would be solely liable for their minor children's crimes.
    
    And a third hint that Pollitt is talking about current legislation, not
    making up an out-of-the-blue attack on men:
    
    > Men wishing to avoid the tax can undergo a vasectomy at state expense,
    > with sperm to be frozen at personal expense (Republican version) or by
    > government subsidy (Democratic version).
    
    So what is going on here is that Pollitt is responding to the one-sided
    approach taken by current welfare reform bills, that seek to make the
    welfare mother problem something to be solved solely at the expense of
    the women involved- Pollitt points out that if punishment is the name
    of the game, bring the errant men in for their fair share of misery
    too.  Even up the penalties- don't let sperm-spreaders off from paying
    for their mistakes.
    
    Now, can we start the discussion over?
    
    DougO

    ???? What doug? I dont have my decoder ring on today. Can you explain
    in more primitave english for us neaderthal types?
    
    

    re .19

    Start the discussion over based on some supposedly unseeen "warm up"??

    Using your logic, having extra kids on welfare would not only not
    be paid for at taxpayer expense, it would be  a _felony_.  Failure
    of these women to go to work and support "their" kids would be
    a _felony_.   Just as failure to pay "child support" is now a felony.

    fred();

    >supposedly unseeen "warm up"?
    
    My quote was from the basenote.  Do you believe the original sender
    when she said she left material out?
    
    > Using your logic, having extra kids on welfare would not only not
    > be paid for at taxpayer expense, it would be  a _felony_.
    
    I said nothing of the kind.  I said that Pollitt is objecting to bills
    that would make such actions felonies if committed by women, but not if
    by men.  She is merely campaigning for equally harsh treatment.  I
    don't think she is actually in support of the bills at all; and her
    best tactic against them is sarcastic suggestion that the penalties
    apply to men, as well as to the women currently targeted.
    
    DougO

    
    re .22

>    I said nothing of the kind.  I said that Pollitt is objecting to bills
>    that would make such actions felonies if committed by women, but not if
>    by men.  She is merely campaigning for equally harsh treatment.  I

    No DougO, it's _already_ a felony if committed by men (failure to
    support your children).  The harshness is _already_ on the men's
    side.  What Pollitt is spewing is just more of the "it's all the
    fault of men, men are bad, men should be punished for just breathing",
    "how dare they expect women to get off welfare and go to work
    to support "his" kids", and "how dare anyone suggest that a woman
    can't  behave in any manner that she'd like, then expect taxpayers to
    pay for the consequence".

    But for those who don't believer that there really are people out there
    that thinks like Pollitt does, you do make an excellent example, again.

    fred();

    You missed this, Fred.  
    
    >> supposedly unseeen "warm up"?
    >
    >    My quote was from the basenote.  Do you believe the original sender
    >    when she said she left material out?
    
    What do you mean, "supposedly"?  The transcriber admitted the
    ommission.  What was left out of Pollitt's article, if not what 
    I conjectured?
    
    > it's _already_ a felony if committed by men
    
    You miss the point.  Pollitt isn't talking about the existing system.
    She's talking about pending legislation, she was going over specific
    points in the proposed bills and supplying penalties for men
    corresponding to those proposed for women.  This is a legitimate
    approach to indicate the flaws of the proposed legislation.
    
    > men are bad, men should be punished for just breathing
    
    And locked up in dormitories, right?  Like women should be?
    THAT'S IN THE BILL SHE IS FIGHTING.
    
    > But for those who don't believer that there really are people out
    > there that thinks like Pollitt does, you do make an excellent example,
    > again.
    
    Don't kid yourself for a moment that you understand how Pollitt thinks.
    But yeah- some of us know how to read between the lines when something
    is admittedly (well, you haven't admitted it yet, but the transcriber
    admitted it) missing, some of us know how the fight against female
    welfare recipients is waged, some of us know when someone is fighting
    for equal treatment, not for a bill that addresses only the female half
    of the problem.  Too bad you aren't similarly gifted, Fred.
    
    DougO

        re .24

>    You miss the point.  Pollitt isn't talking about the existing system.
>    She's talking about pending legislation, she was going over specific
>    points in the proposed bills and supplying penalties for men
>    corresponding to those proposed for women.  This is a legitimate
>    approach to indicate the flaws of the proposed legislation.

    Pollitt's "corresponding penalties" for making women take responsibility
    for their own actions is to have men sterilized?  And you agree?  
    Can't say I'm surprised.

    > Don't kid yourself for a moment that you understand how Pollitt thinks.

    And you do?  Even granted your "omissions", Pollitt is still out on
    the fringe trying to equate severe financial penalties and forced
    sterilization to making women get off welfare.  The scary part is 
    that she seems to have a lot of company out there.

    fred();

.24> What was left out of Pollitt's article, if not what I conjectured?

Doug, I read the base note about the way you did, except that I don't believe
that Pollitt was responding to pending legislation.  The only parallel I can see
to her forced vasectomies would be forced seterilization.  I have seen this in
occasional campaign speeches, but not in any legislation I know of.  

It seems pointless to me to debate information which has not been posted here. 
If you want to discuss what was left out by the base note, go find it in
_Nation_ or _UTNE Reader_ and type it in.  Then maybe we can discuss it.

Just for the record, I would agree with the principle of equality: any
legislation which included forced sterilization should also include forced
vasectomies.  I don't believe that either is likely to become law.    

>    And locked up in dormitories, right?  Like women should be?
>    THAT'S IN THE BILL SHE IS FIGHTING.

I have seen several proposals that unwed minor mothers should be required to
live with their parents, or if that is impossible, then they should be assigned
to group homes.  I might support the same for the fathers, but since they are
already liable for prison for statutory rape, that seems a bit redundant.

>    You miss the point.  Pollitt isn't talking about the existing system.
>    She's talking about pending legislation, she was going over specific

Doug, I think you miss Fred's point.  When we consider Pollit's claims of
inequality we should consider both current and pending legislation and court
decisions which affect men.

    
    As far as welfare goes.  Everybody may "need" help sometime.  So if we
    have a 2 year maximum lifetime cap for welfare.  And when you are on
    welfare, you are either an employee of the state, or a ward of the
    state, either way, by accepting "our" money, you have to fullfill
    certain requirements, like, ah, well, how do I say this, WORK, just
    like the rest of us poor slobs.  You have to work, or you don't get
    any help.  What a concept.
    
    As for children out of wedlock.  If our society didn't "reward" this by
    giving welfare, you'd have less kids born out of wedlock.  If the 16
    year old girl didn't get an apartment and food stamps, and her family
    didn't/wouldn't/couldn't help her, what would happen, she would
    struggle, and the other little girls in the neighborhood would say,
    yuk, look at her, she can't go to the movies, go to the mall, go out to
    a dance, she has to take care of the baby, and she has no high school 
    diploma, no skills, yuk, I don't think I want to do that.
    
    I didn't fool around when I was a teenager, one reason was that my
    parents told me if you can't support a family/wife, you'd better not 
    have/get one.  If you reward behaviors that are not desirable, you'll
    get more of the undesirable behavior.
    
    Todays kids don't think about the consequences, one reason is that the
    liberal state steps in and pretends to rescue them with welfare.
    Giving something to someone hardly ever helps them, hard work,
    struggle, and accomplishment are what builds and shapes character.
    
    Senator Biden said a couple of years ago, something to the effect that
    one thing wrong with this society is the lack of STIGMA.  Stigma is
    good, it keeps people in line with the values and norms of society.
    
    Just look at all the crap talk shows, I slept with my (fill in the
    blank), I stole $$ from my company, I snorted cocaine before playing 
    every football game (Lawrence Taylor), please buy my book,etc.  
    No Shame, no Stigma.
    
    Sometimes I wish I could sit home and collect a paycheck, but even if I
    could and wanted too, it's a big trap, it saps your strength, your
    desires, and your life.
    
    People need to earn what they get in life.  
    
    
    A couple of starts would be "FREE" higher education, no student loans,
    pell grants, etc,  if you get a C or better, you go to college for
    free.  Better to educate someone than to incarcerate them, and it only
    costs about 10K to go to a state college with room and board, the cost
    of a prison cell is 35K and rising.
    
    
                       

        re .27

    Or, as I have said many times--If you have a right to force me to pay
    the consequences of your behavior, then I have a right to say something
    about your behavior.

    My kids have asked me, "So what's the difference in you doing something 
    and us doing something"?  My response was, "If I break it I have to fix
    it.  If you break it I have to fix it".

    fred();

        RE: .27
    
    > If the 16 year old girl didn't get an apartment and food stamps, and her
    > family didn't/wouldn't/couldn't help her, what would happen, she would
    > struggle, and the other little girls in the neighborhood would say,
    > yuk, look at her, she can't go to the movies, go to the mall, go out to
    > a dance, she has to take care of the baby, and she has no high school 
    > diploma, no skills, yuk, I don't think I want to do that.
    
       "Wow, she lives in her own rat-infested apartment in that
        dangerous crime ridden public housing project and gets to
        drag around a screaming infant with her day and night and
        can't hang with the gals cause she's got to care for the
        baby and has to wait in endless lines and talk to countless
        bureaucrats to get dozens of dollars a week and she had to
        drop out of school and has no skills.....  Yeah!  I want to
        be just like her!"
    
    While I'm certain we would see a drop in the number of teenagers
    having babies if we were to implement a draconian plan prohibiting
    the distribution of welfare benefits to illegitimate children and 
    their mothers, I think looking at the problem in terms of the pseudo-
    dialog above is simplistic and short-sighted.    I *don't* think 
    young girls decide to get pregnant simply because they think going
    on welfare is a better choice than getting a good education and a high
    paying job.  Quite often they don't have such a choice.  Even if a 
    young girl from the projects stays away from boys and concentrates
    on school, her chances of escaping a life of poverty are remote.
    
    Likewise, I don't think boys see a future of endless court battles
    over custody and visitation rights and child support payments and
    decide to abstain.  The don't say; "yuck, look at him, he has to 
    sleep in his car and can't see his kids and has no money to go to 
    the movies or to the football game...I don't think I want to have 
    sex with that hot babe..."
    
    These kids aren't looking into the future and making sound decisions
    based upon where they want to be in 5 or 10 or 20 years.  They don't
    *see* a future for themselves and so they live for the moment.  And
    if you take away the minimal government support that allows them
    to eat and live in poverty, they'll just become that much more dejected
    and hopeless....and dangerous.
    
    I'm not saying the answer is to throw money at people.  I'm not sure
    what the answer is.  I agree 100% that the system is broken and needs 
    to be fixed, but exactly how I don't know.   I do know that if we try
    to fix the problem based upon projections of our own motivations, we're
    unlikely to succeed.
    
    I like your idea regarding education.  I think that would be a huge
    step in the right direction.   We also need to do something about the
    fact that there aren't enough high paying jobs.  How are we going to
    provide all the newly educated poor with a chance to earn a decent 
    living?
    
    

    I have read this string of notes.  And so many people presenting one\
    point or another.  Most of us just shrugging our shoulders in despair,
    frustration or helplessness. All search for the answer.  I am reminded
    of a quote by a famous leader, when asked how he governed his people.
    
    He said:  "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves."
    
    As simplistic as this answer may seem, perhaps it contains the answer
    we seek.  As a father, I  am trying to teach my children the principles
    that will allow them to enjoy a happy productive and fulfilling life.
    
    Sure we make mistakes, but not idiotic ones, at least. 

    There have been proposals, at least at the state level, to sterilize
    (permanently or temporarily with Norplant) women on welfare.  There was
    one state (Delaware?) that attempted to put such a proposal into
    action.
    
    					Steve

    
    Hi Greg,
    
    >I *don't* think young girls decide to get pregnant simply because they 
    >think going on welfare is a better choice than getting a good education
    >and a high paying job.  
    
     I think many of them do decide to do this, because it is easy.
     And because they don't feel loved, some want the unconditional 
     love that a baby will give, because they (the mother) didn't 
     get or feel she got that love in the home.  And they see lack of
     hope and opportunity, whether real or imagined.
    
    
    >Likewise, I don't think boys see a future of endless court battles
    >over custody and visitation rights and child support payments and
    >decide to abstain.  The don't say; "yuck, look at him, he has to
    >sleep in his car and can't see his kids and has no money to go to
    >the movies or to the football game...I don't think I want to have
    >sex with that hot babe..."
    
     If there friends had to do the above, they would say "yuck, look at
     him, he has to sleep in his car and can't see his kids and has no 
     money to go to the movies or to the football game...I don't think
     I want to have sex with that hot babe..."
     Especially if they had been raised up correctly, to be personally and
     morally/ethically responsible for there procreation.  They certainly
     would in my opinion be more responsible.
    
     
    One of the biggest problems you have in the inner city is lack of role
    models, lack of the father in the home.  I don't really know how people
    can abandon there own flesh and blood, whether it's the lack of severe
    consequences, whether that be stigma, fines, imprisonment, etc.
    But I have two kids from my first marriage, I pay child support and 
    see them during the week and every other weekend.  I do what I am
    supposed to do, per the Courts and my own sense of responsiblity.
    
    I didn't get proved a bad Daddy in court and my ex didn't get proved
    a good mother, but why is it that the kids were automatically awarded
    to her, and I was automatically ordered to pay the $$.
    The pendulum will swing the other way, it is making dads that just
    don't have enough to get by, into criminal, deadbeat dads, the father
    has no say where the money goes, his only recourse is to let the mother
    fall down, and then when social services steps in try to get the kids,
    or get a small fortune and prove her a bad mother, which most mothers
    are not, but that still doesn't abate the fact that in 99% of the cases
    she gets custody and he pays.  And that is a fact.  That's probably why
    lot's of men stay in bad marriages and wait till the kids are 18.
    
    
    
     But as for kids out of wedlock, the mother can still get higher
     eductation for free, if I had my way, but she won't be rewarded 
     for having a baby or babies without a solid foundation to stand 
     on.  Yes I do believe if people had to suffer when they mess up,
     that other people wouldn't follow the same path.
     Kennedy keeps says, welfare reform but not on the backs of children,
     it's not on there backs, it's on their parent's back.  Someone has
     to be responsible for their actions, I was, why should others get
     special treatment/help for actions that are not commendable.  
     Not that getting pregnant under 18 is an aggregious crime, but it 
     still shouldn't be supported/condoned by the state.
    
     How do you think we got into this mess,  The republicans told FDR that
     welfare would kill the family and cause all sorts of problems, and it 
     has.  We should admit failure and fix the problem once and for all.
    
     Carrots and Sticks work best, especially when applied equally
     regardless of age/sex/income/or race.
    
    
     How do we explain how many immigrant populations, Jamacian, Chinese,
     Vietnamese, and many others, Make it in America, despite our racism,
     and socio-economic inequalities.  America is still the land of 
     Opportunity, even if things aren't equal, that's the real world, 
     life isn't fair, and the sooner you/we get over that fact and find
     the opportunities that are out there, the sooner people will get
     ahead.
    
     I just can't stand excuses, I can find an excuse for any thing.
     I overslept, I forgot, I didn't have a ride, My father beat me,
     My mother beat me, I didn't have a father, etc.  Excuses simply
     keep you down, thinking like Bart Simpson (Underachiever and Proud
     of it).
    
     Individual Responsibility is the key, Take care of yourself and help
     in your community.  If everyone did that all these problems would
     go away.
             
     /art          

    
    re .29

>    I *don't* think 
>    young girls decide to get pregnant simply because they think going
>    on welfare is a better choice than getting a good education and a high
>    paying job.  Quite often they don't have such a choice. 

    Kids just don't have the maturity to make those kinds of decisions.
    That's why we have parents.  I doubt that many really do get 
    pregnant simply to get on welfare or to get their own place.  However,
    the imagined benefits of being out from under parents control and
    on their own has a strong attraction at that age.  IMHO the problem
    is the "nobody has a right to force their morality on me" attitude.
    My generation often chooses to ignore our moral teachings, but at
    least we have a basis to start.  I don't think a lot of kids even
    know what morality is.  For them, they have to right to hump anyone
    and everyone they feel like, and if they mess up and get pregnant or
    AIDS then so what, the State (aka taxpayers) will take care of them.  
    "Whatever feels good"--remember that?

    Illegitimacy is not a Judao/Christian invention.  It has been a society
    issue since the the dawn of civilization.  Illegitimacy is a burden
    on the tribe.  The tribe is bigger now, but we're finally starting
    to feel the pinch.

    You might think that forcing people to take responsibility for their
    own actions is draconian, but I think it is draconian to confiscate
    more and more of my pay, my family's standard of living, and my 
    children's future to support some irresponsible behavior over which 
    I have no say or control.

    fred();

    So what do you do with the little stud-muffins that knock up multiple
    girls in an area?  There is one little creep in my neighborhood who was
    responsible for siring at least three babies last year.  He is under 17
    and pays minimal to no support for any of his offspring.  While I can't
    say much for the three girls (ages 13-15) who he did this to and their
    chances of making much more out of their lives than pretty consistant
    poverty, this kid is still out there in the dating scene.  BTW all
    three babies were born within two months of each other, and last I knew
    there was another pregnant teen in the neighborhood that he had also
    been "dating."
    
    meg

    
    re .34

>    So what do you do with the little stud-muffins that knock up multiple
>    girls in an area?  

    The old-fashioned way works pretty good.  I think it was Ann Landers
    who suggested the quarter method of birth control.  

>    While I can't
>    say much for the three girls (ages 13-15) who he did this to and their
>    chances of making much more out of their lives than pretty consistant
>    poverty, this kid is still out there in the dating scene.  

    If these girls are age 13-15, however, he can, and should be, charged
    with statutory rape, but then what should the girls be charged with
    for having sex with an under-aged boy?

    fred();

    16 is the age of consent in this state, with an adjustment made for the
    ages of the people involved.  Generally if the kids are less than 5
    years apart in age, there isn't a crime, and enforcement of statutory
    rape laws is only invoked for high-profile cases (AKA Reynolds in
    Illinois) where the one person is an "adult" in years.  In this state
    it then becomes sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of
    trust.  
    
    I have some creative ideas about what to do with this boy who is
    continuing to have unprotected sex, but they don't fit in with my
    pro-choice position.  I personally think a job-core situation with any
    stipend sent to his kids might not be a bad idea.  He certainly isn't
    living up to the manly standards of setting a good example for his
    children, and it is unlikely that he will without serious intervention.
    
    meg

    re .36
    
    yeah, but....nobody has a right to force their moral values on anybody
    else (right?).  And so far, nobody's said anything about forceable rape.
    
    fred();

    Fred,
    
    I think at minimum this "man" should be required to take time with each
    of his children, and also to have some sort of job so he can contribute
    however little to their upbringing.  As it is you and I are paying and
    will continue to pay for his inability to understand cause and effect
    when it comes to sex, and his de-facto abandonment of his children.  
    
    But I consider lack of emotional, physical, and spiritual support by a
    parent to be child abuse.  
    
    meg

    
    re .38

    And what about these "women"?  Should they be required to get a job
    and help contribute however little to the support of "their" children?

    Or maybe we could save a few bucks by giving custody of the kids 
    to the father (now there's some birth control for you).  That would
    mean that the children could also grow up knowing their half-siblings.
    It would also mean only one adult on welfare and the other three or
    four working instead of four on welfare and the father playing 
    hide and seek.

    But, hey, who are we to force our morals on someone else?

    fred( 8} );

    In some cases in those 'bad old days'wasn't the punishment the US
    Army...?
    
    
    Steve

    
    re .40
    

>    In some cases in those 'bad old days'wasn't the punishment the US
>    Army...?
    
    In these days of enlightenment, I think we should give the kids to
    the father and send the mommies to the military.  After all women 
    _want_ to be int he military these days.....don't they?
    
    fred();

    And while this little creep is still making more babies, who is going
    to be watching the ones he has?  It isn't like the three he has for
    sure, have taught him a damned thing.  
    
    Hell yes, I believe these girls should be in school and also working in
    daycare to help other women of older years and out of school make it
    in outside jobs.  the last time I checked children under the age of 16
    can't work more than a few hours a week.  However collectively they
    could maybe find a way to keep each other supported.
    
    I don't believe someone who fathers at least three children in the same
    year is exactly what I would consider a fit parent.  However, if we
    follow the standard of a century ago, he is better than the evyl women
    who must have led him astray and he should have the virtual triplets. 
    However, I wouldn't let him pawn them off on his mother either.
    
    meg

    
    Well, meg, there _is_ a considerable movement afoot to penilize 
    "deadbeat" dads.  It is a felony to fail to pay child support these
    days.  However, any attempt to reform welfare for these pour little
    victim women will get one called a "Nazi" these days.  Go figure.

>    And while this little creep is still making more babies, who is going
>    to be watching the ones he has?  It isn't like the three he has for
>    sure, have taught him a damned thing.  

    The same people who are going to prevent those pour little victim women
    from making more babies.

    fred();

    
    meg,

    If the guy is a creep, then what are the women?  What do you call
    a woman who would willingly have sex with a guy who has already
    fathered three children that he won't/can't provide for?  After all, 
    as I said, nobody's said anything about forcible rape in this situation.

    We have one guy engaging in irresponsible sex, and three, maybe four,
    women engaging in irresponsible sex.  So wherein lies the room for the
    most improvement. 

    So, just what _is_ the difference in a man who won't work and support
    the children he "fathers" and a woman who won't work and support 
    the children she "mothers"?

    fred();

Considering that fathering an out-of-wedlock child is prima facie evidence
of out-of-wedlock sexual intercourse, which remains a crime in many states,
there already are penalties available for offenders, which could be made
worse.

Being required to support your offspring seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Being jailed if you refuse to do so also seems reasonable, much more
reasonable than forced mutilation.

/john