Bill May Give Husbands Veto Over Abortion


 Religions > Atheism > Bill May Give Husbands Veto Over Abortion

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 3 of 7

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "J Young"
Date: 24 Nov 2006 10:00:25 PM
Object: Bill May Give Husbands Veto Over Abortion
Who'd have thought that Russia would take the lead in exhibiting common
sense? God bless them!
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/11/24/014.html
State Duma deputies will consider a bill barring a wife from having an
abortion without her husband's consent.
"Above all, the bill is based on the concept of parental equality," its
author, Alexander Krutov of the nationalist Rodina party, said Thursday.
"The decision to give birth to or murder a baby is an enormous one and it
should be made by the parents together," he said by telephone.
The bill would require a wife to obtain her husband's written consent in the
presence of a doctor before having an abortion. A doctor who allows an
abortion without the written consent could face murder charges, Krutov said.
The bill will have to clear the State Duma's Public Health Committee before
being sent to the floor of the Duma for discussion, a process that could
take three weeks, Krutov said.
Women had more than 1.6 million abortions in 2005, roughly equal to the
number of births, Health and Social Development Minister Mikhail Zurabov
told the Duma in February.
The abortion rate, while still comparatively high, has declined over the
past decade. In 1993, it peaked at 235 per 100 live births. Around 46
million women worldwide have abortions each year, with the highest rates in
Romania, Cuba and Vietnam and the lowest rates in Belgium, the Netherlands
and Germany
--
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 28 Nov 2006 08:23:15 AM
In article <456bc39f$0$34558$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:

james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

i think the studies made by the men's right groups are not credible,
by default.


A classic anti-choice "argument".

[nora peal to liar ray]
"You know, your seemingly obsessive hatred of keegan
is rather pathetic. Is this what has caused you to
become t.a.'s most dishonest poster?"
<34cp1c$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
.

User: ""

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 30 Nov 2006 11:47:58 PM
Ray Fischer wrote:

james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

i think the studies made by the men's right groups are not credible,
by default.


A classic anti-choice "argument".

I believe there are a number of mistakes made by the system; some of
them reflecting unfavorable rulings against the male.

i believe too that for every case where such an unfavorable ruling
has been made against a male, there are 95 times that number of
single mothers receiving no support from the child's father.


Why should a single mother recieve any money for a choice that she
alone made and an action which was only hers?

Child support is not for the mother. It is for the child, who is
blameless and who deserves the support of both bio parents. Since women
also have to financially support their offspring, it is equal.
This whole "choice for men" argument is predicated on the notion that
sending a cheque once a month is equivalent to physically rearing a
child. What insanity. It's also hypocritical in the extreme. If, in the
name of "choice for men", we allow bio fathers to refuse to support
their offspring, that inevitably leads to more single mothers needing
social assistance in order to raise these children. So this is simply
foisting the responsibility on all men and on all women just in order
to reduce the payments by the bio dad. We'd ~all~ be paying.
Further, to propose this is to propose matriarchy. If women have sole
inherent responsibility for children, they also have sole inherent
rights. So this would mean men would have no custody rights, if the law
were to be at all consistent. As it stands, both genders have financial
responsibility and legal rights. That is fair. If you want to eliminate
financial responsibility for men, you must eliminate rights as well. So
a "choice for men" advocate actually supports female supremacy under
the law without even realizing it.
Oh, and please don't try the lame mascunazi tactic of claiming that the
option of abortion means women can shirk responsibility, because a
fetus doesn't have the legal right to be financially supported. Men
don't have to pay child support for a fetus, either.
Nature has already compensated men amply for the inability to give
birth by removing all physical responsibility for gestation and
nursing. So do stop whining.
.
User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 01 Dec 2006 01:33:29 AM
<lefty_the_rude@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

i think the studies made by the men's right groups are not credible,
by default.


A classic anti-choice "argument".

I believe there are a number of mistakes made by the system; some of
them reflecting unfavorable rulings against the male.

i believe too that for every case where such an unfavorable ruling
has been made against a male, there are 95 times that number of
single mothers receiving no support from the child's father.


Why should a single mother recieve any money for a choice that she
alone made and an action which was only hers?


Child support is not for the mother. It is for the child, who is
blameless and who deserves the support of both bio parents.

Stating that the child deserves support isn't answering the question.
It's just asserting that men should pay for women's choices.

Since women
also have to financially support their offspring, it is equal.

Except that they don't. First, having a child is entirely the
woman's choice. Second, raising the child is entirely the woman's
choice.

This whole "choice for men" argument is predicated on the notion that
sending a cheque once a month is equivalent to physically rearing a
child.

Sine one is chosen and the other is imposed, they're clearly not
equal.

If, in the
name of "choice for men", we allow bio fathers to refuse to support
their offspring, that inevitably leads to more single mothers needing
social assistance in order to raise these children.

So what? Didn't you just state that the children deserve support?

So this is simply
foisting the responsibility on all men and on all women just in order
to reduce the payments by the bio dad.

So, expecting you to pay for what you want is bad, but forcing men to
pay for what they don't want is good?
Are you nuts?

We'd ~all~ be paying.

So what?

Further, to propose this is to propose matriarchy.

LOL! I'm not impressed with such silly fear tactics.

If women have sole
inherent responsibility for children,

Strawman.

As it stands, both genders have financial
responsibility and legal rights. That is fair.

It's dishonest since men have NO right to decide whether they will
have this responsibility forced upon them.

If you want to eliminate
financial responsibility for men,

Strawman.

Oh, and please don't try the lame mascunazi tactic of claiming that the

So you're just another greedy bigot looking to justify theft.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
User: "james g. keegan jr."

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 01 Dec 2006 06:53:42 AM
In article <456fdac9$0$34554$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:

<lefty_the_rude@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Child support is not for the mother. It is for the child, who is
blameless and who deserves the support of both bio parents.


Stating that the child deserves support isn't answering the question.
It's just asserting that men should pay for women's choices.

your bitterness that men are required to help support the children
they father is ugly.
.
User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 01 Dec 2006 11:20:04 AM
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

<lefty_the_rude@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Child support is not for the mother. It is for the child, who is
blameless and who deserves the support of both bio parents.


Stating that the child deserves support isn't answering the question.
It's just asserting that men should pay for women's choices.


your bitterness

You're projecting again, pervert.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
User: "james g. keegan jr."

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 01 Dec 2006 02:22:27 PM
In article <45706444$0$34493$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:

james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

(Ray Fischer) wrote:

<lefty_the_rude@yahoo.ca> wrote:


Child support is not for the mother. It is for the child, who is
blameless and who deserves the support of both bio parents.


Stating that the child deserves support isn't answering the question.
It's just asserting that men should pay for women's choices.


your bitterness that men are required to help support the
children they father is ugly.*


You're projecting again, pervert.

"Ray, why do you figure it's a good thing to lie on
the net? Lots of people read here. It makes you look bad."
--Adrienne Regard <reg...@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
* some unmarked deletions restored
.



User: ""

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 01 Dec 2006 04:26:34 AM
Ray Fischer wrote:

<lefty_the_rude@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

i think the studies made by the men's right groups are not credible,
by default.


A classic anti-choice "argument".

I believe there are a number of mistakes made by the system; some of
them reflecting unfavorable rulings against the male.

i believe too that for every case where such an unfavorable ruling
has been made against a male, there are 95 times that number of
single mothers receiving no support from the child's father.


Why should a single mother recieve any money for a choice that she
alone made and an action which was only hers?


Child support is not for the mother. It is for the child, who is
blameless and who deserves the support of both bio parents.


Stating that the child deserves support isn't answering the question.
It's just asserting that men should pay for women's choices.

So? We pay for each other's choices all the time. I may not ever drive
on them, but I still pay for highways. I have my own well and septic,
but I still pay for water and sewer for other people through my
property taxes. There are thousands of examples. The only time it's
ethhically unjustified is if the choice is inherently frivolous, which
child-rearing is not.

Since women
also have to financially support their offspring, it is equal.


Except that they don't.

This is a lie. You're actually saying a custodial mother can allow her
child to starve and face no legal penalty?

First, having a child is entirely the
woman's choice. Second, raising the child is entirely the woman's
choice.

Only because men cannot bear children and will ~never~ have to face the
physical responsibilities of gestation and nursing. This is plenty of
compensation for any but the most pathologically selfish of people.
Don't ask the government to compensate you further.

This whole "choice for men" argument is predicated on the notion that
sending a cheque once a month is equivalent to physically rearing a
child.


Sine one is chosen and the other is imposed, they're clearly not
equal.

Nonsense. Care is imposed by law on custodial mothers. They cannot
leave the child without adequate care. To do so is criminal.

If, in the
name of "choice for men", we allow bio fathers to refuse to support
their offspring, that inevitably leads to more single mothers needing
social assistance in order to raise these children.


So what? Didn't you just state that the children deserve support?

Indeed. I'm just saying that objections based on "forcing men to be
responsible" are laughably hypocritical, because to free one man of the
responsibility only imposes it on others. So it's not a valid argument.

So this is simply
foisting the responsibility on all men and on all women just in order
to reduce the payments by the bio dad.


So, expecting you to pay for what you want is bad, but forcing men to
pay for what they don't want is good?

This is a classic straw man. I'm not talking about me or what I want
and I'm not assigning value judgements. I don't care about what's good
or bad, only what is practical and reasonable. Try arguing what I have
actually said.

Are you nuts?

No. Are you a coward who is avoiding the issue?

We'd ~all~ be paying.


So what?

Then ~none~ of us would be free of the responsibilty. ~I~ don't mind,
but it's you who whines about how wrong it is to make people pay for
the choices of others.
That makes you a hypocrite.

Further, to propose this is to propose matriarchy.


LOL! I'm not impressed with such silly fear tactics.

I'm not impressed with your inability to refute and substitution of
inane accusations for debate.

If women have sole
inherent responsibility for children,


Strawman.

A strawman is arguing a claim not made. That is ~your~ habit, not mine.
I wasn't saying you'd said that. I'm saying it's the logical conclusion
of removing financial responsibility from fathers. Refute or concede
the point.

As it stands, both genders have financial
responsibility and legal rights. That is fair.


It's dishonest since men have NO right to decide whether they will
have this responsibility forced upon them.

Neither do women. The state will jail them if they are derelict in
their duty towards born children.
Try again.

If you want to eliminate
financial responsibility for men,


Strawman.

Excuse me? Are you actually saying you are not arguing exactly that?
Then you are simply a liar, and you have invalidated your position by
disowning it. Thanks.

Oh, and please don't try the lame mascunazi tactic of claiming that the


So you're just another greedy bigot looking to justify theft.

Ad hominen noted, sneered at, and dismissed. Hyperbole and lack of
refutation of final points also noted.
Run away, coward.
<smirk>
.
User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 01 Dec 2006 11:16:37 AM
<lefty_the_rude@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<lefty_the_rude@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

i think the studies made by the men's right groups are not credible,
by default.


A classic anti-choice "argument".

I believe there are a number of mistakes made by the system; some of
them reflecting unfavorable rulings against the male.

i believe too that for every case where such an unfavorable ruling
has been made against a male, there are 95 times that number of
single mothers receiving no support from the child's father.


Why should a single mother recieve any money for a choice that she
alone made and an action which was only hers?


Child support is not for the mother. It is for the child, who is
blameless and who deserves the support of both bio parents.


Stating that the child deserves support isn't answering the question.
It's just asserting that men should pay for women's choices.


So?

So unless you've been elected dictator your assertions aren't worth
very much. People aren't obligated to obeyyou.

We pay for each other's choices all the time.

No we don't,

I may not ever drive
on them, but I still pay for highways.

And whose choice are you paying for?

I have my own well and septic,
but I still pay for water and sewer for other people through my
property taxes.

You really are a shamless hypocrite. You excuse paying for roads and
sewage in one sentence and then argue that having society pay for
child support is unacceptable in the next sentence.

Since women
also have to financially support their offspring, it is equal.


Except that they don't.


This is a lie.

Nope. Women can give up their children for adoption and avoid all
child support payments.

You're actually saying a custodial mother

Moving the goalposts.

First, having a child is entirely the
woman's choice. Second, raising the child is entirely the woman's
choice.


Only because men cannot bear children

Completely irrelevant. It's still entirely her choice.
Are you now arguing that women deserve special priviledges for being
women?

This whole "choice for men" argument is predicated on the notion that
sending a cheque once a month is equivalent to physically rearing a
child.


Since one is chosen and the other is imposed, they're clearly not
equal.


Nonsense.

LOL!

Nonsense. Care is imposed by law on custodial mothers.

Rarely. And still women CHOOSE to be parents and men are FORCED to
pay child support.

If, in the
name of "choice for men", we allow bio fathers to refuse to support
their offspring, that inevitably leads to more single mothers needing
social assistance in order to raise these children.


So what? Didn't you just state that the children deserve support?


Indeed.

So you pay.

I'm just saying that objections based on "forcing men to be
responsible" are laughably hypocritical, because to free one man of the
responsibility only imposes it on others.

Fallacy: Assuming the conclusion.
You assume that men are responsible for women's choices.

So this is simply
foisting the responsibility on all men and on all women just in order
to reduce the payments by the bio dad.


So, expecting you to pay for what you want is bad, but forcing men to
pay for what they don't want is good?


This is a classic straw man.

No it isn't. YOU want children to be supported. YOU say that it's
okay to pay for things that you may not firectly benefit from.

I'm not talking about me or what I want

Yes you are. YOU want men to pay for children that they don't want.

and I'm not assigning value judgements.

*****.

I don't care about what's good
or bad, only what is practical and reasonable.

It's is wholly practical and reasonable to expect women to pay for
their choices. It is wholly practical and reasonable to expect
society to provide care for children when the parent canno oir do not
wish to do so.

Are you nuts?


No. Are you a coward who is avoiding the issue?

The issue of your blatant sexism?

We'd ~all~ be paying.


So what?


Then ~none~ of us would be free of the responsibilty.

So what?

~I~ don't mind,

Then why do you insist that men should be forced to pay?

but it's you who whines about how wrong it is to make people pay for
the choices of others.

Do you think that YOU should be punished for somebody else's actions?

That makes you a hypocrite.

No, it doesn't, because I don't argue that you should be forced ot pay
for other people's choices. You do.

Further, to propose this is to propose matriarchy.


LOL! I'm not impressed with such silly fear tactics.


I'm not impressed with your inability to refute and substitution of
inane accusations for debate.

Refute your silly bogeyman? There's nothing to refute. It's
nonsense.

If women have sole
inherent responsibility for children,


Strawman.


A strawman is arguing a claim not made.

And since I never argued that women should have sole responsibility
your statemnt is a strawman.

As it stands, both genders have financial
responsibility and legal rights. That is fair.


It's dishonest since men have NO right to decide whether they will
have this responsibility forced upon them.


Neither do women.

You're a slimy liar.

The state will jail them if they are derelict in
their duty towards born children.

A duty WHICH THEY HAVE CHOSEN.

If you want to eliminate
financial responsibility for men,


Strawman.


Excuse me?

No. You are reduced to lying about my arguments.

Are you actually saying you are not arguing exactly that?

That's right.

Then you are simply a liar,

No, *****, you're an ***** too dishonest to argue against what I
write and too cowardly to admit that you canot refute what I write.

Oh, and please don't try the lame mascunazi tactic of claiming that the


So you're just another greedy bigot looking to justify theft.


Ad hominen noted, sneered at, and dismissed.

"Ad hominem" like "lame mascunazi", you hypocritical *****?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Robert"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 01 Dec 2006 10:43:39 AM
On 1 Dec 2006 02:26:34 -0800,
wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<

> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

i think the studies made by the men's right groups are not credible,
by default.


A classic anti-choice "argument".

I believe there are a number of mistakes made by the system; some of
them reflecting unfavorable rulings against the male.

i believe too that for every case where such an unfavorable ruling
has been made against a male, there are 95 times that number of
single mothers receiving no support from the child's father.


Why should a single mother recieve any money for a choice that she
alone made and an action which was only hers?


Child support is not for the mother. It is for the child, who is
blameless and who deserves the support of both bio parents.


Stating that the child deserves support isn't answering the question.
It's just asserting that men should pay for women's choices.


So? We pay for each other's choices all the time. I may not ever drive
on them, but I still pay for highways.

And all the goods that you buy travel over those highways makes your
life much easier. Those that do drive pay with fuel taxes, and auto
registration fees.

I have my own well and septic,but I still pay for water and sewer
for other people through my property taxes.

But the water and sewer services are there or your property taxes are
much lower. Same as roads, land without roads, and utilities is much
cheaper and has a much lower tax rate.
What if you had to walk across fields and wade or swim across
streams and rivers? You benefit even if you don't physically leave
your home.

There are thousands of examples. The only time it's
ethhically unjustified is if the choice is inherently frivolous, which
child-rearing is not.


Since women
also have to financially support their offspring, it is equal.


Except that they don't.


This is a lie. You're actually saying a custodial mother can allow her
child to starve and face no legal penalty?

First, having a child is entirely the
woman's choice. Second, raising the child is entirely the woman's
choice.


Only because men cannot bear children and will ~never~ have to face the
physical responsibilities of gestation and nursing. This is plenty of
compensation for any but the most pathologically selfish of people.
Don't ask the government to compensate you further.

However men can easily and cheaply avoid becoming a father.
Easiest and cheapest, don't have sex with a woman that can get
pregnant. Always use a condom, which helps avoid S.T.D.S.

This whole "choice for men" argument is predicated on the notion that
sending a cheque once a month is equivalent to physically rearing a
child.


Sine one is chosen and the other is imposed, they're clearly not
equal.


Nonsense. Care is imposed by law on custodial mothers. They cannot
leave the child without adequate care. To do so is criminal.

If, in the
name of "choice for men", we allow bio fathers to refuse to support
their offspring, that inevitably leads to more single mothers needing
social assistance in order to raise these children.


So what? Didn't you just state that the children deserve support?


Indeed. I'm just saying that objections based on "forcing men to be
responsible" are laughably hypocritical, because to free one man of the
responsibility only imposes it on others. So it's not a valid argument.


So this is simply
foisting the responsibility on all men and on all women just in order
to reduce the payments by the bio dad.


So, expecting you to pay for what you want is bad, but forcing men to
pay for what they don't want is good?


This is a classic straw man. I'm not talking about me or what I want
and I'm not assigning value judgements. I don't care about what's good
or bad, only what is practical and reasonable. Try arguing what I have
actually said.

Are you nuts?


No. Are you a coward who is avoiding the issue?

We'd ~all~ be paying.


So what?


Then ~none~ of us would be free of the responsibilty. ~I~ don't mind,
but it's you who whines about how wrong it is to make people pay for
the choices of others.
That makes you a hypocrite.

Further, to propose this is to propose matriarchy.


LOL! I'm not impressed with such silly fear tactics.


I'm not impressed with your inability to refute and substitution of
inane accusations for debate.

If women have sole
inherent responsibility for children,


Strawman.


A strawman is arguing a claim not made. That is ~your~ habit, not mine.
I wasn't saying you'd said that. I'm saying it's the logical conclusion
of removing financial responsibility from fathers. Refute or concede
the point.

As it stands, both genders have financial
responsibility and legal rights. That is fair.


It's dishonest since men have NO right to decide whether they will
have this responsibility forced upon them.


Neither do women. The state will jail them if they are derelict in
their duty towards born children.
Try again.

If you want to eliminate
financial responsibility for men,


Strawman.


Excuse me? Are you actually saying you are not arguing exactly that?
Then you are simply a liar, and you have invalidated your position by
disowning it. Thanks.

Oh, and please don't try the lame mascunazi tactic of claiming that the


So you're just another greedy bigot looking to justify theft.


Ad hominen noted, sneered at, and dismissed. Hyperbole and lack of
refutation of final points also noted.
Run away, coward.
<smirk>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 01 Dec 2006 11:19:31 AM
Robert <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:

lefty_the_rude@yahoo.ca wrote:

First, having a child is entirely the
woman's choice. Second, raising the child is entirely the woman's
choice.


Only because men cannot bear children and will ~never~ have to face the
physical responsibilities of gestation and nursing. This is plenty of
compensation for any but the most pathologically selfish of people.
Don't ask the government to compensate you further.

However men can easily and cheaply avoid becoming a father.

Wrong.

Easiest and cheapest, don't have sex with a woman that can get
pregnant.

Irrelevant. Whether a man actually has sex with the woman doesn't
matter in the slightest. A man can be raped, he can have his semen
stolen, and it isn't even necessary that he be the bilogical father in
some cases.

Always use a condom,

One needle through the package and it's worthless.
But the fundamental flaw in your argument is the presumption that men
should pay for sex. The rebuttal is that a choice to have sex is not
a choice to be a parent.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.




User: "Robert"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 01 Dec 2006 11:37:00 AM
On 30 Nov 2006 21:47:58 -0800,
wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

i think the studies made by the men's right groups are not credible,
by default.


A classic anti-choice "argument".

I believe there are a number of mistakes made by the system; some of
them reflecting unfavorable rulings against the male.

i believe too that for every case where such an unfavorable ruling
has been made against a male, there are 95 times that number of
single mothers receiving no support from the child's father.


Why should a single mother recieve any money for a choice that she
alone made and an action which was only hers?


Child support is not for the mother. It is for the child, who is
blameless and who deserves the support of both bio parents. Since women
also have to financially support their offspring, it is equal.
This whole "choice for men" argument is predicated on the notion that
sending a cheque once a month is equivalent to physically rearing a
child. What insanity. It's also hypocritical in the extreme. If, in the
name of "choice for men", we allow bio fathers to refuse to support
their offspring, that inevitably leads to more single mothers needing
social assistance in order to raise these children. So this is simply
foisting the responsibility on all men and on all women just in order
to reduce the payments by the bio dad. We'd ~all~ be paying.
Further, to propose this is to propose matriarchy. If women have sole
inherent responsibility for children, they also have sole inherent
rights. So this would mean men would have no custody rights, if the law
were to be at all consistent. As it stands, both genders have financial
responsibility and legal rights. That is fair. If you want to eliminate
financial responsibility for men, you must eliminate rights as well. So
a "choice for men" advocate actually supports female supremacy under
the law without even realizing it.
Oh, and please don't try the lame mascunazi tactic of claiming that the
option of abortion means women can shirk responsibility, because a
fetus doesn't have the legal right to be financially supported. Men
don't have to pay child support for a fetus, either.
Nature has already compensated men amply for the inability to give
birth by removing all physical responsibility for gestation and
nursing. So do stop whining.

You omitted the fact that a man can avoid causing a pregnancy,
easily and cheaply. First keep the old fly buttoned, until you find
the woman that you want to raise a family with. Second always use a
condom if pregnancy is not desired. Helps with S.T.D.S also. Then
there is the vasectomy, not a good choice because later, you might
change your mind and want another child.
So, I agree a man should help support any child that he fathers.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 01 Dec 2006 11:21:35 AM
Robert <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:

On 30 Nov 2006 21:47:58 -0800,

wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

i think the studies made by the men's right groups are not credible,
by default.


A classic anti-choice "argument".

I believe there are a number of mistakes made by the system; some of
them reflecting unfavorable rulings against the male.

i believe too that for every case where such an unfavorable ruling
has been made against a male, there are 95 times that number of
single mothers receiving no support from the child's father.


Why should a single mother recieve any money for a choice that she
alone made and an action which was only hers?


Child support is not for the mother. It is for the child, who is
blameless and who deserves the support of both bio parents. Since women
also have to financially support their offspring, it is equal.
This whole "choice for men" argument is predicated on the notion that
sending a cheque once a month is equivalent to physically rearing a
child. What insanity. It's also hypocritical in the extreme. If, in the
name of "choice for men", we allow bio fathers to refuse to support
their offspring, that inevitably leads to more single mothers needing
social assistance in order to raise these children. So this is simply
foisting the responsibility on all men and on all women just in order
to reduce the payments by the bio dad. We'd ~all~ be paying.
Further, to propose this is to propose matriarchy. If women have sole
inherent responsibility for children, they also have sole inherent
rights. So this would mean men would have no custody rights, if the law
were to be at all consistent. As it stands, both genders have financial
responsibility and legal rights. That is fair. If you want to eliminate
financial responsibility for men, you must eliminate rights as well. So
a "choice for men" advocate actually supports female supremacy under
the law without even realizing it.
Oh, and please don't try the lame mascunazi tactic of claiming that the
option of abortion means women can shirk responsibility, because a
fetus doesn't have the legal right to be financially supported. Men
don't have to pay child support for a fetus, either.
Nature has already compensated men amply for the inability to give
birth by removing all physical responsibility for gestation and
nursing. So do stop whining.


You omitted the fact that a man can avoid causing a pregnancy,
easily and cheaply. First keep the old fly buttoned,

What if he's raped?
What if his wife has an affair?
What if his girlfriend's roommate steals a used condom?
What if the the woman sticks a needly through the condom package?
And why to you assume that men should have to pay for sex?
Do you think that all women are whores?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
User: "james g. keegan jr."

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 01 Dec 2006 02:19:47 PM
In article <4570649f$0$34493$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:

Robert <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:

On 30 Nov 2006 21:47:58 -0800,

wrote:
You omitted the fact that a man can avoid causing a pregnancy,
easily and cheaply. First keep the old fly buttoned,


What if he's raped?

What if his wife has an affair?

What if his girlfriend's roommate steals a used condom?

What if the the woman sticks a needly through the condom package?

And why to you assume that men should have to pay for sex?
Do you think that all women are whores?

why do you pro-liars always resort to such dishonesties?
.




User: ""

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 28 Nov 2006 12:03:06 AM
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

In article <1164599641.935849.141630@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:

james g. keegan jr. wrote:

In article <1164591973.312484.245680@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:

james g. keegan jr. wrote:

In article <4569dee5$0$34495$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <4569d861$0$34500$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <8uejm29u6eitluipoqor9mfud8km635mq3@4ax.com>,
Uncle Clover <UncleClover@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:30:19 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com>
wrote:

In article
<1164459845.734180.190030@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

While I am not going to say that I agree with what Russia
is
doing,
I
will say that there needs to be something put out there
that
does
give
men and women equal priviledges and rights in regards to
not
wanting
the responsibility of having a child.


both males and females already have equal responsibility,
moron.


Yes, but not equal priveleges & rights.


of course they are equal.

the pregnant person can decide whether or not to give birth. what
could be more equal?


The person who gives birth being responsible for that choice.


can you specify a case there that is not so?


Of course. Men are made to be responsible for children that they
don't give birth to. It happens routinely.


on the contrary, men are not routinely made responsible for children
they did not father.


Routinely, no. Regularly, yes.


can you cite some credible sources to validate that.


If you consider studies by men's rights groups and
statistics collected by activists on the subject as
credible, yes - If not, no. I realize that men's rights
groups have a bias, but I think they've got a point in
their position that no one else is interested in
recognizing the problem - it's a part of the strong
anti-male bias they see throughout the US court
system, especially in family courts and divorce courts.

http://www.man4justice.com/ mentions a
statistic that in 30% of cases where paternity
is tested, the man who was told he was the
father wasn't. This is often after they've
already been supporting what they thought
was their child, for years in some cases.

http://www.nas.com/c4m/, site for the National
Center for Men's Voluntary Fatherhood Project,
has some information on the subject, especially
bits on cases where women performed rapes
and successfully got court-ordered child support.

I think the most interesting bit I've read was how
some US jurisdictions allow a woman to prove
paternity by posting a paternity announcement in
a local newspaper, and the court will take no
response to the announcement as acceptance of
paternity, case closed, no further evidence
accepted - even if the man named in the
announcement as the father has never been to
that locality, has never heard of that local paper,
and has no idea his name appeared in it.



i think the studies made by the men's right groups are not credible,
by default.

You're welcome to think that. What data supports that
belief? Have you simply swallowed the notion that all
men lie?

I believe there are a number of mistakes made by the system; some of
them reflecting unfavorable rulings against the male.

Child custody in divorce cases, overwhelmingly towards
the mother even in cases where the mother acted to
cause the divorce.
Paternity suits, very expensive to fight, often a wrongly
identified father has no legal recourse and must pay
child support or go to jail, but there are *NO* repercussions
for paternity fraud...women are completely free to lie
about paternity and face no penalties.
There's no "some" about it.

i believe too that for every case where such an unfavorable ruling
has been made against a male, there are 95 times that number of
single mothers receiving no support from the child's father.

Again, what data supports this belief?

the thing i was struggling to avoid was turning an abortion rights
based discussion into a child support one. both are difficult and
emotional issues. both are issues with which i have long and personal
involvement.

If they're too personal for you to discuss, they perhaps
you shouldn't participate in the discussion. If someone
doesn't have an abortion, then child support becomes
the issue, that's the natural progression.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
User: "osprey"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 28 Nov 2006 12:32:18 AM
wrote:

james g. keegan jr. wrote:

In article <1164599641.935849.141630@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,

wrote:

james g. keegan jr. wrote:

In article <1164591973.312484.245680@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,

wrote:

james g. keegan jr. wrote:

In article <4569dee5$0$34495$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <4569d861$0$34500$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <8uejm29u6eitluipoqor9mfud8km635mq3@4ax.com>,
Uncle Clover <UncleClover@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:30:19 -0500, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com>
wrote:

In article
<1164459845.734180.190030@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

While I am not going to say that I agree with what Russia
is
doing,
I
will say that there needs to be something put out there
that
does
give
men and women equal priviledges and rights in regards to
not
wanting
the responsibility of having a child.


both males and females already have equal responsibility,
moron.


Yes, but not equal priveleges & rights.


of course they are equal.

the pregnant person can decide whether or not to give birth. what
could be more equal?


The person who gives birth being responsible for that choice.


can you specify a case there that is not so?


Of course. Men are made to be responsible for children that they
don't give birth to. It happens routinely.


on the contrary, men are not routinely made responsible for children
they did not father.


Routinely, no. Regularly, yes.


can you cite some credible sources to validate that.


If you consider studies by men's rights groups and
statistics collected by activists on the subject as
credible, yes - If not, no. I realize that men's rights
groups have a bias, but I think they've got a point in
their position that no one else is interested in
recognizing the problem - it's a part of the strong
anti-male bias they see throughout the US court
system, especially in family courts and divorce courts.

http://www.man4justice.com/ mentions a
statistic that in 30% of cases where paternity
is tested, the man who was told he was the
father wasn't. This is often after they've
already been supporting what they thought
was their child, for years in some cases.

http://www.nas.com/c4m/, site for the National
Center for Men's Voluntary Fatherhood Project,
has some information on the subject, especially
bits on cases where women performed rapes
and successfully got court-ordered child support.

I think the most interesting bit I've read was how
some US jurisdictions allow a woman to prove
paternity by posting a paternity announcement in
a local newspaper, and the court will take no
response to the announcement as acceptance of
paternity, case closed, no further evidence
accepted - even if the man named in the
announcement as the father has never been to
that locality, has never heard of that local paper,
and has no idea his name appeared in it.



i think the studies made by the men's right groups are not credible,
by default.


You're welcome to think that. What data supports that
belief?

It will be interesting if he can provide some type of data, especially
since he made a demand for you to provide data, and you did.
Have you simply swallowed the notion that all

men lie?

Appears so.


I believe there are a number of mistakes made by the system; some of
them reflecting unfavorable rulings against the male.


Child custody in divorce cases, overwhelmingly towards
the mother even in cases where the mother acted to
cause the divorce.

Absolutely, and I can testify to that because I have witnessed it with
hundreds of men who were absolutely taken to the breaking point. I
know one guy, just last year...his wife cheated on him and they have a
2 year old. They got divorced, and it wasn't his fault either..she
cheated and lied, and she got custody of the 2 year old and he has to
pay more than $800.00 per month for one child.
Today, he is working himself to bad health..more than 30 hours of OT in
a week, just so he can live.
Do the courts care if he can survive? No, not at all.


Paternity suits, very expensive to fight, often a wrongly
identified father has no legal recourse and must pay
child support or go to jail,

Correct. Meanwhile, all a woman has to do if she doesn't want the
financial responsibility of raising a child...just pay an abortionist
to do the dirty deed and she is done with it.
but there are *NO* repercussions

for paternity fraud...women are completely free to lie
about paternity and face no penalties.

There's no "some" about it.

Absolutely.


i believe too that for every case where such an unfavorable ruling
has been made against a male, there are 95 times that number of
single mothers receiving no support from the child's father.


Again, what data supports this belief?

Note: He is providing nothing.


the thing i was struggling to avoid was turning an abortion rights
based discussion into a child support one. both are difficult and
emotional issues. both are issues with which i have long and personal
involvement.


If they're too personal for you to discuss, they perhaps
you shouldn't participate in the discussion. If someone
doesn't have an abortion, then child support becomes
the issue, that's the natural progression.

Excellent response.


--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet

.
User: ""

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 30 Nov 2006 11:53:52 PM
osprey wrote:

Correct. Meanwhile, all a woman has to do if she doesn't want the
financial responsibility of raising a child...just pay an abortionist
to do the dirty deed and she is done with it.

but there are *NO* repercussions

Why would there be? A fetus has no legal rights. A born child does.
This is not analogous to a parent not paying child support.
.
User: "osprey"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 01 Dec 2006 06:26:43 AM
wrote:

osprey wrote:

Correct. Meanwhile, all a woman has to do if she doesn't want the
financial responsibility of raising a child...just pay an abortionist
to do the dirty deed and she is done with it.

but there are *NO* repercussions


Why would there be? A fetus has no legal rights. A born child does.
This is not analogous to a parent not paying child support.

I think you are confused, maybe you just don't understand what the
point is.
A woman gets pregnant.
The man (father) wants her to have the child.
She decides that she doesn't want to have the baby for any one of the
following reasons.
a) she is not ready financially
b) she wants to finish high school or college and having a baby would
postphone her graduating.
c) she simply just doesn't want to be a mother.
She has several choices.
a) put the child up for adoption
b) have an abortion
She is free and clear, no penalty, no jail time, no financial hardship.
Let's change the scenario a bit.
A woman gets pregnant, she wants to have the child.
The man (father) has stated several times he doesn't want to be a
father and in fact he was wearing condoms to ensure she didn't get
pregnant. But it happens anyway. He doesn't want to have any financial
responsibility for the same exact reasons in the above scenario, she
didn't want to have a baby.
a) he is not prepared financially
b) he wants to finish high school or college and supporting a child
would postphone that.
c) he just doesn't want to be a father
She is going to have the child.
He has two choices
a) pay child support
b) go to jail
He has penalties to face.
You can say that the support is for the child all you want, you can
scream pro-woman support all you want. That will not kill the fact
that we have discrimination against men when it comes to choice.
Men should be allowed and afforded the luxery of being able to sign a
legal contract with a woman, prior to any sexual relationship with her,
stating that if she is to become pregnant that both of them are aware
of his desire to NOT want any financial responsibilty and that he is
willing to give up any parental rights he may have, and to walk away
free and clear.
She has that luxery, she can get an abortion. She walks.
And what ever happened to all you pro-woman (NOW) people who screamed
and yelled, "we don't need men in our lives".
Appears that isn't true, you actually do need men. Because you view
men as two things...
walking sperm banks
and
walking pay checks.
.
User: "Liz"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 01 Dec 2006 07:01:19 AM
On 1 Dec 2006 04:26:43 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in news
message <1164976003.345639.103530@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[----]

And what ever happened to all you pro-woman (NOW) people who screamed
and yelled, "we don't need men in our lives".

Appears that isn't true, you actually do need men. Because you view
men as two things...

walking sperm banks
and
walking pay checks.

Why are you ignoring the responses of the only identifiable women who
have expressed opinions in this thread, skyeyes and me? We, the
women, agreed that men should have a choice before the birth of a
child. It seems you have a problem with the men who are responding,
not the women.
Liz #658 BAAWA
You can define anything you want, any way you want. Defining it as such
is not the same as offering real world evidence to support your
assertion. -- Woden
.
User: "osprey"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 01 Dec 2006 07:58:17 AM
Liz wrote:

On 1 Dec 2006 04:26:43 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in news
message <1164976003.345639.103530@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com> wrote:

[----]

And what ever happened to all you pro-woman (NOW) people who screamed
and yelled, "we don't need men in our lives".

Appears that isn't true, you actually do need men. Because you view
men as two things...

walking sperm banks
and
walking pay checks.



Why are you ignoring the responses of the only identifiable women who
have expressed opinions in this thread, skyeyes and me?

I wasn't intentionally ignoring those responses and I apologize that it
may have seemed that way.
Yes, I do recognize there are some women who are reasonable about this
issue, and it's refreshing to see that.
We, the

women, agreed that men should have a choice before the birth of a
child. It seems you have a problem with the men who are responding,
not the women.



Liz #658 BAAWA

You can define anything you want, any way you want. Defining it as such
is not the same as offering real world evidence to support your
assertion. -- Woden

.
User: "elizabeth"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 02 Dec 2006 05:45:46 PM
snip

I wasn't intentionally ignoring those responses and I apologize that it
may have seemed that way.

Yes, I do recognize there are some women who are reasonable about this
issue, and it's refreshing to see that.

We, the

women, agreed that men should have a choice before the birth of a
child. It seems you have a problem with the men who are responding,
not the women.

Get a vasectomy, and you will have no worries.
Expecting us taxpayers to support your bastards is why you should be
publicly castrated and forced to eat your balls. With a nice red whine!
.
User: "Liz"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 02 Dec 2006 06:10:33 PM
On 2 Dec 2006 15:45:46 -0800, "elizabeth" <efrantes@hotmail.com> in
news message <1165103146.273859.89070@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
wrote:

snip

I wasn't intentionally ignoring those responses and I apologize that it
may have seemed that way.

Yes, I do recognize there are some women who are reasonable about this
issue, and it's refreshing to see that.

We, the

women, agreed that men should have a choice before the birth of a
child. It seems you have a problem with the men who are responding,
not the women.



Get a vasectomy, and you will have no worries.

It would be rather difficult for me to get a vasectomy, and since I am
post-menapausal and tubal ligated, I don't have any worries.

Expecting us taxpayers to support your bastards is why you should be
publicly castrated and forced to eat your balls. With a nice red whine!

LOL I have no bastards nor balls either for that matter.
I agree that there should be no bastards, and that men should live up
to their obligations for child support if they agreed / wanted to have
a child prior to the birth of said child no matter how much they hate
their ex-wives after a divorce. However if women knew that an
unwitting sperm donor would not be obligated to provide child support
for a child he did not agree to father, there would be less unwanted
children for the taxpayers to support.
It is quite simple not to have a child, and sterilization is one of
those ways for both male and female. Pregnancy should be a mutual
decision of the parties involved not a unilateral one.
Liz #658 BAAWA
The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that
their interests and his own are the same -- Stendhal
.
User: "Paul Anderson"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 02 Dec 2006 09:01:11 PM
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:10:33 -0500, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
.....

I agree that there should be no bastards....

I this I *strongly* disagree. I do not want a return to the '50's
when the woman's choices were abortion, adoption, or marriage. There
were many loveless marriages in the '50's, with drug and drinking
problems to enable people to stay together. The '60's - '70's saw
single motherhood becoming not harshly condemned. If a woman is
pregnant but does not love the father I would prefer she has a fourth
option -- to raise the ***** by herself.

and that men should live up
to their obligations for child support if they agreed / wanted to have
a child prior to the birth of said child no matter how much they hate
their ex-wives after a divorce.

I'll second that -- with an addition that marriage is an agreement to
support all children born into that marriage. If you are not willing
to support the woman's descision to have a child you should not be
married to her.

However if women knew that an
unwitting sperm donor would not be obligated to provide child support
for a child he did not agree to father, there would be less unwanted
children for the taxpayers to support.

That, from my understanding, is C4M. Men should not be forced to
support a child that they did not agree to support. Marriage is such
an agreement. Outside of marriage it should be a mutual argreement,
preferably in writing and nortorized.

It is quite simple not to have a child, and sterilization is one of
those ways for both male and female. Pregnancy should be a mutual
decision of the parties involved not a unilateral one.

You can attempt to prevent or enable pregnancy. No one can become
pregnant merely by wishing to be. Sterlization is rather permanent,
and I cannot agree that anyone who does not wish to have a child *now*
should be sterilized -- only those who *never* want (another) child.
Once a woman is pregnant the decision to atttempt to carry to term or
abort cannot be anything but unilateral. She can *consider* the man's
wishes, but in any conflict her decision must be the one to prevail --
otherwise she either is a brood mare, or subect to a forced abortion.
Neither is morally acceptable.
.
User: "Uncle Clover"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 02 Dec 2006 09:16:28 PM
My RL name is Bill. And I haven't disallowed a man to walk away yet. In fact,
some men look -mighty- fine whilst walking away. So am I what you're looking
for? ;-)
.

User: "Liz"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 02 Dec 2006 09:47:27 PM
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 03:01:11 GMT,
(Paul Anderson)
in news message <457236bc.481455000@news.la.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:10:33 -0500, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:

....

I agree that there should be no bastards....


I this I *strongly* disagree. I do not want a return to the '50's
when the woman's choices were abortion, adoption, or marriage. There
were many loveless marriages in the '50's, with drug and drinking
problems to enable people to stay together. The '60's - '70's saw
single motherhood becoming not harshly condemned. If a woman is
pregnant but does not love the father I would prefer she has a fourth
option -- to raise the ***** by herself.

I agree that is an option, albeit I would not use the word "*****".
I don't think that any births are illegitimate. Nor should pregnancy
be something to be ashamed of. I do believe that every child should
be a wanted child.

and that men should live up
to their obligations for child support if they agreed / wanted to have
a child prior to the birth of said child no matter how much they hate
their ex-wives after a divorce.


I'll second that -- with an addition that marriage is an agreement to
support all children born into that marriage. If you are not willing
to support the woman's descision to have a child you should not be
married to her.

Sounds good to me. How do you think that could be accomplished?


However if women knew that an
unwitting sperm donor would not be obligated to provide child support
for a child he did not agree to father, there would be less unwanted
children for the taxpayers to support.


That, from my understanding, is C4M.

I didn't know it had a designation.

Men should not be forced to
support a child that they did not agree to support. Marriage is such
an agreement. Outside of marriage it should be a mutual argreement,
preferably in writing and nortorized.

I agree wholeheartedly.


It is quite simple not to have a child, and sterilization is one of
those ways for both male and female. Pregnancy should be a mutual
decision of the parties involved not a unilateral one.


You can attempt to prevent or enable pregnancy. No one can become
pregnant merely by wishing to be. Sterlization is rather permanent,
and I cannot agree that anyone who does not wish to have a child *now*
should be sterilized -- only those who *never* want (another) child.

Obviously, but it is an effective option to those who do not want
children.

Once a woman is pregnant the decision to atttempt to carry to term or
abort cannot be anything but unilateral. She can *consider* the man's
wishes, but in any conflict her decision must be the one to prevail --
otherwise she either is a brood mare, or subect to a forced abortion.
Neither is morally acceptable.

Both are abhorrent. What is equally morally unacceptable is when
others (read pro-birth advocates) try to enforce *their views on what
should be a personal decision.
Liz #658 BAAWA
We may have lost our moral compass but we still have our chaste
sextant, our modest flashlight, our ethical pen knife, and our
virtuous canteen. -- jwkinraleigh
.
User: "Paul Anderson"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 03 Dec 2006 05:55:27 AM
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:47:27 -0500, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:

Paul Anderson wrote:

Liz wrote:

.....

and that men should live up
to their obligations for child support if they agreed / wanted to have
a child prior to the birth of said child no matter how much they hate
their ex-wives after a divorce.


I'll second that -- with an addition that marriage is an agreement to
support all children born into that marriage. If you are not willing
to support the woman's descision to have a child you should not be
married to her.


Sounds good to me. How do you think that could be accomplished?

BWHAHAHAHA. It cannot be accomplished. People are idiots. We can
dream about what "should be" but accomplishing anything is impossible.
All we can do is try to pass legislation that says, paraphrased, "if
you don't have an agreement beforehand you cannot make demands of
other people. If you make an agreement you have to stick to it or
suffer a penalty."
.




User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 03 Dec 2006 12:11:47 AM
elizabeth <efrantes@hotmail.com> wrote:

We, the

women, agreed that men should have a choice before the birth of a
child. It seems you have a problem with the men who are responding,
not the women.


Get a vasectomy, and you will have no worries.

Get a tubal ligation and YOU won't have any worries.
But then, I'm guessing that you don't have any worries anyway since
you probably haven't had even the opportunity to have sex in, oh, a
couple of decades.

Expecting us taxpayers to support your bastards

As opposed to you expecting taxpayers to support YOUR "bastards",
hypocrite?

is why you should be
publicly castrated and forced to eat your balls.

Quite the murderous unatic, aren't you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.




User: "elizabeth"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 02 Dec 2006 05:44:12 PM
osprey wrote:

lefty_the_rude@yahoo.ca wrote:

snip

I think you are confused, maybe you just don't understand what the
point is.

A woman gets pregnant.

By herself?

The man (father) wants her to have the child.

Then let him gestate.

She decides that she doesn't want to have the baby for any one of the
following reasons.
a) she is not ready financially
b) she wants to finish high school or college and having a baby would
postphone her graduating.
c) she simply just doesn't want to be a mother.

All excellent reasons for not having a child. We already have hundreds
of thousands of children in foster care, born to women who fit some or
all of the above.

She has several choices.

a) put the child up for adoption

Not until the baby is born, alive, and then, she must get the sperm
donor's consent.
BOTH parents are legally responsible for any children, but only the
woman is pregnant. Pregnancy does cause a great deal of harm to women,
deary. Maybe someone should give you a 4th degree tear or two?

b) have an abortion

She is free and clear, no penalty, no jail time, no financial hardship.

She may face medical bills for the rest of her life and complications
from pregnancy, which are far from abnormal.


Let's change the scenario a bit.
A woman gets pregnant, she wants to have the child.
The man (father) has stated several times he doesn't want to be a
father and in fact he was wearing condoms to ensure she didn't get
pregnant.

Had he gotten a vasectomy, which is the safest and most effective
method, he wouldn't have to wear a condom. but few men want to. Can
the man prove he always used a condom?
But it happens anyway. He doesn't want to have any financial

responsibility for the same exact reasons in the above scenario, she
didn't want to have a baby.

Then he does like millions of deadbeat dads, and simply bails. Pays
late, if at all, and makes the woman do all the work to get him to pay
even some of his obligation. Ends up us taxpayers foot the bill
because he didn't want to be a daddy, and wouldn't get a vasectomy.
Or you can do like Scott Peterson did, like so many men before him.

a) he is not prepared financially
b) he wants to finish high school or college and supporting a child
would postphone that.
c) he just doesn't want to be a father

She is going to have the child.

He has two choices

a) pay child support
b) go to jail

If men who didn't pay child support all went to jail, there would be
less than half of American men NOT in jail!

He has penalties to face.

Well, both parents must support the child. I'd prefer to force men to
do the actual childcare instead.

You can say that the support is for the child all you want, you can
scream pro-woman support all you want. That will not kill the fact
that we have discrimination against men when it comes to choice.

Men can get vasectomies, which are far safer than any method for women.
Sperm can be stored easily.

Men should be allowed and afforded the luxery of being able to sign a
legal contract with a woman, prior to any sexual relationship with her,
stating that if she is to become pregnant that both of them are aware
of his desire to NOT want any financial responsibilty and that he is
willing to give up any parental rights he may have, and to walk away
free and clear.

Nope. The women can't sign away her child's right to support.
What kind of man would allow his own child to be raised in poverty by a
***** stupid enough to sign such an illegal contract?

She has that luxery, she can get an abortion. She walks.

Much safer and cheaper than childbirth, but vasectomies are still safer
and cheaper than abortion.

And what ever happened to all you pro-woman (NOW) people who screamed
and yelled, "we don't need men in our lives".

Many of us don't have any need for men, and thus, are not the women you
are discussing. Any ***** dumb enough to ***** you should be spayed for
the good of the gene pool, only after you get neutered, of course.

Appears that isn't true, you actually do need men. Because you view
men as two things...

walking sperm banks
and
walking pay checks.

Looks like you deadbeats need us nonbreeders to pay the higher taxes
that YOUR UNWANTED CHILDREN caused.
Looks like us taxpayers are the ones getting fucked, and thus, we
should have the option of castrating YOU before you find a ***** dumb
enough to ***** you.
.
User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 03 Dec 2006 12:13:13 AM
elizabeth <efrantes@hotmail.com> wrote:


osprey wrote:

lefty_the_rude@yahoo.ca wrote:

snip

I think you are confused, maybe you just don't understand what the
point is.

A woman gets pregnant.


By herself?

Yep.

The man (father) wants her to have the child.


Then let him gestate.

And when he gives birth then he should support the child.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.




User: ""

Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? 28 Nov 2006 08:03:35 AM
osprey wrote:

firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:

james g. keegan jr. wrote:

In article <1164599641.935849.141630@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
I believe there are a number of mistakes made by the system; some of
them reflecting unfavorable rulings against the male.


Child custody in divorce cases, overwhelmingly towards
the mother even in cases where the mother acted to
cause the divorce.


Absolutely, and I can testify to that because I have witnessed it with
hundreds of men who were absolutely taken to the breaking point. I
know one guy, just last year...his wife cheated on him and they have a
2 year old. They got divorced, and it wasn't his fault either..she
cheated and lied, and she got custody of the 2 year old and he has to
pay more than $800.00 per month for one child.

Today, he is working himself to bad health..more than 30 hours of OT in
a week, just so he can live.

Do the courts care if he can survive? No, not at all.

And if he can't pay - even due to ill health caused by those
30 hours of OT a week - he'll probably face jail time.

Paternity suits, very expensive to fight, often a wrongly
identified father has no legal recourse and must pay
child support or go to jail,


Correct. Meanwhile, all a woman has to do if she doesn't want the
financial responsibility of raising a child...just pay an abortionist
to do the dirty deed and she is done with it.

She doesn't even have to do that. In many states, the woman
can abandon the newborn at any hospital within weeks of the
birth, pretend it never happened. No man has the right to
that kind of pretending.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
User: ""

Title: Re: