It's "for the children"

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:OMMzg.5660$Mz3.1788@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Lisa" wrote in message
[snip]
I think what bothers me most after reading this thread is that
some
appear to have the opinion that once they have a child, they
can
simply
decide to have no further responsibility for that child.

If your reproductive organs are internal, you legal may do
that,
only those that have external genatial are held to a different
standard.......which of course violates the constitution.

Actually, if you look at the legal arguments, and the court's
consistant responses, it comes down to "similarly situated" -
and
a
pregnant person and a non-pregnant person will never be
similarly
situated.

Completely constitutional.


Complete bull****. Women make a choice that leads to pregnancy
and
has
not one or two but a minimum of *four* options compared to the
man's
zero options for the exact same decision and act. Women can
decide
to
eliminate the life they co-created by killing it, giving to
someone
else to raise, abandoning it outright or by keeping it and
forcing
a
man (sometimes not the father) to provide money that, once the
most
basic of needs is provided, can be used for any purpose.
Men can't get pregnant but are held as responsible when a woman
does
whether by ignorance of stupidity while the woman is not held as
responsible with the above options available to only her. If a
woman
does not want to be a parent, there are several available options
in
addition to abstinence; men who do not want to be parents have
only
abstinence.
Women-firster think treating women better than men is equal
treatment.
Phil #3
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities."
Voltaire (1694 - 1778)



What else do you expect from stumpy?

How about cites?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20060322.html
"The "Similarly Situated" Requirement: Deeming Pregnant Women
Unique
The Equal Protection Clause embodies a commitment to formal
equality:
It
mandates that likes be treated alike. It thus only guarantees that
men
and women be treated the same to the extent they are "similarly
situated."


Which is bull**** since they are neither similarly situated nor
treated
similarly.
She is pregnant and has all rights and decision-making power; he is
not
pregnant and has none. While her decision determines whether a child
will
live that needs support, she has the option of deciding she can't
afford
it, just doesn't want it or any reason whatever to not become a
parent
with children; he has no such ability. Either both have rights and
responsibilities or it's all bull****. Since it is well known that
only
the mother has any rights and only the responsibilities she accepts
while
the father (or some other man) has responsibility decided for him
without
any rights, then it absolutely follows that the whole argument is
simply
manure.

Once again, stumpy will go to no ends of contorting and twisting to
justify her greed.

ROFLMAO!! Contorting and twisting?

Yes.

I provided a cite.

Which is an absolute non-sequitur to the previous statement.

Not if you can follow simple logic, Chris -

Explain, using "simple logic", how your response addresses his statement.

it's impossible to "contort and
twist" when one has offered no opinion, and merely provided a cite to
someone else's words.

Guess again. A non-sequitur, not unlike a red herring, effectively twists
the harmony of the debate. That is exactly what ANY fallacy does; it
meanders the conversation in an attempt to support a false claim. Fallacies
often consist of true statements, but it's not the true/false values that
make it a fallacy; rather it's how the statements are utilized.

"Chris" wrote in message
news:3s4Ag.5682$Mz3.2068@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:OMMzg.5660$Mz3.1788@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Lisa" wrote in message
[snip]
I think what bothers me most after reading this thread is
that
some
appear to have the opinion that once they have a child, they
can
simply
decide to have no further responsibility for that child.

If your reproductive organs are internal, you legal may do
that,
only those that have external genatial are held to a different
standard.......which of course violates the constitution.

Actually, if you look at the legal arguments, and the court's
consistant responses, it comes down to "similarly situated" -
and
a
pregnant person and a non-pregnant person will never be
similarly
situated.

Completely constitutional.


Complete bull****. Women make a choice that leads to pregnancy
and
has
not one or two but a minimum of *four* options compared to the
man's
zero options for the exact same decision and act. Women can
decide
to
eliminate the life they co-created by killing it, giving to
someone
else to raise, abandoning it outright or by keeping it and
forcing
a
man (sometimes not the father) to provide money that, once the
most
basic of needs is provided, can be used for any purpose.
Men can't get pregnant but are held as responsible when a woman
does
whether by ignorance of stupidity while the woman is not held as
responsible with the above options available to only her. If a
woman
does not want to be a parent, there are several available
options
in
addition to abstinence; men who do not want to be parents have
only
abstinence.
Women-firster think treating women better than men is equal
treatment.
Phil #3
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities."
Voltaire (1694 - 1778)



What else do you expect from stumpy?

How about cites?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20060322.html
"The "Similarly Situated" Requirement: Deeming Pregnant Women
Unique
The Equal Protection Clause embodies a commitment to formal
equality:
It
mandates that likes be treated alike. It thus only guarantees that
men
and women be treated the same to the extent they are "similarly
situated."


Which is bull**** since they are neither similarly situated nor
treated
similarly.
She is pregnant and has all rights and decision-making power; he is
not
pregnant and has none. While her decision determines whether a
child
will
live that needs support, she has the option of deciding she can't
afford
it, just doesn't want it or any reason whatever to not become a
parent
with children; he has no such ability. Either both have rights and
responsibilities or it's all bull****. Since it is well known that
only
the mother has any rights and only the responsibilities she accepts
while
the father (or some other man) has responsibility decided for him
without
any rights, then it absolutely follows that the whole argument is
simply
manure.

Once again, stumpy will go to no ends of contorting and twisting to
justify her greed.

ROFLMAO!! Contorting and twisting?

Yes.

I provided a cite.

Which is an absolute non-sequitur to the previous statement.

Not if you can follow simple logic, Chris -

Explain, using "simple logic", how your response addresses his statement.

I already did - so sorry that you were unable to understand it.


it's impossible to "contort and
twist" when one has offered no opinion, and merely provided a cite to
someone else's words.

Guess again. A non-sequitur, not unlike a red herring, effectively twists
the harmony of the debate. That is exactly what ANY fallacy does; it
meanders the conversation in an attempt to support a false claim.
Fallacies
often consist of true statements, but it's not the true/false values that
make it a fallacy; rather it's how the statements are utilized.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:3s4Ag.5682$Mz3.2068@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:OMMzg.5660$Mz3.1788@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Lisa" wrote in message
[snip]
I think what bothers me most after reading this thread is
that
some
appear to have the opinion that once they have a child,
they
can
simply
decide to have no further responsibility for that child.

If your reproductive organs are internal, you legal may do
that,
only those that have external genatial are held to a
different
standard.......which of course violates the constitution.

Actually, if you look at the legal arguments, and the court's
consistant responses, it comes down to "similarly situated" -
and
a
pregnant person and a non-pregnant person will never be
similarly
situated.

Completely constitutional.


Complete bull****. Women make a choice that leads to pregnancy
and
has
not one or two but a minimum of *four* options compared to the
man's
zero options for the exact same decision and act. Women can
decide
to
eliminate the life they co-created by killing it, giving to
someone
else to raise, abandoning it outright or by keeping it and
forcing
a
man (sometimes not the father) to provide money that, once the
most
basic of needs is provided, can be used for any purpose.
Men can't get pregnant but are held as responsible when a
woman
does
whether by ignorance of stupidity while the woman is not held
as
responsible with the above options available to only her. If a
woman
does not want to be a parent, there are several available
options
in
addition to abstinence; men who do not want to be parents have
only
abstinence.
Women-firster think treating women better than men is equal
treatment.
Phil #3
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you
commit
atrocities."
Voltaire (1694 - 1778)



What else do you expect from stumpy?

How about cites?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20060322.html
"The "Similarly Situated" Requirement: Deeming Pregnant Women
Unique
The Equal Protection Clause embodies a commitment to formal
equality:
It
mandates that likes be treated alike. It thus only guarantees
that
men
and women be treated the same to the extent they are "similarly
situated."


Which is bull**** since they are neither similarly situated nor
treated
similarly.
She is pregnant and has all rights and decision-making power; he
is
not
pregnant and has none. While her decision determines whether a
child
will
live that needs support, she has the option of deciding she can't
afford
it, just doesn't want it or any reason whatever to not become a
parent
with children; he has no such ability. Either both have rights
and
responsibilities or it's all bull****. Since it is well known
that
only
the mother has any rights and only the responsibilities she
accepts
while
the father (or some other man) has responsibility decided for him
without
any rights, then it absolutely follows that the whole argument is
simply
manure.

Once again, stumpy will go to no ends of contorting and twisting
to
justify her greed.

ROFLMAO!! Contorting and twisting?

Yes.

I provided a cite.

Which is an absolute non-sequitur to the previous statement.

Not if you can follow simple logic, Chris -

Explain, using "simple logic", how your response addresses his
statement.

I already did -

No you didn't.

so sorry that you were unable to understand it.


it's impossible to "contort and
twist" when one has offered no opinion, and merely provided a cite to
someone else's words.

Guess again. A non-sequitur, not unlike a red herring, effectively
twists
the harmony of the debate. That is exactly what ANY fallacy does; it
meanders the conversation in an attempt to support a false claim.
Fallacies
often consist of true statements, but it's not the true/false values
that
make it a fallacy; rather it's how the statements are utilized.