Martha's quest for male abandoners, was Re: Father abandons newborn; was Re: Abandonment or Death
Sir Jessy of Clone
"formica63" <form...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:T2j_9.36971$jM5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> syd
> > > thanks, i was trying to figure out a good way to explain that to him.
> not
> > > even some people who believe they are fathers, are fathers, as we
know.
> but
> > > we sure know who the mother is -- it is the one with the bleeding
birth
> > > canal.
>
> mike
> > Duh -- the father is the one paying the child support.
> > If they don't have any difficulty determining that...
> >
> > You guys might as well admit it -- you want women to have choice,
> > and men to pay the bill.
>
> You know, Michael, I've never commented on child support. The truth is, I
> find the notion that anyone could chuck their baby into a trash can
> incomprehensible. I accept, however, that they do, and that generally
they
> are children themselves, and very scared and ashamed. These laws are
> designed to keep babies alive; to prevent a newborn choking on waste and
> starving to death. They do not, at least in my mind, outline a political
> philosophy, but a humane expedience.
I agree that the laws exist for humane expedience.
>
> I am happy for all fathers to have the "choice" to abandon their child. A
> father who wishes to abandon his child is no father at all. The child,
and
> hir mother, are better off without that father in their lives. To that
end,
> I am happy to agree ALL fathers have the right to reliquish parental
rights.
> All mothers, too. Permanently, however.
>
> I am also happy to accept that fathers stop "paying the bill." Anyone who
> sees their child as a "bill" ought not to be within 100 miles of hir. I'd
> like to see the community pick up that tab because, Michael, you do
> understand that it takes money to raise a child, whether or not an
absentee
> father feels inclined to "pay the bill."
When factoring in things like cheap birth control, abortion, abstinance,
adoption (et al), the bill for a womans _sole_ choice to have children
should not
be footed by society. Responsible people put themselves in a position to
provide a good environment to raise a child, and if it comes down to it, I
don't see why a man should be responsible for a womans unilateral choice to
concieve, if he made known that his desire was not to have children.
http://www.nas.com/c4m/faq.html
>
> The worst thing in the world for a child is a peevish, resentful, selfish
> three year-old for a parent, male or female. So, I think we agree.
>
In that we do. Like Mark S. would say, "Forced parenthood is like rape,
except it has two victims: father, and child".
> Form.
>
>
>
>
Bob
Indeed, nobody has yet explained why, except for feminist politics,
women should have a unilateral choice to produce as many children as she
damn well wants.
Her expectation for somebody else to pay for them is the second
question. Lets deal with first things first.
Bob
formica63
> > syd
> > > > thanks, i was trying to figure out a good way to explain that to
him.
> > not
> > > > even some people who believe they are fathers, are fathers, as we
> know.
> > but
> > > > we sure know who the mother is -- it is the one with the bleeding
> birth
> > > > canal.
> >
> > mike
> > > Duh -- the father is the one paying the child support.
> > > If they don't have any difficulty determining that...
> > >
> > > You guys might as well admit it -- you want women to have choice,
> > > and men to pay the bill.
form:
> > You know, Michael, I've never commented on child support. The truth is,
I
> > find the notion that anyone could chuck their baby into a trash can
> > incomprehensible. I accept, however, that they do, and that generally
> they
> > are children themselves, and very scared and ashamed. These laws are
> > designed to keep babies alive; to prevent a newborn choking on waste and
> > starving to death. They do not, at least in my mind, outline a
political
> > philosophy, but a humane expedience.
clone:
> I agree that the laws exist for humane expedience.
form:
> > I am happy for all fathers to have the "choice" to abandon their child.
A
> > father who wishes to abandon his child is no father at all. The child,
> and
> > hir mother, are better off without that father in their lives. To that
> end,
> > I am happy to agree ALL fathers have the right to reliquish parental
> rights.
> > All mothers, too. Permanently, however.
> >
> > I am also happy to accept that fathers stop "paying the bill." Anyone
who
> > sees their child as a "bill" ought not to be within 100 miles of hir.
I'd
> > like to see the community pick up that tab because, Michael, you do
> > understand that it takes money to raise a child, whether or not an
> absentee
> > father feels inclined to "pay the bill."
clone:
> When factoring in things like cheap birth control, abortion, abstinance,
> adoption (et al), the bill for a womans _sole_ choice to have children
> should not
> be footed by society. Responsible people put themselves in a position to
> provide a good environment to raise a child, and if it comes down to it, I
> don't see why a man should be responsible for a womans unilateral choice
to
> concieve, if he made known that his desire was not to have children.
Sure. To that end, any man who does not want to be responsible for a child
can avail himself of contraception. If he doesn't, then he has not acted in
accordance with his desire. It's pretty simple.
> http://www.nas.com/c4m/faq.html
>
> http://www.nas.com/c4m/
>
> >
> > The worst thing in the world for a child is a peevish, resentful,
selfish
> > three year-old for a parent, male or female. So, I think we agree.
> >
>
> In that we do. Like Mark S. would say, "Forced parenthood is like rape,
> except it has two victims: father, and child".
That's an absurd comparison. Fathers who become fathers did so by being
responsible for the birth of a child. They are not victims of anything but
their own behaviour. I would make an exception only for non-consensual sex,
ie rape of a man, or a fraudulent use of semen (it happens), and for fathers
who are under the age of consent, for, as with all children, they do not
know what they do.
Un*witting*, not "unwilling" fathers definitely ought not to be forced upon
a child unless they have the cojones to accept the consequences of their own
behaviour. If they don't, they are the type of men to be a destructive
influence in the life of a child, who is better off without them. For those
reasons, and not because I'm having my heartstring pulled by irresponsible
men who seemingly aren't adult enough to accept the consequences of their
actions, I do not believe such fathers have a role in the life of a child.
The community will shoulder responsibility for providing such a child with
the nourishment it can never get from a derelict parent, or a sum of money
resentfully put its way.
Form.
Sir Jessy of Clone
1) From personal experience I know that many of the women I have slept with
have claimed they are alergic to condoms, or just won't have sex with them.
I think this is actually quite common.
2) From the url below, you can see that, "Proponents of legalizing choice
for men generally support contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are
unreliable. Condoms have a 16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four
years you can bet on having an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of
using condoms, the chances are that a man will most likely experience not
one, not two, but three accidental pregnancies!" So men can act in
accordance with their desire, and still be held accountable for a womans
irresponsibility or choice.
The fact that womens choices are not limited to biology, but enhanced by
legislation, shows that there is a lack of choice for men to decide if they
want to become a parent. Women are not limited in this respect. I am one
of others who propose that women be given the sole *rights* and
*responsibilities* for children they unilaterally decide to conceive. This
is not the entirety of the proposal, you can read that for yourself.
1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York
City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
>
>
> > http://www.nas.com/c4m/faq.html
> >
> > http://www.nas.com/c4m/
> >
> > >
> > > The worst thing in the world for a child is a peevish, resentful,
> selfish
> > > three year-old for a parent, male or female. So, I think we agree.
> > >
> >
> > In that we do. Like Mark S. would say, "Forced parenthood is like rape,
> > except it has two victims: father, and child".
>
> That's an absurd comparison. Fathers who become fathers did so by being
> responsible for the birth of a child.
No, I disagree. The descision to have sex, with the above mitigating
factors, only makes a man .3% culpable for a womans unilateral decision to
conceive.
They are not victims of anything but
> their own behaviour.
You are forgeting the plethora of choices both post and pre conception that
women have. Many of these choices are a result of legislation that allows
women to unilaterally make the choice for men to become a parent.
I would make an exception only for non-consensual sex,
> ie rape of a man, or a fraudulent use of semen (it happens), and for
fathers
> who are under the age of consent, for, as with all children, they do not
> know what they do.
That's good, but I do not think you extend the rights you have far enough.
Responsible people make choices that they have to be _responsible_ for. If
someone has legally mandated choices that far outweigh the choices another
party has, do we call that inequality, or not? With rights comes
responsibilities.
>
> Un*witting*, not "unwilling" fathers definitely ought not to be forced
upon
> a child unless they have the cojones to accept the consequences of their
own
> behaviour. If they don't, they are the type of men to be a destructive
> influence in the life of a child, who is better off without them.
I agree. I don't see why your analogy can not be extended to women who
force men to be responsible for children only they had the choice to
conceive.
For those
> reasons, and not because I'm having my heartstring pulled by irresponsible
> men who seemingly aren't adult enough to accept the consequences of their
> actions, I do not believe such fathers have a role in the life of a child.
I agree, and for the same reasons I do not believe mothers that conceive of
their own volition, without getting consent should expect a man to be
responsible for her choice. Having sex is not the same as agreeing to
become a parent.
> The community will shoulder responsibility for providing such a child with
> the nourishment it can never get from a derelict parent, or a sum of money
> resentfully put its way.
Encouraging irresponsible behaviour is your perogative.
>
> Form.
>
>
formica63
Form:
> > Sure. To that end, any man who does not want to be responsible for a
> child
> > can avail himself of contraception. If he doesn't, then he has not acted
> in
> > accordance with his desire. It's pretty simple.
clone:
> 1) From personal experience I know that many of the women I have slept
with
> have claimed they are alergic to condoms, or just won't have sex with
them.
> I think this is actually quite common.
Well, I guess that was their loss, unless you did it anyway?
> 2) From the url below, you can see that, "Proponents of legalizing choice
> for men generally support contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are
> unreliable. Condoms have a 16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four
> years you can bet on having an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of
> using condoms, the chances are that a man will most likely experience not
> one, not two, but three accidental pregnancies!" So men can act in
> accordance with their desire, and still be held accountable for a womans
> irresponsibility or choice.
How does a 16% failure rate equal an unexpected pregnancy every four years?
It doesn't. How does a condom failure because a "woman's irresponsibility
or choice"?
Condom failure rates are, at the very least, debatable. They are certainly
nowhere near as high as you've suggested.
1. Condom failure rates vary greatly from study to study. A 1974 study by
the British Family Planning Association which followed 2057 couples who had
switched to the condom from COCs, IUDs or the diaphragm found a failure rate
of 4%. A rate of 12% is more commonly given as the failure rate for typical
users. It is important to note that for condom users, typical users include
those using condoms inconsistently and incorrectly.
http://www.reproline.jhu.edu/english/1fp/1methods/1condom/html/cn0a901/sld01
1.htm
2.When used correctly and consistently, the male latex condom is an
effective contraceptive; the estimated 12-month perfect-use pregnancy rate
is 3% (2). Pregnancies during perfect use are caused by condom breakage,
slippage or microscopic holes. The male condom can also be highly effective
against STDs when used correctly and consistently (3,4). Incorrect and
inconsistent use, however, can substantially reduce the effectiveness of
condoms. The 12-month typical-use pregnancy rate of the condom is estimated
to be 14% (2). Subgroup analyses of the 1988 National Survey of Family
Growth (NSFG) show just how difficult condoms are to use correctly and
consistently for some women (5). For example, in the subgroup, never
married, income less than 200% of the federal poverty level, and less than
20 years of age, the 12-month typical-use pregnancy rate was 51.3%; 12-month
typical-use pregnancy rates were above 20% in 6 of the 15 subgroups
analyzed. Nonuse of condoms by women who report use of condoms as their
"regular" method of contraception is believed to play a far greater role in
this wide range of pregnancy rates than is condom failure (2).
http://www.ama-assn.org/special/contra/library/scan/mar98/frezcom.htm
3.This study found that a small minority of users, 9 percent, were
responsible for half of all failures. Other studies have shown similar
patterns. The retrospective arm of a study among 44 female sex workers from
Nevada, USA, gathered data on more than 41,000 condoms used prior to the
interview. One woman reported 41 percent of all condom breaks, and three
women reported nearly half of all slippage. (Albert 1995) During a study
among 540 male and female family planning clients who used more than 3,700
condoms, 3 percent of the participants were responsible for 34 percent of
the breaks. (Sparrow) Similarly, among 87 male STD clients who used more
than 50 condoms in the previous year, four men experienced 30 percent of the
total breakage. (Richters 1993) Distribution of condom failure was uneven,
but less pronounced, in two evaluations comparing polyurethane with latex
condoms (Nelson 1997, 1996)
In general, these findings suggest that specific characteristics and user
behaviors of a minority of users lead to condom failure. Because condom
failure is not equally distributed among all users, most condom users are
likely to experience condom failure less often than the average failure
rates reported in published studies imply. Moreover, published condom
failure rates may vary across studies in part because of the differences in
characteristics and behaviors among different groups of study participants.
User Characteristics Associated with Condom Failure
A review of studies on condom use and characteristics of users indicates
that a history of condom failure and less experience using condoms are risk
factors for future failure. Other characteristics that may be associated
with condom failure are young age, less education, less income, and large or
circumcised penis (see Table 3-2).
http://www.fhi.org/en/fp/fpother/conom/conmon5.html
> The fact that womens choices are not limited to biology, but enhanced by
> legislation, shows that there is a lack of choice for men to decide if
they
> want to become a parent. Women are not limited in this respect. I am one
> of others who propose that women be given the sole *rights* and
> *responsibilities* for children they unilaterally decide to conceive.
This
> is not the entirety of the proposal, you can read that for yourself.
> > > > The worst thing in the world for a child is a peevish, resentful,
> > selfish
> > > > three year-old for a parent, male or female. So, I think we agree.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In that we do. Like Mark S. would say, "Forced parenthood is like
rape,
> > > except it has two victims: father, and child".
> >
> > That's an absurd comparison. Fathers who become fathers did so by being
> > responsible for the birth of a child.
>
> No, I disagree. The descision to have sex, with the above mitigating
> factors, only makes a man .3% culpable for a womans unilateral decision
to
> conceive.
? Is this based on your extrapolation of condom failure rates? Condom
failure is an act of god, unless it occurs through incorrect use. It's not
a "decision to conceive."
> They are not victims of anything but
> > their own behaviour.
>
> You are forgeting the plethora of choices both post and pre conception
that
> women have. Many of these choices are a result of legislation that allows
> women to unilaterally make the choice for men to become a parent.
Under what circumstance can a woman unilaterally choose to disenfranchise a
father? She can lie about the paternity of the child. That's not a
"choice," but an act of deception, and I'd assume fraudulent and illegal.
Every "safe haven" law I have read includes a father's perogative to be
reunited with his child.
> I would make an exception only for non-consensual sex,
> > ie rape of a man, or a fraudulent use of semen (it happens), and for
> fathers
> > who are under the age of consent, for, as with all children, they do not
> > know what they do.
>
> That's good, but I do not think you extend the rights you have far enough.
> Responsible people make choices that they have to be _responsible_ for.
If
> someone has legally mandated choices that far outweigh the choices another
> party has, do we call that inequality, or not? With rights comes
> responsibilities.
Yes, they do. But the difference between male & female choice is reducible
to biology, not the law. Maternity is not disputable. Until recently
paternity certainly was, and at best it is tenuous without scientific
determination. By contrast, babies grow inside women. They are hard to
wave away under that circumstance.
> > Un*witting*, not "unwilling" fathers definitely ought not to be forced
> upon
> > a child unless they have the cojones to accept the consequences of their
> own
> > behaviour. If they don't, they are the type of men to be a destructive
> > influence in the life of a child, who is better off without them.
>
> I agree. I don't see why your analogy can not be extended to women who
> force men to be responsible for children only they had the choice to
> conceive.
I don't believe *any* man should be "forced to be responsible" for a child
they have repudiated. The matter of conception is irrelevant. Women are
able to conceive in a very narrow band of time. They can't just hatch a
plot to do it. It requires luck, and semen. If men do not understand that
sex can lead to reproduction, and accept that as part of the bargain, they
are out-of-touch with mother nature. ALL contraception can fail.
> For those
> > reasons, and not because I'm having my heartstring pulled by
irresponsible
> > men who seemingly aren't adult enough to accept the consequences of
their
> > actions, I do not believe such fathers have a role in the life of a
child.
>
> I agree, and for the same reasons I do not believe mothers that conceive
of
> their own volition, without getting consent should expect a man to be
> responsible for her choice. Having sex is not the same as agreeing to
> become a parent.
Having penetrative, unprotected heterosexual sex is not agreeing to become a
parent, but it certainly is implicating oneself in any resulting pregnancy.
Perhaps the solution is to have a notary at hand and to require your partner
to consent to your conditions. After all, it's your position which exposes
you to risk.
> > The community will shoulder responsibility for providing such a child
with
> > the nourishment it can never get from a derelict parent, or a sum of
money
> > resentfully put its way.
>
> Encouraging irresponsible behaviour is your perogative.
It's encouraging irresponsibility to suggest communities take care of
children? I see.
Form.
Society
news:ZNk_9.56257$L47.8...@read2.cgocable.net...
>
> formica63 wrote...
> >
> > [...] I find the notion that anyone could chuck their baby
> > into a trash can incomprehensible. I accept, however,
> > that they do, and that generally they are children
> > themselves,
OK, I'll accept that you consider women to be children.
> > and very scared and ashamed.
So they say. But "scared" of what? And with so-called
V-day nonsense spreading even to high school campuses,
to name but one indicator of current social evolution, what
is it they're "ashamed" of?
Just as likely, they're accustomed to 'magical thinking'
and the common female expectation of someone else,
somehow, coming to their rescue to make it all better.
When the magic doesn't happen, the stupidity (and self-
absorption) of those women comes to the fore.
> > These laws are designed to keep babies alive;
> > to prevent a newborn choking on waste and starving
> > to death. They do not, at least in my mind, outline
> > a political philosophy, but a humane expedience.
>
> I agree that the laws exist for humane expedience.
No one can say womenfirsters have any coherent
"political philosophy" -- or a moral philosophy, for
that matter -- beyond "she's entitled." There's a reason
why the cry isn't "children and women first" when the
ship is sinking.
> > I am happy for all fathers to have the "choice"
> > to abandon their child. A father who wishes to
> > abandon his child is no father at all.
A mother who whelps a sprog to exploit so she can
play house is no mother at all. Same for women who
whelp sprogs outside of a married, two-parent home.
> > The child, and hi[s] mother, are better off without that
> > father in their lives.
And the child is also better off without that sprog whelper
in the child's life. That's why there's adoption as an option.
But too many women are too greedy for a helpless baby
to exploit for their own emotional kicks and the status of
being a 'mother'. Such women are even lower than the
father you're trying to kick around, formica63.
> > I am also happy to accept that fathers stop "paying
> > the bill." Anyone who sees their child as a "bill" ought
> > not to be within 100 miles of hi[m].
It's women who see their child "as a 'bill' ". Whaddya
'spect sprog whelpers bawl for "child support" for?
'Cause they're NOT thinking of lil' sprog as an expense?
<laugh>
> > I'd like to see the community pick up that tab [...]
...'cause yo' mommas see yo' sprogs "as a 'bill' " an'
y'all don' wanna be payin' the bills yo' stoopid _choices_
cause. Uh huh.
> When factoring in things like cheap birth control, abortion,
> abstinance, adoption (et al), the bill for a womans _sole_
> choice to have children should not be footed by society.
> Responsible people put themselves in a position to
> provide a good environment to raise a child, and if it
> comes down to it, I don't see why a man should be
> responsible for a woman's unilateral choice to concieve,
Exactly. What is it about adult responsibility for the
consequences of actions one solely and fully controls
that eludes so many wimmin and formica63???
> if he made known that his desire was not to have children.
Uh, what does that have to do with anything? Unless the
two sex partners are married, the _reasonable_ assumption
is that one is offering no-consequences sex, not seeking
to fulfill a desire to have children. Of course, it's tough to
make a case that a sperm-soliciting woman with a hunger
to furnish her womb with a bay-bee could be _reasonable_
(e.g. PPD claims for the behavior of post-partum preggos).
> > The worst thing in the world for a child is a peevish,
> > resentful, selfish three year-old for a parent, male
> > or female. So, I think we agree.
>
> In that we do.
Sigh. Tho' there's a lot more "selfish three year-old...
parent(s)" who are women than men.
IMO, what ought to happen in the case of women who
whelp out sprogs out of wedlock is that the woman should
be separated from the baby at birth and the baby goes
straight into a sealed records adoption. No cuddle time,
no cooing and ooing, no showing her 'prize' off to her
girlfriends, nothing. How many sprog whelpers on Jerry
Springer crying "I lost my bay-bee!" would it take before
her girlfriends from coast-to-coast lose interest in trying
to set up a doll house for solo play?
> Like Mark S. would say, "Forced parenthood
> is like rape, except it has two victims: father, and child".
Yup. And formica63's man-bashing here is all about
showing how a womanfirster considers it OK to play
Blame the Victim but only if the victim of someone else's
foolish choices is a _man_.
--
All excuses for feminism depend on the stupidity
of their swallowers.
formica63
Bob:
> Indeed, nobody has yet explained why, except for feminist politics,
> women should have a unilateral choice to produce as many children as she
> damn well wants.
>
> Her expectation for somebody else to pay for them is the second
> question. Lets deal with first things first.
There's a basic principle at stake, Bob, quite unrelated to feminism. We
don't stop people doing things they wish to do, unless they are illegal. Cf
John Locke:
The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges
everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but
consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm
another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions [Second Treatise of
Government, 2:6]
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/rights.htm
Form.
formica63
"Society" <Soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:v3kc01k...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Sir Jessy of Clone" <evilinco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ZNk_9.56257$L47.8...@read2.cgocable.net...
> >
> > formica63 wrote...
> > >
> > > [...] I find the notion that anyone could chuck their baby
> > > into a trash can incomprehensible. I accept, however,
> > > that they do, and that generally they are children
> > > themselves,
>
> OK, I'll accept that you consider women to be children.
It's so tedious when you do this.
> > > and very scared and ashamed.
>
> So they say. But "scared" of what? And with so-called
> V-day nonsense spreading even to high school campuses,
> to name but one indicator of current social evolution, what
> is it they're "ashamed" of?
I believe many young men and women are ashamed of an unplanned pregnancy.
>
> Just as likely, they're accustomed to 'magical thinking'
> and the common female expectation of someone else,
> somehow, coming to their rescue to make it all better.
> When the magic doesn't happen, the stupidity (and self-
> absorption) of those women comes to the fore.
? I would agree that "magical thinking" remains a problem insofar as
conception is concerned with many, including young men and women. It
remains a problem for those men who believe that a baby is only conceived if
they agree in principle.
> > > These laws are designed to keep babies alive;
> > > to prevent a newborn choking on waste and starving
> > > to death. They do not, at least in my mind, outline
> > > a political philosophy, but a humane expedience.
> >
> > I agree that the laws exist for humane expedience.
>
> No one can say womenfirsters have any coherent
> "political philosophy" -- or a moral philosophy, for
> that matter -- beyond "she's entitled."
? The laws relate to children thrown in the trash. They are humane, and
expedient. They preserve the most basic rights of the child, not either
parent.
>There's a reason
> why the cry isn't "children and women first" when the
> ship is sinking.
Here it is:
For centuries, a distinguishing mark of the western maritime tradition was
that, in times of crisis, women and children received preferential
treatment. "Women and children first" was the unwritten law of the sea.
Two weeks after the ship Titanic sank, Second Officer Charles Lightoller
told a United States Senate panel that "women and children first" was more
than just the law of the sea -- "It is the law of human nature!" The divine
origin of this principle was recognized by the United States Court in the
1878 case of Bradwell v. State. The Court proclaimed, "Man is, or ought to
be, woman's protector and defender...It is the law of the Creator."
Not everyone is happy with "women and children first." Ruth Bader Ginsberg
used the occasion of her nomination to the United States Supreme Court to
attack Bradwell. Before Ginsberg, the suffragettes actually criticized
Titanic women for accepting life boat seats from men. Titanic forced the
question: shall we continue to live in a world in which men provide and
protect, or shall we embrace a new era of social and political equality in
which the sinking ship rule is "Every person for himself?"
http://www.lutheransforlife.org/living/1998/1998_winter/titanic_chivalry.htm
Perhaps the most famous ship from Lairds is the least known... the British
Troop ship 'Birkenhead'.
It was on the 26th February 1852 when she sailed for South Africa from Cork,
Ireland, carrying 476 soldiers and 20 women and children on board. Caught in
a violent storm the ship started to break up and the Captain, Robert
Salmond, told the soldiers to 'save themselves'.
The captain of the troops saw the problem of over-crowding in the lifeboats
and ordered his men to allow the women and children in. In case there was
any doubt, he drew his sword to deter anyone who disobeyed. 455 lost their
lives including the captain himself and Salmond.
The "Birkenhead Drill" is still the sailors' code for 'Women and Children
First'.
http://www.cheshiremagazine.com/issue21/wirral.html
> > > I am happy for all fathers to have the "choice"
> > > to abandon their child. A father who wishes to
> > > abandon his child is no father at all.
Society:
> A mother who whelps a sprog to exploit so she can
> play house is no mother at all. Same for women who
> whelp sprogs outside of a married, two-parent home.
<snip>
> And the child is also better off without that sprog whelper
> in the child's life. That's why there's adoption as an option.
> But too many women are too greedy for a helpless baby
> to exploit for their own emotional kicks and the status of
> being a 'mother'. Such women are even lower than the
> father you're trying to kick around, formica63.
<snip>
> It's women who see their child "as a 'bill' ". Whaddya
> 'spect sprog whelpers bawl for "child support" for?
> 'Cause they're NOT thinking of lil' sprog as an expense?
>
> <laugh>
>
> > > I'd like to see the community pick up that tab [...]
>
> ...'cause yo' mommas see yo' sprogs "as a 'bill' " an'
> y'all don' wanna be payin' the bills yo' stoopid _choices_
> cause. Uh huh.
No, because I see the rights of the child as more important than the right
to have an extra couple dollars in my pocket. YMMV.
> > When factoring in things like cheap birth control, abortion,
> > abstinance, adoption (et al), the bill for a womans _sole_
> > choice to have children should not be footed by society.
> > Responsible people put themselves in a position to
> > provide a good environment to raise a child, and if it
> > comes down to it, I don't see why a man should be
> > responsible for a woman's unilateral choice to concieve,
>
> Exactly. What is it about adult responsibility for the
> consequences of actions one solely and fully controls
> that eludes so many wimmin and formica63???
Nothing. Where have I suggested otherwise? In fact, I suggest anyone not
prepared to support their child should give it up. The failure of adults,
male or female, to be responsible ought not to be visited upon a child.
> > if he made known that his desire was not to have children.
>
> Uh, what does that have to do with anything? Unless the
> two sex partners are married, the _reasonable_ assumption
> is that one is offering no-consequences sex, not seeking
> to fulfill a desire to have children. Of course, it's tough to
> make a case that a sperm-soliciting woman with a hunger
> to furnish her womb with a bay-bee could be _reasonable_
> (e.g. PPD claims for the behavior of post-partum preggos).
There is no such thing as "no-consequence sex." What an excellent example of
magical thinking.
> > > The worst thing in the world for a child is a peevish,
> > > resentful, selfish three year-old for a parent, male
> > > or female. So, I think we agree.
> >
> > In that we do.
>
> Sigh. Tho' there's a lot more "selfish three year-old...
> parent(s)" who are women than men.
Who knows, and what difference does it make? None.
> IMO, what ought to happen in the case of women who
> whelp out sprogs out of wedlock is that the woman should
> be separated from the baby at birth and the baby goes
> straight into a sealed records adoption. No cuddle time,
> no cooing and ooing, no showing her 'prize' off to her
> girlfriends, nothing. How many sprog whelpers on Jerry
> Springer crying "I lost my bay-bee!" would it take before
> her girlfriends from coast-to-coast lose interest in trying
> to set up a doll house for solo play?
>
> > Like Mark S. would say, "Forced parenthood
> > is like rape, except it has two victims: father, and child".
>
> Yup. And formica63's man-bashing here is all about
> showing how a womanfirster considers it OK to play
> Blame the Victim but only if the victim of someone else's
> foolish choices is a _man_.
Men who go around impregnating women without care or regard for the
consequence are victims of their own stupidity and lack of self-respect.
Form.
Sir Jessy of Clone
"Society" <Soc...@feminism.is.invalid> tossed some pearls in
news:v3kc01k...@corp.supernews.com...
>
<Snip>
Hello Society,
> > if he made known that his desire was not to have children.
>
> Uh, what does that have to do with anything? Unless the
> two sex partners are married, the _reasonable_ assumption
> is that one is offering no-consequences sex, not seeking
> to fulfill a desire to have children. Of course, it's tough to
> make a case that a sperm-soliciting woman with a hunger
> to furnish her womb with a bay-bee could be _reasonable_
> (e.g. PPD claims for the behavior of post-partum preggos).
You are of course correct. I was speaking on a moral level, and probably
should not have even
mentioned that since it is not relevant to the issue. After all, when does
a woman ever have to make
known to her man that she has stopped taking the pill?
[Martha:]
>
> > > The worst thing in the world for a child is a peevish,
> > > resentful, selfish three year-old for a parent, male
> > > or female. So, I think we agree.
> >
> > In that we do.
>
> Sigh. Tho' there's a lot more "selfish three year-old...
> parent(s)" who are women than men.
True enough, as the plethora of evidence in soc.men over the years shows.
>
> IMO, what ought to happen in the case of women who
> whelp out sprogs out of wedlock is that the woman should
> be separated from the baby at birth and the baby goes
> straight into a sealed records adoption. No cuddle time,
> no cooing and ooing, no showing her 'prize' off to her
> girlfriends, nothing. How many sprog whelpers on Jerry
> Springer crying "I lost my bay-bee!" would it take before
> her girlfriends from coast-to-coast lose interest in trying
> to set up a doll house for solo play?
Right, but failing that I bet you would support C4M. Personally, I like the
C4M proposal because it gives both men and women
choices, and assigns the responsibility according to those choices.
>
> > Like Mark S. would say, "Forced parenthood
> > is like rape, except it has two victims: father, and child".
>
> Yup. And formica63's man-bashing here is all about
> showing how a womanfirster considers it OK to play
> Blame the Victim but only if the victim of someone else's
> foolish choices is a _man_.
>
Quite noticably true IMO.
Sir Jessy of Clone
They are certainly debatable.
Nothing to add to this I see.
> > > > > The worst thing in the world for a child is a peevish, resentful,
> > > selfish
> > > > > three year-old for a parent, male or female. So, I think we agree.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > In that we do. Like Mark S. would say, "Forced parenthood is like
> rape,
> > > > except it has two victims: father, and child".
> > >
> > > That's an absurd comparison. Fathers who become fathers did so by
being
> > > responsible for the birth of a child.
> >
> > No, I disagree. The descision to have sex, with the above mitigating
> > factors, only makes a man .3% culpable for a womans unilateral decision
> to
> > conceive.
>
> ? Is this based on your extrapolation of condom failure rates? Condom
> failure is an act of god, unless it occurs through incorrect use. It's
not
> a "decision to conceive."
Yes, owing to the fact that plentiful almost fail-safe contraception (0.3%)
is available to women, it is most certainly a womans choice
to concieve (which is where responsibility comes into play). Women also
have the choice to abort, which is a _legal_ choice.
>
> > They are not victims of anything but
> > > their own behaviour.
> >
> > You are forgeting the plethora of choices both post and pre conception
> that
> > women have. Many of these choices are a result of legislation that
allows
> > women to unilaterally make the choice for men to become a parent.
>
> Under what circumstance can a woman unilaterally choose to disenfranchise
a
> father?
She can choose to conceive against the wishes of her partner, and she can
choose to bring that child to term.
She also has the choice of aborting the child against the fathers wishes.
She can lie about the paternity of the child. That's not a
> "choice," but an act of deception, and I'd assume fraudulent and illegal.
Yes, and a man in Australia was recently awarded 70K for this. No one in
the US has won back
any of the money they have been assessed wrongly for AFAIK. In fact, in
most cases the men must continue to support children that are not theirs,
children that they were deliberately lied to wrt paternity.
> Every "safe haven" law I have read includes a father's perogative to be
> reunited with his child.
>
> > I would make an exception only for non-consensual sex,
> > > ie rape of a man, or a fraudulent use of semen (it happens), and for
> > fathers
> > > who are under the age of consent, for, as with all children, they do
not
> > > know what they do.
> >
> > That's good, but I do not think you extend the rights you have far
enough.
> > Responsible people make choices that they have to be _responsible_ for.
> If
> > someone has legally mandated choices that far outweigh the choices
another
> > party has, do we call that inequality, or not? With rights comes
> > responsibilities.
>
> Yes, they do. But the difference between male & female choice is
reducible
> to biology, not the law.
Abortion is not a biological choice. It exists purely because legislation
allows it to. The same goes with adoption, and abandonment.
Maternity is not disputable. Until recently
> paternity certainly was, and at best it is tenuous without scientific
> determination. By contrast, babies grow inside women. They are hard to
> wave away under that circumstance.
You seem more then willing to wave away any and all culpability for women
wrt their choice to conceive/and or bring to term.
>
> > > Un*witting*, not "unwilling" fathers definitely ought not to be
forced
> > upon
> > > a child unless they have the cojones to accept the consequences of
their
> > own
> > > behaviour. If they don't, they are the type of men to be a
destructive
> > > influence in the life of a child, who is better off without them.
> >
> > I agree. I don't see why your analogy can not be extended to women who
> > force men to be responsible for children only they had the choice to
> > conceive.
>
> I don't believe *any* man should be "forced to be responsible" for a child
> they have repudiated. The matter of conception is irrelevant.
Only if you believe women are not responsible for their choices.
Women are
> able to conceive in a very narrow band of time. They can't just hatch a
> plot to do it.
Sure they can, and many have.
It requires luck, and semen. If men do not understand that
> sex can lead to reproduction, and accept that as part of the bargain, they
> are out-of-touch with mother nature.
Abortion is not natural. However, it makes sense that since women have the
option to conceive/bring to term, men should also have the option to decide
whether or not they wish to accept paternal rights and responsibilities. At
one time marriage was the overriding institution that granted said rights
and responsibilities by default, but now there are all kinds of agreements
that lack a formal contract.
> ALL contraception can fail.
Sure, but women also have post conception options that are _legally_
mandated. Those choices are social constructions, and not biological ones.
>
> > For those
> > > reasons, and not because I'm having my heartstring pulled by
> irresponsible
> > > men who seemingly aren't adult enough to accept the consequences of
> their
> > > actions, I do not believe such fathers have a role in the life of a
> child.
> >
> > I agree, and for the same reasons I do not believe mothers that conceive
> of
> > their own volition, without getting consent should expect a man to be
> > responsible for her choice. Having sex is not the same as agreeing to
> > become a parent.
>
> Having penetrative, unprotected heterosexual sex is not agreeing to become
a
> parent, but it certainly is implicating oneself in any resulting
pregnancy.
Her body? Her choice? Her responsibility.
> Perhaps the solution is to have a notary at hand and to require your
partner
> to consent to your conditions. After all, it's your position which
exposes
> you to risk.
That is essentially the C4M position.
>
> > > The community will shoulder responsibility for providing such a child
> with
> > > the nourishment it can never get from a derelict parent, or a sum of
> money
> > > resentfully put its way.
> >
> > Encouraging irresponsible behaviour is your perogative.
>
> It's encouraging irresponsibility to suggest communities take care of
> children? I see.
No, what is irresponsible is conceiving and/or gestating a child when no
agreement has been made by both parties.
This leads to demonstrated social harm, as studies show wrt single
motherhood, and fatherless homes. Further,
expecting society to pick up the tab for your choices is certainly
irresponsible.
>
> Form.
>
>
Andre Lieven
First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
dishonest practice...
> <snippers>
>
> Form:
>> > Sure. To that end, any man who does not want to be responsible for a
>> > child can avail himself of contraception. If he doesn't, then he has not
>> > acted in accordance with his desire. It's pretty simple.
>
> clone:
>
>> 1) From personal experience I know that many of the women I have slept
>> with have claimed they are alergic to condoms, or just won't have sex
>> with them. I think this is actually quite common.
>
> Well, I guess that was their loss, unless you did it anyway?
>
>> 2) From the url below, you can see that, "Proponents of legalizing choice
>> for men generally support contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are
>> unreliable. Condoms have a 16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four
>> years you can bet on having an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of
>> using condoms, the chances are that a man will most likely experience not
>> one, not two, but three accidental pregnancies!" So men can act in
>> accordance with their desire, and still be held accountable for a womans
>> irresponsibility or choice.
>
> How does a 16% failure rate equal an unexpected pregnancy every four years?
Consider the " magic " of compound interest. Any act where the one-time
rate of failure is 16% gives you a 50% rate with only about six re-
occurrences.
> It doesn't. How does a condom failure because a "woman's irresponsibility
> or choice"?
Because, while the condom is the ONLY BC method available to *men*,
*women* have a plethora of BC choices, that can be used to supplement
the condoms, and thus, greatly lower ( In military circles, this is
known as a " layered defence " ) the odds of *all* of the BC defences
having to fail, in order for an " opps " to occur.
Even then, we return to the *fact* that *only women* have a legal right
to choose or *decline* bio parenthood, *after* sex. Thus, they *alone*
can mitigate the resulting damages ( " damages " used in the legal
sense ), while the men is given NO opportunity to do.
> Condom failure rates are, at the very least, debatable. They are certainly
> nowhere near as high as you've suggested.
>
> 1. Condom failure rates vary greatly from study to study. A 1974 study by
> the British Family Planning Association which followed 2057 couples who had
> switched to the condom from COCs, IUDs or the diaphragm found a failure rate
> of 4%. A rate of 12% is more commonly given as the failure rate for typical
> users. It is important to note that for condom users, typical users include
> those using condoms inconsistently and incorrectly.
IOW, you get 4% failure rates ( Which is still *higher* then other
technological forms of BC for women ), with a *perfect* use therof,
which is simply NOT a realistic target to set, with human beings.
> http://www.reproline.jhu.edu/english/1fp/1methods/1condom/html/cn0a901/sld01
> 1.htm
>
> 2.When used correctly and consistently, the male latex condom is an
> effective contraceptive; the estimated 12-month perfect-use pregnancy rate
> is 3% (2). Pregnancies during perfect use
^^^^^^^^^^^
Lets re-emphasise that point...
> are caused by condom breakage,
> slippage or microscopic holes. The male condom can also be highly effective
> against STDs when used correctly and consistently (3,4). Incorrect and
> inconsistent use, however, can substantially reduce the effectiveness of
> condoms. The 12-month typical-use pregnancy rate of the condom is estimated
> to be 14% (2). Subgroup analyses of the 1988 National Survey of Family
> Growth (NSFG) show just how difficult condoms are to use correctly and
> consistently for some women (5). For example, in the subgroup, never
> married, income less than 200% of the federal poverty level, and less than
> 20 years of age, the 12-month typical-use pregnancy rate was 51.3%; 12-month
> typical-use pregnancy rates were above 20% in 6 of the 15 subgroups
> analyzed. Nonuse of condoms by women who report use of condoms as their
> "regular" method of contraception is believed to play a far greater role in
> this wide range of pregnancy rates than is condom failure (2).
Indeed. This speaks to the unstated " women's *choice to get and stay
pregnant*...
IOW, BC, even condoms are *useless* when matched by a woman who,
*unilaterally*, decides to get preggers...
" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*... "
> http://www.ama-assn.org/special/contra/library/scan/mar98/frezcom.htm
>
> 3.This study found that a small minority of users, 9 percent, were
> responsible for half of all failures.
IOW, screw them for not being " perfect "...
> Other studies have shown similar
> patterns. The retrospective arm of a study among 44 female sex workers from
> Nevada, USA, gathered data on more than 41,000 condoms used prior to the
> interview. One woman reported 41 percent of all condom breaks, and three
> women reported nearly half of all slippage. (Albert 1995) During a study
> among 540 male and female family planning clients who used more than 3,700
> condoms, 3 percent of the participants were responsible for 34 percent of
> the breaks. (Sparrow) Similarly, among 87 male STD clients who used more
> than 50 condoms in the previous year, four men experienced 30 percent of the
> total breakage. (Richters 1993) Distribution of condom failure was uneven,
> but less pronounced, in two evaluations comparing polyurethane with latex
> condoms (Nelson 1997, 1996)
Well, that proves that not all human beings are freely interchangable.
Next, you gonna show us proof that the Sun rises each morning in the
east, too ?
> In general, these findings suggest that specific characteristics and user
> behaviors of a minority of users lead to condom failure. Because condom
> failure is not equally distributed among all users, most condom users are
> likely to experience condom failure less often than the average failure
> rates reported in published studies imply. Moreover, published condom
> failure rates may vary across studies in part because of the differences in
> characteristics and behaviors among different groups of study participants.
IOW, " people are people ".
> User Characteristics Associated with Condom Failure
>
> A review of studies on condom use and characteristics of users indicates
> that a history of condom failure and less experience using condoms are risk
> factors for future failure. Other characteristics that may be associated
> with condom failure are young age, less education, less income, and large or
> circumcised penis (see Table 3-2).
So much for " one size fits all "... <g>
> http://www.fhi.org/en/fp/fpother/conom/conmon5.html
>
>
>> The fact that womens choices are not limited to biology, but enhanced by
>> legislation, shows that there is a lack of choice for men to decide if
>> they want to become a parent. Women are not limited in this respect.
Indeed. THATS the inherant *sexism* of this whole issue, the *lower
legal righst to men to make their own choices*...
And, we note that you REFUSED to address this most key of points...
>> I am one of others who propose that women be given the sole *rights* and
>> *responsibilities* for children they unilaterally decide to conceive.
>> This is not the entirety of the proposal, you can read that for yourself.
>>
>> > > > The worst thing in the world for a child is a peevish, resentful,
>> > > > selfish
>> > > > three year-old for a parent, male or female. So, I think we agree.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > In that we do. Like Mark S. would say, "Forced parenthood is like
>> > > rape, except it has two victims: father, and child".
>> >
>> > That's an absurd comparison. Fathers who become fathers did so by being
>> > responsible for the birth of a child.
>>
>> No, I disagree. The descision to have sex, with the above mitigating
>> factors, only makes a man .3% culpable for a womans unilateral decision
>> to conceive.
>
> ? Is this based on your extrapolation of condom failure rates? Condom
> failure is an act of god, unless it occurs through incorrect use. It's not
> a "decision to conceive."
Indeed. Lets repeat that: " Condom failure, no matter through what cause,
is NOT a man's decision to concieve. "
Thus, it would be grossly *immoral* to obligate him to such a decision
that *he never made*...
>> > They are not victims of anything but their own behaviour.
>>
>> You are forgeting the plethora of choices both post and pre conception
>> that women have. Many of these choices are a result of legislation that
>> allows women to unilaterally make the choice for men to become a parent.
>
> Under what circumstance can a woman unilaterally choose to disenfranchise a
> father? She can lie about the paternity of the child. That's not a
> "choice," but an act of deception, and I'd assume fraudulent and illegal.
No, its actually *both*. An act of deception IS a choice TO decieve.
For that matter, can you tell us what sanctions are placed upon a woman
who either names NO man as the father, thus depriving the child of a needed
parent, or upon a woman who names the *wrong man* as the bio-father ?
Exactly... NONE AT ALL.
> Every "safe haven" law I have read includes a father's perogative to be
> reunited with his child.
Cites ?
>> > I would make an exception only for non-consensual sex, ie rape of a
>> > man, or a fraudulent use of semen (it happens), and for fathers
>> > who are under the age of consent, for, as with all children, they do not
>> > know what they do.
>>
>> That's good, but I do not think you extend the rights you have far enough.
>> Responsible people make choices that they have to be _responsible_ for.
>> If someone has legally mandated choices that far outweigh the choices
>> another party has, do we call that inequality, or not? With rights
>> comes responsibilities.
>
> Yes, they do. But the difference between male & female choice is reducible
> to biology, not the law.
Thats *grossly untrue*. Consider: What comes with women's presumed right
of at least initial full custody ( Only enhanced by there being NO
sanction against her for maintaining said sole custody *by naming NO
father at all* ) is her sole right to legally abandon a newborn at a
firestation or hospital, or to legally adopt the baby out.
*Neither* of those is either a medical or biological method, and
neither depends on it's user to possess a set of ovaries. Men can
just as easily do either action.
> Maternity is not disputable.
Indeed. Given the discussions on paternal fraud rates, in some studies
as highas 30%, in married couples, at that, we are aware that it is
impossible for a man to decieve a woman about her *maternity*, but
that it is very easy for a woman, any women, to decieve any man about
his paternity...
> Until recently
> paternity certainly was, and at best it is tenuous without scientific
> determination. By contrast, babies grow inside women. They are hard to
> wave away under that circumstance.
You apparently haven't heard of *abortion*.... DO try to keep up with
the news of the last 40 years...
Duh ! And, in any case, any woman in the US can either abandon a newborn,
*legally*, or adopt out a newborn, *legally*.
So, there were have at least three ways for a woman, any woman, to
" wave away " a baby, *and her maternal obligations*, post-coitally,
*only one of which is in any way dependent on her biology, yet we
*deny* men the *equal right* to utilise the non-biological methods
to make their own choices...
Theres a word for that: *sexism*...
>> > Un*witting*, not "unwilling" fathers definitely ought not to be forced
>> upon
>> > a child unless they have the cojones to accept the consequences of their
>> own
>> > behaviour. If they don't, they are the type of men to be a destructive
>> > influence in the life of a child, who is better off without them.
>>
>> I agree. I don't see why your analogy can not be extended to women who
>> force men to be responsible for children only they had the choice to
>> conceive.
>
> I don't believe *any* man should be "forced to be responsible" for a child
> they have repudiated. The matter of conception is irrelevant. Women are
> able to conceive in a very narrow band of time. They can't just hatch a
> plot to do it.
LOL. Again, you don't get out much, do you....
> It requires luck, and semen. If men do not understand that
> sex can lead to reproduction, and accept that as part of the bargain, they
> are out-of-touch with mother nature. ALL contraception can fail.
Indeed. Yet, ONLY WOMEN are allowed to make *legal and non-biological*
choices, *post-coitally*.
Theres a word for that: sexism...
>> > For those reasons, and not because I'm having my heartstring pulled by
>> > irresponsible men who seemingly aren't adult enough to accept the
>> > consequences of their actions, I do not believe such fathers have a
>> > role in the life of a child.
>>
>> I agree, and for the same reasons I do not believe mothers that conceive
>> of their own volition, without getting consent should expect a man to be
>> responsible for her choice. Having sex is not the same as agreeing to
>> become a parent.
>
> Having penetrative, unprotected heterosexual sex is not agreeing to become a
> parent, but it certainly is implicating oneself in any resulting pregnancy.
Indeed. And, under the well established by legal precedent principle of
" mitigation of damages ", that would legally obligate the man to *no
more then 50% of the costs of a legal abortion*. And, if the woman
chooses differently, and her different choice results in higher costs,
well: " Her body, her choise... HER *responsibility*... "
> Perhaps the solution is to have a notary at hand and to require your partner
> to consent to your conditions. After all, it's your position which exposes
> you to risk.
Not at all. All that would be required is to change the legal default
position, to *match that of all contract law*, that states that in the
*absense* of a specific agreement to do more then have sex*, there
is created NO legal and binding obligation beyond the basic mitigation
of damages directly arising from said mutual choice to have sex.
IOW, the mutual act of sex could create a state of pretgnancy, which is
legally and minimally mitigatable by an abortion. Said costs to be as
mutual as the choice to have the sex.
Any further obligations, *created by the unilateral choice of ONE of
the couple*, remaining the *unilateral responsibility of the chooser*.
>> > The community will shoulder responsibility for providing such a child
>> > with the nourishment it can never get from a derelict parent, or a
>> > sum of money resentfully put its way.
>>
>> Encouraging irresponsible behaviour is your perogative.
>
> It's encouraging irresponsibility to suggest communities take care of
> children?
Indeed. No such " community " made the *choice* to gestate and birth
the child.
" No taxation without representation. " A founding principle of the
US, which states basically that, if one wasn't allowed to *participate
in the making of the choice to do (X), then one isn't obligated to
support the consequences resulting from (X).
> I see.
No, you don't. See above.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
formica63
<snippers>
> > > No, I disagree. The descision to have sex, with the above mitigating
> > > factors, only makes a man .3% culpable for a womans unilateral
decision
> > to
> > > conceive.
> >
> > ? Is this based on your extrapolation of condom failure rates? Condom
> > failure is an act of god, unless it occurs through incorrect use. It's
> not
> > a "decision to conceive."
Jessy:
> Yes, owing to the fact that plentiful almost fail-safe contraception
(0.3%)
> is available to women, it is most certainly a womans choice
> to concieve (which is where responsibility comes into play). Women also
> have the choice to abort, which is a _legal_ choice.
It seems to me that this is a matter of personal ethics. I can't agree that
once an unplanned pregnancy occurs, women unilaterally have a "choice" to
abort their child. Many women (myself included) would find abortion an
untenable "solution," irrespective of how we might feel about the options
available to other women and men. My sense and experience is that unwanted
pregnancies are usually unwanted by both parties, and the decision next made
is negotiated between the two, as adults do generally go about things.
>
> >
> > > They are not victims of anything but
> > > > their own behaviour.
> > >
> > > You are forgeting the plethora of choices both post and pre conception
> > that
> > > women have. Many of these choices are a result of legislation that
> allows
> > > women to unilaterally make the choice for men to become a parent.
> >
> > Under what circumstance can a woman unilaterally choose to
disenfranchise
> a
> > father?
>
> She can choose to conceive against the wishes of her partner, and she can
> choose to bring that child to term.
> She also has the choice of aborting the child against the fathers wishes.
> She can lie about the paternity of the child. That's not a
> > "choice," but an act of deception, and I'd assume fraudulent and
illegal.
>
> Yes, and a man in Australia was recently awarded 70K for this. No one in
> the US has won back
> any of the money they have been assessed wrongly for AFAIK. In fact, in
> most cases the men must continue to support children that are not theirs,
> children that they were deliberately lied to wrt paternity.
And this is an act of fraud if committed knowingly.
> > Every "safe haven" law I have read includes a father's perogative to be
> > reunited with his child.
> >
> > > I would make an exception only for non-consensual sex,
> > > > ie rape of a man, or a fraudulent use of semen (it happens), and for
> > > fathers
> > > > who are under the age of consent, for, as with all children, they do
> not
> > > > know what they do.
> > >
> > > That's good, but I do not think you extend the rights you have far
> enough.
> > > Responsible people make choices that they have to be _responsible_
for.
> > If
> > > someone has legally mandated choices that far outweigh the choices
> another
> > > party has, do we call that inequality, or not? With rights comes
> > > responsibilities.
> >
> > Yes, they do. But the difference between male & female choice is
> reducible
> > to biology, not the law.
>
> Abortion is not a biological choice. It exists purely because legislation
> allows it to. The same goes with adoption, and abandonment.
As regards abortion, it is an invasive procedure performed on a woman's
body. I can see no grounds upon which one could ethically oblige a woman to
abort her child. Neither adoption nor abandonment necessarily
disenfranchise fathers. The FACT is however that biological differences
make the relation of each sex to reproduction very different.
> Maternity is not disputable. Until recently
> > paternity certainly was, and at best it is tenuous without scientific
> > determination. By contrast, babies grow inside women. They are hard to
> > wave away under that circumstance.
>
> You seem more then willing to wave away any and all culpability for women
> wrt their choice to conceive/and or bring to term.
? I note that sock men keep asserting this, but I'm not aware of it. I think
it's highly irresponsible to conceive a child without an intention to give
it everything it deserves, including its father. I do not think a woman can
be judged one way or another over the matter of abortion, and am not really
interested in getting into an abortion discussion. The issue here is male
responsibility for unwanted children. I agree than no man should be forced
to father a child he does not want. I don't think we get there the same
way, but that's by the by.
> > > > Un*witting*, not "unwilling" fathers definitely ought not to be
> forced
> > > upon
> > > > a child unless they have the cojones to accept the consequences of
> their
> > > own
> > > > behaviour. If they don't, they are the type of men to be a
> destructive
> > > > influence in the life of a child, who is better off without them.
> > >
> > > I agree. I don't see why your analogy can not be extended to women
who
> > > force men to be responsible for children only they had the choice to
> > > conceive.
> >
> > I don't believe *any* man should be "forced to be responsible" for a
child
> > they have repudiated. The matter of conception is irrelevant.
>
> Only if you believe women are not responsible for their choices.
How so? Perhaps a father wished to conceive and later changed his mind.
That is the circumstance I was thinking about.
> Women are
> > able to conceive in a very narrow band of time. They can't just hatch a
> > plot to do it.
>
> Sure they can, and many have.
>
> It requires luck, and semen. If men do not understand that
> > sex can lead to reproduction, and accept that as part of the bargain,
they
> > are out-of-touch with mother nature.
>
> Abortion is not natural. However, it makes sense that since women have
the
> option to conceive/bring to term, men should also have the option to
decide
> whether or not they wish to accept paternal rights and responsibilities.
At
> one time marriage was the overriding institution that granted said rights
> and responsibilities by default, but now there are all kinds of agreements
> that lack a formal contract.
And I agree with that! I've said so over and over!
<snip>
> > > Encouraging irresponsible behaviour is your perogative.
> >
> > It's encouraging irresponsibility to suggest communities take care of
> > children? I see.
>
> No, what is irresponsible is conceiving and/or gestating a child when no
> agreement has been made by both parties.
I would say, "deliberately conceiving contrary to the desire of either
party."
> This leads to demonstrated social harm, as studies show wrt single
> motherhood, and fatherless homes.
Single parents are a fact of life, and always have been.
>Further,
> expecting society to pick up the tab for your choices is certainly
> irresponsible.
Agreed. You haven't noticed, it seems?
Form.
formica63
"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:b1dr64$kun$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
>
> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
> dishonest practice...
It is, but I haven't done that, Andre, so your comment is inapropriate.
Uh, no. Did you go to the Michael Snyder school of probability? Or do
condoms only break during those 24 hours of ovulation every month?
> > It doesn't. How does a condom failure because a "woman's
irresponsibility
> > or choice"?
>
> Because, while the condom is the ONLY BC method available to *men*,
> *women* have a plethora of BC choices, that can be used to supplement
> the condoms, and thus, greatly lower ( In military circles, this is
> known as a " layered defence " ) the odds of *all* of the BC defences
> having to fail, in order for an " opps " to occur.
>
> Even then, we return to the *fact* that *only women* have a legal right
> to choose or *decline* bio parenthood, *after* sex. Thus, they *alone*
> can mitigate the resulting damages ( " damages " used in the legal
> sense ), while the men is given NO opportunity to do.
Jesus Christ. You do understand that babies grow in women's bodies, I hope.
> > Condom failure rates are, at the very least, debatable. They are
certainly
> > nowhere near as high as you've suggested.
> >
> > 1. Condom failure rates vary greatly from study to study. A 1974 study
by
> > the British Family Planning Association which followed 2057 couples who
had
> > switched to the condom from COCs, IUDs or the diaphragm found a failure
rate
> > of 4%. A rate of 12% is more commonly given as the failure rate for
typical
> > users. It is important to note that for condom users, typical users
include
> > those using condoms inconsistently and incorrectly.
>
> IOW, you get 4% failure rates ( Which is still *higher* then other
> technological forms of BC for women ), with a *perfect* use therof,
> which is simply NOT a realistic target to set, with human beings.
No, it says a 4% for these 2057 couples, not "perfect use." Those who use
condoms "inconsistently" include those who sometimes do not use them. Those
folks bump up the rate some, Andre. The likelihood that those failures fall
within a period propitious for conception (24 hours, once a month, at
optimal level) becomes even more remote.
> >
http://www.reproline.jhu.edu/english/1fp/1methods/1condom/html/cn0a901/sld01
> > 1.htm
> >
> > 2.When used correctly and consistently, the male latex condom is an
> > effective contraceptive; the estimated 12-month perfect-use pregnancy
rate
> > is 3% (2). Pregnancies during perfect use
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> Lets re-emphasise that point...
Which point? "Effective contraceptive"?
>
> > are caused by condom breakage,
> > slippage or microscopic holes. The male condom can also be highly
effective
> > against STDs when used correctly and consistently (3,4). Incorrect and
> > inconsistent use, however, can substantially reduce the effectiveness of
> > condoms. The 12-month typical-use pregnancy rate of the condom is
estimated
> > to be 14% (2). Subgroup analyses of the 1988 National Survey of Family
> > Growth (NSFG) show just how difficult condoms are to use correctly and
> > consistently for some women (5). For example, in the subgroup, never
> > married, income less than 200% of the federal poverty level, and less
than
> > 20 years of age, the 12-month typical-use pregnancy rate was 51.3%;
12-month
> > typical-use pregnancy rates were above 20% in 6 of the 15 subgroups
> > analyzed. Nonuse of condoms by women who report use of condoms as their
> > "regular" method of contraception is believed to play a far greater role
in
> > this wide range of pregnancy rates than is condom failure (2).
>
> Indeed. This speaks to the unstated " women's *choice to get and stay
> pregnant*...
>
> IOW, BC, even condoms are *useless* when matched by a woman who,
> *unilaterally*, decides to get preggers...
Christ almighty. It refers to *nonuse*, not "unilateral" anything. This
image of condoms "matched" by sinister incubating women is simply bizarre.
It demonstrates that your figures and reasoning are specious.
> > In general, these findings suggest that specific characteristics and
user
> > behaviors of a minority of users lead to condom failure. Because condom
> > failure is not equally distributed among all users, most condom users
are
> > likely to experience condom failure less often than the average failure
> > rates reported in published studies imply. Moreover, published condom
> > failure rates may vary across studies in part because of the differences
in
> > characteristics and behaviors among different groups of study
participants.
>
> IOW, " people are people ".
No, IOW, condoms are effective contraceptives when used properly, or simply
used.
> > User Characteristics Associated with Condom Failure
> >
> > A review of studies on condom use and characteristics of users indicates
> > that a history of condom failure and less experience using condoms are
risk
> > factors for future failure. Other characteristics that may be associated
> > with condom failure are young age, less education, less income, and
large or
> > circumcised penis (see Table 3-2).
>
> So much for " one size fits all "... <g>
No one's ever believed that, have they?
> > http://www.fhi.org/en/fp/fpother/conom/conmon5.html
> >
> >
> >> The fact that womens choices are not limited to biology, but enhanced
by
> >> legislation, shows that there is a lack of choice for men to decide if
> >> they want to become a parent. Women are not limited in this respect.
>
> Indeed. THATS the inherant *sexism* of this whole issue, the *lower
> legal righst to men to make their own choices*...
Blame God, dude.
? I never decided to be an Australian citizen, but I have a plethora of
obligations which flow from that fact.
> >> > They are not victims of anything but their own behaviour.
> >>
> >> You are forgeting the plethora of choices both post and pre conception
> >> that women have. Many of these choices are a result of legislation
that
> >> allows women to unilaterally make the choice for men to become a
parent.
> >
> > Under what circumstance can a woman unilaterally choose to
disenfranchise a
> > father? She can lie about the paternity of the child. That's not a
> > "choice," but an act of deception, and I'd assume fraudulent and
illegal.
>
> No, its actually *both*. An act of deception IS a choice TO decieve.
I'm aware English is sometimes thorny for you, dude. It is not a
"reproductive choice" to commit fraud. Clearer?
> For that matter, can you tell us what sanctions are placed upon a woman
> who either names NO man as the father, thus depriving the child of a
needed
> parent, or upon a woman who names the *wrong man* as the bio-father ?
>
> Exactly... NONE AT ALL.
What do you propose, dude?
> > Every "safe haven" law I have read includes a father's perogative to be
> > reunited with his child.
>
> Cites ?
I've done them more than once. That's enough.
Again, you have to blame God for that. And please, a cite for your 30%? You
are suggesting that one in three married women lies about the father of her
child?!
> > Until recently
> > paternity certainly was, and at best it is tenuous without scientific
> > determination. By contrast, babies grow inside women. They are hard to
> > wave away under that circumstance.
>
> You apparently haven't heard of *abortion*.... DO try to keep up with
> the news of the last 40 years...
? Abortion is considerably older than 40 years, and a little more complex
than a wave of the hand.
> Duh ! And, in any case, any woman in the US can either abandon a newborn,
> *legally*, or adopt out a newborn, *legally*.
Nope. Father's rights are commonly enshrined in any such process, as they
ought to be.
> So, there were have at least three ways for a woman, any woman, to
> " wave away " a baby, *and her maternal obligations*, post-coitally,
> *only one of which is in any way dependent on her biology, yet we
> *deny* men the *equal right* to utilise the non-biological methods
> to make their own choices...
Are you cracked? Have you ever seen a child being born? Do seriously compare
pregnancy with "nope, not my kid"?
> Theres a word for that: *sexism*...
I believe God is waiting for your call.
> >> > Un*witting*, not "unwilling" fathers definitely ought not to be
forced
> >> upon
> >> > a child unless they have the cojones to accept the consequences of
their
> >> own
> >> > behaviour. If they don't, they are the type of men to be a
destructive
> >> > influence in the life of a child, who is better off without them.
> >>
> >> I agree. I don't see why your analogy can not be extended to women who
> >> force men to be responsible for children only they had the choice to
> >> conceive.
> >
> > I don't believe *any* man should be "forced to be responsible" for a
child
> > they have repudiated. The matter of conception is irrelevant. Women
are
> > able to conceive in a very narrow band of time. They can't just hatch a
> > plot to do it.
>
> LOL. Again, you don't get out much, do you....
I dare say I'm a little more in touch with such matters than you. You seem
thoroughly ignorant.
> > It requires luck, and semen. If men do not understand that
> > sex can lead to reproduction, and accept that as part of the bargain,
they
> > are out-of-touch with mother nature. ALL contraception can fail.
>
> Indeed. Yet, ONLY WOMEN are allowed to make *legal and non-biological*
> choices, *post-coitally*.
>
> Theres a word for that: sexism...
ONLY WOMEN are pregnant. There's a word for that: biology.
> >> > For those reasons, and not because I'm having my heartstring pulled
by
> >> > irresponsible men who seemingly aren't adult enough to accept the
> >> > consequences of their actions, I do not believe such fathers have a
> >> > role in the life of a child.
> >>
> >> I agree, and for the same reasons I do not believe mothers that
conceive
> >> of their own volition, without getting consent should expect a man to
be
> >> responsible for her choice. Having sex is not the same as agreeing to
> >> become a parent.
> >
> > Having penetrative, unprotected heterosexual sex is not agreeing to
become a
> > parent, but it certainly is implicating oneself in any resulting
pregnancy.
>
> Indeed. And, under the well established by legal precedent principle of
> " mitigation of damages ", that would legally obligate the man to *no
> more then 50% of the costs of a legal abortion*. And, if the woman
> chooses differently, and her different choice results in higher costs,
> well: " Her body, her choise... HER *responsibility*... "
I'm fascinated by your total indifference to ethical obligation.
> > Perhaps the solution is to have a notary at hand and to require your
partner
> > to consent to your conditions. After all, it's your position which
exposes
> > you to risk.
>
> Not at all. All that would be required is to change the legal default
> position, to *match that of all contract law*, that states that in the
> *absense* of a specific agreement to do more then have sex*, there
> is created NO legal and binding obligation beyond the basic mitigation
> of damages directly arising from said mutual choice to have sex.
No, dude. You don't seem to understand law very well, either. Find me a
lawyer prepared to make such a contract which eliminates pregnancy as a
forseeable consequence, and excludes either party from ongoing
responsibility. You won't. I can see a bad faith action resulting from a
deceptive non-employment of contraception by either party, a tortious rather
than contractual action, if contraception is understood as a form of
insurance.
> IOW, the mutual act of sex could create a state of pretgnancy, which is
> legally and minimally mitigatable by an abortion. Said costs to be as
> mutual as the choice to have the sex.
> Any further obligations, *created by the unilateral choice of ONE of
> the couple*, remaining the *unilateral responsibility of the chooser*.
Chooser? You lifted that term right out of contract law, too?
> >> > The community will shoulder responsibility for providing such a child
> >> > with the nourishment it can never get from a derelict parent, or a
> >> > sum of money resentfully put its way.
> >>
> >> Encouraging irresponsible behaviour is your perogative.
> >
> > It's encouraging irresponsibility to suggest communities take care of
> > children?
>
> Indeed. No such " community " made the *choice* to gestate and birth
> the child.
It's a suggestion, not an obligation.
> " No taxation without representation. " A founding principle of the
> US, which states basically that, if one wasn't allowed to *participate
> in the making of the choice to do (X), then one isn't obligated to
> support the consequences resulting from (X).
>
> > I see.
>
> No, you don't. See above.
No, I do.
Form.
Syd Brooks
> It seems to me that this is a matter of personal ethics. I can't
> agree that once an unplanned pregnancy occurs, women unilaterally
> have a "choice" to abort their child. Many women (myself included)
> would find abortion an untenable "solution," irrespective of how we
> might feel about the options available to other women and men.
the way i see it is that whether or not a woman would consdier an abortion,
the pregnancy is something that directly impacts her in a way it impacts no
one else. sure the man who impregnated her has a stake but as we know, there
is no uniform way men react to the news. some bolt and some stay very close
and supportive. it would be pretty unfair to make women responsible for
determining WHICH the man in their predicament would do (after all some bolt
after they first say they are staying).
i guess what i'm saying is that with nature leaving it pretty ambiguous as
to who is even the "father" (short of a paternity test well after the stage
abortion is an option) it seems stupid to even consider giving "fathers
rights" considerations prior to birth and even afterward, until paternity is
determined. i know some men dont like that but it is more a function of how
pregnancy works (one person is definitely pregnant, the other may be
impacted but is not pregnant) and arguing like this is sort of going up
against mother nature, not feminists.
sb
Syd Brooks
> Because, while the condom is the ONLY BC method available to *men*,
> *women* have a plethora of BC choices, that can be used to supplement
> the condoms, and thus, greatly lower ( In military circles, this is
> known as a " layered defence " ) the odds of *all* of the BC defences
> having to fail, in order for an " opps " to occur.
in military circles do they try to undo the damage they suffered at the
hands of the enemy or do they consider it the price they pay for going to
war?
sb
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
>> Because, while the condom is the ONLY BC method available to *men*,
>> *women* have a plethora of BC choices, that can be used to supplement
>> the condoms, and thus, greatly lower ( In military circles, this is
>> known as a " layered defence " ) the odds of *all* of the BC defences
>> having to fail, in order for an " opps " to occur.
>
> in military circles do they try to undo the damage they suffered at the
> hands of the enemy
See " Battle damage repairs ", which would be the functional equivalent
of the woman getting the abortion....
> or do they consider it the price they pay for going to war?
Both understand that the *chance of battle damage* is best minimised
by the proper and intelligent use of a layered defense system.
Heres a clue for the ladies who may agree with this yob:
If you want to guarantee that you won't get preggers.... DON'T FUCK.
There you go.
But, if you DO, that " guarantee " goes right out the window, and you'd
be *stupid* not to have your " battle damage repair " plans set up...
Syd Brooks
> "Syd Brooks" (ex....@mail.com) writes:
>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>
>>> Because, while the condom is the ONLY BC method available to *men*,
>>> *women* have a plethora of BC choices, that can be used to
>>> supplement the condoms, and thus, greatly lower ( In military
>>> circles, this is known as a " layered defence " ) the odds of *all*
>>> of the BC defences having to fail, in order for an " opps " to
>>> occur.
>>
>> in military circles do they try to undo the damage they suffered at
>> the hands of the enemy
>
> See " Battle damage repairs ", which would be the functional
> equivalent of the woman getting the abortion....
maybe, but it doesn't address my question.
>
>> or do they consider it the price they pay for going to war?
>
> Both understand that the *chance of battle damage* is best minimised
> by the proper and intelligent use of a layered defense system.
>
> Heres a clue for the ladies who may agree with this yob:
>
> If you want to guarantee that you won't get preggers.... DON'T FUCK.
"ladies" dont need a guarantee. they understand what their options are, as
dictated by biology.
maybe men should do that.
formica63
> Heres a clue for the ladies who may agree with this yob:
>
> If you want to guarantee that you won't get preggers.... DON'T FUCK.
>
> There you go.
And here's a clue for the sock men:
If you want to guarantee that you won't father a child ...
Form.
Syd Brooks
i dont want to be catty but i dont get why this is so hard for them to
understand. you can say it is "unfair" on its face that men can be
biological parents and have fewer rights but you cant dispute the fact that
they have to approach the situation differently if they want to guard
against having a child they don't want or do want but can't have.
sb
mothra...@hotmail.com
>
> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
>
> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
> dishonest practice...
Would you care--would you *dare*--to back up your nasty accusation that
Formica changed attributions?
>
> > <snippers>
> >
> > Form:
> > How does a 16% failure rate equal an unexpected pregnancy every four years?
>
> Consider the " magic " of compound interest. Any act where the one-time
> rate of failure is 16% gives you a 50% rate with only about six re-
> occurrences.
Are you saying that a guy whose condom fails, resulting in an unwanted
pregnancy, continues to use the same kind of condom, in the same way?
Boy, would that be dumb!
>
> > It doesn't. How does a condom failure because a "woman's irresponsibility
> > or choice"?
>
> Because, while the condom is the ONLY BC method available to *men*,
> *women* have a plethora of BC choices, that can be used to supplement
> the condoms, and thus, greatly lower ( In military circles, this is
> known as a " layered defence " ) the odds of *all* of the BC defences
> having to fail, in order for an " opps " to occur.
Never heard of vasectomy, eh? We'll have to have a little chat before
our nuptials, darling. And there's always withdrawal before
ejaculation.
<snip rest of my darling Andre's pathetic mewling>
Martha
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:b1dr64$kun$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
>>
>> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
>> dishonest practice...
>
> It is, but I haven't done that, Andre, so your comment is inapropriate.
Well, before your post, the attributations were complete.... So, either
you did that, or someone else over there did it... Thats considered a
faux pas over here on soc.men, and I *never* do such.
Irrelevent. Since the man doesn't *know* when such times are, then he
*cannot* act in such a manner as to be " perfect " at those times, and
be lacadasical at others... Further, many women have more then 24 hours
of fertility every 30 days... Further, not all sperm die in ten minutes...
>> > It doesn't. How does a condom failure because a "woman's
>> > irresponsibility or choice"?
>>
>> Because, while the condom is the ONLY BC method available to *men*,
>> *women* have a plethora of BC choices, that can be used to supplement
>> the condoms, and thus, greatly lower ( In military circles, this is
>> known as a " layered defence " ) the odds of *all* of the BC defences
>> having to fail, in order for an " opps " to occur.
>>
>> Even then, we return to the *fact* that *only women* have a legal right
>> to choose or *decline* bio parenthood, *after* sex. Thus, they *alone*
>> can mitigate the resulting damages ( " damages " used in the legal
>> sense ), while the men is given NO opportunity to do.
>
> Jesus Christ. You do understand that babies grow in women's bodies, I hope.
INABILITY to debate or refute anything above noted.
If all you have are *unsupported ad homs*, then you have effectively
conseeded the field...
>> > Condom failure rates are, at the very least, debatable. They are
>> > certainly nowhere near as high as you've suggested.
>> >
>> > 1. Condom failure rates vary greatly from study to study. A 1974 study
> by
>> > the British Family Planning Association which followed 2057 couples who
> had
>> > switched to the condom from COCs, IUDs or the diaphragm found a failure
>> > rate of 4%. A rate of 12% is more commonly given as the failure rate for
> >> typical users. It is important to note that for condom users, typical
>> > users include those using condoms inconsistently and incorrectly.
>>
>> IOW, you get 4% failure rates ( Which is still *higher* then other
>> technological forms of BC for women ), with a *perfect* use therof,
>> which is simply NOT a realistic target to set, with human beings.
>
> No, it says a 4% for these 2057 couples, not "perfect use."
Irrelevent. The correct use by the couple of a condom is the single
greatest factor in condom failure.
> Those who use condoms "inconsistently" include those who sometimes do not
> use them. Those folks bump up the rate some, Andre.
Feel free to show *proof* of that claim of *yours*...
> The likelihood that those failures fall
> within a period propitious for conception (24 hours, once a month, at
> optimal level) becomes even more remote.
Ditto.
> http://www.reproline.jhu.edu/english/1fp/1methods/1condom/html/cn0a901/sld01
>> > 1.htm
>> >
>> > 2.When used correctly and consistently, the male latex condom is an
>> > effective contraceptive; the estimated 12-month perfect-use pregnancy
>> > rate is 3% (2). Pregnancies during perfect use
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Lets re-emphasise that point...
>
> Which point? "Effective contraceptive"?
Is your literacy so low that you *cannot* note the two words that
I *underlined* ?
>> > are caused by condom breakage,
>> > slippage or microscopic holes. The male condom can also be highly
> effective
>> > against STDs when used correctly and consistently (3,4). Incorrect and
>> > inconsistent use, however, can substantially reduce the effectiveness of
>> > condoms. The 12-month typical-use pregnancy rate of the condom is
> estimated
>> > to be 14% (2). Subgroup analyses of the 1988 National Survey of Family
>> > Growth (NSFG) show just how difficult condoms are to use correctly and
>> > consistently for some women (5). For example, in the subgroup, never
>> > married, income less than 200% of the federal poverty level, and less
> than
>> > 20 years of age, the 12-month typical-use pregnancy rate was 51.3%;
> 12-month
>> > typical-use pregnancy rates were above 20% in 6 of the 15 subgroups
>> > analyzed. Nonuse of condoms by women who report use of condoms as their
>> > "regular" method of contraception is believed to play a far greater role
>> > in this wide range of pregnancy rates than is condom failure (2).
>>
>> Indeed. This speaks to the unstated " women's *choice to get and stay
>> pregnant*...
>>
>> IOW, BC, even condoms are *useless* when matched by a woman who,
>> *unilaterally*, decides to get preggers...
>
> Christ almighty. It refers to *nonuse*, not "unilateral" anything. This
> image of condoms "matched" by sinister incubating women is simply bizarre.
Yet, its well supported by the FACTS, such as widespread DNA testing
showing that upwards of 30% of children born into *intact marriages*
have a father OTHER then the husband....
The urls for this have been frequently posted here. Search Google.
>> " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*... "
Indeed.
>> > http://www.ama-assn.org/special/contra/library/scan/mar98/frezcom.htm
>> >
>> > 3.This study found that a small minority of users, 9 percent, were
>> > responsible for half of all failures.
>>
>> IOW, screw them for not being " perfect "...
Indeed. Thats your *sexist* view...
>> > Other studies have shown similar patterns.
>> > The retrospective arm of a study among 44 female sex workers from
>> > Nevada, USA, gathered data on more than 41,000 condoms used prior to the
>> > interview. One woman reported 41 percent of all condom breaks, and three
>> > women reported nearly half of all slippage. (Albert 1995) During a study
>> > among 540 male and female family planning clients who used more than
> 3,700
>> > condoms, 3 percent of the participants were responsible for 34 percent
> of
>> > the breaks. (Sparrow) Similarly, among 87 male STD clients who used more
>> > than 50 condoms in the previous year, four men experienced 30 percent of
>> > the total breakage. (Richters 1993) Distribution of condom failure was
> uneven,
>> > but less pronounced, in two evaluations comparing polyurethane with
>> > latex condoms (Nelson 1997, 1996)
>>
>> Well, that proves that not all human beings are freely interchangable.
>>
>> Next, you gonna show us proof that the Sun rises each morning in the
>> east, too ?
>
> It demonstrates that your figures and reasoning are specious.
LOL. Not even close, toots.
>> > In general, these findings suggest that specific characteristics and
> user
>> > behaviors of a minority of users lead to condom failure. Because condom
>> > failure is not equally distributed among all users, most condom users
> are
>> > likely to experience condom failure less often than the average failure
>> > rates reported in published studies imply. Moreover, published condom
>> > failure rates may vary across studies in part because of the differences
> in
>> > characteristics and behaviors among different groups of study
> participants.
>>
>> IOW, " people are people ".
>
> No, IOW, condoms are effective contraceptives when used properly, or simply
> used.
Yet, you continue to *fail to grasp RELATIVE effectivenesses*....
Not my problem that numbers scare you so much...
>> > User Characteristics Associated with Condom Failure
>> >
>> > A review of studies on condom use and characteristics of users indicates
>> > that a history of condom failure and less experience using condoms are
> risk
>> > factors for future failure. Other characteristics that may be associated
>> > with condom failure are young age, less education, less income, and
>> > large or circumcised penis (see Table 3-2).
>>
>> So much for " one size fits all "... <g>
>
> No one's ever believed that, have they?
Men are honest about it, most women lie... Then again, most women know
far less about men, men's issues and needs, and male sexuality then
they think, and less then men know about women.
Because, the difference between men and women ( AS groups, there are
always exceptions that prove the rule ) is that men don't systemically
lie about the other sex, both solo ( See Oprah ) and in groups ( See
" Sex And The City " ) in the way that women commonly do, and so
commonly do, that there is a whole multi *billion* dollar industry
that provides a steady supply of lies to the women... From Hallmark,
to Cosmo, to " romance novels ", to the wrteched plethora of " self
help " books...
>> > http://www.fhi.org/en/fp/fpother/conom/conmon5.html
>> >
>> >
>> >> The fact that womens choices are not limited to biology, but enhanced
> by
>> >> legislation, shows that there is a lack of choice for men to decide if
>> >> they want to become a parent. Women are not limited in this respect.
>>
>> Indeed. THATS the inherant *sexism* of this whole issue, the *lower
>> legal righst to men to make their own choices*...
>
> Blame God, dude.
God DOESN'T sit on the Supreme Court, OR in federal and state legislatures.
Or, when we did give women fewer rights for being *women*, should we have
told the suffragettes: " Blame God ", too.
If yes, then get your ass back into the kitchen, and stop whining, like
your menfolks tell you to, OR, stop demanding that men do *what women
refused/refuse to do*...
As that claim of yours is blatant sexist hypocrisy...
>> And, we note that you REFUSED to address this most key of points...
And, *still* refuse to/*can't*...
>> >> I am one of others who propose that women be given the sole *rights*
> and
>> >> *responsibilities* for children they unilaterally decide to conceive.
>> >> concieve. This is not the entirety of the proposal, you can read that
>> >> for yourself.
>> >>
>> >> > > > The worst thing in the world for a child is a peevish, resentful,
>> >> > > > selfish three
>> >> > > > year-old for a parent, male or female. So, I think we agree.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > In that we do. Like Mark S. would say, "Forced parenthood is like
>> >> > > rape, except it has two victims: father, and child".
>> >> >
>> >> > That's an absurd comparison. Fathers who become fathers did so by
>> >> > being responsible for the birth of a child.
>> >>
>> >> No, I disagree. The descision to have sex, with the above mitigating
>> >> factors, only makes a man .3% culpable for a womans unilateral
>> >> decision to conceive.
>> >
>> > ? Is this based on your extrapolation of condom failure rates? Condom
>> > failure is an act of god, unless it occurs through incorrect use. It's
>> > not a "decision to conceive."
>>
>> Indeed. Lets repeat that: " Condom failure, no matter through what cause,
>> is NOT a man's decision to concieve. "
>>
>> Thus, it would be grossly *immoral* to obligate him to such a decision
>> that *he never made*...
>
> ? I never decided to be an Australian citizen, but I have a plethora of
> obligations which flow from that fact.
Yet, Australia gives you *the legal right to renounce all rights AND
obligations of Australian citizenship*, rather easily, too....
Yet, you would DENY men the *same rights*....
Again, sexist hypocrisy.
>> >> > They are not victims of anything but their own behaviour.
>> >>
>> >> You are forgeting the plethora of choices both post and pre conception
>> >> that women have. Many of these choices are a result of legislation
>> >> that allows women to unilaterally make the choice for men to become a
>> >> parent.
>> >
>> > Under what circumstance can a woman unilaterally choose to
>> > disenfranchise a
>> > father? She can lie about the paternity of the child. That's not a
>> > "choice," but an act of deception, and I'd assume fraudulent and
>> > illegal.
>>
>> No, its actually *both*. An act of deception IS a choice TO decieve.
>
> I'm aware English is sometimes thorny for you, dude.
<yawn> Unsupported ad hom. IOW.... NOTHING....
> It is not a "reproductive choice" to commit fraud. Clearer?
For women, it IS. See " Presumption Of Paternity " laws in the US for
one example...
>> For that matter, can you tell us what sanctions are placed upon a woman
>> who either names NO man as the father, thus depriving the child of a
>> needed
>> parent, or upon a woman who names the *wrong man* as the bio-father ?
>>
>> Exactly... NONE AT ALL.
>
> What do you propose, dude?
See: " C4M ". By which, through *legal rights*, any man who does not desire
the rights *and* obligations would have a *legal right* to refuse paternity.
The only way that a woman could get him to accept said paternity, either
before birth, or, for that matter, before conception/sex, would be to
get him to *agree* to sign an agreement ( And, in order to do this,
legislatures have to pass laws that would give such agreements legal
standing, such that courts would have to honour them ) to that effect.
One may posit that, in trade for the man's agreement to parent, the
woman may well have to also agree not to abort the resulting foetus,
as any such agreement would have to freeze *both party's* abilities
to change their minds, after the signing, or else, we would have a
form that would ONLY freeze a man's rights, and not a woman's.
That would be, of course, *sexist*.
Now, one major societal benefit of this concept, would be that with
single women no longer able to fiscally obligate men to *the women's
unilateral choices*, women would be dis-encouraged to make such
unilateral choices, which *they themselves are NOT prepared to similarly
be unilaterally responsible for*.
Thus, after time for the reality of this to sink in, you'd get far
fewer " oppsies ". Since the fiscal incentive for them, would be
gone.
>> > Every "safe haven" law I have read includes a father's perogative to be
>> > reunited with his child.
>>
>> Cites ?
>
> I've done them more than once. That's enough.
No. To me, you've shown... nothing that contradicts what I have seen,
read, and saved to HD, on this.
Thats a related area of C4M, that often isn't included. The necessity
of default *joint legal AND physical child custody*, absent any *proof*
that either parent is a daner to the child. This would also dis-incentivise
many women's proclivity to birth something that will " looove them ",
while expecting someone *else* to pay for most of it.
>> >> > I would make an exception only for non-consensual sex, ie rape of a
>> >> > man, or a fraudulent use of semen (it happens), and for fathers
>> >> > who are under the age of consent, for, as with all children, they do
>> >> > not know what they do.
>> >>
>> >> That's good, but I do not think you extend the rights you have far
> enough.
>> >> Responsible people make choices that they have to be _responsible_ for.
>> >> If someone has legally mandated choices that far outweigh the choices
>> >> another party has, do we call that inequality, or not? With rights
>> >> comes responsibilities.
>> >
>> > Yes, they do. But the difference between male & female choice is
>> > reducible to biology, not the law.
>>
>> Thats *grossly untrue*. Consider: What comes with women's presumed right
>> of at least initial full custody ( Only enhanced by there being NO
>> sanction against her for maintaining said sole custody *by naming NO
>> father at all* ) is her sole right to legally abandon a newborn at a
>> firestation or hospital, or to legally adopt the baby out.
>>
>> *Neither* of those is either a medical or biological method, and
>> neither depends on it's user to possess a set of ovaries. Men can
>> just as easily do either action.
*Unable* to refute this ? Good, then you *must* agree...
>> > Maternity is not disputable.
>>
>> Indeed. Given the discussions on paternal fraud rates, in some studies
>> as high as 30%, in married couples, at that, we are aware that it is
>> impossible for a man to decieve a woman about her *maternity*, but
>> that it is very easy for a woman, any women, to decieve any man about
>> his paternity...
>
> Again, you have to blame God for that.
ROTFLMAO ! So, IYO, " God " made her go and fuck someone other then
her wedded husband, AND choose to bear the resulting foetus ?
Thats, well, nuts.
The best example of a comment that blows your claim right out of the
water, is a line from the HBO Larry Sanders Show, where Larry's ex-2-b
is trying to " explain " her affair by saying:
" It was an accident. "
Larry: " Oh, so a truck came along, hit you both, all your and his
clothes flew off, and you landed on his *erect dick* ? " LOL.
> And please, a cite for your 30%?
Others here can offer it, as when I save articles, etc, from online,
I can't then access them to repost back to Usenet.
Do a Google on " paternity fraud ".
> You are suggesting that one in three married women lies about the father
> of her child?!
Yep. You can see loads of examples on day time " talk shows ". See any
with " surprise paternity results, et al ", as the themes...
>> > Until recently
>> > paternity certainly was, and at best it is tenuous without scientific
>> > determination. By contrast, babies grow inside women. They are hard to
>> > wave away under that circumstance.
>>
>> You apparently haven't heard of *abortion*.... DO try to keep up with
>> the news of the last 40 years...
>
> ? Abortion is considerably older than 40 years, and a little more complex
> than a wave of the hand.
If you were speaking literally about that " wave ", then, since no BC
method works that way, your comment was... irrelevent. Just hand waving.
Oh, and *legal* abortion doesn't go back much past 40 years... Do try
to keep up...
>> Duh ! And, in any case, any woman in the US can either abandon a newborn,
>> *legally*, or adopt out a newborn, *legally*.
>
> Nope. Father's rights are commonly enshrined in any such process, as they
> ought to be.
ROTFLMAO ! So, get copies of " Divorced Dads; Shattering The Myths ",
by Sanford Braver, " The Divorce From Hell ", Wendy Dennis, " The
Myth Of Male Power ", Warren Farrell, " The War Against Boys; How
Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men ", Christina Hoff
Sommers, " Not Guilty; The Case In Defense Of Men ", David Thomas,
" The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce; A 25 Year Landmark Study ",
Judith Wallerstein...
You are SO out of your depth of awareness on this issue, that you
could simply not be any MORE wrong...
Oh, and before you ad hom me by claiming that " I must have had a
terrible divorce/custody fight ", let me tell you that I have NO
children, by *anyone*. By choice, thank you. but, I don't require
that an injustice be done to me, personally, before I acknowledge
it is being an injustice...
>> So, there were have at least three ways for a woman, any woman, to
>> " wave away " a baby, *and her maternal obligations*, post-coitally,
>> *only one of which is in any way dependent on her biology, yet we
>> *deny* men the *equal right* to utilise the non-biological methods
>> to make their own choices...
>
> Are you cracked? Have you ever seen a child being born? Do seriously compare
> pregnancy with "nope, not my kid"?
Your words: " Blame God ". Or, are you suggesting that women, as a group,
are SO addled that they don't understand that sex+gestation=birth ?
>> Theres a word for that: *sexism*...
>
> I believe God is waiting for your call.
<laughs> I'm an atheist...
>> >> > Un*witting*, not "unwilling" fathers definitely ought not to be
>> >> forced upon
>> >> > a child unless they have the cojones to accept the consequences of
>> >> their own behavior.
>> >> > If they don't, they are the type of men to be a destructive
>> >> > influence in the life of a child, who is better off without them.
>> >>
>> >> I agree. I don't see why your analogy can not be extended to women who
>> >> force men to be responsible for children only they had the choice to
>> >> conceive.
>> >
>> > I don't believe *any* man should be "forced to be responsible" for a
>> > child they have repudiated. The matter of conception is irrelevant.
>> > Women are able to conceive in a very narrow band of time. They can't
>> > just hatch a plot to do it.
>>
>> LOL. Again, you don't get out much, do you....
>
> I dare say I'm a little more in touch with such matters than you.
<laughs> Riiigghhtt..... ( Dr. Evil voice ) Yet, you're the one trying
to seel the idea that women don't know that sex+gestation=birth...
> You seem thoroughly ignorant.
Translation From The Femmeroid Language: " I *can't* refute your
specific points, so I'll call you names, as if it were some sort
of intellectual substs=itute, and *hope* that no one is bright
enough to note the difference. "
<laughs> Too bad for you, that we're pretty bright here...
>> > It requires luck, and semen. If men do not understand that sex
>> > can lead to reproduction, and accept that as part of the bargain, they
>> > are out-of-touch with mother nature. ALL contraception can fail.
>>
>> Indeed. Yet, ONLY WOMEN are allowed to make *legal and non-biological*
>> choices, *post-coitally*.
>>
>> Theres a word for that: sexism...
>
> ONLY WOMEN are pregnant. There's a word for that: biology.
Yet, when the " argument " of " biology is destiny " is used *against*
women, women repudiate it, but when it *suits* women, to have *more
LEGAL rights then men*, you *embrace it*.
How... *hypocritical*. Do make up your mind...
>> >> > For those reasons, and not because I'm having my heartstring pulled
>> >> > by irresponsible men who seemingly aren't adult enough to accept the
>> >> > consequences of their actions, I do not believe such fathers have a
>> >> > role in the life of a child.
>> >>
>> >> I agree, and for the same reasons I do not believe mothers that
>> >> conceive of their own volition, without getting consent should expect
>> >> a man to be responsible for her choice. Having sex is not the same
>> >> as agreeing to become a parent.
>> >
>> > Having penetrative, unprotected heterosexual sex is not agreeing to
>> > become a parent, but it certainly is implicating oneself in any
>> > resulting pregnancy.
>>
>> Indeed. And, under the well established by legal precedent principle of
>> " mitigation of damages ", that would legally obligate the man to *no
>> more then 50% of the costs of a legal abortion*. And, if the woman
>> chooses differently, and her different choice results in higher costs,
>> well: " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*... "
>
> I'm fascinated by your total indifference to ethical obligation.
You mean, *what women claim as an obligation FROM men*.
I'm fascinated at your total indifference of any obligations going
FROM women TO men...
We call that *sexism*, of course...
We also note your INABILITY to explain WHY any man has an " ethical "
obligation to any woman's *sole and later unilateral choice*....
Or, if the man " chooses " to buy a Lexus a day after the sex, SHE
is also " ethically " obligated to support HIS choice ?
>> > Perhaps the solution is to have a notary at hand and to require your
>> > partner to consent to your conditions. After all, it's your position
>> > which exposes you to risk.
>>
>> Not at all. All that would be required is to change the legal default
>> position, to *match that of all contract law*, that states that in the
>> *absense* of a specific agreement to do more then have sex*, there
>> is created NO legal and binding obligation beyond the basic mitigation
>> of damages directly arising from said mutual choice to have sex.
>
> No, dude. You don't seem to understand law very well, either. Find me a
> lawyer prepared to make such a contract which eliminates pregnancy as a
> forseeable consequence, and excludes either party from ongoing
> responsibility. You won't.
Of course not. But, you *fail* to address why, since no lawyer can
draw up any agreement that is *voided* by *existing case law*.
Just as, in the US South, in 1850, no lawyer could draw up an
agreement that would ahve freed the slaves on other slaveholders,
*since, there and then*, slavery was *legal*.
That changed... The law *is* mutable. You *fail* to grasp this fact.
> I can see a bad faith action resulting from a deceptive non-employment
> of contraception by either party, a tortious rather than contractual
> action, if contraception is understood as a form of insurance.
Not at all. Since *gestation/birth* is NOT an *unavoidable* state,
mitigation of damages would result in minimal obligations, based
on what the minimal costs of mitigating the resulting damages *are*.
In this case, that would be an abortion, 50% costs therof.
>> IOW, the mutual act of sex could create a state of pretgnancy, which is
>> legally and minimally mitigatable by an abortion. Said costs to be as
>> mutual as the choice to have the sex.
>> Any further obligations, *created by the unilateral choice of ONE of
>> the couple*, remaining the *unilateral responsibility of the chooser*.
>
> Chooser? You lifted that term right out of contract law, too?
<laughs> When you CAN'T refute anyhitng, you go after an *irrelevency*,
that of one *word*.
Feel free to " legalise " it all you want. It *won't change the point*.
>> >> > The community will shoulder responsibility for providing such a child
>> >> > with the nourishment it can never get from a derelict parent, or a
>> >> > sum of money resentfully put its way.
>> >>
>> >> Encouraging irresponsible behaviour is your perogative.
>> >
>> > It's encouraging irresponsibility to suggest communities take care of
>> > children?
>>
>> Indeed. No such " community " made the *choice* to gestate and birth
>> the child.
>
> It's a suggestion, not an obligation.
Good. Then, I am free to ignore it...
>> " No taxation without representation. " A founding principle of the
>> US, which states basically that, if one wasn't allowed to *participate
>> in the making of the choice to do (X), then one isn't obligated to
>> support the consequences resulting from (X).
*Inability* to refute this, also noted. You really don't have much
argument to offer, other then " But, its the way it always was ! ".
Its that we do understand that Feminists *cannot*, in good conscience,
fight *against* that argument, in order to get " equal " rights for
women, and then USE it, to fight equal rights for MEN.
>> > I see.
>>
>> No, you don't. See above.
>
> No, I do.
Wow, what a fact filled and blistering rebuttal...
Oh, wait, it wasn't anyhting but a flouncy hand wave.
Too bad, so sad...
Sharon B
Nah, that's an old wives' tale...pre-ejaculate fluid contains sperm,
and if it's anywhere near the vagina, can acquire its target.
Only abstinence is 100%. Vasectomy, IIRC, is the next most reliable
(followed by depoprovera and tubal ligation w/cauterization), most
easily reversible, and less prone to side effects method of
contraception.
Bob
> Bob:
>
>
>>Indeed, nobody has yet explained why, except for feminist politics,
>>women should have a unilateral choice to produce as many children as she
>>damn well wants.
>>
>>Her expectation for somebody else to pay for them is the second
>>question. Lets deal with first things first.
>
>
> There's a basic principle at stake, Bob, quite unrelated to feminism. We
> don't stop people doing things they wish to do, unless they are illegal. Cf
> John Locke:
We debate at length about our laws, and change or adopt new ones. The
claim "because its the law" is irrelevant to such debates.
> The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges
> everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but
> consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm
> another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions [Second Treatise of
> Government, 2:6]
> http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/rights.htm
> Form.
Gobbledygook. In other words you have no reason to explain why women
ought to have unilateral choice.
Bob
Bob
Wrong. Its a political decision to give all choice to women - a very
feminist driven political decision. Using nature as an excuse ignores
the plain fact that other actions could be taken. Nature didn't create
your PC screen, but men decided to fool with nature and you get
organized electrons pretending to be letters. A different political
decision could easily be made about abortion choice too. Politics is
not forced by nature any more than the sexist words you wrote.
Bob
tiny dancer
"Sharon B" <queenb...@buggeroff.org> wrote in message
news:ql7l3v8qd78bjr8p4...@4ax.com...
Why is it that some men can go a whole lifetime without leaving any little
unwanted offspring behind..........and yet others can't seem to figure out
'how' to accomplish that feat?? I'd say there's gotta be something wrong
with the guy??
td
>
Andre Lieven
> Andre:
>
>> Heres a clue for the ladies who may agree with this yob:
>>
>> If you want to guarantee that you won't get preggers.... DON'T FUCK.
>>
>> There you go.
>
> And here's a clue for the sock men:
Group ad hom noted, coming *from a kook*...
> If you want to guarantee that you won't father a child ...
No problem. So, since you are *for equality*, you are therefore
*happy to tell women the SAME THING*... ?
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> "Syd Brooks" (ex....@mail.com) writes:
>>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because, while the condom is the ONLY BC method available to *men*,
>>>> *women* have a plethora of BC choices, that can be used to
>>>> supplement the condoms, and thus, greatly lower ( In military
>>>> circles, this is known as a " layered defence " ) the odds of *all*
>>>> of the BC defences having to fail, in order for an " opps " to
>>>> occur.
>>>
>>> in military circles do they try to undo the damage they suffered at
>>> the hands of the enemy
>>
>> See " Battle damage repairs ", which would be the functional
>> equivalent of the woman getting the abortion....
>
> maybe, but it doesn't address my question.
refute it...
look up, for a legal view, the principle of " mitigation of
damages ".
It works as follows. Say I hit your car, and caused a broken bumper.
You then wait to get money to fix your car, and you cavalierly
leave your car out in the elements, rain, etc, for nine months. Now,
the bumper has rusted from the inlet of the crash damage, due to
the nine months of rain, that you have to replace said bumper.
Am I, the driver of the car that hit your bumper, liabale for the
full costs of replacing the bumper ? No. I am only *legally* liable
for the direct costs of the damge that I *caused*. If you failed to
safeguard your property, to avoid more damage ( costs ) arising,
under the law, *that is your sole responsibility*.
The same here.
>>> or do they consider it the price they pay for going to war?
>>
>> Both understand that the *chance of battle damage* is best minimised
>> by the proper and intelligent use of a layered defense system.
>>
>> Heres a clue for the ladies who may agree with this yob:
>>
>> If you want to guarantee that you won't get preggers.... DON'T FUCK.
>
> "ladies" dont need a guarantee.
LOL ! So, why do they demand " perfect " BC, and/or " perfect "
Child Support ( aka " backdoor alimony " ) ?
> they understand what their options are, as dictated by biology.
LOL ! Please be so kind as to find " Child Support *Payments* " in
any *biology textbook*...
> maybe men should do that.
Give us equal choice ( aka " C$M ", to *accompany the existing
state of C4W... ), and we'll agree.
Andre Lieven
> formica63 wrote:
>> Andre:
>>
>>> Heres a clue for the ladies who may agree with this yob:
>>>
>>> If you want to guarantee that you won't get preggers.... DON'T FUCK.
>>>
>>> There you go.
>>
>> And here's a clue for the sock men:
>>
>> If you want to guarantee that you won't father a child ...
>
> i dont want to be catty but i dont get why this is so hard for them to
> understand.
Your *projection* noted, and your degree of ignorance stipulated...
> you can say it is "unfair" on its face that men can be
> biological parents and have fewer rights
Indeed. There you go, you *did* understand it...
> but you cant dispute the fact that
> they have to approach the situation differently if they want to guard
> against having a child they don't want or do want but can't have.
Indeed, we DO understand that. That is why C4M doesn't demand the
*same rights*, since men are NOT women, and women are NOT men,
but we do demand *equivalent rights*, that is to say, the right
to *accomplish the same end purpose through similar but not the
same methods*.
So, while a woman requires a medical procedure to remove her
*obligation to become a parent from her*, a man only needs to...
*walk away*, without anyone making him do what he DIDN'T choose
for *himself*, in the SAME WAY that a woman gets to use her method,
without anyone making her NOT do what she chose.
Differelt routes ( Easier to give to men, BTW ), but the same
*legal ends*.
HTH.
mothra...@hotmail.com
Jesus Christ. No WONder you guys are so pissed off all the time. You
use them correctly, and that makes them fail. Somebody ought to write a
letter, or something.
Martha
Syd Brooks
> Wrong. Its a political decision to give all choice to women - a very
> feminist driven political decision.
no, it is a biological decision to give people the right to make decisions
about their bodily functions.
> Using nature as an excuse ignores
> the plain fact that other actions could be taken.
like what?
> Nature didn't create
> your PC screen, but men decided to fool with nature and you get
> organized electrons pretending to be letters. A different political
> decision could easily be made about abortion choice too. Politics is
> not forced by nature any more than the sexist words you wrote.
the abortion choice is not material here. pregnancy happens to one gender.
sb
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>
>> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
>>
>> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
>> dishonest practice...
>
> Would you care--would you *dare*--to back up your nasty accusation that
> Formica changed attributions?
Hypocrisy noted...
In any case, the *only* posts that I saw that contained any materiel
of formica's that didn't have the attributations were those posted
by formica...
See " reasonable person " legal standards...
>> > <snippers>
>> >
>> > Form:
>
>> > How does a 16% failure rate equal an unexpected pregnancy every four years?
>>
>> Consider the " magic " of compound interest. Any act where the one-time
>> rate of failure is 16% gives you a 50% rate with only about six re-
>> occurrences.
>
> Are you saying that a guy whose condom fails, resulting in an unwanted
> pregnancy, continues to use the same kind of condom, in the same way?
> Boy, would that be dumb!
Well, if he used *the same condom*, yes...
But, unless you can show that one condom failure happening to one
guy guarantees that his next one won't also fail, you're whistling
in the dark on this...
>> > It doesn't. How does a condom failure because a "woman's irresponsibility
>> > or choice"?
>>
>> Because, while the condom is the ONLY BC method available to *men*,
>> *women* have a plethora of BC choices, that can be used to supplement
>> the condoms, and thus, greatly lower ( In military circles, this is
>> known as a " layered defence " ) the odds of *all* of the BC defences
>> having to fail, in order for an " opps " to occur.
>
> Never heard of vasectomy, eh?
No probs. Have her get her tubes tied.
After all, either way, HE'S not getting preggers...
" Her body, her choice... HER responsibility. "
> We'll have to have a little chat before our nuptials, darling.
Indeed, chykkie. " My way or the highway. " Deal.
> And there's always withdrawal before ejaculation.
Well, *thats* never going to happen, on two grounds...
A pity, too, as I was so hoping to turn you down, *again*, solely
on your own lack of merits, without involving my sexual tastes
at all...
> <snip rest of my darling Andre's pathetic mewling>
That the kook *couldn't* refute...
Boy, there nothing like her *inability*.... <laughs>
mothra...@hotmail.com
Well, yeah, but that plethora of contraceptive choices women have, that
fucking *supermarket* of choices that pisses the sockmen off so
mightily, all of that stuff has failure rates, too--even tubal ligation
isn't 100% effective in all cases.
Besides, my darling Andre didn't specify "effective" means of
contraception.
(I don't think he really needs any, frankly; and I do believe he'd
rather whine, even if he did have the opportunity to contracept.)
Martha
Sharon B
wrote:
>Yet, its well supported by the FACTS, such as widespread DNA testing
>showing that upwards of 30% of children born into *intact marriages*
>have a father OTHER then the husband....
>
>The urls for this have been frequently posted here. Search Google.
No, that's not the way it works. /You/ post proof of /your/ claim, or
retract.
I suspect that the "upwards of 30%", *IF* from a credible source
(which is a big IF given the crap I've seen tossed freely in here)
comes from marriages in divorce courts where the spouse is disputing
paternity as part of the impending custody/visitation
clauses.......which would certainly NOT be a representive sample of
the whole.
Pony up your proof, or your claim is discredited.
--
Supreme Dictator(nominee) of Soc.men
Member of The Committee for Aesthetic Deletions
Overseer of Prejudicial Eliminations
Judge Advocate Very Large Number of Cohorts
1st Virginia Volunteers Official Cohort #11
CEsium Brigade
-r0ck
Universal License to Subject President
Human Beings to Indignities The Barefoot & Proud SharonB fanclub
Temporary License #11 Washington DC Chapter
Member of The Feminist Junta
Syd Brooks
> look up, for a legal view, the principle of " mitigation of
> damages ".
i was just countering the analogy with the "layers of defense" argument.
>
> It works as follows. Say I hit your car, and caused a broken bumper.
> You then wait to get money to fix your car, and you cavalierly
> leave your car out in the elements, rain, etc, for nine months. Now,
> the bumper has rusted from the inlet of the crash damage, due to
> the nine months of rain, that you have to replace said bumper.
>
> Am I, the driver of the car that hit your bumper, liabale for the
> full costs of replacing the bumper ? No. I am only *legally* liable
> for the direct costs of the damge that I *caused*. If you failed to
> safeguard your property, to avoid more damage (
cars and damage dont have anything to do with what happens in someone's
body. sorry. a better analogy would be to say that someone with a medical
injury due to that crash should have to wait for the insurance company's
approval before they received medical attention.
>> "ladies" dont need a guarantee.
>
> LOL ! So, why do they demand " perfect " BC, and/or " perfect "
> Child Support ( aka " backdoor alimony " ) ?
i'm talking about the prospect of pregnancy. they dont expect that any
method of contraception is 100%.
>
>> they understand what their options are, as dictated by biology.
>
> LOL ! Please be so kind as to find " Child Support *Payments* " in
> any *biology textbook*...
thanks, this is exactly my point. you want to make it a money issue but it
is a science issue. and since the risks men take in having sex include
becoming a parent and therefore responsible financially, you would think
they would take that into account before having sex.
women have their own risks to face.
>> maybe men should do that.
>
> Give us equal choice ( aka " C$M ", to *accompany the existing
> state of C4W... ), and we'll agree.
i don't have much of an opinion on that issue. haven't looked into it. i
will do that.
sb
Sharon B
Nah, takes two to tango.....I don't understand the whole insisting
someone's to blame (outside of deliberate deception from either
gender).
<shrug>
ya drops yer draws, ya takes yer chances....applies equally to both
genders
Syd Brooks
>> i dont want to be catty but i dont get why this is so hard for them
>> to understand.
>
> Your *projection* noted, and your degree of ignorance stipulated...
so that is your strategy? call me "ignorant" at every turn?
>> but you cant dispute the fact that
>> they have to approach the situation differently if they want to guard
>> against having a child they don't want or do want but can't have.
>
> Indeed, we DO understand that. That is why C4M doesn't demand the
> *same rights*, since men are NOT women, and women are NOT men,
> but we do demand *equivalent rights*, that is to say, the right
> to *accomplish the same end purpose through similar but not the
> same methods*.
you keep bringing up this C4M thing when it was not a part of the posts i
replied to. call me "ignorant" all you want, but at least be consistent and
follow the threads.
sb
Syd Brooks
> No problem. So, since you are *for equality*, you are therefore
> *happy to tell women the SAME THING*... ?
women know what the risks are. why don't men?
sb
Sharon B
*snarf*
Remember that lawsuit some years back.....the wife had a tubal
ligation w/cauterization, the husband had a vasectomy....less than a
year later she was knocked up by the husband?
Did they ever win their lawsuits against their respective surgeons?
mothra...@hotmail.com
>
> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
> > Andre:
> >
> >> Heres a clue for the ladies who may agree with this yob:
> >>
> >> If you want to guarantee that you won't get preggers.... DON'T FUCK.
> >>
> >> There you go.
> >
> > And here's a clue for the sock men:
>
> Group ad hom noted, coming *from a kook*...
>
> > If you want to guarantee that you won't father a child ...
>
> No problem. So, since you are *for equality*, you are therefore
> *happy to tell women the SAME THING*... ?
>
> Andre
IHNTA. Too busy cleaning monitor.
Martha
Dr. Flonkenstein
in an ultimate attempt to be funny
and witty at once, that summum of the evolution
>Andre Lieven wrote:
>
>>> i dont want to be catty but i dont get why this is so hard for them
>>> to understand.
>>
>> Your *projection* noted, and your degree of ignorance stipulated...
>
>so that is your strategy? call me "ignorant" at every turn?
>
most soc.men now imitate our strategy by echopraxia, but totally
fail to apply our dialectics.
>
>>> but you cant dispute the fact that
>>> they have to approach the situation differently if they want to guard
>>> against having a child they don't want or do want but can't have.
>>
>> Indeed, we DO understand that. That is why C4M doesn't demand the
>> *same rights*, since men are NOT women, and women are NOT men,
>> but we do demand *equivalent rights*, that is to say, the right
>> to *accomplish the same end purpose through similar but not the
>> same methods*.
>
>you keep bringing up this C4M thing when it was not a part of the posts i
>replied to. call me "ignorant" all you want, but at least be consistent and
>follow the threads.
>
>
>sb
>
>
--
Dr Flonkenstein
Alcatroll Labs Inc. Flame, troll and
(TINAL) antispaem bots
development.
mhm 27x12 MEOW MEOW ARMY TINMMA
ICQ 146303664 TNPJRL # -1
http://www.geocities.com/alc4troll
Highpriest of the Romath Religion (TINRR)
Professor Kookology at BUNGMUNCH Univ. (TINBU)
Flonk leader #19
Wereldsman's hate lits #7
Political Compass :Economic Left/Right: -3.25,
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.13
================================================================
|
\ _ /
-( )-
/'D'\
r
/\ .
/__\ /(] So true.....
//..\\ //F
\],.[/// l
/l\/j / o
/. ~~ | n
\\L__j) k
\/--v} e
| | n
| | s
| l t
_/j L l\_ e
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~
n
================================================================
wd aka WooDy shows his spelling and flaming abilities in
msg-id= <v13kqjf...@corp.supernews.com>:
"Did uncle joe abuse you? Dis daddy ignore you like we
ignore you know (sic)? I bet you wonder why too."
================================================================
rapist k00k "Bob" <bobx...@hotmail.com> points out that rape
is no crime, in article <3DC86E94...@hotmail.com>
"Sex is a normal, pleasurable body function. Rape is
normal pleasurable body function, even sometimes including
orgasm, with a disagreement over who is to decide."
================================================================
mothra...@hotmail.com
>
> (mothra...@hotmail.com) writes:
> > Andre Lieven wrote:
> >>
> >> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
> >>
> >> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
> >> dishonest practice...
> >
> > Would you care--would you *dare*--to back up your nasty accusation that
> > Formica changed attributions?
>
> Ah, so we have to offer you proof, but you *don't*, to us ?
>
> Hypocrisy noted...
Proof of what, hon? Remember, back when we were dating, and I accused
you, wrongly, of snipping my post, and you went all mental? I'm just
trying to help, here.
And no one (besides me) has accused you of doing anything. I mean
ANYthing. So what would you need proof of, my sweet babboo?
>
> In any case, the *only* posts that I saw that contained any materiel
> of formica's that didn't have the attributations were those posted
> by formica...
>
> See " reasonable person " legal standards...
Uh, my darling, what aisle would that be in?
>
> >> > <snippers>
> >> >
> >> > Form:
> >
> >> > How does a 16% failure rate equal an unexpected pregnancy every four years?
> >>
> >> Consider the " magic " of compound interest. Any act where the one-time
> >> rate of failure is 16% gives you a 50% rate with only about six re-
> >> occurrences.
> >
> > Are you saying that a guy whose condom fails, resulting in an unwanted
> > pregnancy, continues to use the same kind of condom, in the same way?
> > Boy, would that be dumb!
>
> Well, if he used *the same condom*, yes...
Wow--you *are* frugal!!!!1!!
>
> But, unless you can show that one condom failure happening to one
> guy guarantees that his next one won't also fail, you're whistling
> in the dark on this...
That's not whistling, baby... <Lauren Bacall reference considered, then
dropped, in consideration of Andre's innocence>
>
> >> > It doesn't. How does a condom failure because a "woman's irresponsibility
> >> > or choice"?
> >>
> >> Because, while the condom is the ONLY BC method available to *men*,
> >> *women* have a plethora of BC choices, that can be used to supplement
> >> the condoms, and thus, greatly lower ( In military circles, this is
> >> known as a " layered defence " ) the odds of *all* of the BC defences
> >> having to fail, in order for an " opps " to occur.
> >
> > Never heard of vasectomy, eh?
>
> No probs. Have her get her tubes tied.
So condoms aren't the only choice men have. We ARE talking about men's
choices, remember.
>
> After all, either way, HE'S not getting preggers...
>
> " Her body, her choice... HER responsibility. "
>
> > We'll have to have a little chat before our nuptials, darling.
>
> Indeed, chykkie. " My way or the highway. " Deal.
Oooh. And this is where you start to get afraid I'm going to beat you
up? I'm getting all hot.
>
> > And there's always withdrawal before ejaculation.
>
> Well, *thats* never going to happen, on two grounds...
Oh, don't tease--
>
> A pity, too, as I was so hoping to turn you down, *again*, solely
> on your own lack of merits, without involving my sexual tastes
> at all...
My lawyer will be calling on you with some papers. Ever hear of Breach
of Promise?
>
> > <snip rest of my darling Andre's pathetic mewling>
>
> That the kook *couldn't* refute...
>
> Boy, there nothing like her *inability*.... <laughs>
<Martha retreats to her room, sobbing disconsolately, while Andre
cruelly laughs>
formica63
> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
> > "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > news:b1dr64$kun$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
> >>
> >> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
> >> dishonest practice...
> >
> > It is, but I haven't done that, Andre, so your comment is inapropriate.
>
> Well, before your post, the attributations were complete.... So, either
> you did that, or someone else over there did it... Thats considered a
> faux pas over here on soc.men, and I *never* do such.
The word "attributations" is considered a faux pas by me, dude. I've not
done anything "dishonest," and how typical that you follow up your
ridiculous accusation with defensive gobbledygook.
<snip>
Andre:
> >> Consider the " magic " of compound interest. Any act where the one-time
> >> rate of failure is 16% gives you a 50% rate with only about six re-
> >> occurrences.
Form:
> > Uh, no. Did you go to the Michael Snyder school of probability? Or do
> > condoms only break during those 24 hours of ovulation every month?
Andre:
> Irrelevent. Since the man doesn't *know* when such times are, then he
> *cannot* act in such a manner as to be " perfect " at those times, and
> be lacadasical at others... Further, many women have more then 24 hours
> of fertility every 30 days... Further, not all sperm die in ten minutes...
Huh? How do those factors affect the rate of failure compounded as you
suggest? What you are saying is innumerate nonsense. We're not even
presuming that this hypothetical man can use a condom? Holy shit.
> >> > It doesn't. How does a condom failure because a "woman's
> >> > irresponsibility or choice"?
> >>
> >> Because, while the condom is the ONLY BC method available to *men*,
> >> *women* have a plethora of BC choices, that can be used to supplement
> >> the condoms, and thus, greatly lower ( In military circles, this is
> >> known as a " layered defence " ) the odds of *all* of the BC defences
> >> having to fail, in order for an " opps " to occur.
> >>
> >> Even then, we return to the *fact* that *only women* have a legal right
> >> to choose or *decline* bio parenthood, *after* sex. Thus, they *alone*
> >> can mitigate the resulting damages ( " damages " used in the legal
> >> sense ), while the men is given NO opportunity to do.
> >
> > Jesus Christ. You do understand that babies grow in women's bodies, I
hope.
>
> INABILITY to debate or refute anything above noted.
Are you serious? What you say flies in the fact of life's simplest logic. I
refute your silly nonsense in its entirety.
> If all you have are *unsupported ad homs*, then you have effectively
> conseeded the field...
This is pretty rich coming from the sock man who falsely imputes dishonesty
to me. It's not ad hominem to say your logic is irrational and that every
example of statistical reasoning has been refuted by me.
> >> > Condom failure rates are, at the very least, debatable. They are
> >> > certainly nowhere near as high as you've suggested.
> >> >
> >> > 1. Condom failure rates vary greatly from study to study. A 1974
study
> > by
> >> > the British Family Planning Association which followed 2057 couples
who
> > had
> >> > switched to the condom from COCs, IUDs or the diaphragm found a
failure
> >> > rate of 4%. A rate of 12% is more commonly given as the failure rate
for
> > >> typical users. It is important to note that for condom users, typical
> >> > users include those using condoms inconsistently and incorrectly.
> >>
> >> IOW, you get 4% failure rates ( Which is still *higher* then other
> >> technological forms of BC for women ), with a *perfect* use therof,
> >> which is simply NOT a realistic target to set, with human beings.
> >
> > No, it says a 4% for these 2057 couples, not "perfect use."
>
> Irrelevent. The correct use by the couple of a condom is the single
> greatest factor in condom failure.
You're not understanding.
> > Those who use condoms "inconsistently" include those who sometimes do
not
> > use them. Those folks bump up the rate some, Andre.
>
> Feel free to show *proof* of that claim of *yours*...
Read the damn cites, Andre.
"A rate of 12% is more commonly given as the failure rate for
typical users. It is important to note that for condom users, typical users
include those using condoms inconsistently and incorrectly."
"Nonuse of condoms by women who report use of condoms as their "regular"
method of contraception is believed to play a far greater role in this wide
range of pregnancy rates than is condom failure."
> > The likelihood that those failures fall
> > within a period propitious for conception (24 hours, once a month, at
> > optimal level) becomes even more remote.
>
> Ditto.
>
> >
http://www.reproline.jhu.edu/english/1fp/1methods/1condom/html/cn0a901/sld01
> >> > 1.htm
> >> >
> >> > 2.When used correctly and consistently, the male latex condom is an
> >> > effective contraceptive; the estimated 12-month perfect-use pregnancy
> >> > rate is 3% (2). Pregnancies during perfect use
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Lets re-emphasise that point...
> >
> > Which point? "Effective contraceptive"?
>
> Is your literacy so low that you *cannot* note the two words that
> I *underlined* ?
Yes, you got it. For a moment there, you might have suspected that I was
being ironic, and pointing out that the principle point being made was about
efficacy, but no doubt you're too sharp to be fooled for long. Should have
used *asterisks*, dude.
30% of all children, or of children tested? Or is that a distinction too
subtle for you, Andre?
> The urls for this have been frequently posted here. Search Google.
>
> >> " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*... "
>
> Indeed.
>
> >> > http://www.ama-assn.org/special/contra/library/scan/mar98/frezcom.htm
> >> >
> >> > 3.This study found that a small minority of users, 9 percent, were
> >> > responsible for half of all failures.
> >>
> >> IOW, screw them for not being " perfect "...
>
> Indeed. Thats your *sexist* view...
Huh? That was not me, Andre. Now you are misattributing. Tsk, tsk.
Exactly so. The figures are quite clear.
> >> > In general, these findings suggest that specific characteristics and
> > user
> >> > behaviors of a minority of users lead to condom failure. Because
condom
> >> > failure is not equally distributed among all users, most condom users
> > are
> >> > likely to experience condom failure less often than the average
failure
> >> > rates reported in published studies imply. Moreover, published condom
> >> > failure rates may vary across studies in part because of the
differences
> > in
> >> > characteristics and behaviors among different groups of study
> > participants.
> >>
> >> IOW, " people are people ".
> >
> > No, IOW, condoms are effective contraceptives when used properly, or
simply
> > used.
>
> Yet, you continue to *fail to grasp RELATIVE effectivenesses*....
No, I note that it's not relevant to the issue of condom failure, and you
are shifting your argument after being so disastrously ineffectual in making
this one.
> Not my problem that numbers scare you so much...
It's the asterisks that scare me, actually.
> >> > User Characteristics Associated with Condom Failure
> >> >
> >> > A review of studies on condom use and characteristics of users
indicates
> >> > that a history of condom failure and less experience using condoms
are
> > risk
> >> > factors for future failure. Other characteristics that may be
associated
> >> > with condom failure are young age, less education, less income, and
> >> > large or circumcised penis (see Table 3-2).
> >>
> >> So much for " one size fits all "... <g>
> >
> > No one's ever believed that, have they?
>
> Men are honest about it, most women lie... Then again, most women know
> far less about men, men's issues and needs, and male sexuality then
> they think, and less then men know about women.
Most women lie? A cite, by any chance?
> Because, the difference between men and women ( AS groups, there are
> always exceptions that prove the rule ) is that men don't systemically
> lie about the other sex, both solo ( See Oprah ) and in groups ( See
> " Sex And The City " ) in the way that women commonly do, and so
> commonly do, that there is a whole multi *billion* dollar industry
> that provides a steady supply of lies to the women... From Hallmark,
> to Cosmo, to " romance novels ", to the wrteched plethora of " self
> help " books...
Okay, this is called "paranoia."
> >> > http://www.fhi.org/en/fp/fpother/conom/conmon5.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> The fact that womens choices are not limited to biology, but
enhanced
> > by
> >> >> legislation, shows that there is a lack of choice for men to decide
if
> >> >> they want to become a parent. Women are not limited in this
respect.
> >>
> >> Indeed. THATS the inherant *sexism* of this whole issue, the *lower
> >> legal righst to men to make their own choices*...
> >
> > Blame God, dude.
>
> God DOESN'T sit on the Supreme Court, OR in federal and state
legislatures.
>
> Or, when we did give women fewer rights for being *women*, should we have
> told the suffragettes: " Blame God ", too.
>
> If yes, then get your ass back into the kitchen, and stop whining, like
> your menfolks tell you to, OR, stop demanding that men do *what women
> refused/refuse to do*...
>
> As that claim of yours is blatant sexist hypocrisy...
More paranoia. Uh oh.
> >> And, we note that you REFUSED to address this most key of points...
>
> And, *still* refuse to/*can't*...
On the contrary, your tendentious nonsense has been minced out of existence.
Mate, I can be fined if I don't vote in a local govt. election.
> >> >> > They are not victims of anything but their own behaviour.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are forgeting the plethora of choices both post and pre
conception
> >> >> that women have. Many of these choices are a result of legislation
> >> >> that allows women to unilaterally make the choice for men to become
a
> >> >> parent.
> >> >
> >> > Under what circumstance can a woman unilaterally choose to
> >> > disenfranchise a
> >> > father? She can lie about the paternity of the child. That's not a
> >> > "choice," but an act of deception, and I'd assume fraudulent and
> >> > illegal.
> >>
> >> No, its actually *both*. An act of deception IS a choice TO decieve.
> >
> > I'm aware English is sometimes thorny for you, dude.
>
> <yawn> Unsupported ad hom. IOW.... NOTHING....
Oh, I'm sorry. One of your buddies was running around bleating about the
fact that English was not a comfortable vehicle of expression for you.
> > It is not a "reproductive choice" to commit fraud. Clearer?
>
> For women, it IS. See " Presumption Of Paternity " laws in the US for
> one example...
Nope. Presumption of paternity rides free of choice.
> >> For that matter, can you tell us what sanctions are placed upon a woman
> >> who either names NO man as the father, thus depriving the child of a
> >> needed
> >> parent, or upon a woman who names the *wrong man* as the bio-father ?
> >>
> >> Exactly... NONE AT ALL.
> >
> > What do you propose, dude?
>
> See: " C4M ". By which, through *legal rights*, any man who does not
desire
> the rights *and* obligations would have a *legal right* to refuse
paternity.
> The only way that a woman could get him to accept said paternity, either
> before birth, or, for that matter, before conception/sex, would be to
> get him to *agree* to sign an agreement ( And, in order to do this,
> legislatures have to pass laws that would give such agreements legal
> standing, such that courts would have to honour them ) to that effect.
No problem with this, Andre. The likelihood that any man so agitated would
get within 100 miles of a properly-used condom seems so remote that I
imagine the practice itself would be an ideal prophylactic. I think, though,
that the agreement ought to be struck prior to any blanket business.
According to law, Andre.
> One may posit that, in trade for the man's agreement to parent, the
> woman may well have to also agree not to abort the resulting foetus,
> as any such agreement would have to freeze *both party's* abilities
> to change their minds, after the signing, or else, we would have a
> form that would ONLY freeze a man's rights, and not a woman's.
One in four pregnancies naturally abort. I see some chunky lawsuits in the
offing.
> That would be, of course, *sexist*.
To "freeze" one's right to change one's mind? Sexist is the least of it.
> Now, one major societal benefit of this concept, would be that with
> single women no longer able to fiscally obligate men to *the women's
> unilateral choices*, women would be dis-encouraged to make such
> unilateral choices, which *they themselves are NOT prepared to similarly
> be unilaterally responsible for*.
Well, a tragedy for womanhood.
>
> Thus, after time for the reality of this to sink in, you'd get far
> fewer " oppsies ". Since the fiscal incentive for them, would be
> gone.
I see. A brilliant plan, Andre.
> >> > Every "safe haven" law I have read includes a father's perogative to
be
> >> > reunited with his child.
> >>
> >> Cites ?
> >
> > I've done them more than once. That's enough.
>
> No. To me, you've shown... nothing that contradicts what I have seen,
> read, and saved to HD, on this.
>
> Thats a related area of C4M, that often isn't included. The necessity
> of default *joint legal AND physical child custody*, absent any *proof*
> that either parent is a daner to the child. This would also
dis-incentivise
> many women's proclivity to birth something that will " looove them ",
> while expecting someone *else* to pay for most of it.
I see massive "dis-incentivising" going on.
A mother may not even *know* who the father is. And in that case ...?
> >> > Maternity is not disputable.
> >>
> >> Indeed. Given the discussions on paternal fraud rates, in some studies
> >> as high as 30%, in married couples, at that, we are aware that it is
> >> impossible for a man to decieve a woman about her *maternity*, but
> >> that it is very easy for a woman, any women, to decieve any man about
> >> his paternity...
> >
> > Again, you have to blame God for that.
>
> ROTFLMAO ! So, IYO, " God " made her go and fuck someone other then
> her wedded husband, AND choose to bear the resulting foetus ?
>
> Thats, well, nuts.
Excuse me, but you were talking about the fact that it is relatively easy to
do, not what might prompt her to do it.
> The best example of a comment that blows your claim right out of the
> water, is a line from the HBO Larry Sanders Show, where Larry's ex-2-b
> is trying to " explain " her affair by saying:
>
> " It was an accident. "
>
> Larry: " Oh, so a truck came along, hit you both, all your and his
> clothes flew off, and you landed on his *erect dick* ? " LOL.
A better analogy would be to Mr Magoo, in your case. You missed the point,
Andre.
> > And please, a cite for your 30%?
>
> Others here can offer it, as when I save articles, etc, from online,
> I can't then access them to repost back to Usenet.
>
> Do a Google on " paternity fraud ".
> > You are suggesting that one in three married women lies about the father
> > of her child?!
>
> Yep. You can see loads of examples on day time " talk shows ". See any
> with " surprise paternity results, et al ", as the themes...
The 30% represents individual who have requested a test, dummy. This is from
the "Man Rights Reference Desk"
"This is a summary report of the incidence of 'exclusions' - putative
fathers not related to the child in question. First two pages contain the
key info - about 29%, according to this report, but remember, these are
people who asked for testing."
http://personal.w-link.net/parkertr/Law/PaternityFraud.asp
> >> > Until recently
> >> > paternity certainly was, and at best it is tenuous without scientific
> >> > determination. By contrast, babies grow inside women. They are hard
to
> >> > wave away under that circumstance.
> >>
> >> You apparently haven't heard of *abortion*.... DO try to keep up with
> >> the news of the last 40 years...
> >
> > ? Abortion is considerably older than 40 years, and a little more
complex
> > than a wave of the hand.
>
> If you were speaking literally about that " wave ", then, since no BC
> method works that way, your comment was... irrelevent. Just hand waving.
>
> Oh, and *legal* abortion doesn't go back much past 40 years... Do try
> to keep up...
It's hard to keep up with your desperate revisions, Andre.
> >> Duh ! And, in any case, any woman in the US can either abandon a
newborn,
> >> *legally*, or adopt out a newborn, *legally*.
> >
> > Nope. Father's rights are commonly enshrined in any such process, as
they
> > ought to be.
>
> ROTFLMAO ! So, get copies of " Divorced Dads; Shattering The Myths ",
> by Sanford Braver, " The Divorce From Hell ", Wendy Dennis, " The
> Myth Of Male Power ", Warren Farrell, " The War Against Boys; How
> Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men ", Christina Hoff
> Sommers, " Not Guilty; The Case In Defense Of Men ", David Thomas,
> " The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce; A 25 Year Landmark Study ",
> Judith Wallerstein...
>
> You are SO out of your depth of awareness on this issue, that you
> could simply not be any MORE wrong...
? We were discussing adoption and abandonment, not divorce.
> Oh, and before you ad hom me by claiming that " I must have had a
> terrible divorce/custody fight ", let me tell you that I have NO
> children, by *anyone*.
Not at all surprised.
>By choice, thank you. but, I don't require
> that an injustice be done to me, personally, before I acknowledge
> it is being an injustice...
That's a very basic quality of justice, not yet ground for canonization.
> >> So, there were have at least three ways for a woman, any woman, to
> >> " wave away " a baby, *and her maternal obligations*, post-coitally,
> >> *only one of which is in any way dependent on her biology, yet we
> >> *deny* men the *equal right* to utilise the non-biological methods
> >> to make their own choices...
> >
> > Are you cracked? Have you ever seen a child being born? Do seriously
compare
> > pregnancy with "nope, not my kid"?
>
> Your words: " Blame God ". Or, are you suggesting that women, as a group,
> are SO addled that they don't understand that sex+gestation=birth ?
>
> >> Theres a word for that: *sexism*...
> >
> > I believe God is waiting for your call.
>
> <laughs> I'm an atheist...
<laughs> Me too.
> >> >> > Un*witting*, not "unwilling" fathers definitely ought not to be
> >> >> forced upon
> >> >> > a child unless they have the cojones to accept the consequences of
> >> >> their own behavior.
> >> >> > If they don't, they are the type of men to be a destructive
> >> >> > influence in the life of a child, who is better off without them.
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree. I don't see why your analogy can not be extended to women
who
> >> >> force men to be responsible for children only they had the choice to
> >> >> conceive.
> >> >
> >> > I don't believe *any* man should be "forced to be responsible" for a
> >> > child they have repudiated. The matter of conception is irrelevant.
> >> > Women are able to conceive in a very narrow band of time. They can't
> >> > just hatch a plot to do it.
> >>
> >> LOL. Again, you don't get out much, do you....
> >
> > I dare say I'm a little more in touch with such matters than you.
>
> <laughs> Riiigghhtt..... ( Dr. Evil voice ) Yet, you're the one trying
> to seel the idea that women don't know that sex+gestation=birth...
?
> > You seem thoroughly ignorant.
>
> Translation From The Femmeroid Language: " I *can't* refute your
> specific points, so I'll call you names, as if it were some sort
> of intellectual substs=itute, and *hope* that no one is bright
> enough to note the difference. "
Actually, I've refuted every point you've made.
> <laughs> Too bad for you, that we're pretty bright here...
I'm laughing too, dude. Too bad for me!
<mercy snip>
Form.
Andre Lieven
Indeed. It appears that my net " stalker " knows even less and
less about the sexuality of *men* then she wants to cop to.
And, I didn't mention this, as I didn't think of it at the time,
so thinks in helping show her up for her silliness.
Call it the busy-ness of being in several groups at the same time...
I'm having fun talking battlecruisers and the Italian Navy elsewhere...
<g>
> Only abstinence is 100%.
Indeed. So, if men need to " not stick it into places ", then
women *also* need to " keep those legs closed ".
> Vasectomy, IIRC, is the next most reliable
> (followed by depoprovera and tubal ligation w/cauterization), most
> easily reversible, and less prone to side effects method of
> contraception.
Well, I dare say that you aren't going to get loads of men
" testifying " as to how easy a snip-snip was... Especially
the ones who did the reversal thing...
The point being, to try to equalte women's plethora of BC
choices ( And, I'm not addressing you, here ), as equivalent
to a man getting *surgery*, is wrong.
So, vasetomy, more or less = tubals. And, Pills, etc, equals,
for men... nothing... But a bit of latex.... But, *both* have
that- See " female condom ".
formica63
"Bob" <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E3AA154...@hotmail.com...
> formica63 wrote:
> > Bob:
> >
> >
> >>Indeed, nobody has yet explained why, except for feminist politics,
> >>women should have a unilateral choice to produce as many children as she
> >>damn well wants.
> >>
> >>Her expectation for somebody else to pay for them is the second
> >>question. Lets deal with first things first.
> >
> >
> > There's a basic principle at stake, Bob, quite unrelated to feminism.
We
> > don't stop people doing things they wish to do, unless they are illegal.
Cf
> > John Locke:
>
> We debate at length about our laws, and change or adopt new ones. The
> claim "because its the law" is irrelevant to such debates.
Huh? Our debates about law *always* involve this principle. It's the
foundation, dude.
> > The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges
> > everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will
but
> > consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm
> > another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions [Second Treatise of
> > Government, 2:6]
> > http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/rights.htm
> > Form.
>
> Gobbledygook. In other words you have no reason to explain why women
> ought to have unilateral choice.
Clue: you missed the point. It's not about "ought." There's no reason to
explain why tall people can reach things I can't reach, either, but I'm not
inclined to make their height illegal.
Form.
formica63
> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
> > Andre:
> >
> >> Heres a clue for the ladies who may agree with this yob:
> >>
> >> If you want to guarantee that you won't get preggers.... DON'T FUCK.
> >>
> >> There you go.
> >
> > And here's a clue for the sock men:
>
> Group ad hom noted, coming *from a kook*...
? I am not a "kook."
>
> > If you want to guarantee that you won't father a child ...
>
> No problem. So, since you are *for equality*, you are therefore
> *happy to tell women the SAME THING*... ?
I would suggest the same rule applies to any and all genders.
Form.
Andre Lieven
Thats actually bloddy easy to explain, and I am most certainly qualified
to do so, since I've had a ( so far ) pretty... *good* life in that
department <winks>, yet I have NO kids by anyone.
But, one more point, to set the *context*...
> and yet others can't seem to figure out 'how' to accomplish that feat??
Well, as I said, its bloody easy... Provided that the guy " figures "
out how to only fuck women who *are honourable*...
Since, lets be clear about Remedial Biology 101 here, MEN don't give
birth, and MEN are NOT allowed to do *anything* about a " woman's
choice " at ANY time that the women is *pregnant*.
You remember *pregnant*, right ? Its what happens in WOMEN who are
going to, *if they and they, alone*, choose, to *give birth*.
To try to blame this on *guys*, is the old " babies pop out of the
heads of *penises* " insane fallicy favoured by the exceptionally
*stupid*.
> I'd say there's gotta be something wrong with the guy??
You flunk. Back to kindergarten with you.
Sheesh.
mothra...@hotmail.com
NTA, just noticing that Andre snips SharonB's address when replying to
SharonB, like the coward he is.
Martha
formica63
> (mothra...@hotmail.com) writes:
> > Andre Lieven wrote:
> >>
> >> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
> >>
> >> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
> >> dishonest practice...
> >
> > Would you care--would you *dare*--to back up your nasty accusation that
> > Formica changed attributions?
>
> Ah, so we have to offer you proof, but you *don't*, to us ?
>
> Hypocrisy noted...
Huh? What the fuck are you talking about? Out of the blue you made this
nasty and false accusation without a shred of evidence. That's because it's
not true, guy. Now you're calling names? I don't need to offer proof that
I haven't done what I haven't done. I don't even know what you're
pretending I did with "attributations."
> In any case, the *only* posts that I saw that contained any materiel
> of formica's that didn't have the attributations were those posted
> by formica...
>
> See " reasonable person " legal standards...
What the fuck are you talking about? I have done nothing "dishonest," mate,
and you need to pull your head in on this one. Pronto.
Form.
Andre Lieven
Yes... you called ?
> No WONder you guys are so pissed off all the time.
<laughs> You just have so NO clue, do you, oh ignorant lambkins ?
> You use them correctly, and that makes them fail.
We are happy to report that the new " Pussy Crusher " Iron Condoms,
guaranteed to never ever break, are ready for " field testing "...
Free Clue: Many of the things that you buy, and remove from their
*plastic packaging*, are wrapped in about the same stuff that
condoms are made of... IOW, sometimes, they *break*....
A good thing that IUDs don't tend to " come apart ".... Or, the
wimmins would *really* be shrieking...
> Somebody ought to write a letter, or something.
LOL. Maybe somebody ought to just come out in favour of equal
*laws*....
Oh, I nearly forgot... Your *inability* to refute anything that I
wrote, above, noted.
My, you don't have much, do you ? No wonder I'm saying " no ! "...
<laughs>
Andre Lieven
Straw man. No one over here is " pissed off " that women have so many
options. Only a Foolish Femmeroid would spew such shite.
Rather, we're rightly " pissed off " that so many Foolish Femmeroids
refuse to acknowledge this simple fact, AND apply it to the fact
that men are assesed at least 50% of the post-coital *responsibility*,
while having *exactly ZERO % of the power to affect a " choice "
at that time*.
> so mightily, all of that stuff has failure rates, too--even tubal
> ligation isn't 100% effective in all cases.
*Inability* to grasp *relative rates of failure* noted...
> Besides, my darling Andre didn't specify "effective" means of
> contraception.
In your case, its a distance of 1000+ kilometers...
> (I don't think he really needs any, frankly; and I do believe he'd
> rather whine, even if he did have the opportunity to contracept.)
LOL. The Old " Can't Get Any " attempted shaming ploy of Festering
Femmeroids. How ( like themselves ) *old*...
How much I do get and when/with whom, is none of your concern,
and it'll stay that way too. I'm quite happy about both parts
of that equation. <laughs>
Sharon B
wrote:
> (mothra...@hotmail.com) writes:
>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>
>>> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
>>>
>>> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
>>> dishonest practice...
>>
>> Would you care--would you *dare*--to back up your nasty accusation that
>> Formica changed attributions?
>
>Ah, so we have to offer you proof, but you *don't*, to us ?
It was /your/ accusation.
>Hypocrisy noted...
Denied.
formica63
<mothra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3E3AA9...@hotmail.com...
Okay, let me do it for you.
Being a sock man is an effective guarantee that neither a man or a woman
will father a child.
Converted, Form.
formica63
Andree:
> <laughs> You just have so NO clue, do you, oh ignorant lambkins ?
Moth:
> > You use them correctly, and that makes them fail.
Andree:
> We are happy to report that the new " Pussy Crusher " Iron Condoms,
> guaranteed to never ever break, are ready for " field testing "...
>
> Free Clue: Many of the things that you buy, and remove from their
> *plastic packaging*, are wrapped in about the same stuff that
> condoms are made of... IOW, sometimes, they *break*....
>
> A good thing that IUDs don't tend to " come apart ".... Or, the
> wimmins would *really* be shrieking...
Moth:
> > Somebody ought to write a letter, or something.
Andree:
> LOL. Maybe somebody ought to just come out in favour of equal
> *laws*....
>
> Oh, I nearly forgot... Your *inability* to refute anything that I
> wrote, above, noted.
>
> My, you don't have much, do you ? No wonder I'm saying " no ! "...
> <laughs>
Hey, keep on laughing, dude. That's why it's called the Laughing Academy.
<laughs><laughs><laughs>
Form.
mothra...@hotmail.com
So you admit that you would tell women not to father a child.
Bastid. That is SO UNfair.
Martha
Andre Lieven
> On 31 Jan 2003 16:07:40 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>Yet, its well supported by the FACTS, such as widespread DNA testing
>>showing that upwards of 30% of children born into *intact marriages*
>>have a father OTHER then the husband....
>>
>>The urls for this have been frequently posted here. Search Google.
>
> No, that's not the way it works. /You/ post proof of /your/ claim, or
> retract.
You mean, the way that so many atc-ers *don't* ? LOL.
> I suspect that the "upwards of 30%", *IF* from a credible source
> (which is a big IF given the crap I've seen tossed freely in here)
> comes from marriages in divorce courts where the spouse is disputing
> paternity as part of the impending custody/visitation
> clauses.......which would certainly NOT be a representive sample of
> the whole.
Nope, we were talking about cases where the couple were *still
married*.... *And*, where its not *allegations* of paternal fraud,
but rock solid DNA *proof* of same, done and birthed within the
marriage.
Nice pair of tries at evasions, though.
" This is soc.men. We know better. " Michael Snyder.
> Pony up your proof, or your claim is discredited.
I'll leave that to the chaps whose web capabilities are equal
to fulfilling that.
Society, Mark S, et al, pony up, if I might ask, those cites.
It surely won't shut her up, but it's still worth doing... <g>
> Supreme Dictator(nominee) of Soc.men
Pony up *your proof* ( for this claim) or your claim is
discredited.
Doncha just *hate it*, when others use your own " standards "
back at you ? <laughs>
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
>> look up, for a legal view, the principle of " mitigation of
>> damages ".
>
> i was just countering the analogy with the "layers of defense" argument.
>> It works as follows. Say I hit your car, and caused a broken bumper.
>> You then wait to get money to fix your car, and you cavalierly
>> leave your car out in the elements, rain, etc, for nine months. Now,
>> the bumper has rusted from the inlet of the crash damage, due to
>> the nine months of rain, that you have to replace said bumper.
>>
>> Am I, the driver of the car that hit your bumper, liabale for the
>> full costs of replacing the bumper ? No. I am only *legally* liable
>> for the direct costs of the damge that I *caused*. If you failed to
>> safeguard your property, to avoid more damage (
>
> cars and damage dont have anything to do with what happens in someone's
> body.
Nope. Legal standard principles *remain* those, and the location od
the damage and mitigations, or lackings, therof, matter in that respect,
not all all.
You're just worshipping at the great goddess " ovaries ", as if that
" changes everything ".
It doesn't. Grow up.
> sorry. a better analogy would be to say that someone with a medical
> injury due to that crash should have to wait for the insurance company's
> approval before they received medical attention.
Which changes what I wrote... not at all.
More empty handwaving...
>>> "ladies" dont need a guarantee.
>>
>> LOL ! So, why do they demand " perfect " BC, and/or " perfect "
>> Child Support ( aka " backdoor alimony " ) ?
>
> i'm talking about the prospect of pregnancy. they dont expect that any
> method of contraception is 100%.
That why they have a legal and available *only to them* method
of mitigating any resulting pregnancies. Duh !
>>> they understand what their options are, as dictated by biology.
>>
>> LOL ! Please be so kind as to find " Child Support *Payments* " in
>> any *biology textbook*...
>
> thanks, this is exactly my point. you want to make it a money issue but it
> is a science issue. and since the risks men take in having sex include
> becoming a parent and therefore responsible financially, you would think
> they would take that into account before having sex.
Yet, the wimmins don't have to, eh ?
> women have their own risks to face.
Oh yeah ? NONE of which they can't change their minds over, and
get *out of*.
To you, thats OK, for *women, and verboten for *men*.
Thats, well, misandristic sexism. *Yours*. Deal with it.
>>> maybe men should do that.
>>
>> Give us equal choice ( aka " C$M ", to *accompany the existing
>> state of C4W... ), and we'll agree.
>
> i don't have much of an opinion on that issue. haven't looked into it.
> i will do that.
That would be a good idea, surely better then supporting misandristic
sexism...
mothra...@hotmail.com
Yes. I imagine you are.
Martha
Bob
> Bob wrote:
>
>
>>Wrong. Its a political decision to give all choice to women - a very
>>feminist driven political decision.
>
>
>
> no, it is a biological decision to give people the right to make decisions
> about their bodily functions.
Wrong. Its a political decision that has gone back and forth depending
on political winds. Different times and different societies make
different political decisions. It wasn't a biological decision when
abortion was illegal in 1060 and its not a biological decision that
gives women a "right to choose" today.
>> Using nature as an excuse ignores
>>the plain fact that other actions could be taken.
>
> like what?
Like banning abortions, for example. Are you really that dumb?
>>Nature didn't create
>>your PC screen, but men decided to fool with nature and you get
>>organized electrons pretending to be letters. A different political
>>decision could easily be made about abortion choice too. Politics is
>>not forced by nature any more than the sexist words you wrote.
>
> the abortion choice is not material here. pregnancy happens to one gender.
> sb
Political decisions happen to all. Parenthood happens to both genders.
Both parents have moral rights and responsibilities.
You have added nothing to the conversation but claim that women deserve
special rights and protections because women are women. A circular
argument with no basis stated.
Bob
mothra...@hotmail.com
You really don't know shit, do you? Read up on the Dalcon Shield and
tell me about that. Better yet, post your address, and I'll send you my
defective double loop, complete with pus.
>
> > Somebody ought to write a letter, or something.
>
> LOL. Maybe somebody ought to just come out in favour of equal
> *laws*....
>
> Oh, I nearly forgot... Your *inability* to refute anything that I
> wrote, above, noted.
>
> My, you don't have much, do you ? No wonder I'm saying " no ! "...
> <laughs>
>
>
You poor, sad, lonely, frightened little man.
Martha
Syd Brooks
> Well, as I said, its bloody easy... Provided that the guy " figures "
> out how to only fuck women who *are honourable*...
some women have been trying to do that for years. or do you not consider a
man who says he will marry you if you get pregnant "honorable" when he
changes his mind afterward. i am trying to imagine a contract that will bind
him to marriage in the event of pregnancy.
sb
Andre Lieven
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:24:28 GMT, "tiny dancer"
> <tinyda...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Sharon B" <queenb...@buggeroff.org> wrote in message
>>news:ql7l3v8qd78bjr8p4...@4ax.com...
>>> >>
>>> >> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
>>> >>
>>> >> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
>>> >> dishonest practice...
>>> >
>>> >Formica changed attributions?
>>> >>
>>> >> > <snippers>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Form:
>>> >
>>years?
>>> >>
>>> >> Consider the " magic " of compound interest. Any act where the one-time
>>> >> rate of failure is 16% gives you a 50% rate with only about six re-
>>> >> occurrences.
>>> >
>>> >pregnancy, continues to use the same kind of condom, in the same way?
>>> >Boy, would that be dumb!
>>> >
>>> >> > irresponsibility or choice"?
>>> >>
>>> >> Because, while the condom is the ONLY BC method available to *men*,
>>> >> *women* have a plethora of BC choices, that can be used to supplement
>>> >> the condoms, and thus, greatly lower ( In military circles, this is
>>> >> known as a " layered defence " ) the odds of *all* of the BC defences
>>> >> having to fail, in order for an " opps " to occur.
>>> >
>>> >our nuptials, darling. And there's always withdrawal before
>>> >ejaculation.
>>>
>>> Nah, that's an old wives' tale...pre-ejaculate fluid contains sperm,
>>> and if it's anywhere near the vagina, can acquire its target.
>>>
>>> Only abstinence is 100%. Vasectomy, IIRC, is the next most reliable
>>> (followed by depoprovera and tubal ligation w/cauterization), most
>>> easily reversible, and less prone to side effects method of
>>> contraception.
>>
>>'how' to accomplish that feat?? I'd say there's gotta be something wrong
>>with the guy??
>
> Nah, takes two to tango.....I don't understand the whole insisting
> someone's to blame (outside of deliberate deception from either
> gender).
Yet, its a funny thing that, that its *women* demanding that men
*give the women money ( " Child Support " ) for the *women's
sole post-coital choices*....
> <shrug>
> ya drops yer draws, ya takes yer chances....applies equally to both
> genders
Excellent ! So, you will be working to *reduce all women's post-coital
choices to that of men's*.... Namely NONE ?
Funny how " ya drops yer drawers, ya takes yer chances " DOESN'T
apply to women and their lobby groups, who demand that women have
the *right to change their " chances "*...
Thats, well, *sexist*... As well as a lie.
But, being sexist makes it foul enough, on it's own.
formica63
Yes, it's a real bummer, Andy. See my earlier post where I use google to
demonstrate that your claim is bullshit.
Or just review it here ...
F:
> > And please, a cite for your 30%?
A:
> Others here can offer it, as when I save articles, etc, from online,
> I can't then access them to repost back to Usenet.
> Do a Google on " paternity fraud ".
F:
> > You are suggesting that one in three married women lies about the father
> > of her child?!
A:
> Yep. You can see loads of examples on day time " talk shows ". See any
> with " surprise paternity results, et al ", as the themes...
F:
The 30% represents individual who have requested a test, dummy. This is from
the "Man Rights Reference Desk"
"This is a summary report of the incidence of 'exclusions' - putative
fathers not related to the child in question. First two pages contain the
key info - about 29%, according to this report, but remember, these are
people who asked for testing."
http://personal.w-link.net/parkertr/Law/PaternityFraud.asp
Form.
Andre Lieven
>>> to understand.
>>
>> Your *projection* noted, and your degree of ignorance stipulated...
>
> so that is your strategy? call me "ignorant" at every turn?
" Mommy... He hit me BACK ! "
See YOUR words above: " I don't get why *this is so hard FOR THEM to
understand ", and *grasp the fact* that you called US " ignorant ",
in that statement of *yours*, first.
You *stared* the slag fast, now you're crying that I *showed up to
defend myself*.
How... *unmanly*. Of YOU. Deal with it.
>>> but you cant dispute the fact that
>>> they have to approach the situation differently if they want to guard
>>> against having a child they don't want or do want but can't have.
>>
>> Indeed, we DO understand that. That is why C4M doesn't demand the
>> *same rights*, since men are NOT women, and women are NOT men,
>> but we do demand *equivalent rights*, that is to say, the right
>> to *accomplish the same end purpose through similar but not the
>> same methods*.
>
> you keep bringing up this C4M thing when it was not a part of the posts i
> replied to. call me "ignorant" all you want, but at least be consistent and
> follow the threads.
Thank you, Net Cop Wannabe...
Seek help for your control issues.
Andre Lieven
Andre
Andre Lieven
>> *happy to tell women the SAME THING*... ?
>
Really ? So why is it that women have several powerful interest
groups all *fighting to keep women's and women's ONLY " rights "
to *get out of those " risks " all to themselves* ?
> why don't men?
Because men aren't allowed to, change their minds, afterwards,
and aren't allowed to choose anytihng *but what the woman chooses*,
afterwards.
Thats NOT " biology ", boi, thats LEGALITY.
Grasp the *difference*. For once.
Andre Lieven
>> >
>> >> Heres a clue for the ladies who may agree with this yob:
>> >>
>> >> If you want to guarantee that you won't get preggers.... DON'T FUCK.
>> >>
>> >> There you go.
>> >
>> > And here's a clue for the sock men:
>>
>> Group ad hom noted, coming *from a kook*...
>>
>>
>> *happy to tell women the SAME THING*... ?
>>
>
> IHNTA. Too busy cleaning monitor.
Ah. Yet another reason not to get with you. Lack of lip control...
Doctors can help you with that...
Sharon B
wrote:
>Sharon B (sha...@lart.com) writes:
>> On 31 Jan 2003 16:07:40 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Yet, its well supported by the FACTS, such as widespread DNA testing
>>>showing that upwards of 30% of children born into *intact marriages*
>>>have a father OTHER then the husband....
>>>
>>>The urls for this have been frequently posted here. Search Google.
>>
>> No, that's not the way it works. /You/ post proof of /your/ claim, or
>> retract.
>
>You mean, the way that so many atc-ers *don't* ? LOL.
I dunno, I'm not subbed there. Credible cites are a requirement in
the flame/UPA groups as well as the news* groups I sub to.
The kinda crap that flies freely in /here/ would splat on the floor
*there*.
>> I suspect that the "upwards of 30%", *IF* from a credible source
>> (which is a big IF given the crap I've seen tossed freely in here)
>> comes from marriages in divorce courts where the spouse is disputing
>> paternity as part of the impending custody/visitation
>> clauses.......which would certainly NOT be a representive sample of
>> the whole.
>
>Nope, we were talking about cases where the couple were *still
>married*.... *And*, where its not *allegations* of paternal fraud,
>but rock solid DNA *proof* of same, done and birthed within the
>marriage.
>
>Nice pair of tries at evasions, though.
You are the one that is evading. Your claim was "upwards of 30% of
children born into *intact marriages* have a father OTHER then the
husband"
....that means *all* marriages, since you didn't specify otherwise.
All children of all marriages have not been DNA tested, therefore your
claim appears ludicrous at best. Pony up the proof that shows
otherwise, modify your claim to fit your citable facts, or retract.
>" This is soc.men. We know better. " Michael Snyder.
I really wouldn't cite Mr.'Other Persons' Is Not Gender Neutral as an
authority on knowledge.
>> Pony up your proof, or your claim is discredited.
>
>I'll leave that to the chaps whose web capabilities are equal
>to fulfilling that.
>
>Society, Mark S, et al, pony up, if I might ask, those cites.
>It surely won't shut her up, but it's still worth doing... <g>
Be prepared for me to point out any fallacies in them.
>> Supreme Dictator(nominee) of Soc.men
>
>Pony up *your proof* ( for this claim) or your claim is
>discredited.
Not a problem.
Here is the message id for the post for the provision of Supreme
Dictator:
Message-ID: <b12hnl$lov$2...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>
Here is the message id for the start of the thread nominating moi:
Message-ID: <MPG.189e8ddb4...@news.earthlink.net>
If your newsreader is backwards and doesn't provide 'search on message
id' as a feature, then you'll have to go to deja.com's advanced search
feature and plug them in. Both threads are still on your news spool.
>Doncha just *hate it*, when others use your own " standards "
>back at you ? <laughs>
Why would I?
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>
>> (mothra...@hotmail.com) writes:
>> > Andre Lieven wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
>> >>
>> >> dishonest practice...
>> >
>> > Would you care--would you *dare*--to back up your nasty accusation that
>> > Formica changed attributions?
>>
>>
>
> Proof of what, hon? Remember, back when we were dating, and I accused
> you, wrongly, of snipping my post, and you went all mental?
Sorry, I don't do delusions... Or, delusionals... Next.
> I'm just trying to help, here.
<laughs>
> And no one (besides me) has accused you of doing anything. I mean
> ANYthing. So what would you need proof of, my sweet babboo?
An ability to hlod whats in your mouth in there, for one...
>> In any case, the *only* posts that I saw that contained any materiel
>> of formica's that didn't have the attributations were those posted
>> by formica...
>>
>> See " reasonable person " legal standards...
>
> Uh, my darling, what aisle would that be in?
Law. Oh wait, that involves those icky to you book thingies....
" Never mind ". Emily Latella.
>> >> > <snippers>
>> >> >
>> >> > Form:
>> >
>> >> > How does a 16% failure rate equal an unexpected pregnancy every four years?
>> >>
>> >> Consider the " magic " of compound interest. Any act where the one-time
>> >> rate of failure is 16% gives you a 50% rate with only about six re-
>> >> occurrences.
>> >
>> > Are you saying that a guy whose condom fails, resulting in an unwanted
>> > pregnancy, continues to use the same kind of condom, in the same way?
>> > Boy, would that be dumb!
>>
>> Well, if he used *the same condom*, yes...
>
> Wow--you *are* frugal!!!!1!!
" Its been in the family for years. " LOL.
>> But, unless you can show that one condom failure happening to one
>> guy guarantees that his next one won't also fail, you're whistling
>> in the dark on this...
>
> That's not whistling, baby... <Lauren Bacall reference considered, then
> dropped, in consideration of Andre's innocence>
LOL. Yeah, she was a sexy dame. A helluva knockout, *and* able to
stand with the guys, in " The Maltese Falcon. "
>> >> > It doesn't. How does a condom failure because a "woman's irresponsibility
>> >> > or choice"?
>> >>
>> >> Because, while the condom is the ONLY BC method available to *men*,
>> >> *women* have a plethora of BC choices, that can be used to supplement
>> >> the condoms, and thus, greatly lower ( In military circles, this is
>> >> known as a " layered defence " ) the odds of *all* of the BC defences
>> >> having to fail, in order for an " opps " to occur.
>> >
>> > Never heard of vasectomy, eh?
>>
>> No probs. Have her get her tubes tied.
>
> So condoms aren't the only choice men have. We ARE talking about men's
> choices, remember.
Indeed. For men, its condoms, surgery, or whatever the *woman
chooses*....
Yet, for women, its loads of BS, abortions, *legal* abandonment,
*legal* adopting out.... plus the tubals, et al.
Is the *difference about the extra *legal* choices that women get,
versus NONE at all for men*, sinking into that teentsy widdle gob
of what passes for grey matter yet ?
>> After all, either way, HE'S not getting preggers...
>>
>> " Her body, her choice... HER responsibility. "
>>
>> > We'll have to have a little chat before our nuptials, darling.
>>
>> Indeed, chykkie. " My way or the highway. " Deal.
>
> Oooh. And this is where you start to get afraid I'm going to beat you
> up? I'm getting all hot.
No way, chykkie. I have ample practice in dealing with " uppity "
women. See: B&D, S&M, D&S....
>> > And there's always withdrawal before ejaculation.
>>
>> Well, *thats* never going to happen, on two grounds...
>
> Oh, don't tease--
I'll decide that....
>> A pity, too, as I was so hoping to turn you down, *again*, solely
>> on your own lack of merits, without involving my sexual tastes
>> at all...
>
> My lawyer will be calling on you with some papers.
<laughs>
> Ever hear of Breach of Promise?
No problem. Mine will serve yours with Gross Inability To Perform.
>> > <snip rest of my darling Andre's pathetic mewling>
>>
>> That the kook *couldn't* refute...
>>
>> Boy, there nothing like her *inability*.... <laughs>
>
> <Martha retreats to her room, sobbing disconsolately, while Andre
> cruelly laughs>
You got it, biyatch. <laughs>
Andre Lieven
"formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
>> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
>> > Andre:
>> >
>> >> Heres a clue for the ladies who may agree with this yob:
>> >>
>> >> If you want to guarantee that you won't get preggers.... DON'T FUCK.
>> >>
>> >> There you go.
>> >
>> > And here's a clue for the sock men:
>>
>> Group ad hom noted, coming *from a kook*...
>
> ? I am not a "kook."
LOL. Can't prove that by anyone here....
>> > If you want to guarantee that you won't father a child ...
>>
>> No problem. So, since you are *for equality*, you are therefore
>> *happy to tell women the SAME THING*... ?
>
> I would suggest the same rule applies to any and all genders.
Then, explain why you support legal post-coital choices for
only women...
This oughta be good. Heh, heh...
Andre Lieven
LIE. I snipped out nothing.
So, we'll have my lawyer add Slander to the papers, then...
And, so lies aren't the only thing that you can't keep inside
of your widdle biyatch mouth...
<laughs>
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:b1e8m2$d5m$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> (mothra...@hotmail.com) writes:
>> > Andre Lieven wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
>> >>
>> >> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
>> >> dishonest practice...
>> >
>> > Would you care--would you *dare*--to back up your nasty accusation that
>> > Formica changed attributions?
>>
>> Ah, so we have to offer you proof, but you *don't*, to us ?
>>
>> Hypocrisy noted...
>
> Huh? What the fuck are you talking about? Out of the blue you made this
> nasty and false accusation without a shred of evidence.
Sue me. The ONLY poster's posts that this is happening with, are YOURS.
Its called a " logocal conclusion "...
> That's because it's not true, guy.
Then, check your newsreader. Its not mine, as mine *can't* be
configured to do that.
> Now you're calling names? I don't need to offer proof that
> I haven't done what I haven't done. I don't even know what you're
> pretending I did with "attributations."
Attributations are the names of the previous posters, listed in
order of their order of posting.
It looks like this ( Or, ought to, if your %$#@& reader worked ):
>> > Andre wrote:
>> Someone wrote:
> Some Else wrote:
They appear at the top of the post, before the text starts.
And, if there are, say, three lines of attributations, as in the
above example ( >> >, >>, > ), then there ought to be three names
at the top.
There are, *except in your posts*. And, once YOU snip them out,
by will or ignorance, they're gone.
>> In any case, the *only* posts that I saw that contained any materiel
>> of formica's that didn't have the attributations were those posted
>> by formica...
>>
>> See " reasonable person " legal standards...
>
> What the fuck are you talking about? I have done nothing "dishonest," mate,
> and you need to pull your head in on this one. Pronto.
I've explained it. If you're too clueless, then go read up on Usenet
Posting Procedures.
Your ignorance *isn't* my preblem. Deal with it.
Andre Lieven
> On 31 Jan 2003 16:36:18 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>> (mothra...@hotmail.com) writes:
>>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
>>>>
>>>> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
>>>> dishonest practice...
>>>
>>> Would you care--would you *dare*--to back up your nasty accusation that
>>> Formica changed attributions?
>>
>>Ah, so we have to offer you proof, but you *don't*, to us ?
>
> It was /your/ accusation.
Working by *your standards*...
>>Hypocrisy noted...
>
> Denied.
Yet another thing you claim to yourself, and deny to others.
Exhibit C, M'Lud.
Andre Lieven
Ah, the old " You can't get any, so your argument must fail ".
What IS with you kooks, that you equate and measure *everything*
by claimed sexual performance ?
Talk about sex-addicts.... Dumb ones, at that...
Sharon B
wrote:
>Sharon B (queenb...@buggeroff.org) writes:
>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:58:50 -0500, mothra...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
>>>>
>>>> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
>>>> dishonest practice...
>>>
>>>Would you care--would you *dare*--to back up your nasty accusation that
>>>Formica changed attributions?
>>>
boyz and their toyz
>> Only abstinence is 100%.
>
>Indeed. So, if men need to " not stick it into places ", then
>women *also* need to " keep those legs closed ".
Correct. And if they don't, then both get to take their respective
lumps, be adult and STOP WHINING. I HATE WHINING. it's not allowed,
i put it in the preliminary faq
>> Vasectomy, IIRC, is the next most reliable
>> (followed by depoprovera and tubal ligation w/cauterization), most
>> easily reversible, and less prone to side effects method of
>> contraception.
>
>Well, I dare say that you aren't going to get loads of men
>" testifying " as to how easy a snip-snip was... Especially
>the ones who did the reversal thing...
Who said it was easy?
>The point being, to try to equalte women's plethora of BC
>choices ( And, I'm not addressing you, here ), as equivalent
>to a man getting *surgery*, is wrong.
No it isn't.
>So, vasetomy, more or less = tubals.
Um, no.
Tubal ligation w/cauterization is very expensive, classified as Major
Surgery, done under general anesthetic or spinal block with vastly
increased risks of complications, some of them life threatening. It
is performed in the operating theatre of a hospital, requires weeks of
recuperation, and are not easily reversible (reversal *also* being
Major Surgery).
Vasectomies are out patient procedures done in a urologist's office
under local anesthetic with low risk of complications, recuperation of
just a few days, low comparative cost, easily reversible and with a
higher efficacy than any other form of birth control other than
abstinence.
>And, Pills, etc, equals,
>for men... nothing...
Hormonal birth control has many side effects, some of them life
threatening, and are contra-indicated in many women (and also become
neutralized in the presence of an antibiotic regimen). I would
imagine the same will be true when the male pill comes out.
>But a bit of latex.... But, *both* have
>that- See " female condom ".
It takes two to tango, NO WHINING.
Andre Lieven
> Andree:
Ah, so you *denied* fucking with your attributation lines, yet
now you alter the *names* ?
Wotta LIAR...
Well, you'd know, oh now *proven to be lying about the attributations*.
> <laughs><laughs><laughs>
Well, you've made yourself clear as a *simple troll*.
Ker-Fucking-Sploosh-Plonk for you.
Enjoy blowing Parg in Kill File Hell...
Andre Lieven
Well, for once, you imagine correctly.
Then again, its not like I didn't make it clear enough to even a
fruitbat...
<laughs>
Andre Lieven
In any case, the *difference is*, when your shield ( " Captain, she
canna take any more, the Shields can't take all this pounding... " )
fails, YOU STILL HAVE OPTIONS.
When the condom fails, the guy has NO MORE options. Duh !
>> > Somebody ought to write a letter, or something.
>>
>> LOL. Maybe somebody ought to just come out in favour of equal
>> *laws*....
>>
>> Oh, I nearly forgot... Your *inability* to refute anything that I
>> wrote, above, noted.
>>
>> My, you don't have much, do you ? No wonder I'm saying " no ! "...
>> <laughs>
>
> You poor, sad, lonely, frightened little man.
<laughs> Indeed, you have no clue. But, attend to your self
comforting delusions, I don't mind, as a man, I can be...
generous.
The bon bons are on the tray, right by the Oprah magazine...
LOL.
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
>> Well, as I said, its bloody easy... Provided that the guy " figures "
>> out how to only fuck women who *are honourable*...
>
> some women have been trying to do that for years.
*Always* about the wimmins, oh widdle pussy boi...
Lets do be *clear* about this, OK ?
There is simply NO WAY that a " dishonourable " guy can *make a
woman* have a baby.
He can help her get preggers. BUT, since she, and *only she* gets
several post-coital choices, theres simply NOTHING that he can do
that will *guarantee* a kid occuring nine months later, *unless
she chooses for it to be so*.
And, its the *exact opposite, for men.
> or do you not consider a
> man who says he will marry you if you get pregnant "honorable" when he
> changes his mind afterward.
No more then I consider *any women aho doesn't have an express contract,
ie-marriage*, done and done, *before* she pops out a kid.
Yet, how many men do that, v/ how many women ? The single-by-choice
mommy club's numbers speak to that most elequently.
> i am trying to imagine a contract that will bind
> him to marriage in the event of pregnancy.
Ah, so to you, its always about binding HIM to HER.
Never the other way around ?
Why are your views SO misandristically *sexist* ?
mothra...@hotmail.com
When the shield failed, some women died, and many women became sterile.
Jen Larson
Andre Lieven wrote:
> LOL. The Old " Can't Get Any " attempted shaming ploy of Festering
> Femmeroids. How ( like themselves ) *old*...
More redundant and idiotic hypocritical stupidity from addled Andre.
formica63
> Ya snipped out the attributations, *again*...
>
> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
> >> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
> >> > Andre:
> >> >
> >> >> Heres a clue for the ladies who may agree with this yob:
> >> >>
> >> >> If you want to guarantee that you won't get preggers.... DON'T FUCK.
> >> >>
> >> >> There you go.
> >> >
> >> > And here's a clue for the sock men:
> >>
> >> Group ad hom noted, coming *from a kook*...
> >
> > ? I am not a "kook."
>
> LOL. Can't prove that by anyone here....
>
> >> > If you want to guarantee that you won't father a child ...
> >>
> >> No problem. So, since you are *for equality*, you are therefore
> >> *happy to tell women the SAME THING*... ?
> >
> > I would suggest the same rule applies to any and all genders.
>
> Then, explain why you support legal post-coital choices for
> only women...
>
> This oughta be good. Heh, heh...
I don't, Andre. Heh, heh.
formica63
Moth:
> > That's not whistling, baby... <Lauren Bacall reference considered, then
> > dropped, in consideration of Andre's innocence>
Andree:
> LOL. Yeah, she was a sexy dame. A helluva knockout, *and* able to
> stand with the guys, in " The Maltese Falcon. "
All the more incredible since she wasn't in the movie. You're a cinema buff
as well, I see.
Form (formatted as I please).
Andre Lieven
Thats why its *properly called HIStory*....
Oh, and where would the wimmins be, without the men's technical
competance that made all those toys that make history ?
In freakin' caves... Granted, with nice chintz curtains, but
caves, nonetheless.
<laughs>
>>> Only abstinence is 100%.
>>
>>Indeed. So, if men need to " not stick it into places ", then
>>women *also* need to " keep those legs closed ".
>
> Correct.
Good...
> And if they don't, then both get to take their respective
> lumps, be adult and STOP WHINING.
As soon as *both* have a LEGAL capability granted to them to *change
their choices, post-coitally*...
Right now, only *women* have that...
And, Festering Femmeroids call that " equality "...
<laughs>
> I HATE WHINING. it's not allowed, i put it in the preliminary faq
Too bad, so sad. Men will say what we will, and no grrl gets to say
otherwise.
Hand !
>>> Vasectomy, IIRC, is the next most reliable
>>> (followed by depoprovera and tubal ligation w/cauterization), most
>>> easily reversible, and less prone to side effects method of
>>> contraception.
>>
>>Well, I dare say that you aren't going to get loads of men
>>" testifying " as to how easy a snip-snip was... Especially
>>the ones who did the reversal thing...
>
> Who said it was easy?
When you directly compared it to taking a Pill...
>>The point being, to try to equalte women's plethora of BC
>>choices ( And, I'm not addressing you, here ), as equivalent
>>to a man getting *surgery*, is wrong.
>
> No it isn't.
<laughs> Yet, you CAN'T say how, eh ?
>>So, vasetomy, more or less = tubals.
>
> Um, no.
>
> Tubal ligation w/cauterization is very expensive, classified as Major
> Surgery, done under general anesthetic or spinal block with vastly
> increased risks of complications, some of them life threatening. It
> is performed in the operating theatre of a hospital, requires weeks of
> recuperation, and are not easily reversible (reversal *also* being
> Major Surgery).
And, a man getting a snip isn't taking a Pill... Thats an *invasive*
procedure, which puts it alongside tubals for women, which are also
invasive procedures.
> Vasectomies are out patient procedures done in a urologist's office
> under local anesthetic with low risk of complications, recuperation of
> just a few days, low comparative cost, easily reversible and with a
> higher efficacy than any other form of birth control other than
> abstinence.
Ibid.
>>And, Pills, etc, equals, for men... nothing...
>
> Hormonal birth control has many side effects, some of them life
> threatening, and are contra-indicated in many women (and also become
> neutralized in the presence of an antibiotic regimen). I would
> imagine the same will be true when the male pill comes out.
LOL. Yet, women sure love their Pills.... Doncha know that any med
has some risk ? Sheesh.
>>But a bit of latex.... But, *both* have that- See " female condom ".
>
> It takes two to tango, NO WHINING.
In sex, yes.
In gestating to birth, clearly no. Read a biology textbook...
Andre Lieven
crocodile tears for other women ? How... Pathetic.
Lets let a man tell you grrls... *Life is risk*. You don't all make
it to 85, but more of you get there then men do, and we're not
whining all the liveling day about that being an " entitlement "
for men.
We're just talking about EQUAL LEGAL RIGHTS....
Andre Lieven
Now, heres a loony tottsie that really can't get enough of me,
Martha...
She even follows me into threads *where I don't mention her*.
So, Jen, you take the cyber stalker wingnuttinesss prize from
Martha.
No still means No !, though.
<laughs>
Andre Lieven
> Moth:
How'd you make it through that Kill File ? Damn, I gotta fix it...
>> > That's not whistling, baby... <Lauren Bacall reference considered, then
>> > dropped, in consideration of Andre's innocence>
>
> Andre:
>> LOL. Yeah, she was a sexy dame. A helluva knockout, *and* able to
>> stand with the guys, in " The Maltese Falcon. "
>
> All the more incredible since she wasn't in the movie. You're a cinema buff
> as well, I see.
Damn, yes. TVO did a back to back, commerical free ( as all their
programmes are ) of The Big Sleep, 1946, and she was in *that*,
with The Maltese Falcon.
Those late nights do it, every time. But, for Bogey, its worth it...
Sharon B
wrote:
>Sharon B (sha...@lart.com) writes:
>> On 31 Jan 2003 16:36:18 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (mothra...@hotmail.com) writes:
>>>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
>>>>> dishonest practice...
>>>>
>>>> Would you care--would you *dare*--to back up your nasty accusation that
>>>> Formica changed attributions?
>>>
>>>Ah, so we have to offer you proof, but you *don't*, to us ?
>>
>> It was /your/ accusation.
>
>Working by *your standards*...
Why is it 'my standards' to require the claimant to be the one to
proffer proof?
>>>Hypocrisy noted...
>>
>> Denied.
>
>Yet another thing you claim to yourself, and deny to others.
It was denied because it wasn't an example of hypocrisy.
>Exhibit C, M'Lud.
You haven't exhibited anything other than your failure to comprehend
what is obvious to others.
Sharon B
wrote:
>Sharon B (queenb...@buggeroff.org) writes:
>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:24:28 GMT, "tiny dancer"
>> <tinyda...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Sharon B" <queenb...@buggeroff.org> wrote in message
>>>news:ql7l3v8qd78bjr8p4...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:58:50 -0500, mothra...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
>>>> >> dishonest practice...
>>>> >
>>>> >Would you care--would you *dare*--to back up your nasty accusation that
>>>> >Formica changed attributions?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > <snippers>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Form:
>>>> >
>>>> >> > How does a 16% failure rate equal an unexpected pregnancy every four
>>>years?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Consider the " magic " of compound interest. Any act where the one-time
>>>> >> rate of failure is 16% gives you a 50% rate with only about six re-
>>>> >> occurrences.
>>>> >
>>>> >Are you saying that a guy whose condom fails, resulting in an unwanted
>>>> >pregnancy, continues to use the same kind of condom, in the same way?
>>>> >Boy, would that be dumb!
>>>> >
>>>> >> > It doesn't. How does a condom failure because a "woman's
>>>> >> > irresponsibility or choice"?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Because, while the condom is the ONLY BC method available to *men*,
>>>> >> *women* have a plethora of BC choices, that can be used to supplement
>>>> >> the condoms, and thus, greatly lower ( In military circles, this is
>>>> >> known as a " layered defence " ) the odds of *all* of the BC defences
>>>> >> having to fail, in order for an " opps " to occur.
>>>> >
>>>> >Never heard of vasectomy, eh? We'll have to have a little chat before
>>>> >our nuptials, darling. And there's always withdrawal before
>>>> >ejaculation.
>>>>
>>>> Nah, that's an old wives' tale...pre-ejaculate fluid contains sperm,
>>>> and if it's anywhere near the vagina, can acquire its target.
>>>>
>>>> Only abstinence is 100%. Vasectomy, IIRC, is the next most reliable
>>>> (followed by depoprovera and tubal ligation w/cauterization), most
>>>> easily reversible, and less prone to side effects method of
>>>> contraception.
>>>
>>>Why is it that some men can go a whole lifetime without leaving any little
>>>unwanted offspring behind..........and yet others can't seem to figure out
>>>'how' to accomplish that feat?? I'd say there's gotta be something wrong
>>>with the guy??
>>
>> Nah, takes two to tango.....I don't understand the whole insisting
>> someone's to blame (outside of deliberate deception from either
>> gender).
>
>Yet, its a funny thing that, that its *women* demanding that men
>*give the women money ( " Child Support " ) for the *women's
>sole post-coital choices*....
<shrug>
They had their chance to make a choice pre-coital, they should also be
smart enough to realize life offers no guarantees.
>> <shrug>
>> ya drops yer draws, ya takes yer chances....applies equally to both
>> genders
>
>Excellent ! So, you will be working to *reduce all women's post-coital
>choices to that of men's*.... Namely NONE ?
Why would I do that? You are not understanding the premise of Roe v.
Wade, I think....that though it is an unfortunate side effect that
abortion can be applied by the woman as post-coital birth control, the
overwhelming balance of the woman's absolute right to exercise
absolute control over her own body must remain paramount......the law
cannot and should not get into the area of forcing a person to explain
*why* they make their various choices.
Just so, you have your right to exercise absolute control over your
sperm prior to conception. Once conception has occurred, then the
onus switches over to the woman's right to control her body....that
you are trying to relegate abortion to the level of nothing more than
another form of birth control is ludicrous. Abortion rights has
*never* been a black and white issue, on *many* levels.
>Funny how " ya drops yer drawers, ya takes yer chances " DOESN'T
>apply to women and their lobby groups, who demand that women have
>the *right to change their " chances "*...
They're not changing their chances, conception has already occurred.
Once the child has been *born*, then it is the child's right that
becomes paramount, hence support orders. Why do you fail to see the
plainly obvious?
>Thats, well, *sexist*... As well as a lie.
No, it's biology. It's no one's /fault/ that babies are carried to
term in women. The man *had* an absolute guarantee of preventing
conception, he chose not to avail himself of it, as did she.
>But, being sexist makes it foul enough, on it's own.
I'm sorry, apparently you were told growing up that Life is Fair and
that there *is* such a thing as a free lunch. It isn't. Each
cultural sub-group has its own crosses to bear due to societal
pressure, geographic location, gender, race, religious affiliation,
etc. Deal.
...and STOP WHINING. it's in the faq. You have made the exact same
response to three seperate posts of mine, you may stop spamming Usenet
now.
John Jones
> Sharon B (sha...@lart.com) writes:
> > On 31 Jan 2003 16:07:40 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre
Lieven)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Yet, its well supported by the FACTS, such as widespread DNA
testing
> >>showing that upwards of 30% of children born into *intact
marriages*
> >>have a father OTHER then the husband....
> >>
> >>The urls for this have been frequently posted here. Search
Google.
> >
> > No, that's not the way it works. /You/ post proof of /your/
claim, or
> > retract.
>
> You mean, the way that so many atc-ers *don't* ? LOL.
>
source
> > (which is a big IF given the crap I've seen tossed freely in
here)
> > comes from marriages in divorce courts where the spouse is
disputing
> > paternity as part of the impending custody/visitation
> > clauses.......which would certainly NOT be a representive
sample of
> > the whole.
>
> Nope, we were talking about cases where the couple were *still
> married*.... *And*, where its not *allegations* of paternal
fraud,
> but rock solid DNA *proof* of same, done and birthed within the
> marriage.
>
> Nice pair of tries at evasions, though.
>
>
>
> I'll leave that to the chaps whose web capabilities are equal
> to fulfilling that.
>
> Society, Mark S, et al, pony up, if I might ask, those cites.
> It surely won't shut her up, but it's still worth doing... <g>
>
paternity tests it conducted on men in 1999, 2000. and 2001 ruled
out nearly 30% as the father. There seems to be a slight upward
trend as well. They have a web site (http://www.aabb.org/ )
containing this information. It's also here:
http://www.4yobiz.com/paternityfraud/aabb2001.pdf (bottom of page
2).
Andre Lieven
> On 31 Jan 2003 18:24:53 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>Sharon B (sha...@lart.com) writes:
>>> On 31 Jan 2003 16:36:18 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> (mothra...@hotmail.com) writes:
>>>>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
>>>>>> dishonest practice...
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you care--would you *dare*--to back up your nasty accusation that
>>>>> Formica changed attributions?
>>>>
>>>>Ah, so we have to offer you proof, but you *don't*, to us ?
>>>
>>> It was /your/ accusation.
>>
>>Working by *your standards*...
>
> Why is it 'my standards' to require the claimant to be the one to
> proffer proof?
Mo, its clear that your " standards " are to demand from other the proofs
that you are unwilling to givem when its on you.
This is also substantiated by your posting this to the kooks ng...
>>>>Hypocrisy noted...
>>>
>>> Denied.
>>
>>Yet another thing you claim to yourself, and deny to others.
>
> It was denied because it wasn't an example of hypocrisy.
LOL. Wrong. Demanding from other what you *refuse* to proffer yourself,
IS hypocrisy.
>>Exhibit C, M'Lud.
>
> You haven't exhibited anything other than your failure to comprehend
> what is obvious to others.
[...../] Irony meter pegs, because...
> Supreme Dictator(nominee) of Soc.men
Uh huh. Point made.
Sir Jessy of Clone
> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
> > "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> >> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
> >>
> >> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
> >> dishonest practice...
> >
> >> > years?
> >>
> >> Consider the " magic " of compound interest. Any act where the one-time
> >> rate of failure is 16% gives you a 50% rate with only about six re-
> >> occurrences.
> >
> > condoms only break during those 24 hours of ovulation every month?
>
> Irrelevent. Since the man doesn't *know* when such times are, then he
> *cannot* act in such a manner as to be " perfect " at those times, and
> be lacadasical at others... Further, many women have more then 24 hours
> of fertility every 30 days... Further, not all sperm die in ten minutes...
>
> >> > irresponsibility or choice"?
> >>
> >> Because, while the condom is the ONLY BC method available to *men*,
> >> *women* have a plethora of BC choices, that can be used to supplement
> >> the condoms, and thus, greatly lower ( In military circles, this is
> >> known as a " layered defence " ) the odds of *all* of the BC defences
> >> having to fail, in order for an " opps " to occur.
> >>
not
> > use them. Those folks bump up the rate some, Andre.
>
> Feel free to show *proof* of that claim of *yours*...
>
> > The likelihood that those failures fall
> > within a period propitious for conception (24 hours, once a month, at
> > optimal level) becomes even more remote.
>
> Ditto.
>
> >
http://www.reproline.jhu.edu/english/1fp/1methods/1condom/html/cn0a901/sld01
> >> > 1.htm
> >> >
> >> > 2.When used correctly and consistently, the male latex condom is an
> >> > effective contraceptive; the estimated 12-month perfect-use pregnancy
> >> > rate is 3% (2). Pregnancies during perfect use
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Lets re-emphasise that point...
> >
> > Which point? "Effective contraceptive"?
>
> Is your literacy so low that you *cannot* note the two words that
> I *underlined* ?
>
> >> > are caused by condom breakage,
> >> > slippage or microscopic holes. The male condom can also be highly
> > effective
> >> > against STDs when used correctly and consistently (3,4). Incorrect
and
> >> > inconsistent use, however, can substantially reduce the effectiveness
of
> >> > condoms. The 12-month typical-use pregnancy rate of the condom is
> > estimated
> >> > to be 14% (2). Subgroup analyses of the 1988 National Survey of
Family
> >> > Growth (NSFG) show just how difficult condoms are to use correctly
and
> >> > consistently for some women (5). For example, in the subgroup, never
> >> > married, income less than 200% of the federal poverty level, and less
> > than
> >> > 20 years of age, the 12-month typical-use pregnancy rate was 51.3%;
> > 12-month
> >> > typical-use pregnancy rates were above 20% in 6 of the 15 subgroups
> >> > analyzed. Nonuse of condoms by women who report use of condoms as
their
> >> > "regular" method of contraception is believed to play a far greater
role
> >> > in this wide range of pregnancy rates than is condom failure (2).
> >>
> >> Indeed. This speaks to the unstated " women's *choice to get and stay
> >> pregnant*...
> >>
> >> IOW, BC, even condoms are *useless* when matched by a woman who,
> >> *unilaterally*, decides to get preggers...
> >
> > Christ almighty. It refers to *nonuse*, not "unilateral" anything.
This
> > image of condoms "matched" by sinister incubating women is simply
bizarre.
>
> Yet, its well supported by the FACTS, such as widespread DNA testing
> showing that upwards of 30% of children born into *intact marriages*
> have a father OTHER then the husband....
>
> The urls for this have been frequently posted here. Search Google.
>
Just browsing this thread, and I notice how Form thinks it ok to ask for
proof, but then fails to give it when asked. So typical of the opposition.
> >> " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*... "
>
> Indeed.
>
> >> > http://www.ama-assn.org/special/contra/library/scan/mar98/frezcom.htm
> >> >
> >> > 3.This study found that a small minority of users, 9 percent, were
> >> > responsible for half of all failures.
> >>
> >> IOW, screw them for not being " perfect "...
>
> Indeed. Thats your *sexist* view...
>
> >> > Other studies have shown similar patterns.
> >> > The retrospective arm of a study among 44 female sex workers from
> >> > Nevada, USA, gathered data on more than 41,000 condoms used prior to
the
> >> > interview. One woman reported 41 percent of all condom breaks, and
three
> >> > women reported nearly half of all slippage. (Albert 1995) During a
study
> >> > among 540 male and female family planning clients who used more than
> > 3,700
> >> > condoms, 3 percent of the participants were responsible for 34
percent
> > of
> >> > the breaks. (Sparrow) Similarly, among 87 male STD clients who used
more
> >> > than 50 condoms in the previous year, four men experienced 30 percent
of
> >> > the total breakage. (Richters 1993) Distribution of condom failure
was
> > uneven,
> >> > but less pronounced, in two evaluations comparing polyurethane with
> >> > latex condoms (Nelson 1997, 1996)
> >>
> >> Well, that proves that not all human beings are freely interchangable.
> >>
> >> Next, you gonna show us proof that the Sun rises each morning in the
> >> east, too ?
> >
> > It demonstrates that your figures and reasoning are specious.
>
> LOL. Not even close, toots.
>
> >> > In general, these findings suggest that specific characteristics and
> > user
> >> > behaviors of a minority of users lead to condom failure. Because
condom
> >> > failure is not equally distributed among all users, most condom users
> > are
> >> > likely to experience condom failure less often than the average
failure
> >> > rates reported in published studies imply. Moreover, published condom
> >> > failure rates may vary across studies in part because of the
differences
> > in
> >> > characteristics and behaviors among different groups of study
> > participants.
> >>
> >> IOW, " people are people ".
> >
> > No, IOW, condoms are effective contraceptives when used properly, or
simply
> > used.
>
> Yet, you continue to *fail to grasp RELATIVE effectivenesses*....
>
> Not my problem that numbers scare you so much...
>
> >> > User Characteristics Associated with Condom Failure
> >> >
> >> > A review of studies on condom use and characteristics of users
indicates
> >> > that a history of condom failure and less experience using condoms
are
> > risk
> >> > factors for future failure. Other characteristics that may be
associated
> >> > with condom failure are young age, less education, less income, and
> >> > large or circumcised penis (see Table 3-2).
> >>
> >> So much for " one size fits all "... <g>
> >
> > No one's ever believed that, have they?
>
> Men are honest about it, most women lie... Then again, most women know
> far less about men, men's issues and needs, and male sexuality then
> they think, and less then men know about women.
>
> Because, the difference between men and women ( AS groups, there are
> always exceptions that prove the rule ) is that men don't systemically
> lie about the other sex, both solo ( See Oprah ) and in groups ( See
> " Sex And The City " ) in the way that women commonly do, and so
> commonly do, that there is a whole multi *billion* dollar industry
> that provides a steady supply of lies to the women... From Hallmark,
> to Cosmo, to " romance novels ", to the wrteched plethora of " self
> help " books...
>
> >> > http://www.fhi.org/en/fp/fpother/conom/conmon5.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> The fact that womens choices are not limited to biology, but
enhanced
> > by
> >> >> legislation, shows that there is a lack of choice for men to decide
if
> >> >> they want to become a parent. Women are not limited in this
respect.
> >>
> >> Indeed. THATS the inherant *sexism* of this whole issue, the *lower
> >> legal righst to men to make their own choices*...
> >
> > Blame God, dude.
>
> God DOESN'T sit on the Supreme Court, OR in federal and state
legislatures.
Ha! Exactly. God has left the building, but her red herring remains.
>
> Or, when we did give women fewer rights for being *women*, should we have
> told the suffragettes: " Blame God ", too.
I think it was Mark who said that even the non-feminist women of the first
and second waves, knew intrinsically that they would be doubble dipping.
Then when men ask for simple basic human rights, they are more then eager to
suggest that 'that's the way things have always been'.
>
> If yes, then get your ass back into the kitchen, and stop whining, like
> your menfolks tell you to, OR, stop demanding that men do *what women
> refused/refuse to do*...
>
> As that claim of yours is blatant sexist hypocrisy...
>
> >> And, we note that you REFUSED to address this most key of points...
>
> And, *still* refuse to/*can't*...
Yup.
>
> >> >> I am one of others who propose that women be given the sole *rights*
> > and
> >> >> *responsibilities* for children they unilaterally decide to
conceive.
> >> >> concieve. This is not the entirety of the proposal, you can read
that
> >> >> for yourself.
> >> >>
> >> >> > > > The worst thing in the world for a child is a peevish,
resentful,
> >> >> > > > selfish three
> >> >> > > > year-old for a parent, male or female. So, I think we agree.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > In that we do. Like Mark S. would say, "Forced parenthood is
like
> >> >> > > rape, except it has two victims: father, and child".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's an absurd comparison. Fathers who become fathers did so by
> >> >> > being responsible for the birth of a child.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, I disagree. The descision to have sex, with the above
mitigating
> >> >> factors, only makes a man .3% culpable for a womans unilateral
> >> >> decision to conceive.
> >> >
> >> > ? Is this based on your extrapolation of condom failure rates? Condom
> >> > failure is an act of god, unless it occurs through incorrect use.
It's
> >> > not a "decision to conceive."
> >>
> >> Indeed. Lets repeat that: " Condom failure, no matter through what
cause,
> >> is NOT a man's decision to concieve. "
> >>
> >> Thus, it would be grossly *immoral* to obligate him to such a decision
> >> that *he never made*...
> >
> > ? I never decided to be an Australian citizen, but I have a plethora of
> > obligations which flow from that fact.
>
> Yet, Australia gives you *the legal right to renounce all rights AND
> obligations of Australian citizenship*, rather easily, too....
>
> Yet, you would DENY men the *same rights*....
>
> Again, sexist hypocrisy.
Yes, it is pretty difficult to find an analogous situation in the
industrialized world for all the legal rights women currently have wrt
reproduction that men don't have.
The more times people that don't understand this try to draw an analogy, the
easier it is to point out what they are really thinking, and more
importantly, what they are actually saying.
> >> >> > They are not victims of anything but their own behaviour.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are forgeting the plethora of choices both post and pre
conception
> >> >> that women have. Many of these choices are a result of legislation
> >> >> that allows women to unilaterally make the choice for men to become
a
> >> >> parent.
> >> >
> >> > Under what circumstance can a woman unilaterally choose to
> >> > disenfranchise a
> >> > father? She can lie about the paternity of the child. That's not a
> >> > "choice," but an act of deception, and I'd assume fraudulent and
> >> > illegal.
> >>
> >> No, its actually *both*. An act of deception IS a choice TO decieve.
> >
> > I'm aware English is sometimes thorny for you, dude.
>
> <yawn> Unsupported ad hom. IOW.... NOTHING....
>
> > It is not a "reproductive choice" to commit fraud. Clearer?
>
> For women, it IS. See " Presumption Of Paternity " laws in the US for
> one example...
Exactly.
>
> >> For that matter, can you tell us what sanctions are placed upon a woman
> >> who either names NO man as the father, thus depriving the child of a
> >> needed
> >> parent, or upon a woman who names the *wrong man* as the bio-father ?
> >>
> >> Exactly... NONE AT ALL.
> >
> > What do you propose, dude?
>
> See: " C4M ". By which, through *legal rights*, any man who does not
desire
> the rights *and* obligations would have a *legal right* to refuse
paternity.
> The only way that a woman could get him to accept said paternity, either
> before birth, or, for that matter, before conception/sex, would be to
> get him to *agree* to sign an agreement ( And, in order to do this,
> legislatures have to pass laws that would give such agreements legal
> standing, such that courts would have to honour them ) to that effect.
>
> One may posit that, in trade for the man's agreement to parent, the
> woman may well have to also agree not to abort the resulting foetus,
> as any such agreement would have to freeze *both party's* abilities
> to change their minds, after the signing, or else, we would have a
> form that would ONLY freeze a man's rights, and not a woman's.
>
> That would be, of course, *sexist*.
>
> Now, one major societal benefit of this concept, would be that with
> single women no longer able to fiscally obligate men to *the women's
> unilateral choices*, women would be dis-encouraged to make such
> unilateral choices, which *they themselves are NOT prepared to similarly
> be unilaterally responsible for*.
>
> Thus, after time for the reality of this to sink in, you'd get far
> fewer " oppsies ". Since the fiscal incentive for them, would be
> gone.
More then likely, you would also have fewer social problems that are derived
from irresponsible behaviour.
>
> >> > Every "safe haven" law I have read includes a father's perogative to
be
> >> > reunited with his child.
> >>
> >> Cites ?
> >
> > I've done them more than once. That's enough.
>
> No. To me, you've shown... nothing that contradicts what I have seen,
> read, and saved to HD, on this.
>
> Thats a related area of C4M, that often isn't included. The necessity
> of default *joint legal AND physical child custody*, absent any *proof*
> that either parent is a daner to the child. This would also
dis-incentivise
> many women's proclivity to birth something that will " looove them ",
> while expecting someone *else* to pay for most of it.
>
> >> >> > I would make an exception only for non-consensual sex, ie rape of
a
> >> >> > man, or a fraudulent use of semen (it happens), and for fathers
> >> >> > who are under the age of consent, for, as with all children, they
do
> >> >> > not know what they do.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's good, but I do not think you extend the rights you have far
> > enough.
> >> >> Responsible people make choices that they have to be _responsible_
for.
> >> >> If someone has legally mandated choices that far outweigh the
choices
> >> >> another party has, do we call that inequality, or not? With rights
> >> >> comes responsibilities.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, they do. But the difference between male & female choice is
> >> > reducible to biology, not the law.
> >>
> >> Thats *grossly untrue*. Consider: What comes with women's presumed
right
> >> of at least initial full custody ( Only enhanced by there being NO
> >> sanction against her for maintaining said sole custody *by naming NO
> >> father at all* ) is her sole right to legally abandon a newborn at a
> >> firestation or hospital, or to legally adopt the baby out.
> >>
> >> *Neither* of those is either a medical or biological method, and
> >> neither depends on it's user to possess a set of ovaries. Men can
> >> just as easily do either action.
>
> *Unable* to refute this ? Good, then you *must* agree...
>
> >> > Maternity is not disputable.
> >>
> >> Indeed. Given the discussions on paternal fraud rates, in some studies
> >> as high as 30%, in married couples, at that, we are aware that it is
> >> impossible for a man to decieve a woman about her *maternity*, but
> >> that it is very easy for a woman, any women, to decieve any man about
> >> his paternity...
> >
> > Again, you have to blame God for that.
>
> ROTFLMAO ! So, IYO, " God " made her go and fuck someone other then
> her wedded husband, AND choose to bear the resulting foetus ?
>
> Thats, well, nuts.
>
> The best example of a comment that blows your claim right out of the
> water, is a line from the HBO Larry Sanders Show, where Larry's ex-2-b
> is trying to " explain " her affair by saying:
>
> " It was an accident. "
>
> Larry: " Oh, so a truck came along, hit you both, all your and his
> clothes flew off, and you landed on his *erect dick* ? " LOL.
Form is again explaining away irresponsible behaviour.
>
> > And please, a cite for your 30%?
>
> Others here can offer it, as when I save articles, etc, from online,
> I can't then access them to repost back to Usenet.
>
> Do a Google on " paternity fraud ".
>
> > You are suggesting that one in three married women lies about the father
> > of her child?!
>
Not 1 in 3, but 3 in 10.
> Yep. You can see loads of examples on day time " talk shows ". See any
> with " surprise paternity results, et al ", as the themes...
> >> > Until recently
> >> > paternity certainly was, and at best it is tenuous without scientific
> >> > determination. By contrast, babies grow inside women. They are hard
to
> >> > wave away under that circumstance.
> >>
> >> You apparently haven't heard of *abortion*.... DO try to keep up with
> >> the news of the last 40 years...
> >
> > ? Abortion is considerably older than 40 years, and a little more
complex
> > than a wave of the hand.
>
> If you were speaking literally about that " wave ", then, since no BC
> method works that way, your comment was... irrelevent. Just hand waving.
>
> Oh, and *legal* abortion doesn't go back much past 40 years... Do try
> to keep up...
Welcome to the first wave of choice for men :)
>
> >> Duh ! And, in any case, any woman in the US can either abandon a
newborn,
> >> *legally*, or adopt out a newborn, *legally*.
> >
> > Nope. Father's rights are commonly enshrined in any such process, as
they
> > ought to be.
>
> ROTFLMAO ! So, get copies of " Divorced Dads; Shattering The Myths ",
> by Sanford Braver, " The Divorce From Hell ", Wendy Dennis, " The
> Myth Of Male Power ", Warren Farrell, " The War Against Boys; How
> Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men ", Christina Hoff
> Sommers, " Not Guilty; The Case In Defense Of Men ", David Thomas,
> " The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce; A 25 Year Landmark Study ",
> Judith Wallerstein...
>
> You are SO out of your depth of awareness on this issue, that you
> could simply not be any MORE wrong...
>
> Oh, and before you ad hom me by claiming that " I must have had a
> terrible divorce/custody fight ", let me tell you that I have NO
> children, by *anyone*. By choice, thank you. but, I don't require
> that an injustice be done to me, personally, before I acknowledge
> it is being an injustice...
>
Exactly. Same here.
> >> So, there were have at least three ways for a woman, any woman, to
> >> " wave away " a baby, *and her maternal obligations*, post-coitally,
> >> *only one of which is in any way dependent on her biology, yet we
> >> *deny* men the *equal right* to utilise the non-biological methods
> >> to make their own choices...
> >
> > Are you cracked? Have you ever seen a child being born? Do seriously
compare
> > pregnancy with "nope, not my kid"?
>
> Your words: " Blame God ". Or, are you suggesting that women, as a group,
> are SO addled that they don't understand that sex+gestation=birth ?
LOL! That was her red herring, she was trying to 'guilt' us into agreeing
that women are not culpable for their choices.
> >> Theres a word for that: *sexism*...
> >
> > I believe God is waiting for your call.
>
> <laughs> I'm an atheist...
I'm agnostic myself, but who's counting.
>
> >> >> > Un*witting*, not "unwilling" fathers definitely ought not to be
> >> >> forced upon
> >> >> > a child unless they have the cojones to accept the consequences of
> >> >> their own behavior.
> >> >> > If they don't, they are the type of men to be a destructive
> >> >> > influence in the life of a child, who is better off without them.
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree. I don't see why your analogy can not be extended to women
who
> >> >> force men to be responsible for children only they had the choice to
> >> >> conceive.
> >> >
> >> > I don't believe *any* man should be "forced to be responsible" for a
> >> > child they have repudiated. The matter of conception is irrelevant.
> >> > Women are able to conceive in a very narrow band of time. They can't
> >> > just hatch a plot to do it.
> >>
> >> LOL. Again, you don't get out much, do you....
> >
> > I dare say I'm a little more in touch with such matters than you.
>
> <laughs> Riiigghhtt..... ( Dr. Evil voice ) Yet, you're the one trying
> to seel the idea that women don't know that sex+gestation=birth...
>
> > You seem thoroughly ignorant.
>
> Translation From The Femmeroid Language: " I *can't* refute your
> specific points, so I'll call you names, as if it were some sort
> of intellectual substs=itute, and *hope* that no one is bright
> enough to note the difference. "
>
LOL, so true.
> <laughs> Too bad for you, that we're pretty bright here...
>
> >> > It requires luck, and semen. If men do not understand that sex
> >> > can lead to reproduction, and accept that as part of the bargain,
they
> >> > are out-of-touch with mother nature. ALL contraception can fail.
> >>
> >> Indeed. Yet, ONLY WOMEN are allowed to make *legal and non-biological*
> >> choices, *post-coitally*.
> >>
> >> Theres a word for that: sexism...
> >
> > ONLY WOMEN are pregnant. There's a word for that: biology.
>
> Yet, when the " argument " of " biology is destiny " is used *against*
> women, women repudiate it, but when it *suits* women, to have *more
> LEGAL rights then men*, you *embrace it*.
See what I was saying earlier.
>
> How... *hypocritical*. Do make up your mind...
>
> >> >> > For those reasons, and not because I'm having my heartstring
pulled
> >> >> > by irresponsible men who seemingly aren't adult enough to accept
the
> >> >> > consequences of their actions, I do not believe such fathers have
a
> >> >> > role in the life of a child.
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree, and for the same reasons I do not believe mothers that
> >> >> conceive of their own volition, without getting consent should
expect
> >> >> a man to be responsible for her choice. Having sex is not the same
> >> >> as agreeing to become a parent.
> >> >
> >> > Having penetrative, unprotected heterosexual sex is not agreeing to
> >> > become a parent, but it certainly is implicating oneself in any
> >> > resulting pregnancy.
> >>
> >> Indeed. And, under the well established by legal precedent principle of
> >> " mitigation of damages ", that would legally obligate the man to *no
> >> more then 50% of the costs of a legal abortion*. And, if the woman
> >> chooses differently, and her different choice results in higher costs,
> >> well: " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*... "
> >
> > I'm fascinated by your total indifference to ethical obligation.
HAHAHAHA! Translation: I'm amused that you think your unearned guilt is
not impetus for obligation.
>
> You mean, *what women claim as an obligation FROM men*.
>
Indeed.
> I'm fascinated at your total indifference of any obligations going
> FROM women TO men...
>
> We call that *sexism*, of course...
>
> We also note your INABILITY to explain WHY any man has an " ethical "
> obligation to any woman's *sole and later unilateral choice*....
>
> Or, if the man " chooses " to buy a Lexus a day after the sex, SHE
> is also " ethically " obligated to support HIS choice ?
>
> >> > Perhaps the solution is to have a notary at hand and to require your
> >> > partner to consent to your conditions. After all, it's your position
> >> > which exposes you to risk.
> >>
> >> Not at all. All that would be required is to change the legal default
> >> position, to *match that of all contract law*, that states that in the
> >> *absense* of a specific agreement to do more then have sex*, there
> >> is created NO legal and binding obligation beyond the basic mitigation
> >> of damages directly arising from said mutual choice to have sex.
> >
> > No, dude. You don't seem to understand law very well, either. Find me a
> > lawyer prepared to make such a contract which eliminates pregnancy as a
> > forseeable consequence, and excludes either party from ongoing
> > responsibility. You won't.
>
> Of course not. But, you *fail* to address why, since no lawyer can
> draw up any agreement that is *voided* by *existing case law*.
>
> Just as, in the US South, in 1850, no lawyer could draw up an
> agreement that would ahve freed the slaves on other slaveholders,
> *since, there and then*, slavery was *legal*.
>
Exactly.
> That changed... The law *is* mutable. You *fail* to grasp this fact.
>
Amazing fact of lfe isn't it?
> > I can see a bad faith action resulting from a deceptive non-employment
> > of contraception by either party, a tortious rather than contractual
> > action, if contraception is understood as a form of insurance.
>
> Not at all. Since *gestation/birth* is NOT an *unavoidable* state,
> mitigation of damages would result in minimal obligations, based
> on what the minimal costs of mitigating the resulting damages *are*.
>
> In this case, that would be an abortion, 50% costs therof.
I would like to mention that said cost could also be the costs of delivery,
as forcing to abort by proxy is just wrong in my opinion. However, that's
where obligations end if chosen.
>
> >> IOW, the mutual act of sex could create a state of pretgnancy, which is
> >> legally and minimally mitigatable by an abortion. Said costs to be as
> >> mutual as the choice to have the sex.
> >> Any further obligations, *created by the unilateral choice of ONE of
> >> the couple*, remaining the *unilateral responsibility of the chooser*.
> >
> > Chooser? You lifted that term right out of contract law, too?
>
> <laughs> When you CAN'T refute anyhitng, you go after an *irrelevency*,
> that of one *word*.
>
> Feel free to " legalise " it all you want. It *won't change the point*.
>
> >> >> > The community will shoulder responsibility for providing such a
child
> >> >> > with the nourishment it can never get from a derelict parent, or a
> >> >> > sum of money resentfully put its way.
> >> >>
> >> >> Encouraging irresponsible behaviour is your perogative.
> >> >
> >> > It's encouraging irresponsibility to suggest communities take care of
> >> > children?
> >>
> >> Indeed. No such " community " made the *choice* to gestate and birth
> >> the child.
> >
> > It's a suggestion, not an obligation.
>
> Good. Then, I am free to ignore it...
>
> >> " No taxation without representation. " A founding principle of the
> >> US, which states basically that, if one wasn't allowed to *participate
> >> in the making of the choice to do (X), then one isn't obligated to
> >> support the consequences resulting from (X).
>
> *Inability* to refute this, also noted. You really don't have much
> argument to offer, other then " But, its the way it always was ! ".
>
> Its that we do understand that Feminists *cannot*, in good conscience,
> fight *against* that argument, in order to get " equal " rights for
> women, and then USE it, to fight equal rights for MEN.
Even traditionalist men and women often fight this. Men out of a misguided
sense of chivalry or just plain paternalistic instinctf, and the women
because they see it as a threat to the status quo.
>
> >> > I see.
> >>
> >> No, you don't. See above.
> >
> > No, I do.
>
> Wow, what a fact filled and blistering rebuttal...
>
> Oh, wait, it wasn't anyhting but a flouncy hand wave.
>
> Too bad, so sad...
Andre Lieven
Your *indifference* to those not possessing your type of genitals
noted...
Thats *sexism*, BTW. *Yours*, which makes you a.... BIGOT.
> They had their chance to make a choice pre-coital, they should also be
> smart enough to realize life offers no guarantees.
Yet, you'd squeal like a stuck sow, were anyone to tell that to YOU,
because you are a woman...
Bigotry proved. QED.
>>> <shrug>
>>> ya drops yer draws, ya takes yer chances....applies equally to both
>>> genders
>>
>>Excellent ! So, you will be working to *reduce all women's post-coital
>>choices to that of men's*.... Namely NONE ?
>
> Why would I do that?
To dispell the charge that you are for women's *priviliges*, derived
by their *being women*.
IOW, when being a woman lessens your choices, you scream like a stuck
sow, but when that *sexism enhances your choices, THEN its OK.
Bigoted hypocrisy. QED.
> You are not understanding the premise of Roe v. Wade, I think....
What, that a woman can LIE about her situation, and get treated
better then a man, *because shes a woman* ? No, I got that very well.
> that though it is an unfortunate side effect that
> abortion can be applied by the woman as post-coital birth control, the
> overwhelming balance of the woman's absolute right to exercise
> absolute control over her own body must remain paramount......the law
> cannot and should not get into the area of forcing a person to explain
> *why* they make their various choices.
No *need* to. All thats necessary is to NOT make men pay for *women's
unilateral choices*.
See, Mark S, over here, is exactly right about you Festering Femmeroids.
Without *special women-only priviliges*, you grrls would be back in
burquas in about twenty seconds. Because *you can't handle actual
EQUALITY, wherin, *neither men nor women get extra LEGAL rights over
the other*.
We have NO issue with women birthing any babies that they want.
We just say: " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*... "
As in, if you want to buy a car, YOU pay for it. If you want to
give birth to a child, that you weren't able to marry the guy so
as to make a real family, meaning, his consent counts, TOO, then
no one else has any duty to *pay for your unilateral choices*.
Trying to couch your claim as " biology " is entirely fatuous.
Because this ISN'T a matter of biology, since the LAWS that make
men pay for women's unilateral reproductive choices AREN'T biological
in nature. They're *legal*, and law.... change.
Ask any black person who was alive in 1950....
> Just so, you have your right to exercise absolute control over your
> sperm prior to conception. Once conception has occurred, then the
> onus switches over to the woman's right to control her body....that
> you are trying to relegate abortion to the level of nothing more than
> another form of birth control is ludicrous. Abortion rights has
> *never* been a black and white issue, on *many* levels.
Straw man. I'm not talking about abortion rights changing at all.
Get an abortion any time you want. I'm personally cool with that.
but, don't presume for a *man*, that his having had sex equals
consent to reproduce, *when you DON'T accept that premise for the
woman*.
>>Funny how " ya drops yer drawers, ya takes yer chances " DOESN'T
>>apply to women and their lobby groups, who demand that women have
>>the *right to change their " chances "*...
>
> They're not changing their chances, conception has already occurred.
Which has *zip* to do with *legally obligating him to her choice
to continue that physical state of HERS to conclusion*.
" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*... "
> Once the child has been *born*, then it is the child's right that
> becomes paramount, hence support orders. Why do you fail to see the
> plainly obvious?
I would ask that of you. What part of, the guy didn't necessarily
*want* to become a parent do YOU not get ?
>>Thats, well, *sexist*... As well as a lie.
>
> No, it's biology. It's no one's /fault/ that babies are carried to
> term in women. The man *had* an absolute guarantee of preventing
> conception, he chose not to avail himself of it, as did she.
Again, all straw men. The issue is LEGAL rights.
>>But, being sexist makes it foul enough, on it's own.
>
> I'm sorry, apparently you were told growing up that Life is Fair and
> that there *is* such a thing as a free lunch. It isn't. Each
> cultural sub-group has its own crosses to bear due to societal
> pressure, geographic location, gender, race, religious affiliation,
> etc. Deal.
Good ! So, you'll be fine with men then deciding " No rights for me ?
No rights for YOU ! ", while we dismantle abortion and other post-
coital " rights " for women.
Turn about is fair play.... Deal with it.
> ...and STOP WHINING. it's in the faq. You have made the exact same
> response to three seperate posts of mine, you may stop spamming Usenet
> now.
Oh, shut up, wanna be loon. This is a PUBLIC newsgroup, and if you
don't like that...
TOUGH !
Andre Lieven
There you go, Sharon, game, set and *match*.
Badda bing ! Next.
Ross
news:b1esr5$g34$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca:
[snip]
> Without *special women-only priviliges*, you grrls would be back in
> burquas in about twenty seconds. Because *you can't handle actual
> EQUALITY, wherin, *neither men nor women get extra LEGAL rights over
> the other*.
Thanks for the laugh!
Archived into my "Stupid Things Said in soc.men" file
> " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
> The Man Prayer, Red Green.
It's clear you really, really, Really, REALLY don't want to.
Here, try this: <hands Andre the duct tape>
R.
--
W "Some people are alive only because
. | ,. w , it is illegal to kill them."
\|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est (.sig from Lionel)
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Syd Brooks
>> i was just countering the analogy with the "layers of defense"
>> argument.
>
> Ineffectively....
in your opinion.
>
>>> It works as follows. Say I hit your car, and caused a broken bumper.
>>> You then wait to get money to fix your car, and you cavalierly
>>> leave your car out in the elements, rain, etc, for nine months. Now,
>>> the bumper has rusted from the inlet of the crash damage, due to
>>> the nine months of rain, that you have to replace said bumper.
>>>
>>> Am I, the driver of the car that hit your bumper, liabale for the
>>> full costs of replacing the bumper ? No. I am only *legally* liable
>>> for the direct costs of the damge that I *caused*. If you failed to
>>> safeguard your property, to avoid more damage (
>>
>> cars and damage dont have anything to do with what happens in
>> someone's body.
>
> Nope. Legal standard principles *remain* those, and the location od
> the damage and mitigations, or lackings, therof, matter in that
> respect, not all all.
>
> You're just worshipping at the great goddess " ovaries ", as if that
> " changes everything ".
>
> It doesn't. Grow up.
lol. i'm not sure who pissed in your wheaties, but you are proving to be a
first-class asshole.
sb
Sir Jessy of Clone
"formica63" <form...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:Awu_9.37465$jM5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> <snippers>
>
> > > > No, I disagree. The descision to have sex, with the above
mitigating
> > > > factors, only makes a man .3% culpable for a womans unilateral
> decision
> > > to
> > > > conceive.
> > >
> > > ? Is this based on your extrapolation of condom failure rates? Condom
> > > failure is an act of god, unless it occurs through incorrect use.
It's
> > not
> > > a "decision to conceive."
>
> > Yes, owing to the fact that plentiful almost fail-safe contraception
> (0.3%)
> > is available to women, it is most certainly a womans choice
> > to concieve (which is where responsibility comes into play). Women also
> > have the choice to abort, which is a _legal_ choice.
>
> It seems to me that this is a matter of personal ethics. I can't agree
that
> once an unplanned pregnancy occurs, women unilaterally have a "choice" to
> abort their child.
What is it about 'they have a legal choice' that is hard to grasp.
Many women (myself included) would find abortion an
> untenable "solution," irrespective of how we might feel about the options
> available to other women and men.
I'm not disputing that.
My sense and experience is that unwanted
> pregnancies are usually unwanted by both parties, and the decision next
made
> is negotiated between the two, as adults do generally go about things.
>
The unequal decisions are made agreeable by two *fair* adults if you are
lucky.
There are no sanctions or measures in place to give men a degree of choice
in the matter, that remains strictly in the domain of a woman who could, if
she wanted
force a man to be responsible for her decisions. What method of consensual
sex do you know of that will put a woman in prison simply for having sex?
A man can be thrown in jail from a one night stand if he is poor, and cannot
pay child support. The state can gain slave labour as a direct result of a
mans innabilty to choose.
> >
> > >
> > > > They are not victims of anything but
> > > > > their own behaviour.
> > > >
> > > > You are forgeting the plethora of choices both post and pre
conception
> > > that
> > > > women have. Many of these choices are a result of legislation that
> > allows
> > > > women to unilaterally make the choice for men to become a parent.
> > >
> > > Under what circumstance can a woman unilaterally choose to
> disenfranchise
> > a
> > > father?
> >
> > She can choose to conceive against the wishes of her partner, and she
can
> > choose to bring that child to term.
> > She also has the choice of aborting the child against the fathers
wishes.
> > She can lie about the paternity of the child. That's not a
> > > "choice," but an act of deception, and I'd assume fraudulent and
> illegal.
> >
> > Yes, and a man in Australia was recently awarded 70K for this. No one
in
> > the US has won back
> > any of the money they have been assessed wrongly for AFAIK. In fact, in
> > most cases the men must continue to support children that are not
theirs,
> > children that they were deliberately lied to wrt paternity.
>
> And this is an act of fraud if committed knowingly.
I agree.
>
> > > Every "safe haven" law I have read includes a father's perogative to
be
> > > reunited with his child.
> > >
> > > > I would make an exception only for non-consensual sex,
> > > > > ie rape of a man, or a fraudulent use of semen (it happens), and
for
> > > > fathers
> > > > > who are under the age of consent, for, as with all children, they
do
> > not
> > > > > know what they do.
> > > >
> > > > That's good, but I do not think you extend the rights you have far
> > enough.
> > > > Responsible people make choices that they have to be _responsible_
> for.
> > > If
> > > > someone has legally mandated choices that far outweigh the choices
> > another
> > > > party has, do we call that inequality, or not? With rights comes
> > > > responsibilities.
> > >
> > > Yes, they do. But the difference between male & female choice is
> > reducible
> > > to biology, not the law.
> >
> > Abortion is not a biological choice. It exists purely because
legislation
> > allows it to. The same goes with adoption, and abandonment.
>
> As regards abortion, it is an invasive procedure performed on a woman's
> body. I can see no grounds upon which one could ethically oblige a woman
to
> abort her child.
Neither can I.
Neither adoption nor abandonment necessarily
> disenfranchise fathers. The FACT is however that biological differences
> make the relation of each sex to reproduction very different.
Different and unequal.
>
> > Maternity is not disputable. Until recently
> > > paternity certainly was, and at best it is tenuous without scientific
> > > determination. By contrast, babies grow inside women. They are hard
to
> > > wave away under that circumstance.
> >
> > You seem more then willing to wave away any and all culpability for
women
> > wrt their choice to conceive/and or bring to term.
>
> ? I note that sock men keep asserting this,
Why the bitterness about the group?
but I'm not aware of it. I think
> it's highly irresponsible to conceive a child without an intention to give
> it everything it deserves, including its father.
Thanks.
I do not think a woman can
> be judged one way or another over the matter of abortion, and am not
really
> interested in getting into an abortion discussion. The issue here is male
> responsibility for unwanted children. I agree than no man should be
forced
> to father a child he does not want. I don't think we get there the same
> way, but that's by the by.
Hypothesis breeds anti-thesis which can breed synthesis.
>
> > > > > Un*witting*, not "unwilling" fathers definitely ought not to be
> > forced
> > > > upon
> > > > > a child unless they have the cojones to accept the consequences of
> > their
> > > > own
> > > > > behaviour. If they don't, they are the type of men to be a
> > destructive
> > > > > influence in the life of a child, who is better off without them.
> > > >
> > > > I agree. I don't see why your analogy can not be extended to women
> who
> > > > force men to be responsible for children only they had the choice to
> > > > conceive.
> > >
> > > I don't believe *any* man should be "forced to be responsible" for a
> child
> > > they have repudiated. The matter of conception is irrelevant.
> >
> > Only if you believe women are not responsible for their choices.
>
> How so? Perhaps a father wished to conceive and later changed his mind.
> That is the circumstance I was thinking about.
That should be his perogative when not married, and casually sleeping
around. Women have this perogative (and a plethora of choices), but here
you
are implying that he doesn't, and perhaps even that he shouldn't.
>
> > Women are
> > > able to conceive in a very narrow band of time. They can't just hatch
a
> > > plot to do it.
> >
> > Sure they can, and many have.
> >
> > It requires luck, and semen. If men do not understand that
> > > sex can lead to reproduction, and accept that as part of the bargain,
> they
> > > are out-of-touch with mother nature.
> >
> > Abortion is not natural. However, it makes sense that since women have
> the
> > option to conceive/bring to term, men should also have the option to
> decide
> > whether or not they wish to accept paternal rights and responsibilities.
> At
> > one time marriage was the overriding institution that granted said
rights
> > and responsibilities by default, but now there are all kinds of
agreements
> > that lack a formal contract.
>
> And I agree with that! I've said so over and over!
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Encouraging irresponsible behaviour is your perogative.
> > >
> > > It's encouraging irresponsibility to suggest communities take care of
> > > children? I see.
> >
> > No, what is irresponsible is conceiving and/or gestating a child when no
> > agreement has been made by both parties.
>
> I would say, "deliberately conceiving contrary to the desire of either
> party."
In the absence of committment the default assumption is non-committal. This
is what women are being sold anyways, just watch tv, read a book written
'for women', watch opra etc. The whole message is that they can do it all,
by themselves, and who cares what a man thinks anyways. Ally Mcbeal can
just go find a sperm donor, and you just know that episode X is going to
phase out the father.
It's quite simple really. One standard for women, and another for men.
>
> > This leads to demonstrated social harm, as studies show wrt single
> > motherhood, and fatherless homes.
>
> Single parents are a fact of life, and always have been.
Sure, but there is no need to encourage that, which evidence shows, is
detrimental.
>
> >Further,
> > expecting society to pick up the tab for your choices is certainly
> > irresponsible.
>
> Agreed. You haven't noticed, it seems?
You wouldn't say that if your ignorance didn't blind you to injustice.
>
> Form.
>
>
Sharon B
That is a credible site. Roughly 30% exclusions (worldwide, not just
US). Though I confess being unable to determine whether the
"exclusions" they were talking about were referring to *people*
excluded as fathers or some part of the testing process.
>It's also here:
>http://www.4yobiz.com/paternityfraud/aabb2001.pdf (bottom of page
>2).
That source is completely ruled out, it reads like one of those fr00ty
right wing militia sites. Credible sites are unbiased....the first
site was credible, showing roughly 30% of *all* men worldwide were
excluded from being the father (if I understood the subject
correctly)....and all I can say is, "stupid women". That nearly 1/3
cannot correctly identify the father on the first attempt boggles my
teeny little mind.
HOWEVER, the claim was:
"upwards of 30% of children born into *intact marriages* have a father
OTHER then the husband."
That first cite does not support that claim.
Still waiting.
Sharon B
wrote:
>Sharon B (sha...@lart.com) writes:
>> On 31 Jan 2003 17:42:40 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Sharon B (queenb...@buggeroff.org) writes:
>>>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:24:28 GMT, "tiny dancer"
>>>> <tinyda...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Sharon B" <queenb...@buggeroff.org> wrote in message
>>>>>news:ql7l3v8qd78bjr8p4...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:58:50 -0500, mothra...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Andre Lieven wrote:
[...]
>>>Yet, its a funny thing that, that its *women* demanding that men
>>>*give the women money ( " Child Support " ) for the *women's
>>>sole post-coital choices*....
>>
>> <shrug>
>
>Your *indifference* to those not possessing your type of genitals
>noted...
You're making things up, Andre. That shrug signaled no such thing.
>Thats *sexism*, BTW. *Yours*, which makes you a.... BIGOT.
Nice debating technique. Someone disagrees with you, they're a sexist
BIGOT. How sad for you that tactic doesn't fool most people.
>> They had their chance to make a choice pre-coital, they should also be
>> smart enough to realize life offers no guarantees.
>
>Yet, you'd squeal like a stuck sow, were anyone to tell that to YOU,
>because you are a woman...
No, I wouldn't. You are not qualified to tell me what I would do in
*any* situation, and show yourself the fool to try.
>Bigotry proved. QED.
Only to other idiots, Andre. Because someone disagrees with The World
According to Andre doesn't make them a bigot.
>>>> <shrug>
>>>> ya drops yer draws, ya takes yer chances....applies equally to both
>>>> genders
>>>
>>>Excellent ! So, you will be working to *reduce all women's post-coital
>>>choices to that of men's*.... Namely NONE ?
>>
>> Why would I do that?
>
>To dispell the charge that you are for women's *priviliges*, derived
>by their *being women*.
But I don't /care/ what your silly little merit-less charges are.
>IOW, when being a woman lessens your choices, you scream like a stuck
>sow, but when that *sexism enhances your choices, THEN its OK.
It is an "enchanced choice" to have the right to control one's own
body? Do you not enjoy that same right, to exercise absolute control
over *your* body?
>Bigoted hypocrisy. QED.
No, you're just doing ad hominems because you cannot debate on the
merits. You have to act like a little kid and start calling names.
I can do that too, and better, so NYAH.
>> You are not understanding the premise of Roe v. Wade, I think....
>
>What, that a woman can LIE about her situation, and get treated
>better then a man, *because shes a woman* ? No, I got that very well.
Thank you for demonstrating concisely that you do /not/ understand the
premise of Roe v Wade.
[...]
>No *need* to. All thats necessary is to NOT make men pay for *women's
>unilateral choices*.
Again, you don't get the obvious. When the fetus becomes viable, the
child's rights are paramount. It is *the child* who is suing for
support.
>See, Mark S, over here, is exactly right about you Festering Femmeroids.
Nice. More name calling. Your flame arsenal is truly blistering,
Andre
<snicker>
>Without *special women-only priviliges*, you grrls would be back in
>burquas in about twenty seconds. Because *you can't handle actual
>EQUALITY, wherin, *neither men nor women get extra LEGAL rights over
>the other*.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
<holds sides>
QUIT THAT!
No, never mind......carry on stamping your tiny little feet and
clenching your tiny little fists in this unabashed temper
tantrum......all because you can't logically refute any of my points
and want to WHINE about how unfair it is.
Tough noogies. If you grew up thinking Life is Fair, then you're a
fewel.
>We have NO issue with women birthing any babies that they want.
>We just say: " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*... "
Nope. It is the child's absolute right to receive support from both
its parents.
>As in, if you want to buy a car, YOU pay for it.
Dang....what kind of retard *are* you, sitting here trying to equate a
car to a child? Is that how you get all your screwball ideas,
thinking of people as property?
>If you want to
>give birth to a child, that you weren't able to marry the guy so
>as to make a real family, meaning, his consent counts, TOO, then
>no one else has any duty to *pay for your unilateral choices*.
No, Andre. The child has a father and a mother. Both have to pay.
Both took that risk when they dropped their draws.
>Trying to couch your claim as " biology " is entirely fatuous.
>Because this ISN'T a matter of biology, since the LAWS that make
>men pay for women's unilateral reproductive choices AREN'T biological
>in nature. They're *legal*, and law.... change.
If abortion were illegal, you would still have to pay.
>Ask any black person who was alive in 1950....
<rolls eyes>
Are you going to Godwin next?
[...]
>Straw man. I'm not talking about abortion rights changing at all.
Liar. "No rights for YOU ! ", while we dismantle abortion and other
post->coital " rights " for women."
>Get an abortion any time you want. I'm personally cool with that.
>but, don't presume for a *man*, that his having had sex equals
>consent to reproduce, *when you DON'T accept that premise for the
>woman*.
[...]
>I would ask that of you. What part of, the guy didn't necessarily
>*want* to become a parent do YOU not get ?
Then he shoulda kept it zipped, fewel. He is also entitled to joint
custody.
[...]
>Again, all straw men. The issue is LEGAL rights.
Yes, the child gets them all. The child didn't get asked to be
brought into the world.
[...]
>Good ! So, you'll be fine with men then deciding " No rights for me ?
>No rights for YOU ! ", while we dismantle abortion and other post-
>coital " rights " for women.
>
>Turn about is fair play.... Deal with it.
So then, women get to force you guys to have a vasectomy. Fair is
fair, right? Legally *force* you to go in for a little snippy snip?
>> ...and STOP WHINING. it's in the faq. You have made the exact same
>> response to three seperate posts of mine, you may stop spamming Usenet
>> now.
>
>Oh, shut up,
Or?
>wanna be loon. This is a PUBLIC newsgroup, and if you
>don't like that...
>
>TOUGH !
stop shouting. your little temper tantrums do not impress me.
Sharon B
wrote:
>Sharon B (sha...@lart.com) writes:
>> On 31 Jan 2003 18:24:53 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Sharon B (sha...@lart.com) writes:
>>>> On 31 Jan 2003 16:36:18 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> (mothra...@hotmail.com) writes:
>>>>>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "formica63" (form...@bigpond.com) writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First of all, snipping out and changing the attributations is a most
>>>>>>> dishonest practice...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you care--would you *dare*--to back up your nasty accusation that
>>>>>> Formica changed attributions?
>>>>>
>>>>>Ah, so we have to offer you proof, but you *don't*, to us ?
>>>>
>>>> It was /your/ accusation.
>>>
>>>Working by *your standards*...
>>
>> Why is it 'my standards' to require the claimant to be the one to
>> proffer proof?
>
>Mo, its clear that your " standards " are to demand from other the proofs
>that you are unwilling to givem when its on you.
>
>This is also substantiated by your posting this to the kooks ng...
Um.....asking you to back up claims you make is hypocritical because I
post to AUK?
That's pretty dumb, Andre.
[...]
>LOL. Wrong. Demanding from other what you *refuse* to proffer yourself,
>IS hypocrisy.
I gave you the message ids about my nomination as Supreme Dictator.
It isn't my fault you're too ignorant to know how to pull message ids
even after I gave you directions.
Andre Lieven
Indeed, and of their abject hypocrisy....
What was that line from the *novel* M*A*S*H ? " Whenever something
goes wrong with a patient of Frank's, its either God Will or someone
else's fault.. "
>> Or, when we did give women fewer rights for being *women*, should we have
>> told the suffragettes: " Blame God ", too.
>
> I think it was Mark who said that even the non-feminist women of the first
> and second waves, knew intrinsically that they would be doubble dipping.
Yes.
> Then when men ask for simple basic human rights, they are more then eager to
> suggest that 'that's the way things have always been'.
Indeed. When the status quo favours them, its OK. When it doesn't,
then its " We shall overcome... "
Hypocrisy.
>> If yes, then get your ass back into the kitchen, and stop whining, like
>> your menfolks tell you to, OR, stop demanding that men do *what women
>> refused/refuse to do*...
>>
>> As that claim of yours is blatant sexist hypocrisy...
>>
>> >> And, we note that you REFUSED to address this most key of points...
>>
>> And, *still* refuse to/*can't*...
>
> Yup.
Indeed. Their cowardice to face the issue is clear...
Exactly. Even the old whore of " Afghanistan " fails to take into
account that, while women were made to wear burquas, men were taken
off and either *killed*, or made to fight for the Taliban.
Gee, wear a robe, or take gunfire ? Gee, to a Festering Femmeroid,
thats " equal "... When the *man* takes the lead, of course...
> The more times people that don't understand this try to draw an analogy,
> the easier it is to point out what they are really thinking, and more
> importantly, what they are actually saying.
Agreed.
>> >> >> > They are not victims of anything but their own behaviour.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are forgeting the plethora of choices both post and pre
> conception
>> >> >> that women have. Many of these choices are a result of legislation
>> >> >> that allows women to unilaterally make the choice for men to become
>> >> >> a parent.
>> >> >
>> >> > Under what circumstance can a woman unilaterally choose to
>> >> > disenfranchise a
>> >> > father? She can lie about the paternity of the child. That's not a
>> >> > "choice," but an act of deception, and I'd assume fraudulent and
>> >> > illegal.
>> >>
>> >> No, its actually *both*. An act of deception IS a choice TO decieve.
>> >
>> > I'm aware English is sometimes thorny for you, dude.
>>
>> <yawn> Unsupported ad hom. IOW.... NOTHING....
>>
>> > It is not a "reproductive choice" to commit fraud. Clearer?
>>
>> For women, it IS. See " Presumption Of Paternity " laws in the US for
>> one example...
>
> Exactly.
We know all this so well, that these simpletons, who " think " that
they're coming up with new claims... Really are trotting out the same
old whores of sexist claims that we've heard from Festering Femmeroids
now for 40 years...
Like Patsy on " Absolutely Fabulous ", an old whore looks like...
an old whore...
Indeed, and thats the basis of just about all other criminal law. To
dis-incentivise behavior that harms society and/or members in it.
Only in this one area, do FF's claim that we must do the *exact
opposite*... Uh huh.
Indeed, eh Jessy ? <g>
>> >> > Maternity is not disputable.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed. Given the discussions on paternal fraud rates, in some studies
>> >> as high as 30%, in married couples, at that, we are aware that it is
>> >> impossible for a man to decieve a woman about her *maternity*, but
>> >> that it is very easy for a woman, any women, to decieve any man about
>> >> his paternity...
>> >
>> > Again, you have to blame God for that.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO ! So, IYO, " God " made her go and fuck someone other then
>> her wedded husband, AND choose to bear the resulting foetus ?
>>
>> Thats, well, nuts.
>>
>> The best example of a comment that blows your claim right out of the
>> water, is a line from the HBO Larry Sanders Show, where Larry's ex-2-b
>> is trying to " explain " her affair by saying:
>>
>> " It was an accident. "
>>
>> Larry: " Oh, so a truck came along, hit you both, all your and his
>> clothes flew off, and you landed on his *erect dick* ? " LOL.
>
> Form is again explaining away irresponsible behaviour.
Indeed, that of one sex, only.
That, of course, is *sexism*...
>> > And please, a cite for your 30%?
>>
>> Others here can offer it, as when I save articles, etc, from online,
>> I can't then access them to repost back to Usenet.
>>
>> Do a Google on " paternity fraud ".
>>
>> > You are suggesting that one in three married women lies about the father
>> > of her child?!
>
> Not 1 in 3, but 3 in 10.
Poor atc-ers, unable to tell between 30 and 33.333%
I wonder if they think that pi is three... <g>
>> Yep. You can see loads of examples on day time " talk shows ". See any
>> with " surprise paternity results, et al ", as the themes...
>>
>> >> > Until recently
>> >> > paternity certainly was, and at best it is tenuous without scientific
>> >> > determination. By contrast, babies grow inside women. They are hard
>> >> > to wave away under that circumstance.
>> >>
>> >> You apparently haven't heard of *abortion*.... DO try to keep up with
>> >> the news of the last 40 years...
>> >
>> > ? Abortion is considerably older than 40 years, and a little more
>> > complex than a wave of the hand.
>>
>> If you were speaking literally about that " wave ", then, since no BC
>> method works that way, your comment was... irrelevent. Just hand waving.
>>
>> Oh, and *legal* abortion doesn't go back much past 40 years... Do try
>> to keep up...
>
> Welcome to the first wave of choice for men :)
Indeed. A good tactician understands that, in order to get the other side
to give, the other side must be *threatened* with their loss of something
that they value.
So, if they persist in refusing men equal rights, we'll go the other
way, and press for women's rights to be made equal at *our level of
zero* post-coital legal options...
>> >> Duh ! And, in any case, any woman in the US can either abandon a
>> >> newborn, *legally*, or adopt out a newborn, *legally*.
>> >
>> > Nope. Father's rights are commonly enshrined in any such process, as
>> > they ought to be.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO ! So, get copies of " Divorced Dads; Shattering The Myths ",
>> by Sanford Braver, " The Divorce From Hell ", Wendy Dennis, " The
>> Myth Of Male Power ", Warren Farrell, " The War Against Boys; How
>> Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men ", Christina Hoff
>> Sommers, " Not Guilty; The Case In Defense Of Men ", David Thomas,
>> " The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce; A 25 Year Landmark Study ",
>> Judith Wallerstein...
>>
>> You are SO out of your depth of awareness on this issue, that you
>> could simply not be any MORE wrong...
>>
>> Oh, and before you ad hom me by claiming that " I must have had a
>> terrible divorce/custody fight ", let me tell you that I have NO
>> children, by *anyone*. By choice, thank you. but, I don't require
>> that an injustice be done to me, personally, before I acknowledge
>> it is being an injustice...
>
> Exactly. Same here.
The proper anti-thesis of " the personal is political ".
Better is our " The political is the political, and, as we are all
connected through our society, what harms one through injustice,
harms all in the society. "
Something like that... <g>
>> >> So, there were have at least three ways for a woman, any woman, to
>> >> " wave away " a baby, *and her maternal obligations*, post-coitally,
>> >> *only one of which is in any way dependent on her biology, yet we
>> >> *deny* men the *equal right* to utilise the non-biological methods
>> >> to make their own choices...
>> >
>> > Are you cracked? Have you ever seen a child being born? Do seriously
>> > compare pregnancy with "nope, not my kid"?
>>
>> Your words: " Blame God ". Or, are you suggesting that women, as a group,
>> are SO addled that they don't understand that sex+gestation=birth ?
>
> LOL! That was her red herring, she was trying to 'guilt' us into agreeing
> that women are not culpable for their choices.
Exactly. Its always about letting women *escape* personal responsibility.
Just never men, of course. Even they know that we're better then that...
>> >> Theres a word for that: *sexism*...
>> >
>> > I believe God is waiting for your call.
>>
>> <laughs> I'm an atheist...
>
> I'm agnostic myself, but who's counting.
Indeed. <g>
>> >> >> > Un*witting*, not "unwilling" fathers definitely ought not to be
>> >> >> forced upon
>> >> >> > a child unless they have the cojones to accept the consequences of
>> >> >> their own behavior.
>> >> >> > If they don't, they are the type of men to be a destructive
>> >> >> > influence in the life of a child, who is better off without them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I agree. I don't see why your analogy can not be extended to women
> who
>> >> >> force men to be responsible for children only they had the choice to
>> >> >> conceive.
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't believe *any* man should be "forced to be responsible" for a
>> >> > child they have repudiated. The matter of conception is irrelevant.
>> >> > Women are able to conceive in a very narrow band of time. They can't
>> >> > just hatch a plot to do it.
>> >>
>> >> LOL. Again, you don't get out much, do you....
>> >
>> > I dare say I'm a little more in touch with such matters than you.
>>
>> <laughs> Riiigghhtt..... ( Dr. Evil voice ) Yet, you're the one trying
>> to sell the idea that women don't know that sex+gestation=birth...
>>
>> > You seem thoroughly ignorant.
>>
>> Translation From The Femmeroid Language: " I *can't* refute your
>> specific points, so I'll call you names, as if it were some sort
>> of intellectual substitute, and *hope* that no one is bright
>> enough to note the difference. "
>
> LOL, so true.
Get me going, and my really good stuff comes to the fore... <g>
>> <laughs> Too bad for you, that we're pretty bright here...
>>
>> >> > It requires luck, and semen. If men do not understand that sex
>> >> > can lead to reproduction, and accept that as part of the bargain,
> they
>> >> > are out-of-touch with mother nature. ALL contraception can fail.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed. Yet, ONLY WOMEN are allowed to make *legal and non-biological*
>> >> choices, *post-coitally*.
>> >>
>> >> Theres a word for that: sexism...
>> >
>> > ONLY WOMEN are pregnant. There's a word for that: biology.
>>
>> Yet, when the " argument " of " biology is destiny " is used *against*
>> women, women repudiate it, but when it *suits* women, to have *more
>> LEGAL rights then men*, you *embrace it*.
>
> See what I was saying earlier.
Agreed.
>> How... *hypocritical*. Do make up your mind...
>>
>> >> >> > For those reasons, and not because I'm having my heartstring
> pulled
>> >> >> > by irresponsible men who seemingly aren't adult enough to accept
> the
>> >> >> > consequences of their actions, I do not believe such fathers have
>> >> >> > a role in the life of a child.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I agree, and for the same reasons I do not believe mothers that
>> >> >> conceive of their own volition, without getting consent should
> expect
>> >> >> a man to be responsible for her choice. Having sex is not the same
>> >> >> as agreeing to become a parent.
>> >> >
>> >> > Having penetrative, unprotected heterosexual sex is not agreeing to
>> >> > become a parent, but it certainly is implicating oneself in any
>> >> > resulting pregnancy.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed. And, under the well established by legal precedent principle of
>> >> " mitigation of damages ", that would legally obligate the man to *no
>> >> more then 50% of the costs of a legal abortion*. And, if the woman
>> >> chooses differently, and her different choice results in higher costs,
>> >> well: " Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*... "
>> >
>> > I'm fascinated by your total indifference to ethical obligation.
>
> HAHAHAHA! Translation: I'm amused that you think your unearned guilt is
> not impetus for obligation.
Indeed. We do understand them... for their purposes, too well...
>> You mean, *what women claim as an obligation FROM men*.
>
> Indeed.
Yep.
Yep.
>> That changed... The law *is* mutable. You *fail* to grasp this fact.
>
> Amazing fact of lfe isn't it?
Indeed. Its a part of Feminist double dipping. The law is changable,
when Feminism wants to gain from the change, but, when they have something
to *lose*, like *sharing* major life decisions, then its: " The law is the
law ! You *can't* change it ! ".
How... Stalinist...
>> > I can see a bad faith action resulting from a deceptive non-employment
>> > of contraception by either party, a tortious rather than contractual
>> > action, if contraception is understood as a form of insurance.
>>
>> Not at all. Since *gestation/birth* is NOT an *unavoidable* state,
>> mitigation of damages would result in minimal obligations, based
>> on what the minimal costs of mitigating the resulting damages *are*.
>>
>> In this case, that would be an abortion, 50% costs therof.
>
> I would like to mention that said cost could also be the costs of delivery,
> as forcing to abort by proxy is just wrong in my opinion. However, that's
> where obligations end if chosen.
Yes, that is an arguable point.
Yep. Its all about keeping *sole power* over major decision making.
For the women, that is.