If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy)
--sexkitten-- ) writes:
David Barnes wrote: In article eAS1c.16643$h23.13026@fed1read06, Chris wrote: Men-pay, women-get-paid. Classic feminist misandry. I could have collected when I gained custody. I did not bother. Congratulations! You elected to NOT rip someone off. Rip someone off? Please explain. Plainly put, you elected to not take that which you have not earned. Your hatred of women is showing. Thank God. Forcing women to bear children=OK. WHO exactly, and *how*, is anyone claiming to want to " force " women to bear any children ? Who is suggesting that Roe V/ Wade be repealed, *and* RU-486 be banned, *and* legal adopting out be banned, *and*, legal abandon laws for women be repealed ? This is a massive and untruthful straw *woman*, and utterly made up. Forcing men to support said children they forced to be born=Bad. No, but you're saying that holding women to be AS *responsible* for the *consequences of their SOLE choices* is bad. Its disingenuous to claim that women have the *sole right to chooses whether or not to bear to term*, but that *someone else* must be made to pay for the *consequence of that sole women's choice*. " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. " If a woman can't be *bothered* to memorialise a parenting relationship with a man *before* choosing to bear to term, that too, is HER problem, and her problem, alone. If the time of sex *isn't* the time of *irrevokable* decision to become a parent for a *woman*, which it *isn't* ( See the above list of women's *only*, post-coital choices ), then it's SEXIST to say that it must be, for the man... You're not a misandrous sexist, are you... ? Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy)
--sexkitten-- ) writes:
David Barnes wrote: In article eAS1c.16643$h23.13026@fed1read06, Chris wrote: Men-pay, women-get-paid. Classic feminist misandry. I could have collected when I gained custody. I did not bother. Congratulations! You elected to NOT rip someone off. Rip someone off? Please explain. Plainly put, you elected to not take that which you have not earned. Your hatred of women is showing. Thank God. Forcing women to bear children=OK. WHO exactly, and *how*, is anyone claiming to want to " force " women to bear any children ? Who is suggesting that Roe V/ Wade be repealed, *and* RU-486 be banned, *and* legal adopting out be banned, *and*, legal abandon laws for women be repealed ? This is a massive and untruthful straw *woman*, and utterly made up. Forcing men to support said children they forced to be born=Bad. No, but you're saying that holding women to be AS *responsible* for the *consequences of their SOLE choices* is bad. Its disingenuous to claim that women have the *sole right to chooses whether or not to bear to term*, but that *someone else* must be made to pay for the *consequence of that sole women's choice*. " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. " If a woman can't be *bothered* to memorialise a parenting relationship with a man *before* choosing to bear to term, that too, is HER problem, and her problem, alone. If the time of sex *isn't* the time of *irrevokable* decision to become a parent for a *woman*, which it *isn't* ( See the above list of women's *only*, post-coital choices ), then it's SEXIST to say that it must be, for the man... You're not a misandrous sexist, are you... ? Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy)
Andre Lieven wrote:
--sexkitten-- ) writes: David Barnes wrote: Chris Men-pay, women-get-paid. Classic feminist misandry. I could have collected when I gained custody. I did not bother. Congratulations! You elected to NOT rip someone off. Rip someone off? Please explain. Plainly put, you elected to not take that which you have not earned. Your hatred of women is showing. Thank God. Forcing women to bear children=OK. WHO exactly, and *how*, is anyone claiming to want to " force " women to bear any children ? Abortion opponents. Who is suggesting that Roe V/ Wade be repealed, *and* RU-486 be banned, Religious fundamentalists. *and* legal adopting out be banned, *and*, legal abandon laws for women be repealed ? Those both require childbirth. This is a massive and untruthful straw *woman*, and utterly made up. No, it is not. -- Ray Fischer |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy)
Andre Lieven wrote:
--sexkitten-- ) writes: David Barnes wrote: Chris Men-pay, women-get-paid. Classic feminist misandry. I could have collected when I gained custody. I did not bother. Congratulations! You elected to NOT rip someone off. Rip someone off? Please explain. Plainly put, you elected to not take that which you have not earned. Your hatred of women is showing. Thank God. Forcing women to bear children=OK. WHO exactly, and *how*, is anyone claiming to want to " force " women to bear any children ? Abortion opponents. Who is suggesting that Roe V/ Wade be repealed, *and* RU-486 be banned, Religious fundamentalists. *and* legal adopting out be banned, *and*, legal abandon laws for women be repealed ? Those both require childbirth. This is a massive and untruthful straw *woman*, and utterly made up. No, it is not. -- Ray Fischer |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy)
Andre Lieven wrote:
--sexkitten-- ) writes: David Barnes wrote: Chris Men-pay, women-get-paid. Classic feminist misandry. I could have collected when I gained custody. I did not bother. Congratulations! You elected to NOT rip someone off. Rip someone off? Please explain. Plainly put, you elected to not take that which you have not earned. Your hatred of women is showing. Thank God. Forcing women to bear children=OK. WHO exactly, and *how*, is anyone claiming to want to " force " women to bear any children ? Abortion opponents. Who is suggesting that Roe V/ Wade be repealed, *and* RU-486 be banned, Religious fundamentalists. *and* legal adopting out be banned, *and*, legal abandon laws for women be repealed ? Those both require childbirth. This is a massive and untruthful straw *woman*, and utterly made up. No, it is not. -- Ray Fischer |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy)
Andre Lieven wrote:
--sexkitten-- ) writes: David Barnes wrote: In article eAS1c.16643$h23.13026@fed1read06, Chris wrote: Men-pay, women-get-paid. Classic feminist misandry. I could have collected when I gained custody. I did not bother. Congratulations! You elected to NOT rip someone off. Rip someone off? Please explain. Plainly put, you elected to not take that which you have not earned. Your hatred of women is showing. Thank God. Forcing women to bear children=OK. WHO exactly, and *how*, is anyone claiming to want to " force " women to bear any children ? Chris. Who is suggesting that Roe V/ Wade be repealed, *and* RU-486 be banned, *and* legal adopting out be banned, *and*, legal abandon laws for women be repealed ? I think he stops with Roe v Wade, but again, that's Chris. To me, it seems a bit hypocritical to be anti- abortion and anti- child support at the same time. This is a massive and untruthful straw *woman*, and utterly made up. A bit of sarcasm mixed in, but it's not made up. That IS his actual view. Forcing men to support said children they forced to be born=Bad. No, but you're saying that holding women to be AS *responsible* for the *consequences of their SOLE choices* is bad. Haven't we gone over this before? I said nothing of the kind, and believe nothing of the kind. My point was the irrational thinking of Chris, i.e. it's OK to make women bear children, but wrong for men to have to support said children. Its disingenuous to claim that women have the *sole right to chooses whether or not to bear to term*, but that *someone else* must be made to pay for the *consequence of that sole women's choice*. " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. " Yes, I know. Deja vu. If a woman can't be *bothered* to memorialise a parenting relationship with a man *before* choosing to bear to term, that too, is HER problem, and her problem, alone. If the time of sex *isn't* the time of *irrevokable* decision to become a parent for a *woman*, which it *isn't* ( See the above list of women's *only*, post-coital choices ), then it's SEXIST to say that it must be, for the man... You're not a misandrous sexist, are you... ? Deja vu all over again. Hi Andre, haven't seen you in a bit, how've you been? Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy)
Andre Lieven wrote:
--sexkitten-- ) writes: David Barnes wrote: In article eAS1c.16643$h23.13026@fed1read06, Chris wrote: Men-pay, women-get-paid. Classic feminist misandry. I could have collected when I gained custody. I did not bother. Congratulations! You elected to NOT rip someone off. Rip someone off? Please explain. Plainly put, you elected to not take that which you have not earned. Your hatred of women is showing. Thank God. Forcing women to bear children=OK. WHO exactly, and *how*, is anyone claiming to want to " force " women to bear any children ? Chris. Who is suggesting that Roe V/ Wade be repealed, *and* RU-486 be banned, *and* legal adopting out be banned, *and*, legal abandon laws for women be repealed ? I think he stops with Roe v Wade, but again, that's Chris. To me, it seems a bit hypocritical to be anti- abortion and anti- child support at the same time. This is a massive and untruthful straw *woman*, and utterly made up. A bit of sarcasm mixed in, but it's not made up. That IS his actual view. Forcing men to support said children they forced to be born=Bad. No, but you're saying that holding women to be AS *responsible* for the *consequences of their SOLE choices* is bad. Haven't we gone over this before? I said nothing of the kind, and believe nothing of the kind. My point was the irrational thinking of Chris, i.e. it's OK to make women bear children, but wrong for men to have to support said children. Its disingenuous to claim that women have the *sole right to chooses whether or not to bear to term*, but that *someone else* must be made to pay for the *consequence of that sole women's choice*. " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. " Yes, I know. Deja vu. If a woman can't be *bothered* to memorialise a parenting relationship with a man *before* choosing to bear to term, that too, is HER problem, and her problem, alone. If the time of sex *isn't* the time of *irrevokable* decision to become a parent for a *woman*, which it *isn't* ( See the above list of women's *only*, post-coital choices ), then it's SEXIST to say that it must be, for the man... You're not a misandrous sexist, are you... ? Deja vu all over again. Hi Andre, haven't seen you in a bit, how've you been? Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy)
Andre Lieven wrote:
--sexkitten-- ) writes: David Barnes wrote: In article eAS1c.16643$h23.13026@fed1read06, Chris wrote: Men-pay, women-get-paid. Classic feminist misandry. I could have collected when I gained custody. I did not bother. Congratulations! You elected to NOT rip someone off. Rip someone off? Please explain. Plainly put, you elected to not take that which you have not earned. Your hatred of women is showing. Thank God. Forcing women to bear children=OK. WHO exactly, and *how*, is anyone claiming to want to " force " women to bear any children ? Chris. Who is suggesting that Roe V/ Wade be repealed, *and* RU-486 be banned, *and* legal adopting out be banned, *and*, legal abandon laws for women be repealed ? I think he stops with Roe v Wade, but again, that's Chris. To me, it seems a bit hypocritical to be anti- abortion and anti- child support at the same time. This is a massive and untruthful straw *woman*, and utterly made up. A bit of sarcasm mixed in, but it's not made up. That IS his actual view. Forcing men to support said children they forced to be born=Bad. No, but you're saying that holding women to be AS *responsible* for the *consequences of their SOLE choices* is bad. Haven't we gone over this before? I said nothing of the kind, and believe nothing of the kind. My point was the irrational thinking of Chris, i.e. it's OK to make women bear children, but wrong for men to have to support said children. Its disingenuous to claim that women have the *sole right to chooses whether or not to bear to term*, but that *someone else* must be made to pay for the *consequence of that sole women's choice*. " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. " Yes, I know. Deja vu. If a woman can't be *bothered* to memorialise a parenting relationship with a man *before* choosing to bear to term, that too, is HER problem, and her problem, alone. If the time of sex *isn't* the time of *irrevokable* decision to become a parent for a *woman*, which it *isn't* ( See the above list of women's *only*, post-coital choices ), then it's SEXIST to say that it must be, for the man... You're not a misandrous sexist, are you... ? Deja vu all over again. Hi Andre, haven't seen you in a bit, how've you been? Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy)
"--sexkitten--" wrote in message ... Andre Lieven wrote: --sexkitten-- ) writes: David Barnes wrote: In article eAS1c.16643$h23.13026@fed1read06, Chris wrote: Men-pay, women-get-paid. Classic feminist misandry. I could have collected when I gained custody. I did not bother. Congratulations! You elected to NOT rip someone off. Rip someone off? Please explain. Plainly put, you elected to not take that which you have not earned. Your hatred of women is showing. Thank God. Forcing women to bear children=OK. WHO exactly, and *how*, is anyone claiming to want to " force " women to bear any children ? Chris. Either you are referring to someone OTHER than me, or your claim is false. Who is suggesting that Roe V/ Wade be repealed, *and* RU-486 be banned, *and* legal adopting out be banned, *and*, legal abandon laws for women be repealed ? I think he stops with Roe v Wade, but again, that's Chris. (see above) To me, it seems a bit hypocritical to be anti- abortion and anti- child support at the same time. This is a massive and untruthful straw *woman*, and utterly made up. A bit of sarcasm mixed in, but it's not made up. That IS his actual view. (see above) Forcing men to support said children they forced to be born=Bad. No, but you're saying that holding women to be AS *responsible* for the *consequences of their SOLE choices* is bad. Haven't we gone over this before? I said nothing of the kind, and believe nothing of the kind. My point was the irrational thinking of Chris, i.e. it's OK to make women bear children, but wrong for men to have to support said children. (see above) Its disingenuous to claim that women have the *sole right to chooses whether or not to bear to term*, but that *someone else* must be made to pay for the *consequence of that sole women's choice*. " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. " Yes, I know. Deja vu. If a woman can't be *bothered* to memorialise a parenting relationship with a man *before* choosing to bear to term, that too, is HER problem, and her problem, alone. If the time of sex *isn't* the time of *irrevokable* decision to become a parent for a *woman*, which it *isn't* ( See the above list of women's *only*, post-coital choices ), then it's SEXIST to say that it must be, for the man... You're not a misandrous sexist, are you... ? Deja vu all over again. Hi Andre, haven't seen you in a bit, how've you been? Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Eleventh Circuit Court: Forced abortion on woman (Pro-Liar idiocy)
"--sexkitten--" wrote in message ... Andre Lieven wrote: --sexkitten-- ) writes: David Barnes wrote: In article eAS1c.16643$h23.13026@fed1read06, Chris wrote: Men-pay, women-get-paid. Classic feminist misandry. I could have collected when I gained custody. I did not bother. Congratulations! You elected to NOT rip someone off. Rip someone off? Please explain. Plainly put, you elected to not take that which you have not earned. Your hatred of women is showing. Thank God. Forcing women to bear children=OK. WHO exactly, and *how*, is anyone claiming to want to " force " women to bear any children ? Chris. Either you are referring to someone OTHER than me, or your claim is false. Who is suggesting that Roe V/ Wade be repealed, *and* RU-486 be banned, *and* legal adopting out be banned, *and*, legal abandon laws for women be repealed ? I think he stops with Roe v Wade, but again, that's Chris. (see above) To me, it seems a bit hypocritical to be anti- abortion and anti- child support at the same time. This is a massive and untruthful straw *woman*, and utterly made up. A bit of sarcasm mixed in, but it's not made up. That IS his actual view. (see above) Forcing men to support said children they forced to be born=Bad. No, but you're saying that holding women to be AS *responsible* for the *consequences of their SOLE choices* is bad. Haven't we gone over this before? I said nothing of the kind, and believe nothing of the kind. My point was the irrational thinking of Chris, i.e. it's OK to make women bear children, but wrong for men to have to support said children. (see above) Its disingenuous to claim that women have the *sole right to chooses whether or not to bear to term*, but that *someone else* must be made to pay for the *consequence of that sole women's choice*. " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. " Yes, I know. Deja vu. If a woman can't be *bothered* to memorialise a parenting relationship with a man *before* choosing to bear to term, that too, is HER problem, and her problem, alone. If the time of sex *isn't* the time of *irrevokable* decision to become a parent for a *woman*, which it *isn't* ( See the above list of women's *only*, post-coital choices ), then it's SEXIST to say that it must be, for the man... You're not a misandrous sexist, are you... ? Deja vu all over again. Hi Andre, haven't seen you in a bit, how've you been? Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Child support - who needs it? | Andre Lieven | Child Support | 105 | March 11th 04 08:44 PM |
Sample US Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 28 | January 21st 04 06:23 PM |
Sample Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 0 | January 16th 04 03:47 AM |