knoxy wrote:
> In article , dg411
> {at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...
> >
> > "Ben" (ArGee45{at}hotmail.com) writes:
> > > Hyerdahl3 blathered:
> > >> >Subject: Re: The Slattern Single Mother
> > >> >From: knoxy knoxy{at}post.com
> > >> >Date: 1/26/2005 12:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
> > >> >Message-id:

> > >> >
> > >> >In article ,
> > >> >gf010w5035{at}blueyonder.co.uk says...
> > >> >> http://batr.org/view/021403.html
> > >> >>
> > >> >I tried to read all this crap, but it almost made me >fall
asleep.
> > > Why not cut
> > >> it short and just say that all >single mothers are evil and
they're
> > > the reason
> > >> for >everything bad that's happening in the world?
> > >
> > > I personally wouldn't go that far.  I was raised by a
divorced/single
> > > mother, and I know how difficult it can be.  She wasn't single by
> > > choice, but because my father abandoned the family.
> >
> > Which is the minority of cases involving single mothers, and the
> > minority of cases involving divorce ( See Braver ).
> >
> So? Are you trying to say that minorites doen't count?
>
> > > Now, having said that, I can also say that single women as a
group are
> > > not exactly doing a bang-up job raising their kids, especially
boys.
> > > There's a whole host of issues that are found in boys raised by
single
> > > women.  However, I don't attach blame to just the women.  I think
that
> > > those men who abandon their families are at fault in those cases.

> >
> > Oh ? Did they have *any* final say over whether there would BE a
child ?
> >
> They have a choice to 'share their sperm'. No sperm, no
> baby.

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.

> > " 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.

> > 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".

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.

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



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/1/05 2:09:30 PM ---