On 26 Feb 2005 09:10:08 -0800, "Hyerdahl"  wrote:

>
>Skinner1{at}hotmail.com wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2005 09:17:06 -0800, "Hyerdahl"
 wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Skinner1{at}hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:01:03 -0800, Hardpan

>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/02/24/national/a095250S07.DTL
>> >> >
>> >> >Court: Man Can Sue Over Surprise Pregnancy
>> >> >
>> >> >By CARLA K. JOHNSON, - Associated Press Writer
>> >> >
>> >> >Thursday, February 24, 2005
>> >> >
>> >(edit)
>> >
>> >> OK. This one is so wrong on so many levels that it just defies
>logic.
>> >>
>> >> If a woman had been MADE pregnant against her desires...... the
>> >tables here would be SOOOOO turned!
>> >
>> >Not so, dear.  If a woman is raped, and she bears a child she
>doesn't >want, she is still responsible for that child unless the child
>is>adopted.  Of course, men don't have a legal option to "make"
>women>pregnant, nor can they (in the west) force a woman to continue a
>>pregnancy.   Men and women have the same rights but not the same
>>abilities, and no, men have no right to reach into the body or rights
>>of another simply because they sent their own sperm into the stream of
> >possibility.
>> >
>>
>> We are not talking rape here..... What about a man that put a hole in
>> his condom? Or in some other way introiduced semen to make the woman
>> pregnant without her really knowing it was being done?
>
>If a man puts a hole in a condom, and she gets pregnant, she has the
>right to terminate the pregnancy or carry to term, but she does NOT
>have any right to NOT parent a child born.
>>
>> I beg your pardon. Men and women do NOT have the same rights. If a
>man gets a woman pregnant and wants the child... but the woman wants
>the abortion.... who do you think is going to win?
>
>There is no right to "have a child".There is only the right to
>procreate and equal bodily rights.  No one can give you a right to
>"have a child" since not all people can have children.  Even women
>don't have a right to "have a child", but rather, only a right to
>procreate.  That means you can use whatever ABILITIES you have in your
>quest for procreation.  Your problem is that you are confused between
>rights and abilities.  Men and women have the same procreative rights
>but NOT the same procreative abilities.  You and Mark have some things
>in common here.  :-)
>

I heard this argument when that baby factory of a crack whore was in
the news a few weeks ago.... Some judge ruled that she was not to have
any children till she proved she could care for them. All the women's
Rights groups were up in arms about her "Right to Pro Create" being
denied....

Well, Hoiney if you are going to make that argument and expect it to
stick then I am going out and finding myself a lawyer and going after
every woman that has denied *MY* right to procreate in my life!!!

Typical femanist agenda.

>> And this woman DID have the right to reach into the body of this man
>> and extract his semen for her own gains.... and then later expect the
>> man to pay for the child he obviously tried to avoid bringing into
>the world??
>>
>> Strange logic.
>
>No, clearly she did not have any such right.  They each have 100%
>rights over their own reproductive products, and the duties attendant
>upon that.   If either or both of them sponsor a child with their DNA
>their duties arise. >There was ZERO "deception" in the
sending of the
>sperm into the stream of possibility, and that's all the court is
>looking at or needs to look>at in the best interests of children.  If
>you don't want to risk having>a child, keep your sperm to yourself.

I strongly disagree. Automobile manufacturers and alcoholic beverage
makers are not held responsible for the misuse of their products when
they PLAINLY promote their safe use. I think this man was PLAINLY
promoiting the SAFE use of HIS SEMEN.... and the user clearly and
blatantly misused it! No different than that drunk driver and the
products he misused!

>> >
>>
>> OK..... Try this on.... Had the guy ejaculated into a kleenex and
>> tossed it in the trash can and she retreived it and done the same
>> thing.... would you STILL hold this argument.
>
>Yes.  He still didn't guard his reproductive products.  But then, there
>are ZERO legal cases using the scenerio you depict, so using that
>scenerio doesn't give you a third leg to stand on.  :-)
>>
>> I guess you also hold that a sperm donar is liable for the support of
>> the child that is created later without his knowledge?
>
>His "knowledge" that he spewed his seed into the stream of possibility
>is more than enough to assign him duties based on his rights.  It's the
>same for women as for men.
>

Your stream of possibility argument will not hold water in any court
with a FAIR tendency to it.

Now, of course if you wind up in one of the many many femanist
favoring courts then yes. that argument might survive a while.... but
eventually it will hit a brick wall. It cannot be sustained because
there is such a thing as personal responsability. If your murder with
a gun you can't blame the gun manufacturer for YOUR actions. YOU have
to take responsability for them.... and this woman has to take
responsability for HER Deceitful actions!

>> >That's not mysogony folks.... that's just calling it like
>> >> it is! ANYBODY who wants to argue in this witche's defense is
>showing> >> their out and out bias against men and towards women!
>> >
>> >Oh, hon....women could care less whether you call them witches,
>> >bitches, or 'hos'.  They have the law;  they have equal rights, and
>> >they even have guns.  What they don't have to put up with is bitter
>> >boys like you.
>> >
>> They have EXCEPTIONAL rights.
>
>They have the EXACT same rights men have regarding procreation; you are
>confused between rights and abilities.
>
> ANd yes... they have the law which ha been warped and manipulated to
>fit their wants.
>
>
>Women and men have the exact SAME reproductive rights, so proving that
>women have "exceptional" rights would require a showing of proof or
>some evidence that they do.  You have provided none, but some
>regurgitation of women's abilities.
>

Simple honey...... I get you pregnant. I want the baby, you do not.
Who wins???  YOu will because YOU as a WOMAN have exceptional rights.

>
> It's just a damned> shame more men don;t have the guts and convictions
>to say no to this> kind of crap and let you women go find your
>fulfillments at the> battery counter for a while!
>
>Men can _say_ what they like, but proving that procreative rights are
>different for women than for men would require...well...PROOF, which is
>something you don't have.  Show us the LAWS that give women different
>procreative rights.  You're just pissed that fish don't have the
>ability to both swim & fly like water fowl, so you like the idea of
>cutting the wings from water fowl.  :-)  That's amusing.
>

I just did. It's been tried in several states and the woman has ALWAYS
come out the winner!


>
>>
>> There is not a damned thing bitter about be honey.
>
>Sure there is bitter twitter.  You are jealous that water fowl can both
>swim and fly, so you want unequal laws cutting off the wings of water
>fowl.  Nothing much new about male uterus envy.
>

I haven't the slightest envy of a uterus..... Nor do I want to be a
woman. And I am not gonna get nasty here cause I really REALLY
could... but you would mistake fighting fire with fire as being a
bitter man.... a VERY Typical Femanist trick. It's always a LOT easier
to demonize your opponent than to prove your point with valid
statement. You loose my dear. You KNOW women are favored by the
liberal left and the liberal stacked courts in this country and you
won't accept that under the current system there is no equity between
the sexes.

And waterfoun is an interesting choice for you to compare women to.

>
>This is> practicality fighting back! YOu women have managed to twist a
>few self serving politicians around your fingers.... that does NOT mean
>you got EQUAL rights.... it means you got YOUR WAY for now. It will
>swing back again.
>
>Just which women are standing in line to give up their equal rights,
>and HOW will it swing back, save a comet hitting the earth?  :-)
>A man with a plan has some proof to back up his claim, but a bitter boy
>with a third leg, just has a third leg.

YOu are a nasty witch aren't you? YOu are the one that started in with
the name calling... Just who's really got a bitter streak running up
their backside? What happened? Get stood up for the prom? Hubby ran
off with the chippy secretary? Can't shed that extra tonnage and get a
date for Friday night? Tell me dearie..... Babe......  What really is
your agenda? Tell me where your frustration comes from? I got my
guesses but I would like to hear it from you.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/28/05 1:34:15 AM ---