Who has the ultimate right to choose?

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:29:22 -0500, "Dusty Steenbock"
wrote:


"elizabeth" wrote in message
roups.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.


"Men" like you explain why some women hate men, and become lesbian.
If I were a woman I would be just like her.

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

james g. keegan jr. wrote:
"Chris" wrote:
Last I checked, men lack the ability to make ANY choice regarding abortion.

really? name one pregnant man who was denied the choice of abortion.

All of them. Name one man who was allowed the choice of abortion.

--
Ray Fischer

Robert wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:58:26 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
On Apr 16, 5:43 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"Robert" wrote
..................

I am reading and posting from talk.abortion. Apparently you are
posting from alt.child-support. And you are interested in getting out
of paying child support. Tough ****, you should have avoided fathering
a child. A sorry son of a bitch that wont support his children has no
sympathy from me.
As to answering your whining ass questions about sorry women, I
think you are getting off lightly.

==
If you've never been embarrassed by your own stupidity, now would be a
great
time to start. So, how about answering the question--How long have you
been
with this woman and how much money do you think her ex "owes" you?

Gini, dearie, he's got your number.

You alt child support losers made the wrong choice on abortion.

Last I checked, men lack the ability to make ANY choice regarding abortion.

Not true, men have a lot of choices regarding abortion, especially
of their own children.

List them.

It's real simple, don't father a child

Logical fallacy: Assuming the conclusion.

--
Ray Fischer

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,

And if those blacks hadn't been so uppity then they wouldn't have had
to have been lynched.

--
Ray Fischer

"elizabeth" wrote in message
ups.com...
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!

This is total BS. Women are more likely to suffer a higher rate of violence
from a friend/acquaintance (15.0) and strangers (12.9) than they are from
intimate partners (2.8) like husbands and boyfriends. The conclusion you
reached that violence to women from boyfriends and husbands is not backed up
by the facts in DOJ statistics.

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.

To bad the DOJ statistics on Intimate Partner Violence don't back up your
erroneous conclusions. The fastest growing category of violence against
women is woman on woman violence from a lesbian partner.

You really ought to stop spouting off the Women's Studies propaganda and
start dealing with the facts.

elizabeth wrote:
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.

Pregnancies don't get child support. Children do.

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

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

Adoption is legal, lunatic.

--
Ray Fischer

"elizabeth" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 16, 8:38 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message

...







"elizabeth" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Apr 15, 2:22 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Relayer" wrote in message

god, I hate you losers who got puked into this ng by crossposting
trollborts.

Teachersow, you sound like a dumb **** who married a deadbeat dad and
whines about how he's being "forced" to support his own children,
because that means he has less money to spend on you.

I'm sure you enjoy making up your little fairy tales, then living in
them.
You're wrong, of course, but do enjoy your little world, Dearie. It's
obvious that the real world is just too, too difficult for you to
handle.
(And do ask about increasing those meds. It really might help)

Her message seems to be - and I apologize if this offends anyone - is the
only remaining outlet for sexual desire amongst men and women is anal
sex.
Unless, of course, she is a lesbian. Then all her crap starts to make
sense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, there you go, giving a demo of Fundamental Attribution Error.

As many a man can tell you, knowing he's forever safe from being a
daddy is quite exciting.

Iin your case . .. well, dearie, your man has very poor taste in
women, and he doesn't feel it's his job to support his children,
unless you get a part of the money.
He will do the same to you. He will tell the next **** the same
things about you that he says about her.

I didn't write that, you poor dried-up old thang.

In article ,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:

james g. keegan jr. wrote:
"Chris" wrote:
Last I checked, men lack the ability to make ANY choice regarding abortion.

really? name one pregnant man who was denied the choice of abortion.

All of them.

then why couldn't you name a single one as i asked?

i'll ask again; name one pregnant man who was denied the choice of
abortion.


or you could reply and call me a name.

"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:22:45 -0700, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:02:32 -0700, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:47:32 -0700, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
.. .


I am reading and posting from talk.abortion. Apparently you are
posting from alt.child-support. And you are interested in getting out
of paying child support. Tough ****, you should have avoided fathering
a child. A sorry son of a bitch that wont support his children has no
sympathy from me.
As to answering your whining ass questions about sorry women, I
think you are getting off lightly.

Ahem! You are the one who brought up child support as an issue and made a
bunch of stereotypical comments about men. What you posted about CS was
BS.
What you posted about men ignored how women contribute to - gasp - causing
pregnancies.

Bull **** I responded to some ass hole that claimed that a man
should be able to walk away, from a pregnant woman that refused to
abort.

If you are an expert on abortions, why don't you stick to that topic and
leave the CS and male bashing discussions out of it. What you posted
about
CS was not factual. What you posted about men was nothing more than a
one-sided opinion.

All I ever post is my opinion, as it is for all posters, Intelligent
people do not need to be told this in every paragraph.
In My Opinion, any son of a mother ****ing bitch that has to pay
child support, is getting off light. The stupid ******* should have
taken steps to prevent a unwanted pregnancy. Doesn't keep women from
getting pregnant, just keeps him from knocking her up. CS is way to
damn low. A chicken ****, that fathers a child, and trys to avoid
supporting his kids, need to live in a dorm, work 70 hour weeks and
give all but the most necessary income to the mother or whoever is
caring for the child.


Why? Why would you even say a thing like that? Why should the woman not
also support the child? Why should the woman take none ofthe blame for the
pergnancy? Why are you so down on men?

Robert wrote:
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?

Assuming the conclusion: You assume that men produce children and so
must be forced to support them, but your assumption is an obvious lie
given the fact that NO man has ever produced a child.

--
Ray Fischer