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

"Gini" wrote in message news:nbLSf.4596$092.913@trndny04...
"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Gini" wrote
.................
Actually, I've concluded that she didn't know men are always on and women
cycle. She simply could not fathom the very basic fact that women who do
not wish pregnancy should not permit intercourse when they are ovulating.

That's simply not true, Gini - for whatever your limitations, you can't accept that what I've been promoting is for
ALL fertile adults to manage and take responsibility for their own fertility.
==
Sooo...Exactly how does the man take responsibility for his own fertility when the woman says, "Not tonight, honey,
I'm ovulating?"
==

Instead, you persist with this fiction that I don't understand fertility, or don't understand how babies are made, or
any of the other myths you've been promulgating about me.
==
Well, you kinda contributed to that on your own. Perhaps you should consider simple logistics--You virtually *never*
(yeah, I said *never*) agree with anything anyone says. Think about it--Nearly all the regular posters here are
college educated
but, according to you, they're *never* right about anything.

And I would have said that where?

Where do you
think that leaves you? Logistically, speaking. It's not rocket
science, Moon. To top it all off, your comments, which you appear to think make you
sound smart, are really, really dumb.

What truly surprises me, Gini, is your more recent propensity to simply fling insults, rather than engage in any sort of
debate, discussion, or any other variant of discourse.

==

"Gini" wrote in message
news:CYJSf.4591$092.3821@trndny04...

"Phil #3" wrote
...............

Actually, Gini was speaking of men's fertility, which is where Moonie got
confused and wanted to insert the random thought about the fact that
nothing is ever 'always'. Gini was speaking in the general sense that for
most of the male population of the world, men are fertile every day of
every month.
==
Well said :-)
==
Moonie is simply trying to bifurcate the thread into meaninglessness.
That's what she does.
==
Actually, I've concluded that she didn't know men are always on and women
cycle. She simply could not fathom the very basic fact that women who do
not wish pregnancy should not permit intercourse when they are ovulating.
It seemed
to throw her as much as the wrongly convicted/imprisoned man who asked
that his
support be lowered during his incarceration. That's just waaay too much to
ask of
poor helpless women. Sheesh!
==

Indeed. And very well said.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

[snip]

For all of Gini's babble about how the woman is only fertile at one point
in her cycle, what she overlooks is that sperm may live in the female
reproductive tract for up to 7 days and fertilization may occur even days
after intercourse.

Which is something you contradict yourself on in several previous posts (no,
I ain't gonna spoon feed ya either - go look it up). You yourself have
stated that MEN must be the primary party responsible for all births - yet
over 95% of the fertility option is up to the female gender. And yet, you
want to make only ONE party subject to the law - men. While leaving
completely out of the "equality" equation - women.

You are indeed, a one-sided person.

How do you remain upright when you attempt to walk?

"Gini" wrote in message
news:nbLSf.4596$092.913@trndny04...
"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Gini" wrote
.................
Actually, I've concluded that she didn't know men are always on and
women
cycle. She simply could not fathom the very basic fact that women who do
not wish pregnancy should not permit intercourse when they are
ovulating.

That's simply not true, Gini - for whatever your limitations, you can't
accept that what I've been promoting is for ALL fertile adults to manage
and take responsibility for their own fertility.
==
Sooo...Exactly how does the man take responsibility for his own fertility
when the woman says, "Not tonight, honey,
I'm ovulating?"
==

Instead, you persist with this fiction that I don't understand fertility,
or don't understand how babies are made, or any of the other myths you've
been promulgating about me.
==
Well, you kinda contributed to that on your own. Perhaps you should
consider simple logistics--You virtually *never*
(yeah, I said *never*) agree with anything anyone says. Think about
it--Nearly all the regular posters here are college educated
but, according to you, they're *never* right about anything. Where do you
think that leaves you? Logistically, speaking. It's not rocket
science, Moon. To top it all off, your comments, which you appear to think
make you
sound smart, are really, really dumb.
==

I proudly stand at the point of those that are NOT "colllege edumacated".
(**** my spell checker, too!) heh, heh.....

Hey, FYI - I'm a sophomore at LIFE-U. If you're really lucky, you can
actually graduate at 100 years of age...

And for those NOT able to keep up (sa - Moonie..)...
0-25 yo are FRESHMAN.
26-50 are SOPHOMORES.
51-75 are JUNIORS.
75-100 SENIORS - I only hope you live that long....

I get more education talking to the drunk ol' fool from WW1/WW 2/Korea/Viet
Nam/DS then I ever do anyone else.

"Moon Shyne" attempted to rewrite the entire
IT/MIS/MIT sphere with her bull sh*t....

Here, Moonie, this should help you -

site ( http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/sites )

2 entries found for site.


Main Entry: 1site
Pronunciation: 'sIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, place, position, from Middle French or Latin;
Middle French, from Latin situs, from sinere to leave, allow
1 a : the spatial location of an actual or planned structure or set of
structures (as a building, town, or monuments) b : a space of ground
occupied or to be occupied by a building
2 a : the place, scene, or point of something b : one or more Internet
addresses at which an individual or organization provides information to
others often including links to other locations where related information
may be found

Now, if you wish to conflict with the ENTIRE world, bring it on deary.
Bring it on..

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

"tonita" wrote in message
oups.com...
You know, Andre...I don't think you really thought your rantings
through. I'm not taking sides here, merely responding to the original
spirit of the thread about men's rights after a child has been
conceived. What do I care if women are complaining that marriage is
down. Thank the feminists for that and the fact that women will have
sex on a second "date" and then move the guy in. Why *should* men
marry today? I think the state of relationships is truly sad these
days. Nothing profound, nothing sacred anymore. Kids born to one
woman and a dozen different fathers. Kind of sickening when you really
think about it. If you start dating a woman there's probably half a
dozen other men who've already had sex with her so you're nothing
special. Actually, what *is* special between two people anymore?

My adult daughter and I have discussions about these things because she is
interested in some of the same issues as me. Her take on it is a huge
percentage of her generation has grown up the product of divorced parents
without the steadying influence of fathers in their lives. Just about
everything they know about relationships they learned from bitter, single
mothers.

She says the young women have no idea how to talk to young men or interact
with them, so they fall into the "hook-up then dump them" mode. She knows
young women who have experimented with lesbian relationships because they
don't have a clear image of their sexuality. Likewise, the young men
don't
have a clue how to act like real mature, gentlemen and push the boundaries
too far, too fast. They expect women to just give in to them and do
whatever they want them to do and act offended when they get rejected.

So to answer your question - There is nothing special between two people
anymore because the alarming increases in the divorce and single parenting
rates have produced a generation of low self-esteem hedonists who don't
know
how to treat each other with respect and dignity.

Would a copy (or 3) of the "Death of Arthur" help?

And no, I'm being sarcastic.

"tonita" wrote in message
ups.com...
Well heck, I say bring a bunch of them here to teach our men. That
would be one problem solved, right?


Sorry to burst (at least part of) your bubble Toni, but I'm gonna pull a
Moonie here.. Ya see, there's this there's a tribe in Africa in which
the
men breastfeed the children. Yup, those mammary glands in men folk
really
do work after all! So you can stop telling us that men can't breastfeed.
Because, well, it's simply not true.

Sorry babe, but it's been done since the beginning of time for these
folks...

It's not the men you need to educate - it's getting their GLANDS to do the
job they where designed to do - that's the problem (that and over coming 40+
years of feminazi bull **** to make it happen).

"tonita" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, I wouldn't consider that an ideal start for a newborn to be
schlepped back and forth.

According to the B-in-B "judge" I had it also didn't apply to kids between 3
and 5 y/o to spend too much time with their father.. "it might 'corrupt'
them.."

Then, when brought up at a later date, the SAME judge claimed it wasn't in
the interest of 4-7 y/o's to spend so much time with their father. And my
C$ was increased as a result of MY attitude - even though I had NO income.

Again a few years later, same judge - "..you're kids don't require your
presence in their lives.. ..just your money.." And my C$ was increased to
over 75% of my take home pay.

After again going after what I thought was my children's rights, I was again
acosteted by agents of the "courts" and was assessed "extra" fines and my C$
was increased to 150% of my take home.

Oh, yeah, that was fair for my children. And during the whole time while
this was happening, my X chuckled to herself. She had bought and paid for
the judge herself.

So, don't even attempt the sort of bull **** with you're slingin' me,
Toni. - It ain't gonna wash here.

"tonita" wrote in message
oups.com...
Once a guy makes a kid, not matter what the circumstances, he owes it
to that child. Not the mother, the child. The kid is totally innocent
and shouldn't carry the burden of the two people who made it. Kids
deserve child support. It goes back to the guy making a wiser choice
than just giving in to his erection. If he thought that the ensuing
orgasm could cost him big for the next 18 years, maybe he would think
twice.

Bull. I wnet into my dovorce thinking that things would be "fair", "even"
and even "open minded" whe it came to my kids.

Boy, was I wrong.

Anything (and very nearly), everything, my X wanted - she got, and then
some. so don't pretent to preach how children should have it - it ain't
about them - it's all for how much moms can get from the fathers of their
kids.

Once a girl makes a kid, not matter what the circumstances, she owes it to
that child. Not to herself, the child. The kid is totally innocent and
shouldn't carry the burden of the two people who made it. Kids deserve
child support. It goes back to the woman making a wiser choice than just
giving in to her desires. If she thought that the ensuing orgasm could cost
her big for the next 18 years, maybe she would think twice.

Try THAT on for size.

Women have the choice to abort the baby without the man's consensus, why
can't man have the same choice without the woman's consensus. If she
still
goes though with the pregnancy, then she should not force the father to
pay
child support etc..

While, in good consciences, I cannot agree entirely with the above; I also
cannot condemn it - because it speaks true.


Just to explain - If my Ex where ever to tell me I could get out from under
by claiming the kids she gave birth to weren't mine, I couldn't do it. My
morals and scruples are set far too high for that - and I would never
disgrace any child that carried my name with that dishonor.

This (IMO) is what sets MEN apart from the radfems that want nothing more
then to subjugate all men under their will and make them slaves. MEN will
NOT give in. MEN will NOT give up. MEN will NEVER surrender. These are
OUR CHILDREN TOO and they deserve BOTH their parents. Anything less is
abhorrent, un-constitutional and unfair to our children.

And the radfems - they just don't get it.

"Phil #3" wrote in message
ink.net...

"tonita" wrote in message
oups.com...
Once a guy makes a kid, not matter what the circumstances, he owes it
to that child.

First, men do not make "a kid". The best they can do is co-create a
pregnancy. Only women have the right to determine if a pregnancy will be
allowed to become a child.
Second, what the father owes the child is sustinence, protection and basic
education. The courts are removing that from father's allowed activities.

Not the mother, the child. The kid is totally innocent
and shouldn't carry the burden of the two people who made it. Kids
deserve child support.

No, children should be supported, which has nothing to do with child
support. Child support is money paid to the custodial parent (for all
practical purposes, virtually always the mother) to do with as she sees
fit. Supporting children involves feeding, clothing, sheltering, teaching
and playing, chasing the 'boogie man' from under the bed and explaining
why school members of the opposite sex are so hard to understand.

[snip]

Dang, then I used the biggest anti-boogie-man of them all with my kids..
Godzilla. Guess I owe Toho some major bucks 'cause I told my kids that the
Big G eats the monsters in the closet for snacks.... Of course, I also
happen to have the one of the biggest collection of the Green One's major
films on the East coast.... (no, I ain't sellin'!)

And my kids haven't had a single nightmare since I introduced the lot of
them to the other. In fact, it's been almost too quiet since that time!

No matter. If Japan should ever tell the big G to pack it up and move on,
he can always crash at my place! I'll make room for a welcome friend any
day!!