If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Who has the ultimate right to choose?
On Apr 15, 12:43�pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:32:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote: "Robert" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:04:32 -0700, "Chris" wrote: What do you care how irresponsible the woman is if you are taking responsibility for YOUR sexual behavior? Since the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she will bear children, the man doesn't have much of a responsibility regarding this, does he. * Yep, he can make damn sure it's not his children. Indeed he can, but not a prerequisite. Whether the children she decides to bring into the world are fathered by him or not does not change his lack of responsibility. It is impossible for him to be responsible for her SOLE choice to bear children. Whether or not she has a child is none of his business, as long as it's not his child. If he ****'s up, and she has his child he has a obligation to support that child. *Any ******* that refuses to support his child, needs to be horse whipped, and castrated. Don't want a woman to have your child, don't have unprotected *sex with her. *A man has the absolute responsibility to support his offspring. You keep forgetting a VERY IMPORTANT part, Robert. *It is HIS CHILD! *He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to parent that child. *He should have that child with him 50% of the time. *And the mother should be forced to provide 50% of the financial support of the child, just as the father is. *FORCED LABOR if necessary! *You keep leaving that part out. *I'm not sure why.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Who has the ultimate right to choose?
teachrmama wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:32:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote: "Robert" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:04:32 -0700, "Chris" wrote: What do you care how irresponsible the woman is if you are taking responsibility for YOUR sexual behavior? Since the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she will bear children, the man doesn't have much of a responsibility regarding this, does he. Yep, he can make damn sure it's not his children. Indeed he can, but not a prerequisite. Whether the children she decides to bring into the world are fathered by him or not does not change his lack of responsibility. It is impossible for him to be responsible for her SOLE choice to bear children. Whether or not she has a child is none of his business, as long as it's not his child. If he ****'s up, and she has his child he has a obligation to support that child. Any ******* that refuses to support his child, needs to be horse whipped, and castrated. Don't want a woman to have your child, don't have unprotected sex with her. A man has the absolute responsibility to support his offspring. You keep forgetting a VERY IMPORTANT part, Robert. It is HIS CHILD! He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to parent that child. He should have that child with him 50% of the time. And the mother should be forced to provide 50% of the financial support of the child, just as the father is. FORCED LABOR if necessary! You keep leaving that part out. I'm not sure why. Isn't it interesting how "robert" wishes to ascribe as a "right" an unatural process to a woman, and assign an "absolute responsibility" to a man where none exists. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Who has the ultimate right to choose?
"Relayer" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 15, 12:43?pm, "teachrmama" wrote: "Robert" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:32:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote: "Robert" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:04:32 -0700, "Chris" wrote: What do you care how irresponsible the woman is if you are taking responsibility for YOUR sexual behavior? Since the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she will bear children, the man doesn't have much of a responsibility regarding this, does he. Yep, he can make damn sure it's not his children. Indeed he can, but not a prerequisite. Whether the children she decides to bring into the world are fathered by him or not does not change his lack of responsibility. It is impossible for him to be responsible for her SOLE choice to bear children. Whether or not she has a child is none of his business, as long as it's not his child. If he ****'s up, and she has his child he has a obligation to support that child. Any ******* that refuses to support his child, needs to be horse whipped, and castrated. Don't want a woman to have your child, don't have unprotected sex with her. A man has the absolute responsibility to support his offspring. You keep forgetting a VERY IMPORTANT part, Robert. It is HIS CHILD! He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to parent that child. He should have that child with him 50% of the time. And the mother should be forced to provide 50% of the financial support of the child, just as the father is. FORCED LABOR if necessary! You keep leaving that part out. I'm not sure why.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 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. (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. He jsut keeps ranting about the money. He also never mentions the mother's responsibility to provide her 50% of the children's needs. 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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Who has the ultimate right to choose?
"Animal05" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "Robert" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:32:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote: "Robert" wrote in message m... On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:04:32 -0700, "Chris" wrote: What do you care how irresponsible the woman is if you are taking responsibility for YOUR sexual behavior? Since the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she will bear children, the man doesn't have much of a responsibility regarding this, does he. Yep, he can make damn sure it's not his children. Indeed he can, but not a prerequisite. Whether the children she decides to bring into the world are fathered by him or not does not change his lack of responsibility. It is impossible for him to be responsible for her SOLE choice to bear children. Whether or not she has a child is none of his business, as long as it's not his child. If he ****'s up, and she has his child he has a obligation to support that child. Any ******* that refuses to support his child, needs to be horse whipped, and castrated. Don't want a woman to have your child, don't have unprotected sex with her. A man has the absolute responsibility to support his offspring. You keep forgetting a VERY IMPORTANT part, Robert. It is HIS CHILD! He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to parent that child. He should have that child with him 50% of the time. And the mother should be forced to provide 50% of the financial support of the child, just as the father is. FORCED LABOR if necessary! You keep leaving that part out. I'm not sure why. Isn't it interesting how "robert" wishes to ascribe as a "right" an unatural process to a woman, and assign an "absolute responsibility" to a man where none exists. I'm sure he is just misunderstood. Don't worry. He will correct the poor impression we have of his postings soon. smile |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Who has the ultimate right to choose?
"Robert" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:06:29 -0400, Animal05 wrote: teachrmama wrote: "Robert" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:32:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote: "Robert" wrote in message om... On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:04:32 -0700, "Chris" wrote: What do you care how irresponsible the woman is if you are taking responsibility for YOUR sexual behavior? Since the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she will bear children, the man doesn't have much of a responsibility regarding this, does he. Yep, he can make damn sure it's not his children. Indeed he can, but not a prerequisite. Whether the children she decides to bring into the world are fathered by him or not does not change his lack of responsibility. It is impossible for him to be responsible for her SOLE choice to bear children. Whether or not she has a child is none of his business, as long as it's not his child. If he ****'s up, and she has his child he has a obligation to support that child. Any ******* that refuses to support his child, needs to be horse whipped, and castrated. Don't want a woman to have your child, don't have unprotected sex with her. A man has the absolute responsibility to support his offspring. You keep forgetting a VERY IMPORTANT part, Robert. It is HIS CHILD! He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to parent that child. He should have that child with him 50% of the time. And the mother should be forced to provide 50% of the financial support of the child, just as the father is. FORCED LABOR if necessary! You keep leaving that part out. I'm not sure why. Isn't it interesting how "robert" wishes to ascribe as a "right" an unatural process to a woman, and assign an "absolute responsibility" to a man where none exists. What both you idiots are trying to ignore, is we are discussing a man that doesn't want a child. A responsible intelligent man, doesn't knock up a woman that he doesn't want to raise a family with. But the *******s that wants to enjoy unprotected sex, with the woman bearing all the responsibility. But, Robert, you still haven't clarified your position. IF the man wants the child--but does not want an ongoing relationship with the woman, nor she with him--do you feel that 50/50 shared custody with each parent providing for the child while the child is with them is the way to go? IF the woman does not want the child, but the father does, should the woman bef forced to provide for the child for 18-22 years--even with forced labor if necessary? I really am curious as to your feelings on this subject. Not everyone coaught up in the child support system have tried to escape their responsibilities. Some are glad to pay, but are given NO OPPORTUNITY to be a real parent. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Who has the ultimate right to choose?
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Ray Fischer" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "Ray Fischer" wrote in message teachrmama wrote: "Ray Fischer" wrote in message Relayer wrote: Really, bottom line is if the guy doesn't want to be a father, the LEAST he can do is use a condom. A classic anti-abortion argument. Not 100% but still better than nothing. However, most guys dont like them. But some will like being a father a LOT less..... If he didn't use a condom, then too bad. "If she wore a short skirt then she deserved to be raped." Same logic. Oh come on, Ray. A man who does not want to be a father but does want to engage in sexual intercourse could at least have the common sense to protect himself. The classic anti-abortion argument. It's HIS sperm--he should at least try to keep the little fellers corralled. And her egg. But more importantly, whether to have a child is still entirely her choice. All the more reason for the man to protect himself--seeing as how at this point in time the system is going to enrich the woman at the expense of both the man and the child. Certainly there is nobody else out there protecting you. Time to change the system. Not that I expect it to happen soon because most women are more interested in protecting their priviledges than they are in equality. I agree. But, until then, you'd best be protecting yourself, right? Double-edged sword. Are there immediate benefits to protecting yourself? Yes. However, if the vast majority of men "protect" themselves, then the chances of the system changing approaches zero. Why? Because this problem will be virtually non-existent; no complaints, crusades, etc.. Remember, the squeaky wheel gets the grease; or at least has a chance to get the grease. No squeak, no grease. Surely, surely you are not suggesting that men go out and impregnate every possible female so the "squeak" will be louder, Chris! I am apalled at your suggestion!! I made no such suggestion. I only stated a fact. So now we have a NEW problem; that of men shouldering the irresponsible woman's responsibility. But wait, they're already doing that. Besides, how will the human race continue with men protecting themselves? Last I checked, parthenogenesis in humans does not exist. What do you care how irresponsible the woman is if you are taking responsibility for YOUR sexual behavior? Since the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she will bear children, the man doesn't have much of a responsibility regarding this, does he. The problem men are faced with is not unlike the problem that a woman utilizing an empty laundromat late at night faces. When she gets raped while doing her children's laundry, could you imagine the public outcry if it was suggested that she somehow deserved it because she did not "protect" herself? But yet, apply the SAME example to a man (regarding unprotected sex), and it's commonly accepted that he deserved it. Go figure. Sticking clothes in a wahing machine to get them clean is not exactly the same as sticking you ______ in a ____ to give yourself pleasure, Chris. No it's not. Apparently, my analogy has escaped you.. There is a railroad track running just outside little town. We get 2 trains through per day--one in the middle of the night, and one at about 2 in the afternoon. Because of the low traffic on the road, there are not protective arms coming down to keep folks from crossing at the wrong time, although there are the flashing lights and bells. It is perfectly legal to walk along the country road and across therailroad tracks. But I would be a big fool were I to try to display my right to walk there just as a train was coming through. The train would win--every time. My "rights" will NOT protect me from the train. No they won't; but the train aint' doin' anything wrong either. I guess you could say that no benefit is without its risks. But the man should NOT be forced to share a risk without the accompanying benefit! Hey, you know perfectly well how I feel about 50/50 shared custody, each parent pays their own way. Btu what does stupidly feeding yourself to a merciless system have to do with overcoming the evils of that system? Protect yourself, and fight for justice. You don't have to be a victim to fight. No, but without a victim there is nothing to fight. Again, if EVERY man "protects" himself, what will happen to the human race? I always thought that the process of procreation was designed perfectly. Do yoyu intend to procreate every time you have sex, Chris? If so, you have nothing to complain about because you do, indeed, intend to be a father. If you do not wish to be a father every time you have sex, have the common sense to not walk across the tracks when the train is coming. Faulty analogy. (see above) However, there are some who would disagree. Parthenogenesis is more to their liking. Lesbians, feminazis, etc. come to mind. Problem is their procedure won't work. Consensual sex is a basic human right; and last I checked, human rights are undeserving of punishment. But just like you, I too agree in 505/50 equality across the board. So, if you're gonna punish the man for having sex, then so too shall the woman be punished. Rather that "punish"--how about if we hold both parties equally responsible to care for the child and to financially support the child. That's a far cry better than the sick system that these sick government people are enforcing! Raising a child is NOT a punishment. Paying for a child that you do not get the pleasure of raising could be considered punishment. Worse than that. Being forced to hand free cash to a woman says absolutely NOTHING about paying for any child. But you already knew that. To my knowledge, being a parent isn't a crime; at least it's not if you are a woman. But if you are a man, you get fined with TWO DECADES of payments or prison, even if you were FORCED into parenthood. And if you know that will be the result, why would you be foolish enought NOT to protect yourself? I guess for the same reason the laundromat woman was foolish enough to not protect herself. You see, no one can predict (know) the future; and as far as I know, it is NOT a crime to be foolish. Ah, but, Chris, at this point in time it IS illegal to father a child and not pay the ordered support. THAT is the part that you consider wrong, isn't it? The woman in the laundromat unprotected late at night is foolish but not criminal. The man who fathers an unwanted child and refuses to pay CS is both foolish and criminal, according to today's laws. The wise man will protect himself. Whether or not it is illegal is irrelevant. By "foolish", as you said, I was making reference to the man having unprotected sex. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Who has the ultimate right to choose?
"Robert" wrote .......................... A responsible intelligent man, doesn't knock up a woman that he doesn't want to raise a family with. But the *******s that wants to enjoy unprotected sex, with the woman bearing all the responsibility. == So...how long have you been with this woman and how much child support do you think he should be paying? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Who has the ultimate right to choose?
"Gini" wrote in message news:LdAUh.508$Yh.432@trndny03... "Robert" wrote ......................... A responsible intelligent man, doesn't knock up a woman that he doesn't want to raise a family with. But the *******s that wants to enjoy unprotected sex, with the woman bearing all the responsibility. == So...how long have you been with this woman and how much child support do you think he should be paying? chuckle Now, Gini, you sound quite cynical here. smile |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Who has the ultimate right to choose?
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:06:29 -0400, Animal05
wrote: teachrmama wrote: "Robert" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:32:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote: "Robert" wrote in message m... On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:04:32 -0700, "Chris" wrote: What do you care how irresponsible the woman is if you are taking responsibility for YOUR sexual behavior? Since the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she will bear children, the man doesn't have much of a responsibility regarding this, does he. Yep, he can make damn sure it's not his children. Indeed he can, but not a prerequisite. Whether the children she decides to bring into the world are fathered by him or not does not change his lack of responsibility. It is impossible for him to be responsible for her SOLE choice to bear children. Whether or not she has a child is none of his business, as long as it's not his child. If he ****'s up, and she has his child he has a obligation to support that child. Any ******* that refuses to support his child, needs to be horse whipped, and castrated. Don't want a woman to have your child, don't have unprotected sex with her. A man has the absolute responsibility to support his offspring. You keep forgetting a VERY IMPORTANT part, Robert. It is HIS CHILD! He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to parent that child. He should have that child with him 50% of the time. And the mother should be forced to provide 50% of the financial support of the child, just as the father is. FORCED LABOR if necessary! You keep leaving that part out. I'm not sure why. Isn't it interesting how "robert" wishes to ascribe as a "right" an unatural process to a woman, and assign an "absolute responsibility" to a man where none exists. What both you idiots are trying to ignore, is we are discussing a man that doesn't want a child. A responsible intelligent man, doesn't knock up a woman that he doesn't want to raise a family with. But the *******s that wants to enjoy unprotected sex, with the woman bearing all the responsibility. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Who has the ultimate right to choose?
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Relayer" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 15, 12:43?pm, "teachrmama" wrote: "Robert" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:32:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote: "Robert" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:04:32 -0700, "Chris" wrote: What do you care how irresponsible the woman is if you are taking responsibility for YOUR sexual behavior? Since the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she will bear children, the man doesn't have much of a responsibility regarding this, does he. Yep, he can make damn sure it's not his children. Indeed he can, but not a prerequisite. Whether the children she decides to bring into the world are fathered by him or not does not change his lack of responsibility. It is impossible for him to be responsible for her SOLE choice to bear children. Whether or not she has a child is none of his business, as long as it's not his child. If he ****'s up, and she has his child he has a obligation to support that child. Any ******* that refuses to support his child, needs to be horse whipped, and castrated. Don't want a woman to have your child, don't have unprotected sex with her. A man has the absolute responsibility to support his offspring. You keep forgetting a VERY IMPORTANT part, Robert. It is HIS CHILD! He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to parent that child. He should have that child with him 50% of the time. And the mother should be forced to provide 50% of the financial support of the child, just as the father is. FORCED LABOR if necessary! You keep leaving that part out. I'm not sure why.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 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. (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. He jsut keeps ranting about the money. He also never mentions the mother's responsibility to provide her 50% of the children's needs. 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. Don't hold your breath. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Who has the ultimate right to choose? | Chris | Child Support | 295 | April 25th 07 04:19 PM |
Who has the ultimate right to choose? | Chris | Child Support | 0 | April 4th 07 06:37 PM |
World Ultimate Fighting | [email protected] | General | 0 | February 28th 07 07:34 AM |
Ultimate Mom's Day out! | [email protected] | General | 0 | September 4th 06 04:16 PM |
Execution--the ultimate child abuse! | Fern5827 | Spanking | 6 | February 8th 04 07:30 AM |