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?

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?

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.

>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, 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.
>

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.

I guess you also hold that a sperm donar is liable for the support of
the child that is created later without his knowledge?

>
>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. ANd yes... they have the law which has
been warped and manipulated to fit their wants. 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!

There is not a damned thing bitter about be honey. 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.




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/26/05 1:35:29 AM ---