Who has the ultimate right to choose?

On Apr 9, 4:42 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message

...





On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 20:56:02 -0700, "teachrmama"
wrote:

"elizabeth" wrote in message
groups.com...
On Apr 8, 7:37 pm, "Gini" wrote:

And you know this how? Come to think of it, I don't know any women who
have
died from a tubal.
Heh, perhaps I'm running with a different crowd.

OK, we're using Gina Knows Proof. The only cases that matter are the
women Gina Knows.

I know of women who have died and have had very, very serious
complications from pills and IUDs.

Um--after they died from their tubals, they STILL had very, very serious
complications from pills and IUDs?? That really IS bad!!

Are you really stupid? Or do you think everyone else is?
Women have died from complications from a tubal.
Women have had complications from pills, and IUDS, decided on a tubal
and died.
Liz is correct, any man that doesn't want to father a child and be a
real daddy, should get his cords clipped. Far safer than a tubal for a
woman. Any man that doesn't want to get a STD, needs to use a condom,
unless he has absolute faith in his partner.
The father of any child should support that child, even if he has to
be put in a slave labor condition. Men can prevent pregnancy in the
woman he is taking pleasure from.

Ohm grow up! What a fool. Any woman who cannot support a child should keep
her panties on and herlegs together.- Hide quoted text -

May you get gangraped and have it put on the web, may everyone who
ever knew you laugh at your fate.

You deserve it.

Robert wrote:
"teachrmama"

Ohm grow up! What a fool. Any woman who cannot support a child should keep
her panties on and herlegs together.

You grow up, a responsible man doesn't father a child.

Since when do men get to choose whether they will become fathers?

--
Ray Fischer

teachrmama wrote:

"Paul Anderson" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 01:11:16 -0700, "teachrmama"
wrote:
....

... I
don't believe that men should have the option of running around having
sex,
creating children, and moving on--

It is *impossible* for men to create children. It can be argued that
men are responsible for women getting pregnant (if you assume that the
woman is a mindless cow who doesn't realise having sex means having a
chance of getting pregnant) -- but that is all men are capable of
doing. Once a woman is pregnant she, and only she, is the one who
creates the child. It is her body and she is the only one with the
choice as to whether or not a child will be created (assuming she has
a mental age greater than six years old.)

but I also don't believe that women should
bhave the option of bringing child after child into the world with no
intention of ever supporting them--

Women always have had that option. They only way to take it away from
women is to have forced abortions -- to make unauthorized pregnancy a
crime.

and expecting taxpayers to pick up the
slack if they can't stick the man with the expenses.

If you want to know what is behind anything, just follow the money.

We need a better
solution--this one obviously is not working.

Works a lot better than anything else we've tried. What is your
solution?

50/50 joint custody, and each parent supports the child when the child is
with them. No money changes hands.

You're expecting men to pay (with time) for choices that they are not
allowed to make.

--
Ray Fischer

Paul Anderson wrote:
"CafeWriter"

You're wrong. I've had gone through a tubal ligation surgery and there was
no complications at all. Try again.

You are not everyone. http://ccli.org/nfp/contraception/tubal.php

You must be kidding. You're usually better at providign credible
source and not a biased pro-NFP web site.

"A review of the literature on post-tubal ligation problems by Drs.
Joel Hargrove and Guy Abraham revealed an incidence of long-term
complications in as many as 22 to 37% of sterilized women."

Notice weasel words like "complications" (what kind of
complications?) and "as many as" (how many, exactly?) which
make the statement nearly worthless.

--
Ray Fischer

elizabeth wrote:
"Gini" wrote:

You weren't paying attention, hon. Complications (which are extremely
rare)

No, they aren't. I nearly died from getting a tubal.
For over two years I had intense pain in the abdominal region, with
complications from adhesions.

And you repesent all women?

do not equal *death from a tubal.*

note the above negative sequalae from tubals . .. one of them is DEATH
and that's about as negative as a sequela can get, don't you think?

And it's very rare.

Nice try, though. You are quite
entertaining
tonight. Now, about the man who impregnates a sterile woman....?-

Well, a sterile man never has to worry about impregnating anyone.

So you say that men should make themselves permanently sterile in
order to protect women.

--
Ray Fischer

elizabeth wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
elizabeth wrote:
"Gini" wrote:
"elizabeth" wrote
.................
Letting your child live in poverty means you are the sort of heartless asshole who should be castrated,
because we don't need
more irresponsible assholes breeding children that the rest of society
must support.

==
Indeed. Sterilize all welfare women of childbearing age.

As long as you sterilize all the men impregnating them, fine.
And since vasectomies are a couple of orders of magnitude CHEAPER than
tubals, and since vasectomies are at least an order of magnitude MORE
EFFECTIVE THAN TUBALS, it's far more cost effective to snip the men,
especially when you factor in the cost of medical complications of
tubals . . . tubals do kill women, but no man has ever died from a
vasectomy.

That's not true. Men have died from vasectomy, usually as a result of
an infection.

Can you find any case histories?

Why?

--
Ray Fischer

"elizabeth" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 9, 4:42 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message

...





On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 20:56:02 -0700, "teachrmama"
wrote:

"elizabeth" wrote in message
groups.com...
On Apr 8, 7:37 pm, "Gini" wrote:

And you know this how? Come to think of it, I don't know any women
who
have
died from a tubal.
Heh, perhaps I'm running with a different crowd.

OK, we're using Gina Knows Proof. The only cases that matter are
the
women Gina Knows.

I know of women who have died and have had very, very serious
complications from pills and IUDs.

Um--after they died from their tubals, they STILL had very, very
serious
complications from pills and IUDs?? That really IS bad!!

Are you really stupid? Or do you think everyone else is?
Women have died from complications from a tubal.
Women have had complications from pills, and IUDS, decided on a tubal
and died.
Liz is correct, any man that doesn't want to father a child and be a
real daddy, should get his cords clipped. Far safer than a tubal for a
woman. Any man that doesn't want to get a STD, needs to use a condom,
unless he has absolute faith in his partner.
The father of any child should support that child, even if he has to
be put in a slave labor condition. Men can prevent pregnancy in the
woman he is taking pleasure from.

Ohm grow up! What a fool. Any woman who cannot support a child should
keep
her panties on and herlegs together.- Hide quoted text -

May you get gangraped and have it put on the web, may everyone who
ever knew you laugh at your fate.

snicker What? The idea of a woman being responsible enough to keep her
panties on and her legs together is repugnant to you? Personal
responsibility is only for MEN, right?

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

"Paul Anderson" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 01:11:16 -0700, "teachrmama"
wrote:
....

... I
don't believe that men should have the option of running around having
sex,
creating children, and moving on--

It is *impossible* for men to create children. It can be argued that
men are responsible for women getting pregnant (if you assume that the
woman is a mindless cow who doesn't realise having sex means having a
chance of getting pregnant) -- but that is all men are capable of
doing. Once a woman is pregnant she, and only she, is the one who
creates the child. It is her body and she is the only one with the
choice as to whether or not a child will be created (assuming she has
a mental age greater than six years old.)

but I also don't believe that women should
bhave the option of bringing child after child into the world with no
intention of ever supporting them--

Women always have had that option. They only way to take it away from
women is to have forced abortions -- to make unauthorized pregnancy a
crime.

and expecting taxpayers to pick up the
slack if they can't stick the man with the expenses.

If you want to know what is behind anything, just follow the money.

We need a better
solution--this one obviously is not working.

Works a lot better than anything else we've tried. What is your
solution?

50/50 joint custody, and each parent supports the child when the child is
with them. No money changes hands.

You're expecting men to pay (with time) for choices that they are not
allowed to make.

Actually, Ray, I think that both people who engage in unprotected sex do
have a responsibility toward any child that results from that act. 50/50
custody, and a relationship with the child that he helped create is
certainly better than being a walking wallet for 18-22 years.

"elizabeth" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 8, 10:37 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Gini" wrote in message

news:q2jSh.3656$jS1.2180@trndny07...







"teachrmama" wrote

"Gini" wrote
.....................................
==
You weren't paying attention, hon. Complications (which are
extremely
rare)
do not equal *death from a tubal.* Nice try, though. You are quite
entertaining
tonight. Now, about the man who impregnates a sterile woman....?

With all the complications that can happen to women who don't want
children, maybe they could just stop offering it to every man who
asks.
Surely chastity is still a choice!
==
What?? Expect women to accept responsibility for their own bodies?
What's
come over you? All the women elizabeth knows are far too weak for this
and
need the government to protect them. It really is sad.

Yes, it really is sad. Hmmmmm....I wonder how many men elizabeth has
taking
care of her and her children.

You really are a stupid ****.

I had to fight to get sterilized, I never wanted any children.

Probably just as well. You are really in to name calling it seems.


Women who spew ****nuggets and expect the world to support them is the
main cause of virtually all our problems, because OVERPOPULATION is
the biggest problem we have.

chuckle "****nuggets" There's a term I never heard before. Are you from
that child-free newgroup?


The concept that women are enobled by breeding children, especially
those they can't support, is what gives pimps fresh meat.

NOBODY is enobled by bringing into this world children that they have no
intention of ever supporting. Unfortunately, the system seems to rreward
women who do so. Take away the rewards, and the birth rate will plummet.

"elizabeth" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 8, 9:12 pm, "Gini" wrote:
==
What?? Expect women to accept responsibility for their own bodies? What's
come over you? All the women elizabeth knows are far too weak for this
and
need the government to protect them. It really is sad.

Get gangraped and die from a ruptured anus.

You deserve it.

Why do you keep saying such disgusting things? Don't you think that women
should take any responsibility for the results of their own sexual choices?
Saying that women should take responsibility does not negate the fact that
men also should take responsibility. What is making you so angry?