In article ,
 "Hyerdahl"  wrote:

> mark_sobolew...{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> > Avenger wrote:
>
> > >  wrote in message
>
> > > > So you're making a case for Choice for Men? :-)  If women
> > > > have a greater involvement through gestating children
> > > > then it can be argued that men have even less liability.
> > > > Good going!
> > >
> > > Females have a CHOICE. Men don't but are then held liable for the
> > child. lol
> >
> > In all fairness, men do have a choice but it's similar to
> > the "men have a choice to not give women scissors lest
> > the women run around and hurt themselves" kind of thinking.
>
> Not really, Mark.  A woman who wants to give birth to a baby is not
> considered a danger to society or to herself.  WE simply don't look at
> having babies in that light.

So who are the babies being protected from by legal
abandonment? :-)

Unwed mothers don't kill babies, er, "neonates".
Garbage dumpsters kill neonates. :-)

> > Recently, Home Depot celebrated a "victory" where they only
> > had to pay a 100 grand or so (which mostly covered legal
> > fees for the plaintiffs) where two parents ABANDONED
> > their child in a home depot while they went off shopping
> > and the child hurt himself when he pulled a door display
> > down on him.
>
> So basically, you seem to be trying to say that having children is a
> danger to society?

Unsupervised and poorly raised, certainly.  Most children
who commit crimes are the products of single mother
homes, for example.

Home Depot isn't Disneyland.  It's a place people go to
buy equipment and supplies for many dangerous tasks.
IMO, the store should have sued the parents for
damanging their store display.

>  Or are you suggesting that these particular
> parents did something to cause harm?

They acted in a negligent manner causing a child
to harm itself and even possibly other customers who
may have been walking by.

> > Later, the parents claimed the child's injury had resulted
> > in some kind of learning disorder but testimony showed that
> > he had already been having problems at school before (Gee,
> > kids pulled down displays upon themselves having problems
> > at school?  Who would have guessed? :-)
>
> Sure, but I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here.

It's not too difficult to figure out: The parents let
a learning disabled child run around unsupervised,
harm himself, and then try to dishonestly pin the blame
on the school.

> > My wife and other foreigners are continuously amazed
> > at how the notion of personal responsibility in
> > the American legal system is literally becoming a joke.
>
> Well, I'm a-ok with the acceptance of personal responsibility

HAHAHAHAHA!

Where can I even start?  Women quit their jobs to
live off of someone else so they are making
"sacrifices", women who may kill their infants if
they cannot legally abandon them, women who
make bastard babies they don't want to accept
full resposibility for, socialist handout programs,
the list goes on...

Fortunately, patronizing protection for women is
increasingly becoming more like a lottery rather
than an entitlement.  Many women can't make tons
o' money with their women's studies or
English lit. degrees and can't find a professional
man to marry and often wind up having to pay
thousands for fertility clinic treatments to boot
(assuming they're lucky, they get to pay
thousands more for daycare and healthcare since
the USA isn't Germany)

Like I said, it's one Patriarchal or Socialist hand
giving and the other hand taking something back.

> but I
> don't see how it applies here.  The child of a single parent would
> likely have been treated the same way as the child of the married
> parents.

So does this mean that the children of single mothers
are then genetically inferior if environment cannot
explain their higher crime rates?

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/2/05 12:48:18 PM ---