Who has the ultimate right to choose?

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"elizabeth" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 8, 7:21 pm, "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.

Oh for goodness sake, grow up!! If a woman is banging out a ******* a
year,
by a different man each time, she should have her plumbing removed so she
can't bring any more children into the world that she has no intention of
ever supporting.

If a man is reepopulating a small city with his bedroom antice, he should
be
similarly rendered sterile.

Everyone needs to take responsibility for their own sexual behavior. And
setting up a system where woman bears child, and dad pays for 18-22 years
is
NOT effective. 50/50 joint custody with both parents being required to
work
to support the child their 50% of the time would be far more realistic.

Not to mention FAIR to everyone involved! Something the "family court"
will
have NOTHING to do with. Could you imagine the public outcry if they
enacted
such a principle? They say "replace fathers for children with free money
to
mothers". I say, "replace free money to mothers with fathers for
children"!








Why would I want to work with a MAN when it comes to raising a child?
*Ding* Another reason not to have children.

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:ZrFSh.49776$6m4.2688@pd7urf1no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:soESh.49701$DE1.18753@pd7urf2no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
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.

Now, now, Ray. elizabeth is painting the typical "Woman=Victim"
picture. You don't want to go and ruin her artwork, do you? She's
been
fingerpainting all day!!


ElizaBeth is just making stories up. I've had gone through a tubal
ligation surgery and I'm still alive.

Yes, I know she is. I do not understand why any of this needs to be a
man's rights vs women's rights argument. If a child is conceived
unexpectedly, give each parent 50% custody, and let them support the
child
while the child is with them. I am willing to wager that there would
be
far fewer "accidental" pregnancies if easy money were not attached.





Ugh! I better hurry and ask the family doctor for a referral to the
surgeon
so I can have womb and tubes removed. I really do not want children.

And that is your SOLE LEGAL choice, both before and AFTER conception. In
fact, it is also your choice after giving BIRTH! Isn't it wonderful having
FULL control over ALL the choices? Now, go take FULL responsibility for
such
choices.






No problems! No Children = Freedom!

"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 04:28:29 GMT, "CafeWriter"
wrote:


"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
. ..
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.

--
Ray Fischer



Um... I have had a tubal ligation and I'm still alive!

But some women have died from the surgery, **** happens.

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


Yeah, for a very long, long, long, long time, **** happens.

"CafeWriter" wrote
...............


You got that right. If I have a child, I'll just walk out of the
hospital, leaving the child there. There is no way I'm going to take care
of an unwanted child.
==
That's how I got my first child. It was a tragic way for him to start life.
Even though no child was ever more loved, he still carries a lot of baggage,
28 years later.

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:8pXSh.52096$aG1.24280@pd7urf3no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 21:41:26 -0700, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:0jESh.49601$aG1.49335@pd7urf3no...

"DB" wrote in message
t...

"teachrmama" wrote in

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


Many who are 35 and older and should know better too!

Make that a second stupid man who thinks that women can get pregnant
by
themselves. Men are in it too and to say that men are not responsible
for
pregnancies are like saying that Moon are made of blue cheese.

Snap out of it! Men and women are both equally responsible for this!

Then why are men and women not held equally responsible by the system?

Because the system has been run by men for centuries. And many women
still vote for men that despise them.

Huh? Why would men that despise women set up and continue a system that
is slanted in favor of women?


I have an idea! I should start writing about pro-abortion versus
anti-abortion but be warned; it will be over 400 pages long.. Let's hope
you have the time to read them! (once again, sarcastic tone)

Why would you want to do that? Nothing better to do with your time?

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:QtXSh.52105$aG1.24971@pd7urf3no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:26:27 -0700, "Chris" wrote:

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.

Guess YOUR father wasn't responsible. Are you a father too?


Are you really that stupid? Yes I am the father of two loved well
cared for children. I am one of 6 children my mother and father raised
with love. My parents were ready to provide me with a college
education hut I decided to do it my way, see some of the world, and
serve my country then get some college. I provided my children with
college education.
A responsible man doesn't father a child he doesn't want.

And a responsible woman does not bring into this world a child she has no
intention of supporting.


Accidents happen, kiddo, are you implying that women pay for these
accidents?

I have consistently said that joint 50/50 custody should be the norm, with
each parent providing for the child when the child is with them. I'm not
certain how that translates into "women paying for the accident" in your
mind. Make both equally responsible both for caring for the child and
providing for the child.

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:gvXSh.52106$aG1.19222@pd7urf3no...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:FvGSh.49859$DE1.39472@pd7urf2no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:QqFSh.49735$aG1.1123@pd7urf3no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:5lESh.49646$6m4.34588@pd7urf1no...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Robert" wrote in message
...

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.

My body. My choice. Women have no right to tell men what they
should do
regarding their bodies. If a man makes a poor choice, women
should
be held
financially responsible for my choice just as men are held
financially
responsible when women make unilateral choices.

I can't wait for the Equal Rights Amendment to come up again.



Here's the Lesson Number One:

Only women can get pregnant, not men.

Lesson Number Two:

Men cannot get pregnant.

Lesson Number Three:

If a man gets pregnant, then by all means, he can do whatever he
wants
to do. But if a woman gets pregnant, only she can make the
decision
without "the help of a darling man".

Lesson Number Four:

There are many, many unwanted children in this world. Are you
sure
you wanted to add more to the unwanted population, men?

Why not make 50/50 joint custody, with each parent supporting the
child
while the child is with them the norm? That would solve all
problems,
right?



What if the mother doesn't want the child to start with hm? For an
example. after the child birth, the mother would refuse to look at
or
hold the child.

When it is the time to leave, the mother leaves without the child.

Now what would the solution be?

Gee, how about, if thefather wants the child, MOM has to pay child
support until the child is 18. How does that sound to you? Because
that
is how men are treated now. Sound fair?




Hence another good reason for abortion to happen.

Morally, I find abortion repugnant. However, I know that my morals do
not
run the country, and abortion has been made legal. My disagreement is
with
the child support system that holds men to a much higher standard than
women. If the system were fair and balanced, I would have no objection.
I
don't believe that men should have the option of running around having
sex,
creating children, and moving on--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--and expecting taxpayers to pick up
the
slack if they can't stick the man with the expenses. We need a better
solution--this one obviously is not working.

But it IS................ for the irresponsible mother.

Anyway, simple solution: If she elects to not care for her child, for
whatever reason, then provide her the choice to either start caring or
give
the child up for adoption. If she refuses both options, then toss her in
a
cage.







A really nice choice to give to a mother (not).

The woman have the right to make the decision and I don't care what men
want.

It's women who carry the babies, not men.

Snap outta it!

Now wait a minute--the child is equally the mother's and the father's--both
should raise it and both should provide for it. I think you need to snap
out of the odd idea that, because the woman carries the baby, she has more
rights than the co-creator of the child--the man.

"Paul Anderson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:31:12 -0700, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"Paul Anderson" wrote ....

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.

Often the two biological parents want nothing to do with the other,
and or nothing to do with the kid. There is a long history of such
joint custodies not working to even dream that that would be a viable
solution. Try again, but this time bear in mind what has already been
tried and found unworkable.

Actually, no it hasn't. More and more children are being raised that way.
The fact that the parents don't care for each other does not mean that the
child should be deprived of one of his parents. If they are too immature to
work things out, then let the child be adopted by a couple mature enough to
actually be parents.

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:lwXSh.52248$DE1.30688@pd7urf2no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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.

If I have a child, it'll be 100/0, with 100 going to the father and 0
going for me because I don't want to take care of an unwanted child.

And you will be willing to pay child support until thechild is 18, right?

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:vxXSh.52250$DE1.14136@pd7urf2no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 22:44:56 -0700, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:QqFSh.49735$aG1.1123@pd7urf3no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"CafeWriter" wrote in message
news:5lESh.49646$6m4.34588@pd7urf1no...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Robert" wrote in message
...

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.

My body. My choice. Women have no right to tell men what they
should
do
regarding their bodies. If a man makes a poor choice, women should
be
held
financially responsible for my choice just as men are held
financially
responsible when women make unilateral choices.

I can't wait for the Equal Rights Amendment to come up again.



Here's the Lesson Number One:

Only women can get pregnant, not men.

Lesson Number Two:

Men cannot get pregnant.

Lesson Number Three:

If a man gets pregnant, then by all means, he can do whatever he
wants
to do. But if a woman gets pregnant, only she can make the decision
without "the help of a darling man".

Lesson Number Four:

There are many, many unwanted children in this world. Are you sure
you
wanted to add more to the unwanted population, men?

Why not make 50/50 joint custody, with each parent supporting the
child
while the child is with them the norm? That would solve all
problems,
right?



What if the mother doesn't want the child to start with hm? For an
example. after the child birth, the mother would refuse to look at or
hold
the child.

When it is the time to leave, the mother leaves without the child.

Now what would the solution be?

Gee, how about, if thefather wants the child, MOM has to pay child
support
until the child is 18. How does that sound to you? Because that is how
men
are treated now. Sound fair?

That's how it works, except Mom gets custody in most cases, and
percentage wise there are more deadbeat moms than Dads.

Very true. Except the question was about a mom who wanted to walk away
from the child at birth.


You got that right. If I have a child, I'll just walk out of the
hospital, leaving the child there. There is no way I'm going to take care
of an unwanted child.

If it is ok for you to walk away from an unwanted child, is it also ok for
men to walk away from unwanted children?