Hyerdahl1 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Re: Bitter girls can't have children without men's
consent, part
> >3
> >From: S.Taylor STaylor938129{at}Hotmail.com
> >Date: 12/28/2004 1:23 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: 
> >
> >On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:56:09 GMT, "Avenger"

wrote:
> >>> A new Dutch law preventing sperm donors from remaining anonymous
has
> >>> resulted in a shortage of donations.
> >>I told you all long ago that sperm would be controlled.
>
> Sperm is hardly "controlled";  citing some obscure Dutch law isn't
going to
> convince folks that it is being "controlled", as a universal ideal.

Didn't seem all that obscure to me.  Anyway, once the floodgates are
opened...

>  In fact,
> even Dutch women can get "anonymous" sperm simply by having sex with
someone
> they will never see again.  It's not that difficult.  :-)

Not that difficult to get a pretty good disease that way, either.  And
there doesn't seem to be a way to ensure the 'donor' doesn't have some
truly awful genetic disorder.

>  Or, they can take a
> vacation to a place that does not have a donation shortage.  :-)

Make them work harder for it.   :)

(snip)


> >
> >Slowly, men are realizing that controlling the sperm is an effective
way
> to>control
> >feminists.
>
> Why do you have the NEED to control women?  :-)  You're so pitiful.

Hy, just as you don't speak for all women, despite your best attempts,
not all women are feminists.

Besides, given that single mothers as a group are doing an inadequate
job raising children, especially boys, why would you want to continue
to perpetuate this?



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/27/05 2:45:38 PM ---