Who has the ultimate right to choose?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:zpFSh.49773$6m4.938@pd7urf1no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:FhESh.49642$6m4.43615@pd7urf1no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 20:56:02 -0700, "teachrmama"

wrote:


"elizabeth" wrote in message
oglegroups.com...
On Apr 8, 7:37 pm, "Gini" wrote:

And you know this how? Come to think of it, I don't know any
women
who
have
died from a tubal.
Heh, perhaps I'm running with a different crowd.

OK, we're using Gina Knows Proof. The only cases that matter are
the
women Gina Knows.

I know of women who have died and have had very, very serious
complications from pills and IUDs.

Um--after they died from their tubals, they STILL had very, very
serious
complications from pills and IUDs?? That really IS bad!!

Are you really stupid? Or do you think everyone else is?
Women have died from complications from a tubal.
Women have had complications from pills, and IUDS, decided on a
tubal
and died.
Liz is correct, any man that doesn't want to father a child and be
a
real daddy, should get his cords clipped. Far safer than a tubal for
a
woman. Any man that doesn't want to get a STD, needs to use a
condom,
unless he has absolute faith in his partner.
The father of any child should support that child, even if he has
to
be put in a slave labor condition. Men can prevent pregnancy in the
woman he is taking pleasure from.


Ohm grow up! What a fool. Any woman who cannot support a child
should
keep her panties on and herlegs together.


No, YOU're the one who're the fool because you think that women are
only
responsible for pregnancies, not men.

Guess what? Either you flunked the Sex Education classes or you just
don't give a damn about women.

On the contrary, I was responding to the fool who keeps emphasizing
that
MEN who don't want to be fathers should take all the steps to keep that
from happening. Well, WOMEN who don't want to PAY ALL EXPENSES should
NOT get pregnant, because there is NO GUARANTEE that they will be able
to
force a man to help pay! Just because the system is SET UP to make
sure
women get their hands on the man's money does NOT mean that the system
will come through for the woman, and she will HAVE TO be able to
support
her own child. COULDA, SHOULDA doesn't always make dreams come true.
So
WOMEN who do not want to take the *chance* of raising a child alone
should KEEP THEIR PANTIES ON AND THEIR LEGS TOGETHER! Why is that so
hard to understand?


If there are no men, then there will be no unwanted pregnancies.

If the panties were kept on and the legs kept together, there would be
no
unwanted pregnancies.


Get your head out of the sand and wake up.

Get your panties back on and wake up.



I always wear panties unless it's bed time and I can assure you that
there
is no man in this household hahaha

chuckle Good idea. The fact is, I think the system is very biased
toward
women and against men. And I think the children are suffering for it.

Ya think?

Tubal ligation for women is a way of bringing forward something that
will happen anyway at menopause. The same is not true for vasectomies for
men. So men are right to have reservations about vasectomies -- particularly
if they are married and are aware of the likelihood (in the U.S.) that,
through divorce, they will be expelled from their families and thereafter
may want to remarry and have another family.


"Beverly" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 04:28:29 GMT, "CafeWriter"
wrote:


"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
. ..
elizabeth wrote:
"Gini" wrote:
"elizabeth" wrote
.................
Letting your child live in poverty means you are the sort of
heartless
asshole who should be castrated,
because we don't need
more irresponsible assholes breeding children that the rest of
society
must support.

==
Indeed. Sterilize all welfare women of childbearing age.

As long as you sterilize all the men impregnating them, fine.
And since vasectomies are a couple of orders of magnitude CHEAPER than
tubals, and since vasectomies are at least an order of magnitude MORE
EFFECTIVE THAN TUBALS, it's far more cost effective to snip the men,
especially when you factor in the cost of medical complications of
tubals . . . tubals do kill women, but no man has ever died from a
vasectomy.

That's not true. Men have died from vasectomy, usually as a result of
an infection.

--
Ray Fischer



Um... I have had a tubal ligation and I'm still alive!


Obviously, not every woman who has a tubal ligation dies.

However, general anesthesia, as used with this surgery, can be quite
dangerous.
Beverly

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:ZrFSh.49776$6m4.2688@pd7urf1no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:soESh.49701$DE1.18753@pd7urf2no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
elizabeth wrote:
"Gini" wrote:
"elizabeth" wrote
.................
Letting your child live in poverty means you are the sort of
heartless asshole who should be castrated,
because we don't need
more irresponsible assholes breeding children that the rest of
society
must support.

==
Indeed. Sterilize all welfare women of childbearing age.

As long as you sterilize all the men impregnating them, fine.
And since vasectomies are a couple of orders of magnitude CHEAPER
than
tubals, and since vasectomies are at least an order of magnitude MORE
EFFECTIVE THAN TUBALS, it's far more cost effective to snip the men,
especially when you factor in the cost of medical complications of
tubals . . . tubals do kill women, but no man has ever died from a
vasectomy.

That's not true. Men have died from vasectomy, usually as a result
of
an infection.

Now, now, Ray. elizabeth is painting the typical "Woman=Victim"
picture. You don't want to go and ruin her artwork, do you? She's
been
fingerpainting all day!!


ElizaBeth is just making stories up. I've had gone through a tubal
ligation surgery and I'm still alive.

Yes, I know she is. I do not understand why any of this needs to be a
man's rights vs women's rights argument. If a child is conceived
unexpectedly, give each parent 50% custody, and let them support the
child
while the child is with them. I am willing to wager that there would be
far fewer "accidental" pregnancies if easy money were not attached.





Ugh! I better hurry and ask the family doctor for a referral to the
surgeon
so I can have womb and tubes removed. I really do not want children.

And that is your SOLE LEGAL choice, both before and AFTER conception. In
fact, it is also your choice after giving BIRTH! Isn't it wonderful having
FULL control over ALL the choices? Now, go take FULL responsibility for such
choices.

"Beverly" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 04:28:29 GMT, "CafeWriter"
wrote:


"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
.. .
elizabeth wrote:
"Gini" wrote:
"elizabeth" wrote
.................
Letting your child live in poverty means you are the sort of
heartless
asshole who should be castrated,
because we don't need
more irresponsible assholes breeding children that the rest of
society
must support.

==
Indeed. Sterilize all welfare women of childbearing age.

As long as you sterilize all the men impregnating them, fine.
And since vasectomies are a couple of orders of magnitude CHEAPER than
tubals, and since vasectomies are at least an order of magnitude MORE
EFFECTIVE THAN TUBALS, it's far more cost effective to snip the men,
especially when you factor in the cost of medical complications of
tubals . . . tubals do kill women, but no man has ever died from a
vasectomy.

That's not true. Men have died from vasectomy, usually as a result of
an infection.

--
Ray Fischer



Um... I have had a tubal ligation and I'm still alive!


Obviously, not every woman who has a tubal ligation dies.

However, general anesthesia, as used with this surgery, can be quite
dangerous.

Well of course! Everyone knows that people die from general anesthesia on a
regular basis.

Beverly

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 20:56:02 -0700, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"elizabeth" wrote in message
groups.com...
On Apr 8, 7:37 pm, "Gini" wrote:

And you know this how? Come to think of it, I don't know any women
who
have
died from a tubal.
Heh, perhaps I'm running with a different crowd.

OK, we're using Gina Knows Proof. The only cases that matter are the
women Gina Knows.

I know of women who have died and have had very, very serious
complications from pills and IUDs.

Um--after they died from their tubals, they STILL had very, very serious
complications from pills and IUDs?? That really IS bad!!

Are you really stupid? Or do you think everyone else is?
Women have died from complications from a tubal.
Women have had complications from pills, and IUDS, decided on a tubal
and died.
Liz is correct, any man that doesn't want to father a child and be a
real daddy, should get his cords clipped. Far safer than a tubal for a
woman. Any man that doesn't want to get a STD, needs to use a condom,
unless he has absolute faith in his partner.
The father of any child should support that child, even if he has to
be put in a slave labor condition. Men can prevent pregnancy in the
woman he is taking pleasure from.


Ohm grow up! What a fool. Any woman who cannot support a child should
keep
her panties on and herlegs together.

No, no, no. See, you got it all wrong. It is the father, NOT the mother who
should be responsible for supporting her child. EVERYONE knows that. Are you
out of your mind suggesting that a woman support any children that she
chooses to have?

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:26:30 GMT, "Kenneth S."
wrote:

My comments were implicitly directed at illegitimate births, but I
should have spelled this out.

You say that "just because a woman CAN make a choice to abort while a
man cannot does not necessarily make it a unilateral choice." Would you
apply the same logic to men? Just because a man CAN make a choice to walk
away from an unwanted pregnancy, while a woman cannot, does not
necessarily
make it a unilateral choice?

But a woman CAN walk away from an unwanted pregnancy and,
unfortunately, men most often CAN'T. I don't agree with this, by the
way. I think men should be able to walk away UNLESS they were part of
the decision that affirmed having and keeping the baby.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he was making reference to the
fact that men can literally walk away. In other words, just as much as a
pregnant woman can physically give birth or abort, so it is that a man can
physically walk away (place one foot in front of the other). Men can NEVER
be part of a woman's sole and FINAL decision whether or not to keep a baby.
Logic 101.




"Beverly" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 11:09:31 GMT, "Kenneth S."
wrote:

But so long as women made unilateral choices, they should bear
the sole responsibility for their own choices.

I agree with the statement as written; however, just because a woman
CAN make a choice to abort while a man cannot does not necessarily
make it a unilateral choice. Children born within a marriage are
often a choice made by both, although not always. Conversely,
children born out of wedlock may be a choice made by both parents, but
I would strongly advise any woman in this situation to make her own
decisions based upon her own circumstances.

My eldest's father wanted me to abort. We were not married. I made
my decision to keep my baby and took sole responsibility for my
decision. I never asked his father for anything.

My younger two children were a product of my marriage to my ex
husband. We made the decision together to have children before they
were conceived. While I may have made the decision to divorce, it was
based upon HIS decision to molest. If I really ever had a choice, I'd
have chosen that he never do what he did. I don't feel bad asking
that he bear some responsibility toward our children.

That said, I STILL see providing for my children as something *I* must
do. Women who DEPEND upon child support are only setting themselves
and their children up. Both households should have a responsible
parent, but the only parent we can MAKE responsible is ourselves.
Beverly


Beverly

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:tkFSh.49767$6m4.9273@pd7urf1no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:0jESh.49601$aG1.49335@pd7urf3no...

"DB" wrote in message
t...

"teachrmama" wrote in

Ohm grow up! What a fool. Any woman who cannot support a child
should
keep her panties on and herlegs together.


Many who are 35 and older and should know better too!

Make that a second stupid man who thinks that women can get pregnant by
themselves. Men are in it too and to say that men are not responsible
for pregnancies are like saying that Moon are made of blue cheese.

Snap out of it! Men and women are both equally responsible for this!

Then why are men and women not held equally responsible by the system?

I don't know. That's the question for the government full of men to
answer.

Good point. And the answer is because the government is full of insecure men
who are out to prove that "theirs is bigger" than those of the men which
they are attacking. Only problem is, such attack affects women and children
as well. A wave never rocks only the first boat.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Robert" wrote in message
...

Are you really stupid? Or do you think everyone else is?
Women have died from complications from a tubal.
Women have had complications from pills, and IUDS, decided on a tubal
and died.
Liz is correct, any man that doesn't want to father a child and be a
real daddy, should get his cords clipped. Far safer than a tubal for a
woman. Any man that doesn't want to get a STD, needs to use a condom,
unless he has absolute faith in his partner.
The father of any child should support that child, even if he has to
be put in a slave labor condition. Men can prevent pregnancy in the
woman he is taking pleasure from.

My body. My choice. Women have no right to tell men what they should do
regarding their bodies. If a man makes a poor choice, women should be
held
financially responsible for my choice just as men are held financially
responsible when women make unilateral choices.

I can't wait for the Equal Rights Amendment to come up again.

The only problem with such "Equal Rights Amendment" is that some rights are
more equal than others.

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:0jESh.49601$aG1.49335@pd7urf3no...

"DB" wrote in message
t...

"teachrmama" wrote in

Ohm grow up! What a fool. Any woman who cannot support a child should
keep her panties on and herlegs together.


Many who are 35 and older and should know better too!

Make that a second stupid man who thinks that women can get pregnant by
themselves. Men are in it too and to say that men are not responsible for
pregnancies are like saying that Moon are made of blue cheese.

Correct; women cannot get pregnant by themselves and the moon is not made of
cheese. But a woman's reproductive choice/responsibility rests SOLELY with
her.


Snap out of it! Men and women are both equally responsible for this!

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:FvGSh.49859$DE1.39472@pd7urf2no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:QqFSh.49735$aG1.1123@pd7urf3no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:5lESh.49646$6m4.34588@pd7urf1no...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Robert" wrote in message
...

Are you really stupid? Or do you think everyone else is?
Women have died from complications from a tubal.
Women have had complications from pills, and IUDS, decided on a
tubal
and died.
Liz is correct, any man that doesn't want to father a child and
be
a
real daddy, should get his cords clipped. Far safer than a tubal
for
a
woman. Any man that doesn't want to get a STD, needs to use a
condom,
unless he has absolute faith in his partner.
The father of any child should support that child, even if he
has
to
be put in a slave labor condition. Men can prevent pregnancy in
the
woman he is taking pleasure from.

My body. My choice. Women have no right to tell men what they
should do
regarding their bodies. If a man makes a poor choice, women should
be held
financially responsible for my choice just as men are held
financially
responsible when women make unilateral choices.

I can't wait for the Equal Rights Amendment to come up again.



Here's the Lesson Number One:

Only women can get pregnant, not men.

Lesson Number Two:

Men cannot get pregnant.

Lesson Number Three:

If a man gets pregnant, then by all means, he can do whatever he
wants
to do. But if a woman gets pregnant, only she can make the decision
without "the help of a darling man".

Lesson Number Four:

There are many, many unwanted children in this world. Are you sure
you wanted to add more to the unwanted population, men?

Why not make 50/50 joint custody, with each parent supporting the
child
while the child is with them the norm? That would solve all
problems,
right?



What if the mother doesn't want the child to start with hm? For an
example. after the child birth, the mother would refuse to look at or
hold the child.

When it is the time to leave, the mother leaves without the child.

Now what would the solution be?

Gee, how about, if thefather wants the child, MOM has to pay child
support until the child is 18. How does that sound to you? Because
that
is how men are treated now. Sound fair?




Hence another good reason for abortion to happen.

Morally, I find abortion repugnant. However, I know that my morals do not
run the country, and abortion has been made legal. My disagreement is
with
the child support system that holds men to a much higher standard than
women. If the system were fair and balanced, I would have no objection.
I
don't believe that men should have the option of running around having
sex,
creating children, and moving on--but I also don't believe that women
should
bhave the option of bringing child after child into the world with no
intention of ever supporting them--and expecting taxpayers to pick up the
slack if they can't stick the man with the expenses. We need a better
solution--this one obviously is not working.

But it IS................ for the irresponsible mother.

Anyway, simple solution: If she elects to not care for her child, for
whatever reason, then provide her the choice to either start caring or give
the child up for adoption. If she refuses both options, then toss her in a
cage.