The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:vuMRf.8728$z82.5612@fed1read07...
"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"John Smith" wrote in message
news:c_qRf.8628$z82.6655@fed1read07...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Then the state would send him right back to prison to teach him the
error of his ways for being in "contempt" of court - but they'd never
toss him (or anyone else) into jail for owing a debt... -THAT- is
EXACTLY how the Feds and states get around that pesky, little nasty bit
of the Constitution that they don't care for.

When did the Constitution matter in a divorce court.

Let me guess, you failed basic history in school, right?

Maybe I didn't and maybe I actually know quite a bit about the
constitution. The constitution goes out the door in divorce courts.


Why?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:vuMRf.8728$z82.5612@fed1read07...
"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"John Smith" wrote in message
news:c_qRf.8628$z82.6655@fed1read07...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Then the state would send him right back to prison to teach him the
error of his ways for being in "contempt" of court - but they'd never
toss him (or anyone else) into jail for owing a debt... -THAT- is
EXACTLY how the Feds and states get around that pesky, little nasty
bit of the Constitution that they don't care for.

When did the Constitution matter in a divorce court.

Let me guess, you failed basic history in school, right?

Maybe I didn't and maybe I actually know quite a bit about the
constitution. The constitution goes out the door in divorce courts.


Why?

Mostly it's because if the so-called "family" court judges had to follow the
Constitution the state wouldn't make any money and they wouldn't get their
pound of flesh (not to mention appeasing all those feminazis that voted them
into office in the first place..).

That's why.

Besides, most of those *******s in Black haven't a clue what really goes on
outside their court rooms. They live in a liberal bubble that tells them
that men are nasty, rotten dirty things that should be tossed out with
yesterdays newspaper. Why do you think the radfems have it so good?

40 years of brainwashing the media, courts, politicians and anyone else
who'll listen to them and buy them a cup of coffee. That's how they get the
free ride they have - they lied about everything to get it.

"tonita" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey, how about people just keep it in their pants? Think that would
work?

How 'bout I poke you in the eye with a sharp stick? Would that shut you up?

"Chris" wrote in message
news:5oNRf.660$5F1.118@fed1read08...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"tonita" wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, there is equal choice before the moment of conception.

So if the moment of conception equals choice, how would you describe the
3-4
days that can exist between the sex act and actual conception? Is that
some
kind of waiting period? Should a man be able to rescind his "choice" to
become a parent during the pre-conception waiting period? Or does the sex
act before conception occurs define the end of a man's choice?

Dude, you're gonna confuse her.

Heh, yup, he sure will. Honest questions usually do that to liberals and
their feminazi cronies.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net...

"tonita" wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, there is equal choice before the moment of conception.

So if the moment of conception equals choice, how would you describe the 3-4
days that can exist between the sex act and actual conception? Is that some
kind of waiting period? Should a man be able to rescind his "choice" to
become a parent during the pre-conception waiting period? Or does the sex
act before conception occurs define the end of a man's choice?

I'm pretty sure the man's choice ends at procisely the same moment he no longer has his sperm under his own control.
Guess he'll want to choose that moment wisely.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:vuMRf.8728$z82.5612@fed1read07...
"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"John Smith" wrote in message
news:c_qRf.8628$z82.6655@fed1read07...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Then the state would send him right back to prison to teach him the
error of his ways for being in "contempt" of court - but they'd never
toss him (or anyone else) into jail for owing a debt... -THAT- is
EXACTLY how the Feds and states get around that pesky, little nasty
bit of the Constitution that they don't care for.

When did the Constitution matter in a divorce court.

Let me guess, you failed basic history in school, right?

Maybe I didn't and maybe I actually know quite a bit about the
constitution. The constitution goes out the door in divorce courts.


Why?

Mostly it's because if the so-called "family" court judges had to follow
the Constitution the state wouldn't make any money and they wouldn't get
their pound of flesh (not to mention appeasing all those feminazis that
voted them into office in the first place..).

That's why.

Besides, most of those *******s in Black haven't a clue what really goes
on outside their court rooms. They live in a liberal bubble that tells
them that men are nasty, rotten dirty things that should be tossed out
with yesterdays newspaper. Why do you think the radfems have it so good?

40 years of brainwashing the media, courts, politicians and anyone else
who'll listen to them and buy them a cup of coffee. That's how they get
the free ride they have - they lied about everything to get it.

Well said. It is not all women who are a problem, it is the "radfems" who
are abusing the system. One such radfems was Betty Freidan and other is
Gloria Steinem. What I find so subversive about these women is that they
made fiery statements about men and marriage yet they were both married. I
think Betty Freidan suffered from mental illness -- the same kind of mental
illness that most "prophets" from a certain part of the world suffered: I am
right, you are wrong, and I will force my way on you.

"Chris" wrote in message
news:5oNRf.660$5F1.118@fed1read08...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"tonita" wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, there is equal choice before the moment of conception.

So if the moment of conception equals choice, how would you describe the
3-4
days that can exist between the sex act and actual conception? Is that
some
kind of waiting period? Should a man be able to rescind his "choice" to
become a parent during the pre-conception waiting period? Or does the sex
act before conception occurs define the end of a man's choice?

Dude, you're gonna confuse her.


What do you mean "gonna"???
Phil #3

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"tonita" wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, there is equal choice before the moment of conception.

So if the moment of conception equals choice, how would you describe the
3-4
days that can exist between the sex act and actual conception? Is that
some
kind of waiting period? Should a man be able to rescind his "choice" to
become a parent during the pre-conception waiting period? Or does the sex
act before conception occurs define the end of a man's choice?

I'm pretty sure the man's choice ends at procisely the same moment he no
longer has his sperm under his own control. Guess he'll want to choose
that moment wisely.


Obviously, you feel women are so simple-minded as to not be able to make
viable choices as you expect and apparently believe men can. It appears you
believe women are incapable of understaning the results of some actions
thereby rendering abortion as birth control as necessary to allow for
women's inability to descern what causes pregnancy in the first place.
Using your 'logic', a man loses control of his sperm at the same time that a
woman fails to protect her ovum from impregnation yet only women deserve to
call it "oops".
Typical feminist circular logic... "it's all about ME".

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
Phil #3

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:16:15 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"tonita" wrote in message
roups.com...
Well blame it on anyone but the two adults involved, of course.

Hmmm....2 adults. 2! I have absolutely no problem with both adults
involved a) making the decision what to do, and, b) having the same rights
and responsibilities

One must remember that when engaging an opponent in a battle of wits,
first ensure they are fully armed.

A jury is 12 individuals who decides who has the best lawyer.
- Mark Twain

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 02:24:58 GMT, "DB"
wrote:


"Dusty" wrote in

I can only hope it does. God, that would be so nice, to wake up in the
morning and know that I'm not a criminal any longer...

Until then, we are labeled as society's scum, the lowest form of individual
that is a danger to society.
We are convicted felons and grouped in with murderers, rapists & thieves.

Had I been rich, I could have afforded not to be convicted & labeled a
Felon.
Isn't that discrimination against the poor?


Well at the very least is shows that "justice" is for the rich.

As for the poor... they are hooped. If you don't make enough, then the
courts merely "impute" (read pretend) that you make a certain amount
of money, and penalize you accordingly.