In article ,
 "Society"  wrote:

> "lukne"  barked in message
> news:1106789965.020959.128810{at}z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > [...] But do you really think it's right to for the
> > man to force a woman to carry a child to term
> > and then raise him/her?
>
> You're worshipping an idol of your own creation
> lukne: the strawbi*ch.  Tsk, tsk.  Andre hasn't
> advocated that the man "force" the woman to
> do anything, liar lukne; rather he's pointing out
> that it's the woman who expects to force her
> sex partners to finance her baby-lust.
>
> > The baby grows in the woman's body making it
> > more her decision.
>
> Yeah, that makes killing the unborn "her decision"
> and her guilt, too.  How about you just come
> straight out and admit that you are advocating
> a double standard of giving privileges to the
> woman and obligations of her making to the man.
>
> > I know control freaks like you Andre,
> > don't like that.
>
> There you go lying again, lukne.  Despite your
> desire to pretend otherwise, the "control freaks"
> are you and those like you who insist on using
> the irresponsibility of women as an excuse for
> imposing burdens on those women's sex partners.
>
> That Andre's suggestion that women be held
> to the same standards to which men are held
> arouses you to bark "control freaks", lukne,
> gives away just who it is that is the control
> freak in this thread.

The tragedy of the existing status quo is that it doesn't work.
Even as responsible men do realize the consequences
of unprotected sex, this only leaves the irresponsible men
to sleep around with such women creating a social
problem that's much more serious.

The government gets involved every time the woman asks
the state to track down the so-called deadbeat dad
and make him pay up lest her child starve to death.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/29/05 5:41:27 PM ---