Things to think of before you get married again..

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Phil wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
teachrmama wrote:

[bigotry deleted]

It is obvious to me that your bigotry is so clouding your judgment
as to make reasoned discourse impossible.

Have a nice day.

Translation: I've been spanked and now must tuck my tail between my
legs and run away.

I don't waste my time on the irrational. That one is irrational.

The only one being irrational is you with your demented feminist
hypocritical logic.


I haven't made up my mind about you yet.

Let me assist you: I detest the current form of feminism and have ill
feelings toward those claiming to be, or acting like, feminists.
Affirmative action is nothing more than state mandated discriminaton;
abortion should be a state's issue, not a federal one; spousal abuse is
about as often as otherwise perpetrated by a female; and more...


I think I'll base my decision on whether or not you acknowledge that
men are responsible for their semen. You know, "his semen, his choice,
his responsibility." Given your own decisions in that regard, I cannot
imagine you disagreeing with that, but this desire of you to lay all
of the responsibility on women does make me wonder, so we'll just have
to wait and see.

We appear to disagree. In consensual sex, when an accidental pregnancy
is created, I think BOTH man and woman are equally responsible and
should both have similar legal rights and should enjoy the same
responsibilities. Regardless, I could not care less what your decision
is about me is.
Phil #3

"Nearl J Icarus" wrote in message
. com...
says...

hostage to a family court's will. How did we ever go from the model
50's
family to the highly dysfunctional relationships of today?

Its the same difference between fantasy and reality. I'm a product of
that
"model 50's family." IMHO, the fallacy of that "model 50's family" is
what
lead to your "highly dysfunctional realtioships of today." Back then
they
pretended everything was hunky dory. Today we know better. If you want
the
glory back, join Bill and stick your head in the sand.


I was raised in the 50's and though not comparable to any TV show of
that period, everything WAS hunky dory. There was a father, a mother and
children. Every one knew what was expected of them and we talked to each
other face to face instead of on a cell phone. We even ate together at
home as a family at the same table at the same time and conversed.
Really wild stuff like that.
Phil #3

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Phil wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
teachrmama wrote:

Second question: If it is reasonable for a man to know *all* the
potential consequences of his actions, is it any less reasonable
for women to also know, which negates abortion on demand as a
reasonable response to accidental pregnancy?
Your bigotry is getting in the way again.

Abortion *is* one of the potential consequences.
No it isn't!
Sure it is! Your bigotry is distorting your understanding of the
nature of consequences.

Pregnancy can be a consequence of having sex.
And abortion can be a consequence of pregnancy. Doesn't have to be,
but it can be. It's one a of a range of possible consequences of
pregnancy, others of which are adoption and carrying to term. All
are consequences.


Another choice is legal abandonment. All the post-conception choices
are available to women while none are available to men so why are
choices he is not allowed to make a consequence to the man?

Because he is responsible for where his semen ends up.

You didn't even attempt to answer the question. Little wonder why.


"His semen, his choice, his responsibility."

Sex may cause a pregnancy. Until a pregnancy occurs, both are equal
in deciding 1) to abstain from sex; 2) use contraception; 3) or do
nothing, hoping no pregnancy will occur. After pregnancy, the man has
no choices except those given by the woman and in fact, he may not
even be aware a pregnancy occurred. She is not even legally required
to inform him.

He should have thought of that before the fact. He should have been
responsible before the fact, because he sure as hell is gonna have to
own up to his responsibilities after the fact.

But women do not need to be responsible because we have men onto which
to pin responsibility for her decisions?

And even if someone else was not as responsible as she might have been,
that does not serve to negate his responsibility in the matter.

Why do you feel women need the extra options that you seem to want to
forbid men?
You also raise another interesting problem: what if the mother doesn't
tell him about the pregnancy, does he STILL have responsibilities and
what are they?
What if she does as some do, and keep it a secret for a decade or so.
What are his responsibilities then?
It seems men have two choices that are limited to either not having sex
or being sterile (because all known forms of contraception have a
variable failure rate) and in the case of conception, his sole choice is
"whatever the mother wants"' while women have those same choices and a
few more, namely abortion, adoption, abandonment or keeping the child to
raise, none of which are available to the father unless the mother
approves BUT, the father is liable to pay the mother until the child
reaches at least age 18.


"His semen, his choice, his responsibility."

Correctly put: Her body, her choice, his responsibility. It is
inequality at its finest.


If your bigotry were not clouding your judgment, you'd know that.

And if he opposes abortion, then he had better be careful not to
contribute to the conditions where abortion becomes a possible
consequence. He can do that by keeping it in his pants. He can do
that by sheathing it in a condom. He can do that by ... wait for it
... being responsible. What he can't do is to leave his semen lying
around where it can cause who knows what consequences, then disavow
any and all responsibility for those consequences, as in the
sanctimonious statement that I read from time to time, something
like "her body, her choice, her responsibility", to which I say,
"His semen, his choice, his responsibility."

If men had the same 'outs' as women, then it would be equal.

You are confusing equality with sameness, a tactic frequently used to
evade responsibility.

Not at all. Women have the ability to abandon a child. Why don't men
during the same time period *after birth* have the same 'rights'? They
are similarily situated but the outcome is vastly different depending
solely on their sex. It seems you are an apologist for those who think
women too simple-minded to understand pregnancy and childbirth and too
immature for them to be responsible for their choices.


Why am I not surprised? That, after all, is what your entire argument
is all about.

Read again. You obviously don't understand. You want to hold men to a
standard that women shouldn't be held to. The question is "why?".
Phil #3


Pathetic.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:H4sWg.2086$ic1.231@trndny06...

"Fred" wrote
Gini wrote:
"Fred" wrote
Gini wrote:
"Fred" wrote
..............................................
What I'm trying to discuss is taking responsibility.
==
What you appear to be discussing is *men* taking responsibility for
women.
Nonsense.
==
Well, there's a well thought out position. You just proved my point. You
can't
even comprehend women taking responsibility. Pathetic.
Would you like me to go back and quote your message where you said that
you agreed with what I was saying?
==
OK, I assumed you had normal comprehension capabilities. My error.
==

If you're just looking for a fight, look elsewhere. I don't have time.
==
Nor the intellect, apparently.

Don't worry, Gini. He stops talking to anyone who disagrees with him. He
won't even hear people who consistently say "equal responsibilities."
Somehow, that seems to compute as a man NOT taking responsibility. I'm not
sure why. But anyone who challenges him gets ignored, and now, maybe, he'll
ignore you, too. Very closed minded, this one.

Phil wrote:


Equality is bigotry??? I suppose freedom is slavery as well?

Your attitude here is double-plus ungood.

- Ron ^*^

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Gini wrote:
"Fred" wrote
....................
What, I want to know, is so damned bad about suggesting that people
take responsibility?
==
Not at all--In fact we agree. She had the responsibility to not have
sex when she was ovulating
and had the responsibility to know when she is ovulating and the
responsibility to tell him when
she was ovulating. Apparently, she failed to do so. What we seem to
have (systemically, in our society)
is a failure to compel women to accept responsibility for their
actions and decisions and we them condemn
men for not anticipating her lack of responsibility.

I don't think that it is an either/or situation. Both parties bear a
responsibility. What I object to are the representations to the effect
that one party is solely responsible to the exclusion of the other.
Think about it: some men use sanctimonious statements such as "her
body, her choice, her responsibility" to evade their own
responsibilities. I know this because those men conspicuously evade my
statement, "his semen, his choice, his responsibility."

Failing to grasp that HER choice, whatever is may be, overrides his
choice and with it goes the sole responsibility for that choice.
The ONE making the decisions should accept the consequences of their
decision. With pregnancy, men should be held equally liable to that of
the mother, which means they should have the option of raising the child
as they see fit every bit as much as the other but when the parents are
not involved in an intact relationship, BOTH parents should be equal in
custody, support (financial, emotional, spiritual and all others) and
every other facet of the child's life unless there is a valid and just
reason not to allow it.
On the other hand, as long as women have the option to just walk away
from a living, breathing child, denying men the same right in the same
period is sexist and unequal treatment for similarly situated people. As
long as women have the option to decide whether to become parents at
all, men should have the same legal right during the same period.


What I'm trying to discuss is taking responsibility. What most are
trying to discuss is evading their own responsibility. And the
responsibility that most seem to be wanting to evade is financial
responsibility.

Don't forget that there is no law that says child $upport will benefit
the child. Regardless the amount received, the custodial parent (almost
always the mother) is under NO responsibility to provide from her own
resources other than to cover the minimal laws governing neglect. If she
cannot, or will not provide, the government will provide and dun the
father.
The financial responsibility is to the mother, not the child and she is
under no penalty for not using C$ for her own wants.
On the other hand, since women have the right to avoid the financial
responsibility, shouldn't men have the same ability?


I am tired of our society treating women like helpless
dependents of the state and of man. It has led to abbhorent behavior
by women and is being swept under the rug at the expense of children.

The problem is that women, having been treated badly by man for a
rather long time, now feel justified in treating men badly in turn.
This, of course, does not resolve the issue; rather, it perpetuates
the issue.

You promote exacerbating the problem... why again?


For instance, are you aware that mothers are responsible for 2/3 of
child abuse
cases and that the bio father is the *least* likely family member to
abuse his children?

That does not surprise me, given the legal construct of the child as
property. The one who has custody of the property is the one most
likely to abuse it. That's especially true if the pregnancy/child was
not wanted in the first place.

I fail to see how there could even BE children that are not wanted.
After all, women have several options for conception, abortion when
conception fails, adoption of the child immediately after birth,
abandonment of the child soon after birth and in the case of older
children, the choice of taking or relinquishing custody. Why would ANY
woman keep and raise an unwanted child? I can think of only two reasons:
family pressure or money.
Phil #3

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Gini wrote:
"Fred" wrote
..............................................
What I'm trying to discuss is taking responsibility.
==
What you appear to be discussing is *men* taking responsibility for
women.

Nonsense.

I ask again, what is so damned bad about asking people to take
responsibility for their actions?

Some women demand otherwise. While it is not bad to expect people to
accept their responsibility, it is not happening. Feminists seem to
think abortion is a sacrament.


Honestly, I find all of you to be pathetic in the extreme. Can't even
accept at face value the concept of being responsible for your own
actions.

Speaking for myself, I find you pathetic in your backing of women's
ability to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions while
holding men as responsible for the same act.


To those of you who resent the other person because she chose to abort
your child, remember that if you'd kept it in your pants, the
situation would never have arisen. Thus, you have a responsibility for
that sad consequence.

A valid argument to ban abortion. If she kept her panties on, the
situation would never have arisen. Thus, she has a responsibility for
that sad consequence.


To those of you who resent having to pay child support or care for for
a child you did/do not want, remember your active and willing
participation in the act that led to pregnancy and childbirth. Thus,
you have a responsibility for that consequence.

Again, the consequences are wholly a result of the choice ONE parent
made for BOTH parents.
Parents are capable of equality but for the laws and court rules
standing in the way.


Not *the* responsibility. *A* responsibility.

"Her body, her choice, her responsibility."

"His semen, his choice, his responsibility."

"For every choice, a consequence."

But not equal choices nor consequences including after childbirth when
both parents are, or should be, equal.
Phil #3

"Phil" wrote
...........................
But not equal choices nor consequences including after childbirth when
both parents are, or should be, equal.
==
Unfortunately, Phil, he cannot comprehend women accepting responsibility
for any of their actions. He apparently belongs to the
women-are-weak-and-helpless-and
can't-count-to-30 bunch.

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Gini wrote:
"Fred" wrote
..............................................
What I'm trying to discuss is taking responsibility.
==
What you appear to be discussing is *men* taking responsibility for
women.
Nonsense.

I ask again, what is so damned bad about asking people to take
responsibility for their actions?

Two things. First, the action of having sex does not mean consenting
to be
a parent.

"Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to
have given consent based upon an appreciation and understanding of the
facts and implications of an action."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent


So pregnancy is a result of giving concent to be a parent, therefore
abortion on demand is wrong. I thought so.

And second, responsibility is a code word in family law for
paying money.

I don't write in code. I write in American English.

I think he's pointing out what you're NOT saying when you place
responsibility on men but not women for the result of a consentual act.
When speaking of custody or child $upport, "responsibility" is the same
as money. Primarily, fathers have a "responsibility" for child $upport
but the mother does not have an equal "responsibility". As a matter of
course, fathers pay money to the mothers but mothers do not have to
spend it on the children as long as they are minimally cared for (using
the fact that nearly all custodial parents are mothers). IOW, she has
less "responsibility" to the same children while his sole
"responsibility" is $$$.


"responsibility ... : moral, legal, or mental accountability"

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dicti...responsibility

Still, you have helped to make my point that, at the end of the day,
this is all about money. Not moral accountability. Not informed
consent. Not the welfare of the child. Money. And specifically evading
the payment of money when one is both morally and legally accountable
to do so.

Legally, yes. Morally, hell no. A father does NOT have a moral
obligation to pay the mother of his children in the hopes that she will
funnel some of the money to them. Fathers should be allowed to exercise
their MORAL responsibility to raise their children as they see fit every
bit as much as the mother. You seem to be unaware that accountability is
not the norm for the mother who receives the money, in fact, it is quite
rare.
It seems you either know little about custody and child $upport or you
are again showing bias.


Honestly, I find all of you to be pathetic in the extreme. Can't
even
accept at face value the concept of being responsible for your own
actions.

Not when responsibility really means paying money for a child you
didn't
consent to have or responsibility means paying a woman who choses to
file
for divorce for touchy-feely reasons over your objection.

See what I mean? To you, it's all about money, and you're not about to
let little things like moral accountability and informed consent get
in your way.

Neither of which are means to the father's disposal in a huge majority
of cases.
You excuse women's failure to abide by the same things you try to saddle
men with and men are not even allowed to decide.
It seems as if you want men to pay women and women to do as they please.
Keep in mind that the innuendo you are trying to paste onto men applies
to women in the same thought. If men are trying to avoid paying women,
women are trying to get men to pay them. It is NOT about children but
money. Your claim that men are trying to avoid paying also indicates
that women are using children to obtain money.


To those of you who resent the other person because she chose to
abort
your child, remember that if you'd kept it in your pants, the
situation
would never have arisen. Thus, you have a responsibility for that
sad
consequence.

This balme the man thinking is not going to get you very far. And
what does
abortion have to do with the issue of responsibility?

Some guy claimed that he had no moral accountability for the unwanted
pregnancy resulting in abortion. I was just pointing out how wrong he
is.

He can't make that decision. How can he be accountable for a decision he
can't make?


To those of you who resent having to pay child support or care for
for a
child you did/do not want, remember your active and willing
participation in the act that led to pregnancy and childbirth. Thus,
you
have a responsibility for that consequence.

But what if you agreed to have a child within a marriage and the
woman
unilaterly decides to end the marriage. What then?

Always looking for a way to get out of being legally accountable,
aren't you? Okay, I'll revise:

To those of you who resent having to pay child support or care for for
a
child, remember your active, willing, and informed participation in
the act that led to pregnancy and childbirth. Thus, you have both a
moral and legal responsibility for that consequence.

But that moral responsibility is NOT to pay the mother for birthing. The
responsibility is the child, not the mother. That's the part that seems
to go right over your head. Many divorced or unmarried men want to raise
and guide their children but are prevented from doing so by the courts.
Legally, who cares? Slavery was once legal but it was lothesome anyway.
Many laws are unfair such as affirmative action, for example.


Happy now?

Not *the* responsibility. *A* responsibility.

"Her body, her choice, her responsibility."

"His semen, his choice, his responsibility."

"For every choice, a consequence."

Why do you insist on describing these as individual responsibilities
rather
than mutual responsibilities?

Because we are first and foremost individuals, and our
responsibilities are first and foremost individual responsibilities.

By consenting to sex, you presume men to be agreeing to become a parent
while at the same time not holding women to the same responsibility for
the same result of the same act.
Phil #3

Phil wrote:

I think I'll base my decision on whether or not you acknowledge that
men are responsible for their semen.

We appear to disagree.

Then you assert that men are not responsible for their semen.

I am not surprised.

You can proclaim about equality all you want, but at the end of the day,
there you are, denying your own responsibilities, which you would not be
doing if you really believed what you say.

BTW, "equality" and "sameness" are not synonymous.

Have a nice day.