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.
> >

   The reality is that a woman can leave a baby in a basket at a
firestation and walk (or run) away into the night with every
expectation of avoiding any further responsibility for the child. You
choose to refer to this act as "giving it up for adoption."
   Let us be clear; by your definition of these words, a woman could
never be said to be abandoning a child no matter what she did as long
as there was someone or some institution around that was likely to
provide some basic support.



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

   A mom leaving her kid on a doorstep does not result in the kid being
subsequently deprived?


>
> 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.  Women who bear children
are
> not victims, no matter how much bitter boys wish  to make them
victims.
>  And children will be supported whether or not bitter boys, who made
> their foolish choices, bellyache.
> >
> > 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.
>
>   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.  So do men's.  That men don't get pregnant is irrelvant;  they
> both have privacy rights regarding their reproduction.


   It is these days a womans free and unilateral choice whether or not
she will produce a child that was fathered by a guy who was tricked
into contributing a bit of sperm. It should not also be her choice to
compell a man to support that which he was tricked into beginning.
Abortion rights have nothing to do with this.


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



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/27/05 5:34:01 PM ---