In article ,
 knoxy  wrote:
> mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com says...
> >
> > knoxy wrote:

[edit]
> > Which baby?  The one killed during an abortion or the one the
> > slattern single mother often gestates into poverty?
> >
> > Which baby?
> >
> > You continue to get up on your high moral horse and then when
> > confronted, run off or avoid the subject.  Ironic since
> > you're trying to condemn abandoning deadbeats.
> >
> Your claims only woks if a woman can get pregnant
> without sperm.

Non sequitur.

I made a comparision between the relative irresponsibility
of abortion and men who didn't want to pay for the children
produced by casual sex.

My comparison in no way denies that sperm is required to
produce a pregnancy.  I have merely observed that men want to
avoid the unintended consequences of casual sex just
as women often want to do.

> I learned a long time ago that without
> sperm, no baby, or has the entire human body changed
> since then? I don't think so.

That's nice.  But it doesn't address the point I've made.

If anything, by repeating the same simplistic almost slogan-like
argument over and over again you sound an awful lot like,
a pro-lifer.

After all, they learned at an early age about BABIES
being produced by sperm and eggs coming together too.  Yes?

> > > > " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. "
> > > >
> > > > > In
> > > > > other instances, the women effectively bar the
fathers from the
> > lives
> > > > > of the children out of vindictiveness, spite,
whatever.  And then
> > there
> > > > > are those cases where both mother and father are
too selfish or
> > > > > self-absorbed to see past their own issues with
each other and
> > > > > prioritize the needs of the children.
> > > >
> > > > Yet, who chose for them to be, again ?
> > > >
> > > No sperm, no baby. Simple, isn't it.
> >
> > Ever hear of abortion?  We can do a dictionary.com cite if you
> > don't know what it is.
> >
> Are you really this dense or are you just pretending?

That's strange, I was just about to ask you the same thing. :-)

I don't think you're dense.  I made the point and you refuse
to address it.  I know that eggs and sperm produce an ovum
which, if the woman chooses to gestate it, can produce
a child and without the sperm, she cannot choose to do this.

You know where that argument leads.  So you choose to go
back to claiming that we somehow deny that sperm is needed
in these cases to produce a baby.  We're not.

> > > > Why is it OK to have Choice For Women, and NO Choice For Men, and
> > > > then to try to equally share out the *responsibility*, when the
> > > > *authority* is *solely with the women* ?
> > > >
> > > See above.
> >
> > Let's boil down your moral stance:
> >
> > The hallowed single mother chooses to sleep around and then
> > squeeze out kids and then runs to the state to hunt down
> > the "deadbeat" lest the children in her care starve to death
> > (unless she gets an abortion which is her private business as well.)
> >
> > Then you wonder why society isn't lauding the term "single
mother".
> >
> So now you claim that single mothers sleep around and
> squeeze out kids so they can live a life in luxury on
> welfare?

More strawmen.

It isn't luxurious, but it is in comparsion to working class
men who may rot in jail for failure to pay up.

> You know, most of the single mothers I've met,
> got pregnant while they were either married or in long
> term committed relationships. Not one single one of them
> had any desire to live on welfare.

So there must be this island where millions of these women
live since you never met them.  Apparently, the government
is claiming they writing checks or chasing down men who don't
want to pay for unwanted bastard children.  Are you saying
they're lying to us?

> > Knoxy, honestly, I find it pathetic that a woman would exploit
> > a child in such a fashion.  What does she hope to gain?
> > Even cats put more thought and care into their young
> > and personal lives.
> >
> Well, I've never met a single mother that behave in the
> way you describe. I've only seen them on the Jerry
> Springer show, but to me that only shows that they're
> freaks, not the norm.

So why are you defending such women if they don't exist?

You've failed to defend them with your "sperm+egg=baby" nonsense
so now you're pretending like they're not there.  Nice try.

> > Note: I and Andre don't have such children.  We've gotten the
> > message about the presumed legal morals (or lack thereof) of
> > modern western women.  The problem is that the true "deadbeats"
> > don't care and they're the ones fathering such children.
> > The only reason you can have to defend such a broken social
> > policy is to protect the right of the mother to do as she
> > pleases at EVERYONE else's expense.
> >
> > regards,
> > Mark Sobolewski
> >
> You really are a jerk.

Oh, [brushing away tear], I truly am touched.  Honestly.
From YOU, that's a compliment beyond measure.  Usually, you
just walk off in a huff or start a flame war.

HOW am I a jerk?  As I said, I don't have bastard children.
Is this a BAD thing?  Either men are stupid, or deadbeats.
I guess it is possible for them to be neutered wimps who
say "thank you" as they cough up money like stepford husbands.

Do you really respect such men?

> Is it so hard for a man to take
> responsibility for his own actions,

[music playing]
Sometimes it's hard to be a woman...
waiting for men to be a sugar daddy while treating her like an equal...

Miss liberated already argued that it's (turn up the volume here)
NONE OF HIS BUSINESS what she does with HER BODY.  Now you
turn around and argue that his babies pop out of her tummy
without her being able to do anything about it.

Then you lecture us about responsibility.

You're so incredibly hypocritical on so many different levels.

> instead of blaming
> women for their presumed lack of moral?

Very well.  When this egg and sperm combine to make a baby,
can you tell me precisely when that happens?

You're the biology expert!

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/2/05 10:14:51 PM ---