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

> Later, the parents claimed the child's injury had resulted
> in some kind of learning disorder by 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.

>
> 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 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.


>
> regards,
> Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/31/05 5:44:33 PM ---