Who has the ultimate right to choose?

In article ,
"Chris" wrote:

Last I checked, men lack the ability to make ANY choice regarding abortion.

really? name one pregnant man who was denied the choice of abortion.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:22:45 -0700, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:02:32 -0700, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:47:32 -0700, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
.. .


I am reading and posting from talk.abortion. Apparently you are
posting from alt.child-support. And you are interested in getting out
of paying child support. Tough ****, you should have avoided fathering
a child. A sorry son of a bitch that wont support his children has no
sympathy from me.
As to answering your whining ass questions about sorry women, I
think you are getting off lightly.

Ahem! You are the one who brought up child support as an issue and made a
bunch of stereotypical comments about men. What you posted about CS was BS.
What you posted about men ignored how women contribute to - gasp - causing
pregnancies.

Bull **** I responded to some ass hole that claimed that a man
should be able to walk away, from a pregnant woman that refused to
abort.

If you are an expert on abortions, why don't you stick to that topic and
leave the CS and male bashing discussions out of it. What you posted about
CS was not factual. What you posted about men was nothing more than a
one-sided opinion.

All I ever post is my opinion, as it is for all posters, Intelligent
people do not need to be told this in every paragraph.
In My Opinion, any son of a mother ****ing bitch that has to pay
child support, is getting off light. The stupid ******* should have
taken steps to prevent a unwanted pregnancy. Doesn't keep women from
getting pregnant, just keeps him from knocking her up. CS is way to
damn low. A chicken ****, that fathers a child, and trys to avoid
supporting his kids, need to live in a dorm, work 70 hour weeks and
give all but the most necessary income to the mother or whoever is
caring for the child.

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

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:58:26 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 16, 5:43 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"Robert" wrote
..................

I am reading and posting from talk.abortion. Apparently you are
posting from alt.child-support. And you are interested in getting out
of paying child support. Tough ****, you should have avoided fathering
a child. A sorry son of a bitch that wont support his children has no
sympathy from me.
As to answering your whining ass questions about sorry women, I
think you are getting off lightly.

==
If you've never been embarrassed by your own stupidity, now would be a
great
time to start. So, how about answering the question--How long have you
been
with this woman and how much money do you think her ex "owes" you?

Gini, dearie, he's got your number.

You alt child support losers made the wrong choice on abortion.

Last I checked, men lack the ability to make ANY choice regarding abortion.

Not true, men have a lot of choices regarding abortion, especially
of their own children. It's real simple, don't father a child until
you are sure that the woman wants to have your child.

If you haven't got the ability to choose a mate who you can stay with
long enough to raise a child, you should be neutered and your puppies
sent to the pound.
You are proof not enough abortions are performed.



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

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

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.

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.

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?




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

On Apr 16, 8:38 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message

...







"elizabeth" wrote in message
roups.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.

I'm sure you enjoy making up your little fairy tales, then living in them.
You're wrong, of course, but do enjoy your little world, Dearie. It's
obvious that the real world is just too, too difficult for you to handle.
(And do ask about increasing those meds. It really might help)

Her message seems to be - and I apologize if this offends anyone - is the
only remaining outlet for sexual desire amongst men and women is anal sex.
Unless, of course, she is a lesbian. Then all her crap starts to make
sense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, there you go, giving a demo of Fundamental Attribution Error.

As many a man can tell you, knowing he's forever safe from being a
daddy is quite exciting.

Iin your case . .. well, dearie, your man has very poor taste in
women, and he doesn't feel it's his job to support his children,
unless you get a part of the money.
He will do the same to you. He will tell the next **** the same
things about you that he says about her.

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.

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. Any moral person would find it
justified to force him to support the child he fathered. It's very
easy to avoid knocking a woman up. And his part should be 75% of the
financial cost of raising a child. Because he's not there to do his
part.

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

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?

"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:22:45 -0700, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:02:32 -0700, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:47:32 -0700, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
.. .


I am reading and posting from talk.abortion. Apparently you are
posting from alt.child-support. And you are interested in getting out
of paying child support. Tough ****, you should have avoided fathering
a child. A sorry son of a bitch that wont support his children has no
sympathy from me.
As to answering your whining ass questions about sorry women, I
think you are getting off lightly.

Ahem! You are the one who brought up child support as an issue and made a
bunch of stereotypical comments about men. What you posted about CS was
BS.
What you posted about men ignored how women contribute to - gasp - causing
pregnancies.

Bull **** I responded to some ass hole that claimed that a man
should be able to walk away, from a pregnant woman that refused to
abort.

If you are an expert on abortions, why don't you stick to that topic and
leave the CS and male bashing discussions out of it. What you posted
about
CS was not factual. What you posted about men was nothing more than a
one-sided opinion.

All I ever post is my opinion, as it is for all posters, Intelligent
people do not need to be told this in every paragraph.
In My Opinion, any son of a mother ****ing bitch that has to pay
child support, is getting off light. The stupid ******* should have
taken steps to prevent a unwanted pregnancy. Doesn't keep women from
getting pregnant, just keeps him from knocking her up. CS is way to
damn low. A chicken ****, that fathers a child, and trys to avoid
supporting his kids, need to live in a dorm, work 70 hour weeks and
give all but the most necessary income to the mother or whoever is
caring for the child.


Forced labor, lack of human rights. You are a real piece of ****. You a
nazi? Given you are posting from a divorce NG shows you havn't made the best
choices in life either has It?