Who has the ultimate right to choose?

"Robert" wrote in message
...
On 17 Apr 2007 13:14:58 -0700, elizabeth wrote:

On Apr 16, 8:27 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message

...





On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:45:27 GMT, (Paul
Anderson)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:23:02 -0700, Robert
wrote:

....

You are twisting it, it's now possible to prove that a man is or is
not the father.

If you father a child, you should support that child.

Why? In every other case we are only responsible for those debts we
have agreed to. Why should a man support a woman and her child that
he did not agree to support? What contract obligates this debt?
(Marriage is such a contract, so please don't go off on how married
men will not have rights to their children.)

Her child??? Yeah right, sorry mother ****ers, I hope your next
victim is spreading AIDS.

Geesh, Robert! How disgusting! But you never did answer the question.
How
do you feel about women who bring into this world multiple children by
multiple fathers, with never a single intention of supporting any of
them?
How do you feel about the taxpayers supporting both her and the
children
because she cannot remember exactly who fathered them? Is this ok with
you
, because it is a woman, and not a man? Are all 6 or 7 or 8 men evil
losers, but the poor little woman is just a victim? Don't you think
that
the woman has some responsibility, too?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Well, what about the men who are ****ing her?
Shouldn't they be neutered like dogs who won't stay on the porch?

Damn good answer, thank you. Men are just a responsible for conception
as a woman.

But ZERO responsible for the choice to give birth. This is about "CHILD"
support, not fetus support...... remember?

I have no sympathy for a idiot, that doesn't take
precautions against impregnating the woman, or contacting a STD.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:15:44 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:23:27 -0700, Robert
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:50:16 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:14:45 -0700, Robert
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:45:27 GMT, (Paul
Anderson)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:23:02 -0700, Robert
wrote:

....

You are twisting it, it's now possible to prove that a man is or is
not the father.


If you father a child, you should support that child.

Why? In every other case we are only responsible for those debts
we
have agreed to. Why should a man support a woman and her child that
he did not agree to support? What contract obligates this debt?
(Marriage is such a contract, so please don't go off on how married
men will not have rights to their children.)

Her child??? Yeah right, sorry mother ****ers, I hope your next
victim is spreading AIDS.

That really helps. I ask a simple honest question and I get hatred
spewed back. I take it then that you have no moral justification for
demanding that a man supports a child he did not agree to support.

If he was so ****ing self centered, that he fathered a child he is
unable or unwilling to support.

He had sex with a woman he was not married to and with whom he had not
traded vows of mutual support. This is not a crime. He was a
contributor to the woman becoming pregnant -- not the cause. Again,
not a crime. It was the woman who decided to carry the pregnancy to
term and bear a child. She had not taken vows of mutual support with
the man and thus has no moral expectation of support.

Any moral person would find it
justified to force him to support the child he fathered.

Your opinion. My opinion is that no moral person would expect someone
to pay for something he did not agree to pay for.

It's very easy to avoid knocking a woman up.

Bull****. All contraceptive methods medications and devices have side
effects that may be undesirable. And again, it is the woman's
decision to bear the child, not his. He has no say whatsoever in the
matter and has not agreed to support the woman and her decisions.
There is no prior agreement to pay.

And his part should be 75% of the
financial cost of raising a child. Because he's not there to do his
part.

Why should he be forced to pay for a child he had not agreed to
support? How can it be "moral" to enslave a person to another's whim?

How is it moral to father a child, and abandon that child? You have
to be very religious to blame someone else. Condoms are very effective
and cheap. To damn bad she didn't give you a STD.


How is it moral to bring child after child into this world with no
intention
of ever supporting them? How is it moral to go out drinking with child
support money, and get pregnant again by another man? How is it moral to
refuse to take a paternity test until the child is 12 years old, then
expcet
a man who never knew he was a father to pay 12 years of back support--even
though you NEVER earned a penny to support any of your many illegitimate
children? When will you start to answer these questions, Robert?

When will it start to snow in Miami?

"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:33:06 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:37:03 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"elizabeth" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Apr 15, 2:22 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Relayer" wrote in message

He jsut keeps ranting about the money. He also never
mentions the mother's responsibility to provide her 50% of the
children's needs.

Assuming she is staying with her kids, and tending to their needs, to
the best of her ability, she is doing her share as well as a large
share of the fathers share.

Oh, I'd say doing the actual work with the kid is worth a lot more
than a couple hundred bucks a month.

I see. Now a mother is to be paid to raise her OWN children.

Nope just the part a decent man, would love to do for and with his
child. Not the sorry ******* that will not take care of his child.
A child really needs two loving parent to develop properly.

Go tell that to all the women denying their children a father.

Only to those that are not wife and child abusers, and abusing a
child's mother is abusing the child even if the child is not touched.
Trying to turn a child against their mother is abusive to both child
and mother.

And when a mother turns her child against the father?


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:35:13 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"elizabeth" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Apr 16, 11:37 pm, "Chris" wrote:
"elizabeth" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Apr 15, 2:22 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Relayer" wrote in message

god, I hate you losers who got puked into this ng by crossposting
trollborts.

Teachersow, you sound like a dumb **** who married a deadbeat dad
and
whines about how he's being "forced" to support his own children,
because that means he has less money to spend on you.

Like you didn't know about his prior obligations?

And don't you realize that he'll do the same to you someday?

People like you are why we need more abortions in the country.
ALL of you made the wrong choice on abortion.
You should not have bred children since you obviously didn't have
the
interest or desire to adequately parent them.

My parent's generation understood the sacrifices needed, and made
them. I decided I didn't want to make those sacrifices, so I chose
not to breed. YOU chose to breed (and it is a choice now) and then
bail out on the needed sacrifices.

This is why I have no respect for breeders, and even less for
breeders
who bail out on their choices.

You bred the kid, you support it, by whatever means necessary.

Stop demanding that "society" pay for your mistakes.

Teacher, that is only true in some States. In Illinois, it is
not.

Not saying its right, but in Illinois, it's the law and therefore
must
be followed.

I'm not talking about the law--I'm talking about right and wrong.
Robert
keeps ranting about putting fathers into forced labor camps to
make
them
provide financial support.

At the very least. They were free to get vasectomies, use condoms,
or
not have vaginal sex with the ****s dumb enough to **** them. I
don't
understand why women are stupid enough to breed with most of the
men
out there, but it proves women are as stupid as men.

(I'm pretty darn sure forced labor camps are not
the law in Illinois.) He never even mentions the father's right
to
parent
his own child.

Daddies are free to ask for custody, and they do get it when they
ask.

What planet do YOU live on?

Then he can get child support from the mother. Or they can do
"joint custody" which means that no one gets any support,

That could not be FURTHER from the truth.



and thus,
the kid has less resources available to him, but both parents are
involved.

However, JC works only with parents willing to be responsible
adults,
and if they were that, they would stay married.

He jsut keeps ranting about the money. He also never
mentions the mother's responsibility to provide her 50% of the
children's
needs.

Oh, I'd say doing the actual work with the kid is worth a lot more
than a couple hundred bucks a month.

I see. Now a mother is to be paid to raise her OWN children.





He jsut keeps ranting about irresponsible men who do not shell out
the $$$$$. His point of view is unbalanced and unfair. He
probably
does
not realize that and assumes that everyone knows that children
should be
with their fathers 50% of the time, and that mothers should
provided
50%
of
the money. I'm just giving him the opportunity to correct the
terrible
misimpression he has made.- Hide quoted text -

Well, I say that people irresponsible enough not to do the work to
stay married probably should have their kids taken away altogether.

Problem is, the people who choose to not stay married get rewarded
with
SOLE
custody of the children by YOUR government!



Stay married. Or don't breed. If you do, pay your ****ing CS
since
so many American children are really in need.

Feh. I hate you stupid ass breeder****s and sperm donors.

Too bad we can't make abortion retroactive.

You're not angry, are you?

Nope. Disgusted. Tried to be amused, but the world has gotten so
filthy because of overbreeding and mendacity, just glad I'm not one of
your children who will be forced to live in the mess you created.

Nice assumptions. About the only thing "filthy" is your mouth.

Chris based on your comments in your post, you are as filthy of a
scum bag that has ever lived. It's really sad that so many women will
have sex with worthless scum bags as your self.

What comment makes me a "filthy scum bag"?




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:29:22 -0500, "Dusty Steenbock"
wrote:

Her child??? Yeah right, sorry mother ****ers, I hope your next
victim is spreading AIDS.

Geesh, Robert! How disgusting! But you never did answer the question.
How do you feel about women who bring into this world multiple children by
multiple fathers, with never a single intention of supporting any of them?

The same disgust I feel for the sorry sons of bitches, that father a
child with a slut?

How do you feel about the taxpayers supporting both her and the children
because she cannot remember exactly who fathered them?

The children should be taken away, after the second child and the
woman sterilized. All suspected men should have DNA comparison to
determine the actual father. And those men should be sterilized, if
unable or unwilling to support the child.

Is this ok with you because it is a woman, and not a man?

Since only women can bear a child, and only a male can father a child
both should be held equally responsible, with sterilization if they
can or will not shoulder the responsibility.
Note I used male, not man, because a man will not father a child,
unless he can be a daddy to the child.

Are all 6 or 7 or 8 men evil losers, but the poor little woman is just a victim?

One or two, should be the limit, with none being ideal. A woman that
bears several children, without a dependable partner, has mental
problems. And society has a responsibility, to protect her. Men that
prey on women that have such mental problems are actually rapist, and
should be castrated.

Don't you think that the woman has some responsibility, too?

You don't feel that 9 months of pregnancy is punishment enough?
But feel that men should get a free ride?
The arrogance and bigotry you show, bring a feeling of disgust to
me, I have a rusty dull knife and would be happy to saw your balls
off.
- Hide quoted text -

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Robert wrote:
I am a 69 year old man married 45 years to my wife, we have 2
children and adopted 3. We have 11 grand children, three great grand
children. I don't use alcohol, tobacco, or take any drugs except under
advice of my Doctor. We always had foster children in our home after
being told we could not have another. We both volunteer at a shelter
for abused women and children. I have yet to encounter a case where a
loving kind father was denied his rights to visit his children.

Then you are willfully blind.

--
Ray Fischer

Robert wrote:
The same disgust I feel for the sorry sons of bitches, that father a
child with a slut?

Ah! Now I understand! You're an anti-sex prude and you object to
allowing people to have sex without suffering!

--
Ray Fischer

Robert wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:02:50 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:05:26 -0700, Robert
wrote:

.
And his part should be 75% of the
financial cost of raising a child. Because he's not there to do his
part.

Why should he be forced to pay for a child he had not agreed to
support? How can it be "moral" to enslave a person to another's whim?

How is it moral to father a child, and abandon that child? You have
to be very religious to blame someone else.

I am not talking about cases where the man agreed to support the child
and then abandoned his obligation. You don't have to be religious to
blame others, not to mention that I did not blame anyone.

Would you like to address my question?

I guess not.

Condoms are very effective and cheap.

Condoms have a significant fail rate and detract from the pleasure.

Condoms are as effective as any thing but abstinence.

Don't lie. Condoms are significantly less effective than most
contraceptives.

To damn bad she didn't give you a STD.

What is this supposed to mean? Do you make all your arguments from
false assumptions?

I mean a idiot that has unprotected sex or just sex with a woman that
he has no intention of raising a child with deserves any thing he
gets.

Quite the hate-filled asshole, aren't you?

--
Ray Fischer

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:34:13 -0500, "Dusty Steenbock"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:29:22 -0500, "Dusty Steenbock"
wrote:


"elizabeth" wrote in message
egroups.com...
On Apr 16, 8:27 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message

...





On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:45:27 GMT, (Paul
Anderson)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:23:02 -0700, Robert
wrote:

....

You are twisting it, it's now possible to prove that a man is or is
not the father.

If you father a child, you should support that child.

Why? In every other case we are only responsible for those debts we
have agreed to. Why should a man support a woman and her child that
he did not agree to support? What contract obligates this debt?
(Marriage is such a contract, so please don't go off on how married
men will not have rights to their children.)

Her child??? Yeah right, sorry mother ****ers, I hope your next
victim is spreading AIDS.

Geesh, Robert! How disgusting! But you never did answer the question.
How
do you feel about women who bring into this world multiple children by
multiple fathers, with never a single intention of supporting any of
them?
How do you feel about the taxpayers supporting both her and the
children
because she cannot remember exactly who fathered them? Is this ok with
you
, because it is a woman, and not a man? Are all 6 or 7 or 8 men evil
losers, but the poor little woman is just a victim? Don't you think
that
the woman has some responsibility, too?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Well, what about the men who are ****ing her?
Shouldn't they be neutered like dogs who won't stay on the porch?


You are either a lesbian or a man hater, and as such your opinions on any
of
these matters being discussed hold little merit.

Oh, if I only was a lesbian! Then I would have far less reason to
"hate" men . . .. and since complaining about male abuse of women
makes me a hater, what does that make the men


"Men" like you explain why some women hate men, and become lesbian.
If I were a woman I would be just like her.

I don't abuse or beat women. I pay my child support every month although I
feel It should be a bit lower than what It Is. I don't agree with women
having many birthing rights and men have none. The arguments of "If men
don't want the chance of having kids, don't have sex" don't hold any water.
You might as well say If you don't want to ever get into a car accident,
don't drive. If you never want to get fired from a job, don't work. If you
never want to get mugged, never go anywhere. I could go on and on. You take
a small chance or risk doing almost anything. Most things you don't worry
about, because you have rights and protection, (insurance, police, etc) the
rights are uneven when It comes to having and raising kids, and it needs to
change.

All people have rights and responsibility, a man has the right to
avoid getting any woman pregnant. And the responsibility to support
any child he fathers. Just as driving and drinking is a crime, even if
no accident occurs, a responsible person doesn't drink and drive. But
having sex without birth control is not a crime, but if there is a
accident, resulting in a unwanted pregnancy, it's like driving
sober,and causing a accident, the driver is responsible. I believe a
man should be held responsible for the cost of abortion and lost
wages. Or prenatal care, cost of delivery , lost wages and child
support for any children he causes.
If a male decides he doesn't want to be a daddy, he can get his
cords clipped. If he gets a STD serves him right for not protecting
himself and the woman. Men have the responsibility to protect himself
and sex partner from any STD.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:50:51 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:

On 17 Apr 2007 17:03:17 -0700, elizabeth wrote:

On Apr 17, 3:15 pm, (Paul Anderson) wrote:
....

If he was so ****ing self centered, that he fathered a child he is
unable or unwilling to support.

He had sex with a woman he was not married to and with whom he had not
traded vows of mutual support. This is not a crime. He was a
contributor to the woman becoming pregnant -- not the cause.

Uh, by definition, he was indeed a causal agent, to say the least, of
her pregnancy.

By *definition*, yes -- but not in fact. You can define a tail as a
leg but a dog still has just four legs.

BTW, financial obligations can occur without any crime being
committed.

Not without *agreeing* to those obligations.

However, neglecting and abusing one's children *is* a crime.

Circular logic. He didn't agree to having the children, why are they
his?

By engaging in unprotected sex, he agreed to accept his obligation.
Similar to firing a gun into a crowd of people, so what he did not
intend to harm anyone. Same difference any act that has a chance of
causing a problem, is at fault if harm happens.

Again,
not a crime. It was the woman who decided to carry the pregnancy to
term and bear a child. She had not taken vows of mutual support with
the man and thus has no moral expectation of support.

But the man has a legal obligation to support his child.
Thats the law
Deal with it.

NYA NYA NYA -- "the law is on our side, **** morallity!"

Why is the child his? He did not agree to have the child, he did not
agree to support the woman or her child. She was the one and only
person who decided to have the child. What moral ground is there to
force a person to pay for something he does not want and did not agree
to?

But I didn't intend to kill him when I fired a gun in his direction.
Think a jury would buy that? Pregnancy is a common result of
unprotected sex. Use a condom with spermicide, or keep the old zipper
closed.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com