Who has the ultimate right to choose?

"elizabeth" wrote in message
oups.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.

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. 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

On Apr 17, 3:15 pm, (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.

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

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

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

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.

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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 17, 3:29 pm, "Dusty Steenbock" wrote:
"elizabeth" wrote in message

oups.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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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 doing it?

If y

On Apr 17, 3:29 pm, "Dusty Steenbock" wrote:
"elizabeth" wrote in message

oups.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.- Hide quoted text -
l
Oh,, the irony . ..lesbians have the least actual cause to hate men,
since they are abused less by men than are straight women!
Keep in mind that most abuse of women is at the hands of the husband
or boyfriend!
So if speaking about male violence to women makes one a manhater . ...
what are the men who do the violence?
Stop the violence, pay your child support, and women like me who tell
you things you don't want to hear will have nothing to talk about.

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


"elizabeth" wrote in message
groups.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.

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?

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?

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?

Condoms are very effective and cheap.

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

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?

"Robert" wrote
..................


"Men" like you explain why some women hate men, and become lesbian.
If I were a woman I would be just like her.
==
And you'd make an adorable couple.

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.

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