Pregnancy vs Childbirth

[Matt D]

Pregnancy vs Childbirth

The man (and woman equally) is responsible for the PREGNANCY. It is
the direct result of the actions of the man and woman in sex that
produced the pregnancy. Beyond that, the decision to have a child and
keep the child (as opposed to adoption) is the result of the
unilateral choice of the woman. That is the way that the women want
it, so that is the way that it should be, the woman's body the woman's
choice. What that means is the man should be obligated to be
responsible for the costs associated with the pregnancy, those
responsibilities being the cost of either the abortion or the cost of
prenatal care, but not child support. Furthermore, the man probably
should be responsible for the FULL cost of it, considering that the
woman has to actually go through the abortion or childbirth.

If a woman wants to exercise her right to have a child and keep a
child, the woman should be willing and able to support the child. The
same situation would apply to men. The man could choose to raise the
child (with the consent of the woman to have the child), and the man
should be equally ineligible for child support. Otherwise the child
should be put up for adoption. It is definately in the child's best
interest to be adopted into a family that IS willing and able to
support the child.

I do not have any children, and I intend to keep it that way.

[Fighting For Kids]

Not this garbage again.

On 13 Nov 2003 12:15:57 -0800, (Matt D)
wrote:

>Pregnancy vs Childbirth
>
>The man (and woman equally) is responsible for the PREGNANCY. It is
>the direct result of the actions of the man and woman in sex that
>produced the pregnancy. Beyond that, the decision to have a child and
>keep the child (as opposed to adoption) is the result of the
>unilateral choice of the woman.

This would be abortion that you are referring to and for some women
abortion is just not an option.

That is the way that the women want
>it, so that is the way that it should be, the woman's body the woman's
>choice. What that means is the man should be obligated to be
>responsible for the costs associated with the pregnancy, those
>responsibilities being the cost of either the abortion or the cost of
>prenatal care, but not child support.

That would mean men would NEVER be held accountable for any child that
was ever born. They could simply walk away, even in marriages.


Furthermore, the man probably
>should be responsible for the FULL cost of it, considering that the
>woman has to actually go through the abortion or childbirth.

Actually they should be held responsible for their share of the costs
in having a child and supporting a child.
>
>If a woman wants to exercise her right to have a child and keep a
>child, the woman should be willing and able to support the child. The
>same situation would apply to men. The man could choose to raise the
>child (with the consent of the woman to have the child), and the man
>should be equally ineligible for child support. Otherwise the child
>should be put up for adoption. It is definately in the child's best
>interest to be adopted into a family that IS willing and able to
>support the child.
>
>I do not have any children, and I intend to keep it that way.

Good !!!!

[Fighting For Kids]

Not this garbage again.

On 13 Nov 2003 12:15:57 -0800, (Matt D)
wrote:

>Pregnancy vs Childbirth
>
>The man (and woman equally) is responsible for the PREGNANCY. It is
>the direct result of the actions of the man and woman in sex that
>produced the pregnancy. Beyond that, the decision to have a child and
>keep the child (as opposed to adoption) is the result of the
>unilateral choice of the woman.

This would be abortion that you are referring to and for some women
abortion is just not an option.

That is the way that the women want
>it, so that is the way that it should be, the woman's body the woman's
>choice. What that means is the man should be obligated to be
>responsible for the costs associated with the pregnancy, those
>responsibilities being the cost of either the abortion or the cost of
>prenatal care, but not child support.

That would mean men would NEVER be held accountable for any child that
was ever born. They could simply walk away, even in marriages.


Furthermore, the man probably
>should be responsible for the FULL cost of it, considering that the
>woman has to actually go through the abortion or childbirth.

Actually they should be held responsible for their share of the costs
in having a child and supporting a child.
>
>If a woman wants to exercise her right to have a child and keep a
>child, the woman should be willing and able to support the child. The
>same situation would apply to men. The man could choose to raise the
>child (with the consent of the woman to have the child), and the man
>should be equally ineligible for child support. Otherwise the child
>should be put up for adoption. It is definately in the child's best
>interest to be adopted into a family that IS willing and able to
>support the child.
>
>I do not have any children, and I intend to keep it that way.

Good !!!!

[Cameron Stevens]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> Not this garbage again.
>
> On 13 Nov 2003 12:15:57 -0800, (Matt D)
> wrote:
>
> >Pregnancy vs Childbirth
> >
> >The man (and woman equally) is responsible for the PREGNANCY. It is
> >the direct result of the actions of the man and woman in sex that
> >produced the pregnancy. Beyond that, the decision to have a child and
> >keep the child (as opposed to adoption) is the result of the
> >unilateral choice of the woman.
>
> This would be abortion that you are referring to and for some women
> abortion is just not an option.

Sorry. It is an OPTION. It may not be a choice they prefer. They still have
two other choices, ADOPTION and SELF-SUPPORT.

> That is the way that the women want
> >it, so that is the way that it should be, the woman's body the woman's
> >choice. What that means is the man should be obligated to be
> >responsible for the costs associated with the pregnancy, those
> >responsibilities being the cost of either the abortion or the cost of
> >prenatal care, but not child support.
>
> That would mean men would NEVER be held accountable for any child that
> was ever born. They could simply walk away, even in marriages.

No. It means that men would have as much CHOICE to walk away as women.

Cameron

[Cameron Stevens]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> Not this garbage again.
>
> On 13 Nov 2003 12:15:57 -0800, (Matt D)
> wrote:
>
> >Pregnancy vs Childbirth
> >
> >The man (and woman equally) is responsible for the PREGNANCY. It is
> >the direct result of the actions of the man and woman in sex that
> >produced the pregnancy. Beyond that, the decision to have a child and
> >keep the child (as opposed to adoption) is the result of the
> >unilateral choice of the woman.
>
> This would be abortion that you are referring to and for some women
> abortion is just not an option.

Sorry. It is an OPTION. It may not be a choice they prefer. They still have
two other choices, ADOPTION and SELF-SUPPORT.

> That is the way that the women want
> >it, so that is the way that it should be, the woman's body the woman's
> >choice. What that means is the man should be obligated to be
> >responsible for the costs associated with the pregnancy, those
> >responsibilities being the cost of either the abortion or the cost of
> >prenatal care, but not child support.
>
> That would mean men would NEVER be held accountable for any child that
> was ever born. They could simply walk away, even in marriages.

No. It means that men would have as much CHOICE to walk away as women.

Cameron

[Matt D]

> Not this garbage again.

This "garbage" is what the whole inequality of men's and woman's
choice is about.


>
> >Pregnancy vs Childbirth
> >
> >The man (and woman equally) is responsible for the PREGNANCY. It is
> >the direct result of the actions of the man and woman in sex that
> >produced the pregnancy. Beyond that, the decision to have a child and
> >keep the child (as opposed to adoption) is the result of the
> >unilateral choice of the woman.
>
> This would be abortion that you are referring to and for some women
> abortion is just not an option.

This view does also give consideration to the pro-life alternative of
adoption. So I am also referring to adoption in the cases where
abortion is not an option.


>
> That is the way that the women want
> >it, so that is the way that it should be, the woman's body the woman's
> >choice. What that means is the man should be obligated to be
> >responsible for the costs associated with the pregnancy, those
> >responsibilities being the cost of either the abortion or the cost of
> >prenatal care, but not child support.
>
> That would mean men would NEVER be held accountable for any child that
> was ever born. They could simply walk away, even in marriages.

They could walk away only very early in the pregnancy. The proposed
time-limit is 30 days after conception. After that time, the man is
making the deliberate choice to remain in the relationship and thus
would be held accountable to the child.


>
> Furthermore, the man probably
> >should be responsible for the FULL cost of it, considering that the
> >woman has to actually go through the abortion or childbirth.
>
> Actually they should be held responsible for their share of the costs
> in having a child and supporting a child.

They should be held responsible for their share of the costs of HAVING
a child.


> >
> >If a woman wants to exercise her right to have a child and keep a
> >child, the woman should be willing and able to support the child. The
> >same situation would apply to men. The man could choose to raise the
> >child (with the consent of the woman to have the child), and the man
> >should be equally ineligible for child support. Otherwise the child
> >should be put up for adoption. It is definately in the child's best
> >interest to be adopted into a family that IS willing and able to
> >support the child.
> >
> >I do not have any children, and I intend to keep it that way.
>
> Good !!!!

[Matt D]

> Not this garbage again.

This "garbage" is what the whole inequality of men's and woman's
choice is about.


>
> >Pregnancy vs Childbirth
> >
> >The man (and woman equally) is responsible for the PREGNANCY. It is
> >the direct result of the actions of the man and woman in sex that
> >produced the pregnancy. Beyond that, the decision to have a child and
> >keep the child (as opposed to adoption) is the result of the
> >unilateral choice of the woman.
>
> This would be abortion that you are referring to and for some women
> abortion is just not an option.

This view does also give consideration to the pro-life alternative of
adoption. So I am also referring to adoption in the cases where
abortion is not an option.


>
> That is the way that the women want
> >it, so that is the way that it should be, the woman's body the woman's
> >choice. What that means is the man should be obligated to be
> >responsible for the costs associated with the pregnancy, those
> >responsibilities being the cost of either the abortion or the cost of
> >prenatal care, but not child support.
>
> That would mean men would NEVER be held accountable for any child that
> was ever born. They could simply walk away, even in marriages.

They could walk away only very early in the pregnancy. The proposed
time-limit is 30 days after conception. After that time, the man is
making the deliberate choice to remain in the relationship and thus
would be held accountable to the child.


>
> Furthermore, the man probably
> >should be responsible for the FULL cost of it, considering that the
> >woman has to actually go through the abortion or childbirth.
>
> Actually they should be held responsible for their share of the costs
> in having a child and supporting a child.

They should be held responsible for their share of the costs of HAVING
a child.


> >
> >If a woman wants to exercise her right to have a child and keep a
> >child, the woman should be willing and able to support the child. The
> >same situation would apply to men. The man could choose to raise the
> >child (with the consent of the woman to have the child), and the man
> >should be equally ineligible for child support. Otherwise the child
> >should be put up for adoption. It is definately in the child's best
> >interest to be adopted into a family that IS willing and able to
> >support the child.
> >
> >I do not have any children, and I intend to keep it that way.
>
> Good !!!!

[Indyguy1]

Matt wrote:

>Pregnancy vs Childbirth
>
>The man (and woman equally) is responsible for the PREGNANCY. It is
>the direct result of the actions of the man and woman in sex that
>produced the pregnancy. Beyond that, the decision to have a child and
>keep the child (as opposed to adoption) is the result of the
>unilateral choice of the woman. That is the way that the women want
>it, so that is the way that it should be, the woman's body the woman's
>choice. What that means is the man should be obligated to be
>responsible for the costs associated with the pregnancy, those
>responsibilities being the cost of either the abortion or the cost of
>prenatal care, but not child support. Furthermore, the man probably
>should be responsible for the FULL cost of it, considering that the
>woman has to actually go through the abortion or childbirth.
>
>If a woman wants to exercise her right to have a child and keep a
>child, the woman should be willing and able to support the child. The
>same situation would apply to men. The man could choose to raise the
>child (with the consent of the woman to have the child), and the man
>should be equally ineligible for child support. Otherwise the child
>should be put up for adoption. It is definately in the child's best
>interest to be adopted into a family that IS willing and able to
>support the child.

Look at it this way, Matt. Two people are driving down the street. The
passenger tells the driver to pull over in front of a bank. The passenger tells
the other person to wait a minute while he runs in to *do something*. The
passenger puts a stocking over his head and pulls out a gun. He comes running
out 5 minutes later with a bag of money. The driver speeds away. The car is
stopped a few miles away. Should the driver only be given a speeding ticket or
should they be charged with the robbery?

>
>I do not have any children, and I intend to keep it that way.
>

That's probably a good choice for you. :)

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Matt wrote:

>Pregnancy vs Childbirth
>
>The man (and woman equally) is responsible for the PREGNANCY. It is
>the direct result of the actions of the man and woman in sex that
>produced the pregnancy. Beyond that, the decision to have a child and
>keep the child (as opposed to adoption) is the result of the
>unilateral choice of the woman. That is the way that the women want
>it, so that is the way that it should be, the woman's body the woman's
>choice. What that means is the man should be obligated to be
>responsible for the costs associated with the pregnancy, those
>responsibilities being the cost of either the abortion or the cost of
>prenatal care, but not child support. Furthermore, the man probably
>should be responsible for the FULL cost of it, considering that the
>woman has to actually go through the abortion or childbirth.
>
>If a woman wants to exercise her right to have a child and keep a
>child, the woman should be willing and able to support the child. The
>same situation would apply to men. The man could choose to raise the
>child (with the consent of the woman to have the child), and the man
>should be equally ineligible for child support. Otherwise the child
>should be put up for adoption. It is definately in the child's best
>interest to be adopted into a family that IS willing and able to
>support the child.

Look at it this way, Matt. Two people are driving down the street. The
passenger tells the driver to pull over in front of a bank. The passenger tells
the other person to wait a minute while he runs in to *do something*. The
passenger puts a stocking over his head and pulls out a gun. He comes running
out 5 minutes later with a bag of money. The driver speeds away. The car is
stopped a few miles away. Should the driver only be given a speeding ticket or
should they be charged with the robbery?

>
>I do not have any children, and I intend to keep it that way.
>

That's probably a good choice for you. :)

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>

[Melvin Gamble]

Besides which...

Cameron Stevens wrote:
>
> "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Not this garbage again.
> >
> > On 13 Nov 2003 12:15:57 -0800, (Matt D)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Pregnancy vs Childbirth
> > >
> > >The man (and woman equally) is responsible for the PREGNANCY. It is
> > >the direct result of the actions of the man and woman in sex that
> > >produced the pregnancy. Beyond that, the decision to have a child and
> > >keep the child (as opposed to adoption) is the result of the
> > >unilateral choice of the woman.
> >
> > This would be abortion that you are referring to and for some women
> > abortion is just not an option.
>
> Sorry. It is an OPTION. It may not be a choice they prefer. They still have
> two other choices, ADOPTION and SELF-SUPPORT.

....the original poster specifically listed adoption as the option to
keeping.

Mel Gamble

> > That is the way that the women want
> > >it, so that is the way that it should be, the woman's body the woman's
> > >choice. What that means is the man should be obligated to be
> > >responsible for the costs associated with the pregnancy, those
> > >responsibilities being the cost of either the abortion or the cost of
> > >prenatal care, but not child support.
> >
> > That would mean men would NEVER be held accountable for any child that
> > was ever born. They could simply walk away, even in marriages.
>
> No. It means that men would have as much CHOICE to walk away as women.
>
> Cameron

[Melvin Gamble]

Besides which...

Cameron Stevens wrote:
>
> "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Not this garbage again.
> >
> > On 13 Nov 2003 12:15:57 -0800, (Matt D)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Pregnancy vs Childbirth
> > >
> > >The man (and woman equally) is responsible for the PREGNANCY. It is
> > >the direct result of the actions of the man and woman in sex that
> > >produced the pregnancy. Beyond that, the decision to have a child and
> > >keep the child (as opposed to adoption) is the result of the
> > >unilateral choice of the woman.
> >
> > This would be abortion that you are referring to and for some women
> > abortion is just not an option.
>
> Sorry. It is an OPTION. It may not be a choice they prefer. They still have
> two other choices, ADOPTION and SELF-SUPPORT.

....the original poster specifically listed adoption as the option to
keeping.

Mel Gamble

> > That is the way that the women want
> > >it, so that is the way that it should be, the woman's body the woman's
> > >choice. What that means is the man should be obligated to be
> > >responsible for the costs associated with the pregnancy, those
> > >responsibilities being the cost of either the abortion or the cost of
> > >prenatal care, but not child support.
> >
> > That would mean men would NEVER be held accountable for any child that
> > was ever born. They could simply walk away, even in marriages.
>
> No. It means that men would have as much CHOICE to walk away as women.
>
> Cameron

[Melvin Gamble]

You're assuming...

Indyguy1 wrote:
>
> Matt wrote:
>
> >Pregnancy vs Childbirth
> >
> >The man (and woman equally) is responsible for the PREGNANCY. It is
> >the direct result of the actions of the man and woman in sex that
> >produced the pregnancy. Beyond that, the decision to have a child and
> >keep the child (as opposed to adoption) is the result of the
> >unilateral choice of the woman. That is the way that the women want
> >it, so that is the way that it should be, the woman's body the woman's
> >choice. What that means is the man should be obligated to be
> >responsible for the costs associated with the pregnancy, those
> >responsibilities being the cost of either the abortion or the cost of
> >prenatal care, but not child support. Furthermore, the man probably
> >should be responsible for the FULL cost of it, considering that the
> >woman has to actually go through the abortion or childbirth.
> >
> >If a woman wants to exercise her right to have a child and keep a
> >child, the woman should be willing and able to support the child. The
> >same situation would apply to men. The man could choose to raise the
> >child (with the consent of the woman to have the child), and the man
> >should be equally ineligible for child support. Otherwise the child
> >should be put up for adoption. It is definately in the child's best
> >interest to be adopted into a family that IS willing and able to
> >support the child.
>
> Look at it this way, Matt. Two people are driving down the street. The
> passenger tells the driver to pull over in front of a bank. The passenger tells
> the other person to wait a minute while he runs in to *do something*. The
> passenger puts a stocking over his head and pulls out a gun. He comes running
> out 5 minutes later with a bag of money. The driver speeds away. The car is
> stopped a few miles away. Should the driver only be given a speeding ticket or
> should they be charged with the robbery?

....that the driver is fully aware of the gun and bag - what is YOUR view
of this if they are pulled from under the passenger's coat AFTER
entering the bank? Once the passenger jumps back into the car with
armed guards firing, the driver becomes the one who is "just along for
the ride"...

(not that this is always the case)

Mel Gamble

> >I do not have any children, and I intend to keep it that way.
> >
>
> That's probably a good choice for you. :)
>
> Mrs Indyguy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Melvin Gamble]

You're assuming...

Indyguy1 wrote:
>
> Matt wrote:
>
> >Pregnancy vs Childbirth
> >
> >The man (and woman equally) is responsible for the PREGNANCY. It is
> >the direct result of the actions of the man and woman in sex that
> >produced the pregnancy. Beyond that, the decision to have a child and
> >keep the child (as opposed to adoption) is the result of the
> >unilateral choice of the woman. That is the way that the women want
> >it, so that is the way that it should be, the woman's body the woman's
> >choice. What that means is the man should be obligated to be
> >responsible for the costs associated with the pregnancy, those
> >responsibilities being the cost of either the abortion or the cost of
> >prenatal care, but not child support. Furthermore, the man probably
> >should be responsible for the FULL cost of it, considering that the
> >woman has to actually go through the abortion or childbirth.
> >
> >If a woman wants to exercise her right to have a child and keep a
> >child, the woman should be willing and able to support the child. The
> >same situation would apply to men. The man could choose to raise the
> >child (with the consent of the woman to have the child), and the man
> >should be equally ineligible for child support. Otherwise the child
> >should be put up for adoption. It is definately in the child's best
> >interest to be adopted into a family that IS willing and able to
> >support the child.
>
> Look at it this way, Matt. Two people are driving down the street. The
> passenger tells the driver to pull over in front of a bank. The passenger tells
> the other person to wait a minute while he runs in to *do something*. The
> passenger puts a stocking over his head and pulls out a gun. He comes running
> out 5 minutes later with a bag of money. The driver speeds away. The car is
> stopped a few miles away. Should the driver only be given a speeding ticket or
> should they be charged with the robbery?

....that the driver is fully aware of the gun and bag - what is YOUR view
of this if they are pulled from under the passenger's coat AFTER
entering the bank? Once the passenger jumps back into the car with
armed guards firing, the driver becomes the one who is "just along for
the ride"...

(not that this is always the case)

Mel Gamble

> >I do not have any children, and I intend to keep it that way.
> >
>
> That's probably a good choice for you. :)
>
> Mrs Indyguy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >