Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > Wrong.  She can abandon it at birth.
>
> No.  Giving a child up for adoption is NOT considered abandonment.

Of course not--abandonment is considered abandonment.  A woman can
legally abandon her child.  I'm typing in English--why are you failing
to read English?

> >
> > >  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.
> > >
> > > And before you finger pointers start in
> > > > on me read the paragraph third from the last again...... The>
> Friggin> > > courts awarded this bimbo (and I use that term correctly
> here) $800> a> > > month in child support for a child she conceived
> through out and> out> > > deception!
> > >
> > > There was ZERO "deception" in the sending of the
sperm into the>
> stream> > of possibility,
> >
> > Then according to your logic, someone entrusting their money to
> someone else cannot be defrauded.  After all, they sent their money
> into the> "stream of possibility".
>
> I have no objection at all to bitter boys suing in fraud in civil
> court.  None.  :-)

Sure you do.  Every time someone mentions paternity fraud, you come
unglued.

>  What they can't do is to deprive their children
> simply because they made a foolish risky choice.

So you're saying that trusting women amounts to making foolish, risky
choices?  I think this is the part where GA is going to fall over in a
dead faint because you agree with him.

>
> It's probably long past time that you've acknowledged you're full of>
> shit.  You're now at the point where you're *clearly* blaming the>
> victim here, for no other reason than your deep animosity towards
men>
> and your desire to ensure that no woman is held accountable for her
> actions.
>
> Women and men are held equally accountable for their reproductive
> products, so there is no "animosity" here.

No, Hy, you bear a deep animosity towards men, but for some reason
you're too cowardly to just come out and say so.  So you torture logic
to the point of screaming to hold all men acountable all the time while
holding women responsible for nothing.

>  Women who bear children are
> not victims, no matter how much bitter boys wish  to make them
victims.

Huh?  What are you smoking?

>  And children will be supported whether or not bitter boys, who made
> their foolish choices, bellyache.

And again you're claiming that trusting women is foolish.

By the way, there are a couple of social trends that are developing in
response to courts failing to hold women accountable for paternity
fraud.  Can you guess what they are?

> >
> > 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.
> >
> > And if you don't want to get pregnant, keep your legs closed.
>
> No problem.  I agree with that.  However, you must remember that
women
> have choices over their OWN bodies that can result in the termination
> of a pregnancy.

Including infanticide, which strikes me as taking control of someone
ELSE'S body.

>
>   Again,> according to your logic, abortion wouldn't be an option
> because, after all, the woman sent her egg into the "stream of
> possibility".
>
> A woman's "possibilities" include the possibility of legal abortion,
> Ben.

The "possibility" is getting pregnant, Hy.

>  So do men's.  That men don't get pregnant is irrelvant;  they
> both have privacy rights regarding their reproduction.

Ahhhh, no, they don't.  Not to the extent that women have.

>
>  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'.
> >
> > And yet again you have to be reminded you don't speak for all
women.
>
> Well, the women I know laugh at insecure men like you, Ben.

I'm sure they do, Hy, but that's not a source of embarrassment for me
:)  That's affirmation that I'm on the right track.  Your definition of
'insecure' is any man who doesn't completely accept every tenet of
radical feminism.  Yep, I'm insecure.   :)

>  Perhaps
> the women you know don't, at least not in front of you. :-)

You're welcome to ask them, if you like.   :)   One of them is named
Jennifer, and she might respond if you ask nicely.

>
> > In fact, several female acquaintances of mine laugh uproariously
at>
> what routinely comes out of your mouth.  And before you begin>
> protesting that you might not be a man, you're not fooling anyone.
>
> My status as a poster doesn't depend upon my being a man or woman;
it
> depends on my being right.  :-)

Then your status is in danger.   :)

>
> My> women friends all pointed to your derisive use of "dear" and
"hon"
> as words that only a woman would use when addressing men like that.
>
> That's always possible, but who really cares?  Were you planning to
ask
> me out?  :-)

>

>
> >
> > And before you begin whinging on about anecdotal evidence, a quick
> tour through any number of opinion sites on the web will turn up a
> whole> host of articles written by women who think that opinions
like>
> yours--actually, your parroting of radical feminist rantings--are
> truly> cringe-worthy.  Many of them find Nancy Hopkins a deep, deep
> embarrassment, and they do indeed worry about how this will make
> others> view women.
>
> Well, this is your opinion, and yet, you have failed to show us one
> celebrity woman or noteworthy female who shares your opinion.

At least this time you're differentiating celebrity and noteworthy;
they're not the same.  But tell you what:  Why don't you head on over
to Men's News Daily, or to Michelle Malkin, or Phyllis Schlafly, or the
Independent Women's Forum, or Real Clear Politics, etc.   You might
also want to read about the tirade Susan Estrich is putting on against
Michael Kinsley of the L.A. Times, even going so far as to try and
argue that his Parkinson's is affecting his judgement (just when you
think feminists have sunk as low as they can, along comes something to
show you they're not yet through), and some of the angry responses from
women who detest her methods.

I'm sealing an envelope right this minute with your response in it,
because I know what it will be.   :)


>  Perhaps
> you should look for one in a fundy church where women have a vested
> interest in the private preservation of patriarchy, while voting for
> equal rights in the voting booth.  :-0

I suspect I don't go to fundy churches any more than you do.

>
> >Feminists >   force unequal enforcement of the law in their favor.
> Things> change.  Are you not aware of that?
>
> What is an "unequal" LAW promoted by NOW?

*yawn*  Your usual dodge.

>
> >
> > >  they have equal rights,
> >
> > Feminists force overzealous enforcement of their rights in their
> favor.>  In other words, feminists view their rights (not even rights
> of women> in general, just the rights of women who tow their party
> line) as being> primary and all others as secondary.  Their rights
> don't end where
> > others' begin, their rights just...never end.
>
> So you say, and yet saying it doesn't prove it.  Proving it would
> require an example of leglislation that doesn't include men, promoted
> by NOW.  I don't see your example, but rather, just your bile.

And again, *yawn*.  Your dodging is a pretty reliable indicator that
you know I'm speaking the truth and you can't refute it.

>
> >
> > > and
> > > they even have guns.
> >
> > Seen men with guns, seen women with guns--my money is on the men.
>
> It's not a matter of money; it's a matter of self defense, i.e. more
> dead men and more women using self defense as a reason to be
acquitted
> or released.
>
>  But> hey, you dispose of your disposable income as *you* see fit.
> lol
> >
> > >  What they don't have to put up with is bitter
> > > boys like you.
> >
> > The most bitter one I ever see in this group is, well...you.  The>
> amount of time and energy you devote to doing little more than>
> "neener-ing" is indicative of a deep malice, the kind that is
routinely
> generated by hatred and bitterness.
>
> Your obtuse interpretation of my responses is duly noted.  :-)

Obtuse...uh-huh.   lol



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/27/05 9:33:59 PM ---