» Collective statement: feminist bloggers say no to John G. Roberts
20 September 2005 - 3:02pm
Collective statement: feminist bloggers say no to John G. Roberts
By media girl
To members of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate:
We are a group of writers who are passionately committed to supporting women's basic freedom as citizens of the United States. We are appealing to you as free citizens dedicated to political growth, fairness and the spirit of Liberty guaranteed in the US Constitution.
We are not paid pundits or political operatives. We are concerned citizens who represent the diversity of the United States: women and men, straight and gay, single and married, religious and atheist, of different races, religions and ethnicities. Some of us are even parents even after having abortions. And we all blog because we have to.
We have taken to this citizen media to create communities of hope. In our blogs people rant and rave, discuss and debate to share the one thing we all agree about : The United States Constitution is about creating common ground among the many, not limiting freedom for the benefit of the few.
Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about the right to privacy.
Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about civil rights.
Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about state rights.
Yet what is at stake in the the reconfiguration of the Supreme Court, is the fundamental right to freedom for all peoples living under the Bill of Rights and unenumerated rights retained by the people. Roberts' has consistently opposed the interests of the people in his career. The decisions, dissents and legal documents that have been released for scrutiny point to the man's willingness to find ways to use technicalities to curtail freedom and not expand it. Although it would be easy to demonstrate this willingness through his involvement in cases dealing with reproductive rights, it is the following three cases that show a road map to what could happen to the US Constitution under a Chief Justice Roberts :
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir.2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 2061 (2004)
Hedgepeth v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 386 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004):
In defending a religious minority's demand to impose their religious customs on the majority (1), in attacking Congress' right to regulate commerce under national standards (2) and in stating that using the full extent of the law in cases involving minors is necessary to promote "parental awareness of commission delinquent actsÓ (3); John Roberts has advocated positions which
The extremist religious minority in this country have used the excuse of states' compelling interest in children's welfare as a reason to seek limits to the Constitution. Parenting rights are being used to impose unfettered limitations of reproductive rights on the state level. All across the country laws have been passed curtailing the movement of minors from one state to the other in search of abortions. Some states have even made it a capital offense punishable with the death penalty to aid a minor with no parental consent. This is appalling.
These laws have been passed as an affirmation of parents' right to choose in private what is best for their families. Some of us are mothers and fathers and we would most certainly want the government to uphold our rights to choose how to parent our children without intervention of the government. But laws protecting parenting rights should do no harm nor become precedents in the limiting of individual rights.
These laws impose a view of parenting that may actually be harmful to many underage women in need of an abortion. To restrict their individual rights and define them as extensions of their parents or guardians endangers not only endanger young women's lives but are an attack on the very idea of individual rights and personal freedom.
Judge Roberts' rulings can become a weapon for extremists who would impose their reproductive agendas against the will of their underage yet sexually mature daughters. It exposes young women in abusive or coercive situations to further abuse and physical danger.
We advocate Freedom.
The right to determine one's own sexual and reproductive behavior is a fundamental aspect of liberty. A woman's ability to control her reproductive options has a profound effect on her health and on every aspect of her life. It can affect her educational opportunities, her career and is the single most profound change that can occur in her life. Pregnancy is a life-altering and potentially life-threatening experience. Consider these statistics:
The choice to have a child must be made by an individual, without coercion from any external source or influence, if the individual is to be considered truly free. The current anti-choice movement has revealed itself repeatedly as uninterested in preventing unwanted pregnancies or reducing the number of abortions performed in this country. If this were truly their goal, they would be anxious to make "Plan B" contraceptives readily available. We know it is not an abortificant, and merely prevents pregnancy from taking place. If the goal was to protect young women's lives, they would encourage educating women about the use of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV and other venereal diseases, and the prevention of unwanted pregnancy.
Women are more likely than men to contract HIV through sexual encounters and about 42 per cent of all persons infected with HIV are women.
Cancer of the cervix, the most common form of cancer in developing countries, is often linked to the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus. There are already moves to block the availability of a vaccine being developed which could prevent this form of cancer.
To withhold this information to young women is to literally condemn some of them to death. Those who oppose women's reproductive autonomy oppose all of these things that could make having a child or even having sex a safer experience. It is clear that they are not interested in the healthy births of healthy children, but in controlling sexual behavior of women by codifying a particular, restrictive religious view in the laws of our country. It is not the place of government to legislate morality for its citizens. It is the place of government to insure the health and well-being of its people. It is clear that if women's reproductive freedom is restricted that women will die needlessly and many women and their children will suffer unnecessarily.
Opposing women's reproductive autonomy is to oppose the unalienable right to Liberty with which each individual is naturally endowed. Freedom to live as we choose, freedom to love whomever we love, freedom to pursue happiness in our own way, without coercion from our neighbors or the state. This is why we oppose John Roberts: We believe it is not the place of government to legislate morality for its citizens. We know that a woman who cannot control her own person is not free.
If Congress is to appoint conservative jurists, We The People demand they are mainstream conservatives that will uphold the Constitution as a common ground for all, not the playground of the few. It is the place of government to insure every single person in this country has an opportunity to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Moreover, as Congress comes together to consider the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, it has to ask how two years on the bench can possibly make a person qualified to be the top jurist in the land. We are deeply disturbed that Judge Roberts attempted to conceal his membership in the Federalist Society, and his role in Bush V. Gore.
We have seen the tragic consequences of George W. Bush's patronage appointments in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. We must be more vigilant in vetting the qualifications, experience and abilities of the nominees put forth by the Bush administration.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must be a seasoned judge with a record that can be openly and completely examined. The White House's refusal to release all documents pertaining to the nominee is further cause for extreme caution in this matter. Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. This choice will affect the lives of all Americans for decades to come. We must have transparency in the process, and it must be rigorous and thorough.
We oppose the nomination of John Roberts, and ask that our Congressional representatives stand firm in insisting that the people chosen to fill the two vacancies on the Supreme Court of the United States of America be people on whom we can rely to uphold the ideals that make us uniquely American --equal protection under the law, justice for all citizens in equal measure, equal opportunity, and true Liberty - the right to personal and individual autonomy.
Anything less cannot be allowed to exist if we are to call ourselves the descendants of Jefferson and Adams, or Washington and Franklin. Without a secular government and equal treatment for all, we cannot call ourselves Americans anymore.
Click here to put the Blogrolling code on your site (in your copy of the letter, or as a blogroll list).
We are a group of writers who are passionately committed to supporting women's basic freedom as citizens of the United States. We are appealing to you as free citizens dedicated to political growth, fairness and the spirit of Liberty guaranteed in the US Constitution.
We are not paid pundits or political operatives. We are concerned citizens who represent the diversity of the United States: women and men, straight and gay, single and married, religious and atheist, of different races, religions and ethnicities. Some of us are even parents even after having abortions. And we all blog because we have to.
We have taken to this citizen media to create communities of hope. In our blogs people rant and rave, discuss and debate to share the one thing we all agree about : The United States Constitution is about creating common ground among the many, not limiting freedom for the benefit of the few.
Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about the right to privacy.
Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about civil rights.
Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about state rights.
Yet what is at stake in the the reconfiguration of the Supreme Court, is the fundamental right to freedom for all peoples living under the Bill of Rights and unenumerated rights retained by the people. Roberts' has consistently opposed the interests of the people in his career. The decisions, dissents and legal documents that have been released for scrutiny point to the man's willingness to find ways to use technicalities to curtail freedom and not expand it. Although it would be easy to demonstrate this willingness through his involvement in cases dealing with reproductive rights, it is the following three cases that show a road map to what could happen to the US Constitution under a Chief Justice Roberts :
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir.2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 2061 (2004)
Hedgepeth v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 386 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004):
In defending a religious minority's demand to impose their religious customs on the majority (1), in attacking Congress' right to regulate commerce under national standards (2) and in stating that using the full extent of the law in cases involving minors is necessary to promote "parental awareness of commission delinquent actsÓ (3); John Roberts has advocated positions which
- are skewed to the ideology of religious extremists,
- balkanize the country into a loose mesh of little republics
- use a restrictive fundamentalist view to coerce a moral outcome through legal means.
The extremist religious minority in this country have used the excuse of states' compelling interest in children's welfare as a reason to seek limits to the Constitution. Parenting rights are being used to impose unfettered limitations of reproductive rights on the state level. All across the country laws have been passed curtailing the movement of minors from one state to the other in search of abortions. Some states have even made it a capital offense punishable with the death penalty to aid a minor with no parental consent. This is appalling.
These laws have been passed as an affirmation of parents' right to choose in private what is best for their families. Some of us are mothers and fathers and we would most certainly want the government to uphold our rights to choose how to parent our children without intervention of the government. But laws protecting parenting rights should do no harm nor become precedents in the limiting of individual rights.
These laws impose a view of parenting that may actually be harmful to many underage women in need of an abortion. To restrict their individual rights and define them as extensions of their parents or guardians endangers not only endanger young women's lives but are an attack on the very idea of individual rights and personal freedom.
Judge Roberts' rulings can become a weapon for extremists who would impose their reproductive agendas against the will of their underage yet sexually mature daughters. It exposes young women in abusive or coercive situations to further abuse and physical danger.
We advocate Freedom.
The right to determine one's own sexual and reproductive behavior is a fundamental aspect of liberty. A woman's ability to control her reproductive options has a profound effect on her health and on every aspect of her life. It can affect her educational opportunities, her career and is the single most profound change that can occur in her life. Pregnancy is a life-altering and potentially life-threatening experience. Consider these statistics:
- The United States ranks below 20 other developed nations in the rate of maternal deaths.
- The maternal death rate has not gone down since 1982.
- The Rate of maternal deaths for black women has been three to four times that of white women since 1940.
- Complications of pregnancy include ectopic pregnancy, premature labor, hemorrhage, blood clots, high blood pressure, infection, stroke, amniotic fluid in the bloodstream, diabetes and heart disease. Poor women suffer disproportionately due to lack of prenatal care and inadequate health insurance.
- The number one cause of death in pregnant women in America is murder.
The choice to have a child must be made by an individual, without coercion from any external source or influence, if the individual is to be considered truly free. The current anti-choice movement has revealed itself repeatedly as uninterested in preventing unwanted pregnancies or reducing the number of abortions performed in this country. If this were truly their goal, they would be anxious to make "Plan B" contraceptives readily available. We know it is not an abortificant, and merely prevents pregnancy from taking place. If the goal was to protect young women's lives, they would encourage educating women about the use of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV and other venereal diseases, and the prevention of unwanted pregnancy.
Women are more likely than men to contract HIV through sexual encounters and about 42 per cent of all persons infected with HIV are women.
Cancer of the cervix, the most common form of cancer in developing countries, is often linked to the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus. There are already moves to block the availability of a vaccine being developed which could prevent this form of cancer.
To withhold this information to young women is to literally condemn some of them to death. Those who oppose women's reproductive autonomy oppose all of these things that could make having a child or even having sex a safer experience. It is clear that they are not interested in the healthy births of healthy children, but in controlling sexual behavior of women by codifying a particular, restrictive religious view in the laws of our country. It is not the place of government to legislate morality for its citizens. It is the place of government to insure the health and well-being of its people. It is clear that if women's reproductive freedom is restricted that women will die needlessly and many women and their children will suffer unnecessarily.
Opposing women's reproductive autonomy is to oppose the unalienable right to Liberty with which each individual is naturally endowed. Freedom to live as we choose, freedom to love whomever we love, freedom to pursue happiness in our own way, without coercion from our neighbors or the state. This is why we oppose John Roberts: We believe it is not the place of government to legislate morality for its citizens. We know that a woman who cannot control her own person is not free.
If Congress is to appoint conservative jurists, We The People demand they are mainstream conservatives that will uphold the Constitution as a common ground for all, not the playground of the few. It is the place of government to insure every single person in this country has an opportunity to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Moreover, as Congress comes together to consider the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, it has to ask how two years on the bench can possibly make a person qualified to be the top jurist in the land. We are deeply disturbed that Judge Roberts attempted to conceal his membership in the Federalist Society, and his role in Bush V. Gore.
We have seen the tragic consequences of George W. Bush's patronage appointments in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. We must be more vigilant in vetting the qualifications, experience and abilities of the nominees put forth by the Bush administration.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must be a seasoned judge with a record that can be openly and completely examined. The White House's refusal to release all documents pertaining to the nominee is further cause for extreme caution in this matter. Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. This choice will affect the lives of all Americans for decades to come. We must have transparency in the process, and it must be rigorous and thorough.
We oppose the nomination of John Roberts, and ask that our Congressional representatives stand firm in insisting that the people chosen to fill the two vacancies on the Supreme Court of the United States of America be people on whom we can rely to uphold the ideals that make us uniquely American --equal protection under the law, justice for all citizens in equal measure, equal opportunity, and true Liberty - the right to personal and individual autonomy.
Anything less cannot be allowed to exist if we are to call ourselves the descendants of Jefferson and Adams, or Washington and Franklin. Without a secular government and equal treatment for all, we cannot call ourselves Americans anymore.
- Signatory list is unavailable right now
Click here to put the Blogrolling code on your site (in your copy of the letter, or as a blogroll list).
About author
media girl also blogs at other places.
Comments
very nice.
You realize, of course, that without a legal name and address the signatures are
worthless and pointless
in all those things.. the ladies still have the right to properly use contraceptives... if they use TWO different forms, then abortion becomes a small issue... however, abortion AND birth control appeared on the stage around the same time (politically speaking), and 40 MILLION dead fetuses later... the oh so responsible ladies still cant seem to maintain control over those same bodies. yes reproduction does have profound effects on EVERYONE, including people not even in the family.. women, as equals, should have no special status in this, ESPECIALLY when there are BETTER alternatives. the majority of abortions are not for rape, and not for many things they claim, it turns out to be a more convenient form of birth control.
ALSO, given that a woman can walk into any police station or hospital, drop the child off, and walk (denying paternal rights as well), thereby not having to partake in the many reasons that ladies say abortion is necessary!
many reasons for roe v wade no longer exist.. the bottom line is that since this isnt an advocacy judge you can neither throw him out on his siding, nor can side with him yourself.
women have killed more children than any male despote that has ever lived...
and you know the worst part...
if the past 30 years had been a time of responsible practice in planning, birth control, etc.. i would be on the side of abortion, but alas, women are NOT that responsible... there is no way to make the argument that they are when abortion is a MAJOR form of birth control, and many women do it repeatedly (i know a woman that last i knew her had more than 6 abortions! why? was it just so she can firm up and exercise her right?)
if you ladies policed your own, then abortion would be more permissable, you didnt, and now its not, and so its an issue your scared of losing.
(not to mention all the other shit you tied to this one point that hinged on your ACTUAL acting responsible)
thank you for my minute - it would be appreciated if you didnt also act like totalitarians (compounding your ills), and allow an opinion that doesnt match yours to remain up.
No, actually not in many states and counties. And the conservatives are working to make birth control impossible to obtain. Maybe you should read up on what your politicians are doing in your name.
Yes, before birth control, women aborted when necessary, but it was incredibly dangerous. But after the Supreme Court established a woman's rights over her own body, suddenly there was an outcry against abortion. Why? Because women now had birth control, and the conservatives wanted woment to be punished for having sex. Thus the big "abortion battle."
By the way, before Roe, abortion rates were not lower in states where abortion was illegal. So there goes the idea that making women into criminals actually affects women's decisions when it comes to their own bodies.
Where do you get this idea? Are you a man? Maybe you should stick some kitchen utensils up your ass and decide how "convenient" it is.
Where on Earth do you get this? Meanwhile, every person born was born to a woman. A woman gave birth. A woman went through labor. A woman gave months of her life, gave of her blood, gave of her body to make that happen.
If conservative men -- and it's mostly men -- did not repeatedly and persistently block sex education that includes birth control, work to ban access to birth control by all women, block approval of Plan B contraception, maybe your thesis would make sense. But unfortunately this has not been a time of "responsible practice in planning" because conservatives keep blocking and destroying the programs.
You know, you're right. What we should do is push for chemical castration of all men, unless they're married and swear to the government that they will support any and all offspring that result from their ejaculations.
Then women would not have to worry about unwanted pregnancies, and we all could enjoy a vast reduction of aborted pregnancies in this country. After all, if men were responsible for where they spurted their seed, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
“No, actually not in many states and counties. And the conservatives are working to make birth control impossible to obtain. Maybe you should read up on what your politicians are doing in your name.�
So when I mention that the irresponsibility of the past 30 years is causing people to withdraw their support, you try to refute on that point by pointing out that that’s whats happening?
Perhaps the problem is a combination of irresponsibility combined with a rampant promiscuity promoted by feminists? People used to own machine guns, you could buy them in the store. Most used them responsibly (and of those that own them LEGALLY today, not one has ever been stolen or used in a crime), however the few that didn’t reeked havoc on the population.
If irresponsible use of birth control leads to 40 million abortions, and lack of not fucking around, maybe when there is no birth control, like there was before, women might actually be scared of the outcome and stop being irresponsible. (it totally sucks, dont it? i am only stating the obvious, i dont make policy)
Women have currently more than 20 forms of birth control to select from. many forms require NO prescription and if not available can be ordered from another country. I cant see them getting rid of latex condoms soon (and the ladies have lady condoms, they squeek, but they work! how many have you used? or do you try to force other people to comply to you?). Nor can they get rid of birth control pills given that they are used for a lot more than birth control.
What my politicians are doing now has no bearing on the point of irresponsibility of the past 30 years and the 40 million dead. it will have bearing on the future though.
What your not getting, nor rather, what you don’t want to get, is that you and your sisters had 40 years (the first 10 a gimme), to show your stuff. You did not want to limit your sisters in ANY way, and this is the outcome.
Did you really think that the flower children and such wouldn’t grow up to be like there parents, yet have numbers to reverse every bad choice they made? Now they are reviewing their lives and will try to fix the future (god help all of us). The actions of women are what made the case, not men, not conspiracy, not the patriarchy… they could have easily made the opposite case and had a non issue here!
you got to run the experiment, and you let it go wild. Do you think the world will sit there and say, what the hell, lets give them another 40 years and another 40 million babies?
FOOL ME ONCE SHAME ON YOU
FOOL ME TWICE SHAME ON ME…
“Yes, before birth control, women aborted when necessary, but it was incredibly dangerous. But after the Supreme Court established a woman's rights over her own body, suddenly there was an outcry against abortion. Why? Because women now had birth control, and the conservatives wanted woment to be punished for having sex. Thus the big "abortion battle."
WOW, that seems so trite… maybe because you women plot and such, you cant help but think like a paranoid… they wanted to “punish� women for having sex? That’s fucking ridiculous. Ever thought that they may believe in sanctity of life more than you do? Not that I am saying you don’t respect life, though you do draw the line as to the rights of your own offspring when it impinges on your total ability to act out in any way you want sans repercussions. (later i list out the three major reasons for abortion, and THE major reason is lifestyle preservation after accidental action born of irresponsible relations)
Perhaps the conservatives didn’t want to foot the bill for all you women’s bullshit. Perhaps they were democratic republicans and not Marxists like you (and if you don’t think you’re a Marxist, you have a lot of reading to do, and a lot of questioning of what your following).
I am not a conservative, but I don’t want to foot the bill for other peoples irresponsibility. That includes all the violent kids that single mothers have (well documented as the majority source), the crime, the sexually transmitted deseases from those honey pots, and your birth control, and all the other shit that you think you should get that no one gets… (tapping the engine that makes all your life possible and all our time able to discuss this is another dumb thing. socialism doesnt work. taxing the rich to fund the poor removes the wealthy source, and removes the desire of the poor to work harder. we all become poor under that ideology. change the rules, you change the game, and everyone chooses new strategy! which is why when you ladies change things it dont work out so well, you rely on only the change being limited to the change and think that you can then scoop up the benifit. think of what happens next in your little march.. its not a nice ending, and its happened several times before, and size of the nation is no protection!)
if the ladies pitched together (especially the rich widowers), you could fund all this shit yourself out of your own pockets and no one will have a damn thing to say! (but ladies always want OPM! mens money, government money, wealthy money, everything but their own)
Your punishment angle is the kind of simplistic argument that only a child loves (and i am not calling yuo a child).
you do not want to look at the other side your opposed to as people like you with a valid opinion to work out. they are just evil people out to stop or punish you for spreading your legs (like terrorists in iraq really want to destroy democracy and have no valid beefs).
This nuttiness could be why things stopped going your way, and are slowing down and reversing (faludi warned you!). You girls had such a good start, and then you let the rad nut jobs in. suffrage – great work… equality of purpose – good job! equality of outcome - whoops, nutty marxist shit...
Then the nuts took over and used all that good work to push crazy shit… no wonder that this is an issue!!!!!!!!!
“By the way, before Roe, abortion rates were not lower in states where abortion was illegal. So there goes the idea that making women into criminals actually affects women's decisions when it comes to their own bodies.�
The reason the rates were not that different was because the number of women fucking people indiscriminately was not like after the 60’s. there were less pregancies and births too. women were more afraid of dying either way!
screw more, have more accidents, have to have more fix it jobs. Why be promiscuous? Because a lesbian master (how hetero women can think that a minorty represents them more than their own makes no sense. your outcomes are not the same! they are undermining the desires of lots of hetero women, and alienating your mass appeal!) says its liberating, while most women end up harmed by the behavior. It undermines their future from inside! its not good... it does not have the same effect on men. for whatever reason it doesnt, and thats the way it is. your perfect mate is not another woman, a narcisists perfect mate is another woman. the lesbians have sown such disharmony that even under the best of circumstances the rest of the ladies cant succeed! (but thats a diatribe for another day!)
Where do you get this idea? Are you a man? Maybe you should stick some kitchen utensils up your ass and decide how "convenient" it is.
my gender, or sex is irrelevent.. unless you want to throw away what i have to say out of hand. so lets leave the gender nasties out, we have had a pretty good talk so far.. maybe i am transgendered and have lived BOTH sides and know more.. though, its also irrelevent. the personal does not outweigh reality (though the feminists think so because its easier to sell!)
I am not the one using it as a convenience. In fact I totally agree with you on this one (not the tool up my ass part). No matter what you say as to how uncomfortable, painful, nasty, and psychologically damaging it is (wondering why your fighting for it then), many many women use this as a major form of birth control. I know many women that have had multiple abortions… I guess they didn’t learn from the first one, or they don’t find it as inconvenient as you or I would!!!!!!!!! Personally I think that poping a pill and having an IUD is a better choice…but that’s not what women did, or are doing.
So its not a matter of dreaming, it’s a matter of what actually happened and is happening.
You only have to look at the numbers to get an idea… you girls are so good at drawing whatever you want from numbers… please draw me how these current figures represent responsibility.
49% of pregnancies among American women are unintended
1/2 of these are terminated by abortion
24% of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion
From 1973 through 2002, more than 42 million legal abortions occurred
Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion
And drumroll please
48% of them have had at least one previous abortion
For an inconvenient thing… a lot of them go back!!!
I wouldnt, but obviously they are!!
52% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25
Women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all abortions,
and teenagers obtain 19%
2/3 of all abortions are among never-married women
[oh yeah… marriage, you don’t like that either! not u personally, the collective feminst you]
On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion:
3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities;
Its inconvenient enough to have “kitchen utensils and someone poking them in your body�, though not as inconvenient as the interference of work, school or other. in fact, work, school, and such don’t pop up suddenly from no where… so why the irresponsibility that covers 30 million of the 40 million dead?
about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child;
if you cant afford one, then why aren’t you taking the free birth control. Oh and it is free, just walk into any planned parenthood and there is a jar of rubbers on the counter, and lots of money for it.. and if there isn’t enough, then again, NOW can take some of that billion dollars they get and provide it. make a show of solidarity and fund it yourself.
and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
If you note the overlap these women are having multiple problems AND compounding them.
women have killed more children than any male despote [sic] that has ever lived...
Where on Earth do you get this? Meanwhile, every person born was born to a woman. A woman gave birth. A woman went through labor. A woman gave months of her life, gave of her blood, gave of her body to make that happen.
I "get this" by just listing out the numbers.. and my numbers on abortion are only ONE country!! hitler 12-15 million, mao, stalin, cant hold a candle to the collective women. though i have to admit that the women had less malice in their hearts when they did it, though i fail to see how this makes it better.
Your answer to this is that since women create everyone (and not by herself, so EVERY person born is also born to man through woman!), that means they have the right to terminate that which they create. And terminate it unilaterally denying their own partners right in this? I know your answer is YES. So we don’t have to guess that… though how can you have great relationships and great grounds for raising children if you think of your partner and such in such ways before you even meet them? Your definition of love is not healthy if you can do this to another person, and write their desires off out of hand, and make that decision before you even meet them.
You are here because it takes TWO to raise a family (until very recently).. That over heavy, waddling woman would be animal food without him, and very very good food too! She would never be able to get enough protein to have a healthy child on her own…
You conveniently leave out the last 100,000 years of help you get, so you can say in the last 100 years that you need not that partner… and this gives you the right to kill… no one here is questioning responsible abortion… its just that there are too many for them to be responsible… if you don’t like that conclusion, then maybe using math to make spurious salary claims wasn’t a good idea either.
If conservative men -- and it's mostly men -- did not repeatedly and persistently block sex education that includes birth control, work to ban access to birth control by all women, block approval of Plan B contraception, maybe your thesis would make sense. But unfortunately this has not been a time of "responsible practice in planning" because conservatives keep blocking and destroying the programs.
Give me a break.. (schafly is not a man nor are many others on that side of the fence!) Your point only works on teenagers… and people with no electricity.. you have a television I presume and a radio… how bout a telephone book? How much secret information gets out everyday? The only way it could effectively be blocked is if your in a box… even the argument in the newspaper of its blocking unblocks it (or didnt you notice all the children havnig blow jobs after monica saved a stain?) or if the feminists get PC speech going more and no one can talk about anything for fear of legal reprisals.
And part of "responsible practice in planning" would also include ALL forms of control, including abstinence.
Your argument might make sense if we weren’t living in a modern state with telephones, no checkpoints, and no limits on peaceful meeting and such.
Conservatives AND Feminists have been destroying the programs. They both don’t want the whole picture told. The conservatives don’t want lesbianism taught as a sexual choice, and feminists don’t want all the health issues and shit that may undermine other points to be taught (things like down syndrome, onset of perimenopause, desease vectors, etc).
So on this, your both wrong!
Teach it all or don’t teach it….
if you ladies policed your own, then abortion would be more permissable, you didnt, and now its not, and so its an issue your scared of losing.
You know, you're right. What we should do is push for chemical castration of all men, unless they're married and swear to the government that they will support any and all offspring that result from their ejaculations.
Then women would not have to worry about unwanted pregnancies, and we all could enjoy a vast reduction of aborted pregnancies in this country. After all, if men were responsible for where they spurted their seed, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
[part of policing is not jack boots. personally being there and such, giving ALL information, not guiding them to choices you want them to make over their own desires, etc.. thats what i meant by policing. and i called on women to do it so you cant say its the jack booted men that are imposing this on us to punish (for thats in your mindset).]
If you study biology (not advocate), then you will know that women make the first move. That women control access to their bodies (or are you claiming that most pregnancies are not voluntary accidents after sexual coitus?).
Asking the ladies to police the ladies is not the same as what you responded to which was to have government police the men because ladies are too weak (unlike you i dont think that they are, and i think that feminists both set them up and knock them down with this two punch. its mean, its not right, and makes schizo people that dont make good choices FOR THEMSELVES).
Its contradictory. Either you have the strength and wearwithal to make your own choices and be responsible of the outcome regardless of other people, or you admit, OR your too weak.. which is it? (knowing the people i do i cant see the latter as being right, and so honor, decorum, and such is to stand tall and accept responsibility for youselves and the outcomes of the interactions YOU choose to have. others should not pay for your bad judgements any more than I would want someone to pay for mine. if its my mess i clean it. i dont try to get everyone else involved. but hey, thats old fashioned self actaulized responsibility, not new fangled, blame oriented, fear mongering redirected responsibility.
Your seed comment is so cute in that your arguing FOR womens responsibility and now are foisting that on men so you can continue to be irresponsible, as if abortion is the ONLY problem with such behavior. (desease, mental, shit - it makes bad men! while the reverse makes better men. you have power in the world, the feminists have been lying!!! you can effect change, especially in your life, your choices and such. however, we are all prisoners of our choices, and lack of information and lies and stuff on the feminists side, no matter how appealing to swallow, hurts you all in the long run!)
Men are not running around spouting their seed everywhere like fountains, and women are not walking on their hands using their vaginas like catch basins.. though you do paint an interesting picture (Dali would have loved it).
Here is an amazing thing. close your legs, and you find out all manner of things about your ‘mate’. And you can make better choices… maybe its not as fun up front, but it is your choice on how to proceed. each behavior has its own codons of result, and its not responsible to think that it would all work if only the other side would do what you tell them to.
This last part saddens me, because its exactly this trailoff that will kill abortion!!!
You are the gate keepers… whether you like it or not…
You have the burden… whether you like it or not (though you have lots of choices in this)…
You have the responsibility… whether you like it or not… (and more so in the face of your belief that men are naturally more irresponsible and so god damn attractive that you just melt! and they can spew sperm - how lovely - no wonder you ladies hate what you are, you hve contempt for everything and cant see it!)
The main point here, is that abortion is something YOU want to have and be able to choose. The price of that PRIVELEDGE (not right), is a general level of responsibility. If abortion was a real right, you would not be so scared that it would go. Your right to terminate your child at will does not come from a higher power. it comes from technology and ideology… all the other rights come naturally and need no assistance from such extra accouterments. A right that comes from beyond government need not government to know it exists, and needs not technology to make possible, and needs not ideology to maintain it.
Personally, I would be upset to see ALL abortions go. However, just as you cant have all machine guns, you cant have all abortions. Some restrictions are in order at minimum, and some freedoms shouldn’t have been curtailed. It’s a states issue, and the federal government is overstepping their bounds…
however, you ladies are the ones that invited that big hairy elephant into the room, and told it to push the states around. (well it liked pushing them around on other things, and so you helping make it more powerful was real dumb! government was never yours to control and is no ones long term freind! men know this, which is why we limited it seriously, and you ladies took the tops off).
the feds didn’t have the right to make law in this till you ladies expanded what government is allowed to do, past its charter!!! Advocacy is forbidden, but taboos be damned and we have advocacy, and you didn’t realize that once you let the sickness into the room, everything is deseased. Did you think that advocacy can and will only go one way… imagine if you didn’t do that… this would not be an issue. states rights would have been sovereign and a bus trip would have been an easy compromise. (like cloning, eventually it would have been allowed and be more sane. rushing it and pressing it made more of a mess, and now look.. the pendulum swings.. you shoouldnt have pushed the swing so hard and so far so fast. the result is plain old plain!)
Sometimes when we want it all, we end up with nothing..
You want to punish women. You blame women for unwanted pregnancies, but refuse to take any responsibility yourself. You know, women don't get pregnant alone.
You blame the failure of birth control for preventing unwanted pregnancies, when in fact the conservative agenda has been to make birth control unavailable. And those condoms you love so much? In case you haven't noticed, men wear the condoms -- or at least they're supposed to. The women don't wear the condoms. So if condoms aren't being used, again, it's the men who are responsible, no?
The fact is that there's no constitutional basis for the government to reach into a woman's body and claim sovereignty. But as you point out, men want to control women's reproduction, and so all of this is justified because, in your eyes, women just don't deserve liberty and equal protection under the law.
Your misogynistic attitudes are vivid. And your delusions about the state of the law and society are revealing. Sex education from a phone book? What are you on, anyway?
Why should men be free to fuck all they want, but women must lose civil rights and human rights because they have sex? Who says that you decide? Who are you to decide about others?
Thanks but no thanks. If you don't want to abort a pregnancy, then don't. Otherwise it's none of your fucking business.
Oh, and this is the first I heard that women were controlling the government. Wow! Someone oughta tell all the men who think they're in charge. They might get the idea that they're really running things.
Your epic rant proves my point
The size of the response is dependent on the amount of information necessary to convey a cogent answer. Just as you cant measure music by counting and saying there are “too many notes�, calling my cogent post a rant because its long is just not true, and is a blame game having nothing to do with the post inside. It also allows you to discredit my post in the title of your post, again with not even a specious argument.
You want to punish women. You blame women for unwanted pregnancies, but refuse to take any responsibility yourself. You know, women don't get pregnant alone.
I don’t want to punish women, they are doing just fine hurting themselves and it pains me to see it.
Its not me who doesn’t want to take responsibility. I am not the one with all the choices! Your “choices� consist of:
Not having sex till your in a committed relationship (some of these women have 5 kids with 5 different men – I am sure not the one punishing them!).
When having sex, to insure against the evil male, use contraceptives
If you don’t take it the night of, you have extra meds for the morning after
If you miss that (and with good reason here in the US!), then you have several months of time to abort.
If you miss that you then can unilaterally leave the child off at a police station, fire department, church or hospital with NO questions, AND you get to deal your partner out AND avoid your contribution to child support.
Then you can always peg another man that has more money than the father by paternity fraud.
Failing that you can then go after the real dad (notice how this option is 7th down the list chronologically).
If that fails, you can actually arrange support from more than one man for the same child! Just marry a guy and divorce.
Note that CS is tax free… you get aid to dependend children, can claim them, collect from more than one parent. And there is MORE!
The man has two options…
Don’t have sex with you
Have sex and let the wacky train ride go wherever it takes you.
You blame the failure of birth control for preventing unwanted pregnancies, when in fact the conservative agenda has been to make birth control unavailable.
I don’t blame birth control, and you are blaming faulty meds. The numbers I posted are way off from the efficacy of the medication. Birth control (specifically the pill) has a 99% plus rate of control. Couple this with less than a 25% rate of pregnancy without it, AND add a IUD, and you pretty much will hit the lottery first rather than conceive.
You are making assumptions that the reason that all these women conceive is “the FAILURE of birth control�. I guess if a person cant be relied upon to maintain the level or progesterone by taking a pill, then yes the meds fail… however, for such a person there is norplant, the patch, and other methods like IUD.
The more options one has the more responsibility one has. Having all the options makes you the driver. Blaming the passenger for not stopping the car wreck when the passenger has no means of controlling the driver is wrong. There is more than one forum dedicated to women that love to get pregnant and I have read threads where they trade tips on how to get pregnant against the mens wishes. They are thereby denying the men the control in that situation that your demanding. This is not to claim, like you, that all are this situation, however, the man is culpable no matter what you the lady put him through!!!!
Ask my brother… (I am his sister)… his ex set him up to look like her murdered her… falsefyed testimony.. and he was forced to walk away as she took him to another state. later she ended up taking his son with her when she robbed a bank and served 1.5 years. At no time did my brother, who held steady work, apartments, and a spare room never used, had any say in anything.
And you ladies want more!
You do a disservice to all the responsible women out there. and there are many of them. Free everything with no responsibility for the outcome just creates a situaiont that is bad for everyone. Your contributing to it by thinking that 40 million abortions all are due to failed birth control not a good point.
Not to mention that at no time did I ever resort to the ad hominem that both posters (both female) had to add. I thought men were the violent nasty ones.
And those condoms you love so much? In case you haven't noticed, men wear the condoms -- or at least they're supposed to. The women don't wear the condoms. So if condoms aren't being used, again, it's the men who are responsible, no?
There is the female condom! Or don’t you know whats available to you?
http://images.google.com/images?q=female+condom&hl=en&lr=&c2...
is a link to all kinds of images of this contraption… why don’t women wear it?
as you say it’s a two edged sword, but shifting responsibility to the person with only two or three options while denying the twenty options at their disposal is a bad point to argue from.
you are blinded to any and all fairness when it comes to relations between men and women. the man you meet today wasn’t responsible for the hurt women received yesterday, any more than a white person whos family immigrated here during the 40s has anything to do with American slavery.
You make grand assumptions as to my next thought after I said that women should be more responsible. Unlike you I never said that men shouldn’t pay, and such. However, there should also be equity in that as well, and there isn’t. its not possible to split a home into two and maintain it (unless the man is wealthy).
And I don’t see you ladies helping the single men who have custody get the CS they are supposed to get, when more than 40% of women are deadbeat (while less than 10% of men are).
The fact is that there's no constitutional basis for the government to reach into a woman's body and claim sovereignty.
I agree… and there is no constutional basis and in fact a stated basis that a man (or woman) shouldn’t be a indentured slave either. Which is what he becomes when he has no options. You have the option of giving up the child and contact and having not to pay, why doesn’t he have that option? Oh, yeah, for him exercising his rights may limit how far you can exercise yours, and we all know that womens rights trumps mens, and childrens rights! This in a country were all of us are supposed to be equal. If that’s your definition of equal then somethings very wrong with your dictionary.
When a woman holds back and gets a committed relationship from the man (ie marriage first), then she has all the concommittent rights for them to work out the situation. When not in marriage, then she should protect herself, her child to be, her family, the society, the man, and all else by insuring that she doesn’t become a victim of her poor judgment AND the entitlements that you and your ladies are telling her she has, but are absent her tribulations when it happens.
Don’t argue that you are weak. Your are not. the sisters are not. worming around that all this is mens fault, then trying to claim their half (against patent negligence), is whats undermining your cause.
No one here is invalidation your cause… just invalidation how you are all going about securing it and maintaining it.
But as you point out, men want to control women's reproduction, and so all of this is justified because, in your eyes, women just don't deserve liberty and equal protection under the law.
I said that women should police their own so that you cant make that spurious claim. See how clever, I know the game your playing cause its scripted (sad eh). Women deserve equal protection under the law AND SO DO MEN. right now, men aren’t getting it. do you hate your own potential boy child so much? What did he do? Oh yeah, he is male, and that’s a crime. And that’s your idea of equal protection.
The equality argument is a fallacious argument. Entitlements cant make things equal. Only letting both men and women have their advantages and disadvantages makes them equal. You forget that in order to have the TYPE of equality your advocating you need an arbiter. And right now the arbiter is changing! Cant last forever, everything changes. The other type of equal needs no arbiter, expends no energy, and IS ultimately fair.
The mistake was that someone sold you all a bill of goods that what men do is more important than what women do! Its like watching coke and pepsi argue… and realizing that as long as they use each other as a measyure, they can never exceed the other. women have not shown superior ability, compassion, and all those qualities we talk about like we have them. If we do, I don’t see them. All I see is control freaks imposing more and more control for no matter what they get it isn’t enough.
Your misogynistic attitudes are vivid. And your delusions about the state of the law and society are revealing. Sex education from a phone book? What are you on, anyway?
You dip, I didn’t say read the phone book names and addresses and know about sex. What I mean is that you can dial any number of shelters, hospitals, counselors, planned parenthood, or even any medical professional (like doctor, nurse, etc). are you telling me that these people don’t exist in your telephone book and that a woman is so helpless that she cant figure out those are the people to call (and from a pay phone if the confident and self sufficient person is scared).
Obviously, maybe that is your point, since you didn’t get it!
Why should men be free to fuck all they want, but women must lose civil rights and human rights because they have sex?
If the ladies weren’t screwing then who would the men screw? I am sorry but it takes a promiscuous woman and culture to make that free for all happen! All I am saying is that she has more choices than you are giving her (I don’t need your advice, I am not stupid this way). No one says you cant have all the sex you want! Just that if you plan to, then exercise your options to insure that the outcome is what you want in it. if you want to be in the drivers seat then you have to be the driver that turns the wheel and you are responsible for all the passengers. Take away the mens rights and they are your responsibility, just like you were theirs back when (take a look a hamurabi’s code! has lots of special protections and such for women! so even from the first code you had options in a time when you say you had none!!!)
Who says that you decide? Who are you to decide about others?
I am not deciding. Anymore than if you drop a rock it decided to fall. There are natural consequences to actions and behaviors and there are commensurate risks. Being a whole and independent person is to accept all that and the responsibility for all that. More choices mean more responsibility.
If you don’t want that responsibility then choose something else. There is no denial of rights here, just recognition of all our responsibilities to each other, and the concurrent responsibility that sometimes we all aren’t what we pose to be! Women OR Men.
At no time did I say make a law that says you cant fuck to your hearts content. At the same time though there should be no law protecting you from the outcome of your own choices and behavior either. That’s REAL freedom… the freedom to soar, the freedom to fail (this is the part us ladies are too afraid of and are trying to use law to keep us from having to learn and make better decisions).
Thanks but no thanks. If you don't want to abort a pregnancy, then don't. Otherwise it's none of your fucking business.
I agree. However, it doesn’t just hang there, for as you said in the beginning it takes two. And so it’s the responsibility of the two to come to agreement. She may have to carry what she doesn’t want to, just as he may have to work for someone he doesn’t want to. Anything else is not equality, but some sick affirmative advocated twist with the label equality.
Oh, and this is the first I heard that women were controlling the government. Wow! Someone oughta tell all the men who think they're in charge. They might get the idea that they're really running things.
Yeah, well. women have run things a lot from behind the walls. Not only in the current sphere but in others as well (you might like that biatch that ruled rome through several male emperors!)
In fact you will and I will see how much control we had when we lose some of it. the men are not sleeping any more. The valid points have made way to nuttiness (you might not think so, but there are many that do, and THAT makes a difference). Things have gotten far enough that they are entering the game. prior to 10 years ago were there any mens orgs that meant something? Where there famous people using their wealth (like women did)? the men would have put up and did put up with a lot. Faludi warned that to go too far was to risk a swing back the other way. And the problem with pendulums is that if you swing hard, they return hard… there is no stop at the bottom to level it. only a diminishing response will slow it down and let it find center.
And here is the scary part, if you do the math… we aren’t having kids. Every feminist country is dropping children like they were hotplates on bare hands. The most onerous regimes are having kids like crazy… the US is propping their population by letting those groups in wholesale. So either we turn around from the inside out by breeding ourselves out of existence (the men are not anywhere as interested, they are doing the one thing that we cant do anything about. And that’s not be with us. many are going outside and importing more of those cultures)
Advertisers are leaving women and such, because there is a new high money group that never existed and they want to tap. That’s the men. single mothers have reduced purchasing ability, real live couples are now less than single mom families, single women are already tapped by women (your top mags are run by feminists exploiting women. you may not be old enough to remember, but MS magazine needed lots of cigarette ads and alcohol ads to get off the ground. So on one hand we got a rally point, on the other hand it came at the expense of millions of womens lives!!! Sneaky eh, we did it to ourselves)
Demographics… they are painting a bad picture… I guess it wasn’t all thought through, and I am not blind because I know my brother and other people that went through crazy shit only to not be helped by those that claim equality.
After that I realized it’s a sham for the few women on top, and it’s a power grab not a social movement. It’s a Marxist push a la gramsci.
And at no time do I advocate more laws!!!! Unlike the rest of the sisterhood.
Good luck
The very premise of your ranting is that you even have a say. Your misogyny comes through in every post now, and that is what proves my point. You represent the kind of person who wants to criminalize women exercising control over their own bodies. And your attitudes and irrational responses illustrate that quite well.
And now you're whining about birth rates. Ah ha! The real agenda emerges. You want women to breed. I see.
You know, if you did a little research instead of reading MRA websites, you'd learn that birth rates are related to the economic factors, not feminism. Agricultural societies have higher birth rates because having more children benefits the family farming efforts. Industrial societies have lower birth rates because kids cost money to raise in such environments.
But you go on believing what you want.
The way you toss that accusation around is truly off-the-wall, and has nothing to do with reproductive rights or equal protection under the law. But if it helps you sleep at night, you go on and continue making sure Marxists aren't hiding under your bed -- they're out to get you!
i never said anything about criminalization, and your betting that they will read your short post first rather than actually read what my long post has.
and i dont want women to "breed", at least not like cattle.. sheesh..
and the birth facts came from cia factbook and other sources... not MRA sites...
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2002.htm...
page all the way down and you can see that the US rate is estmated for this year at .92 and your fact doesnt bear out.. though its nice and trite and makes you not question your lady leaders.
you should note that blind belief in the feminist stuff is what your promoting..
and if your paranoid... (wich as a femnist you must be)
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:8xW_O9Td15IJ:
www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/unpubd/natality/natab97.htm
+united+states+birth+rate+gov&hl=en
breaks it all down from the national center for health statistics
of course this is a proven MRA safe house.. as is any place that doesnt agree with femnist opinion...
as far as the industrial comment.. well that dont fit either.. for we were a large industrial country BEFORE our drop.. the drop coincides with women working and rad feminism.
i am not saying we should be breeders.. i am just stating the facts.. draw your own conclusions and such.. or policies.. i dont set policy, nor do i recommend it.
however, if you have a goal or such, i am stating whats wrong with reaching it.
for every 5 women that work another 5 women have to have 25 babies just to maintain the population.. i dont see women that DO have babies having that many... and for growth you need more!
no trick. no stats... just very simple math..
the fact i am stating is that if you want your ideology to continue, then you have to have enough kids to carry on the cause.
part of why russia fell was because Lenin already started this same experiment... there wasnt enough births to maintain the economy that provided enough 'cash' to maintain standard of living.
without a high enoug population many of the things that you enjoy are not possible. an ASIC needs millions of units to make it worth creating.
as far as marxists.. go check out your own history. cady stanton was a registered card carrying member.. as were many others.. if you take the time to read gramsci.. a guy that worked with lenin and his crew and laid out that the US would not fall in a revolution like the bolshiviks, but would have to be taken from within.
many of the things you want are marxist in belief, if not in name.
socialism cant maintain itself. it stagnates because it removes the incentives for productivity. lots of the things that are being proposed as part of what feminists say they want are socialist.
the funny thing about the history of the red scare.. was that they were right, but looking in the wrong places (we know that now from being able to see the records that they kept).
do you think that marxists are some boogey man.. its just a political utopian ideal (like feminism), that ultimately doesnt work because it ignores that there is any such thing as human nature (just like feminists except when convenient to them).
can you even say what marxists want? do you know the ideology enough to compare it to what the femnists are proposing.
i have shown that i HAVE done the research.. and not at MRA sites.. i dont trust feminists, do you think i would trust the MRAs too? sheesh..
there is lots of good information out there not from either camp.. go look.. i doubt you will.
carefully note that each lady (?) that posted about what i said made sure to attack rather than discuss.. we have one that wanted to castrate men.. you and the other that like to throw the word rant.. putting words or conclusions i never said... and drawing such from statments that had no subtext to them.. and then claiming i want women to breed.
thats not debate, thats attacking and false argument (care to have me send you some links on all the false types of argument there are.. oh and not from a feminist or MRA place?)
personally i dont care if you breed or not.. i wont be alive here by the time the birth fall really makes a difference (2050 to 2070)...
You had me fooled. I thought you were regaling us with your mastery of MRA dogma. You know, we've seen all this before. You really should come up with some new material. Better yet, maybe you should get some therapy. Really. I don't see much of a future for you in politics or showbiz.
n/t
i'm happy with my life. gotta good job, make a little more money than i need. too bad you aren't. i've never seen so much hatred and angst drip from an ibook screen.
oh but it's all our fault isn't it, that you were born too late.
too bad.
be sure and don't leave your name or address either. that makes your comment, as you so succinctly say, worthless and pointess.
our's are really there though. you just can't see them.
"...some people think little girls should be seen and not heard. But I think: OH BONDAGE, UP YOURS!! 1, 2, 3, 4!!!"
www.manicexpressions.net
www.bitchingandmoaning.org
We follow your example, noble sailor boy.
Grrls got Georgie Porgie on the run now... Thanks Laura! He's now hinting that his 'next' nominee will be someone 'representing diversity.'
Bush Drops 'Diversity' Hint About Nominee http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050926/ap_on_g...
The women in this country are nothing more than children. You'll give them more, then they'll want more. Perhaps if they didn't buy into the propaganda that is sold to them by opportunistic lesbians on their favorite t.v. shows, they might be able to think for themselves. Then, they'd realize that the "conservative" ways of old were there to check their behavior and protect them from an already rotten world.
Oh, yeah. And if you insist on talking seriously about reproductive rights, it might help if you stopped glorifying abortion and mislabeling it as "empowerment".
Are those against abortion the ones who most fear that had their parents had a choice, they would have been aborted?
ways of old? thats funny. like how old? what false idealized past are you dreaming about?
another guy born too late. thats two this evening.
Mr. Right Stuff, thank you for demonstrating the pinnacle of conservative male development. Nothing like a dyed-in-the-tighty-whities misogynist to make the point better than any of us could.
but I got bored. Just a few thoughts though. pardon the caps, I'm not yelling, my HTML skills suck.
but ladies always want OPM! mens money, government money, wealthy money, everything but their own----AT 52% OF THE POPULATION, WOMEN DON'T WANT *OPM*, THEY WANT THEIR MONEY. WE ALL PAY TAXES AND AGAIN, WHAT YOU CAN'T SEEM TO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE IS THAT MEN ARE EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE AND YET DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THAT.
I "get this" by just listing out the numbers.. and my numbers on abortion are only ONE country!! hitler 12-15 million, mao, stalin, cant hold a candle to the collective women. though i have to admit that the women had less malice in their hearts when they did it, though i fail to see how this makes it better.---WAIT! YOU ARE COMPARING EACH INDIVIDUAL WOMAN AS A COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUS THAT ACTS JUST AS STALIN, MAO AND HITLER? ERM, THEN MEN OVERALL IN HISTORY ARE THE MOST HEINOUS CREATURES KNOWN TO HUMANS AND WOMAN CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO CATCH UP. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE MORE ABORTIONS SO MEN DON'T FEEL SO BAD.
She would never be able to get enough protein to have a healthy child on her own…----IN THE *CAVEMAN* TIME TO WHICH YOU REFER, UNWANTED CHILDREN WERE LEFT TO THE WOLVES.
Men are not running around spouting their seed everywhere like fountains,--BWAHAHA! uMMM, ACTUALLY YES. THERE IS ONE MAN BEHIND EVERY SINGLE PREGNANCY, WANTED OR NOT, IN THE WORLD.
Here is an amazing thing. close your legs---MEN, USE A CONDOM OR KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS. YOU FIRST AS WE ARE SUCH IGNORANT SLUTS AND NEED GUIDANCE IN OUR MORAL LIVES.
i DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE FRIGHTENED BY LESBIANS AND YET DEMAND WOMEN CLOSE THEIR LEGS AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR UNPLANNED PREGNANCIES. LESBIANS DON'T GET UNINTENTIONALLY PREGNANT, SO WHEN THEY DO, THEY ARE PRETTY COMMITTED. LET 'EM BE!
and more so in the face of your belief that men are naturally more irresponsible and so god damn attractive that you just melt! and they can spew sperm - how lovely - no wonder you ladies hate what you are, you hve contempt for everything and cant see it!---EVIDENCE OF A SELF HATING WOMAN. BY THE WAY, I CAN EJACULATE WHICH WAY MORE INTERESTING TO ME THAN MALE EJACULATE. SUPER-LOVELY, IN FACT. AND CLEARLY MEN *ARE* MORE IRRESPONSIBLE THAN WOMEN. BUT YOU HAVE NOT YET ADDRESSED THIS FACT. YOU JUST KEEP ASSUMING THAT MEN HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO ASK FOR AND EXPECT SEX WHILE IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF WOMEN TO BE CELIBATE (A VERY WORTHWHILE CHOICE), USE THE RIGHT AMOUNTS OF BIRTH CONTROL AND CARRY A BABY TO TERM WHERE SHE CAN THEN DROP THE CHILD OFF AT THE POLICE STATION. AND DID YOU BY ANY CHANCE MENTION THE OPTION OF THAT THE FATHER COULD TAKE THE CHILD AND RAISE IT? I MIGHT HAVE MISSED THAT PART.
Not having sex till your in a committed relationship--SO NO MARRIED WOMEN EVER HAVE ABORTIONS? ERM, NO, NOT TRUE AT ALL. NOR CAN EVERY COMMITTED PARTNERSHIP AFFORD A CHILD EMOTIONALLY OR FINANCIALLY OR PHYSICALLY EVERY TIME A PREGNANCY OCCURS.
If you don’t take it the night of, you have extra meds for the morning after---EXTRA MEDS AND IUDS ARE ABORTIFICANTS, JUST IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW.
Then you can always peg another man that has more money than the father by paternity fraud.---WE USED TO LOVE DOING THAT, BUT THE STUPID DNA THING CAME UP AND RUINED IT FOR US ALL. DRAT.
The man has two options…
Don’t have sex with you
Have sex and let the wacky train ride go wherever it takes you.
WHOO-HOO FOR WACKY TRAIN RIDES!! NEXT STOP? PATERNITY PAYMENTS!! AWWW, POOR GUYS. ALWAYS GETTING THE SHAFT. :-(
OR............
THEY COULD USE BIRTH CONTROL THEMSELVES. OH, RIGHT, YOU DON'T WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. BUT WHOSE GOING TO KEEP US ON THE RIGHT PATH?
THEY COULD JUST JERK OFF TO PORN TOO. IS THAT ALLOWED? 'CAUSE THAT'S SPEWING LIKE A FOUNTAIN AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE COOL WITH THAT OR NOT.
OR NOT ASK FOR IT.
OR ONLY ENGAGING IN MUTUAL ORAL PLEASURE.
OR GET A VASECTOMY AND KEEP THEIR SPERM FROZEN SOMEWHERE FOR A FUTURE CHILD.
OR WEAR REALLY TIGHT PANTS AND LOWER THE TEMP IN THEIR SCROTUM SO THAT THEY ARE LESS FERTILE. I'VE ALSO HEARD THAT SMOKING LOWERS SPERM COUNT.
Ask my brother… (I am his sister)… his ex set him up to look like her murdered her… falsefyed testimony.. and he was forced to walk away as she took him to another state. later she ended up taking his son with her when she robbed a bank and served 1.5 years. At no time did my brother, who held steady work, apartments, and a spare room never used, had any say in anything.
And you ladies want more! ---HERE IS THE REAL SOURCE OF YOUR ANGER. i AM SORRY THAT THAT HAPPENED TO YOUR NEPHEW, BUT YOUR BROTHER MADE A STUPID CHOICE BY GETTING THAT NUTJOB PREGNANT. AND HOW EXACTLY DID SHE FALSIFY TESTIMONY TO SET HIM UP TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE HE MURDERED HER? DAMN, THAT'S SOME GOOD SHIT. I'M IMPRESSED. A WOMAN THAT CRAFTY PROLLY IS THE BEST PARENT FOR THE CHILD.
its not possible to split a home into two and maintain it (unless the man is wealthy). YES YOU CAN. THEY WILL JUST BE SMALLER HOMES. ::SHRUG:: BIG WHOOP. YOUR BROTHER SET UP A HOME, DIDN'T HE?
-------------
TO MEDIAGIRL AND OTHERS:
you can't believe how hard it was for me not to be snarky. Really, it's true. However i was thinking I could host an abortion party next month at my place for all the irresponsible chicks out there. You got a month and you don't need condoms. Just get pregnant and come over and I'll supply balloons and cake.
;-)
www.manicexpressions.net
www.bitchingandmoaning.org
I tried to read thru the whole post...
but I got bored. Just a few thoughts though. pardon the caps, I'm not yelling, my HTML skills suck.
I am sorry that I don’t write better. It would be nice for me as well as others. And I do understand that you are finding it difficult to make the character distinctions clear in your quoting. Thanks for making sure I don’t misunderstand you.
Misunderstanding is one of the reasons my posts get so long. Take your first paragraph. If I make a short statement, you then can run all over the map with it (as you have done), and if I make a long one then I get told I am in a rant. And there is no happy medium.
Women DO want other peoples money. For the most part, the majority of women are hypergamous and when they do select their partners they practice hypergamy (The practice of marrying into an equal or more prestigious social group or caste), and this is rightly so given that you DO have a higher burden in procreation. However, in order for this to happen, men have to be willing to marry equals or marry down! This is why women, in general, have to look at more things when making their choices, and why promiscuity and “accidents� undermine this process. For while she is having fun, which is all well and good, she has an accidental pregnancy. Bbecause SHE failed to live up to the agreement that she made (by implication that this is not a marriage relationship, but her fun time till marriage later, and so when both lay with each other, the intent is not to procreate), and he understood, and now wants to burden him when SHE had a choice. Given her greater burden, greater penalty, and more. Is it really correct to then NOT act accordingly and protect yourself?
Note that I am not telling anyone what to do. What I am saying here is “is this what you want out of it�, even if she has an abortion and its all free and whatever, that’s still a stain on her (not a scarlet letter stain, but a stain that her life was not what it was before – screw what other people thing at that point, its what SHE thinks that is important, and you cant tell me she feels better after leaving the office and even years later.
I agree we all pay taxes. However, there is a large proportion of women that are on welfare that is no where matched in numbers by men (even if you remove children from this number, there is still more childless women receiving the dole than men). welfare is OPM. The number of desperate housewives that do not work vastly exceeds the number of men that get to stay home on their wives money. And so, that’s OPM.
When women wish affirmative action in monetary candy from the government they as a group are not putting in as much as men as a group, and so men share a larger tax burden to provide to women that are not their family, and that they don’t even know.
The truth is that men are not EQUALLY responsible; they are being held to HIGHER responsibility and are balking at the mismatch (more than 40% of women are deadbeat, if you were really about equality then you would be going after your deadbeat sisters JUST as hard as going after the men – and the men would side with you in a instant – not doing it is a lie and hypocrisy). If you think that fairness is that each receives according to their needs, then you are a Marxist (and that phrase is a direct quote from marx).
Also other alternatives are not desired by women, even though it would also balance the books. For example, how many women marry a man they love and support him for the rest of his life while he stays home and takes care of the house. Damn few, for if he does exactly what she does, he is a bum. Why isn’t a housewife a bum? Because she went to yale, married a yale man, forgoes her professional future and settles down? Nope. Its because you have some special dispensations, and if feminists were really interested in stopping the pendulum in the middle, they would also call those women bums, OR stop women from calling that type of man a bum. They do neither.
I "get this" by just listing out the numbers.. and my numbers on abortion are only ONE country!! hitler 12-15 million, mao, stalin, cant hold a candle to the collective women. though i have to admit that the women had less malice in their hearts when they did it, though i fail to see how this makes it better.---WAIT! YOU ARE COMPARING EACH INDIVIDUAL WOMAN AS A COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUS THAT ACTS JUST AS STALIN, MAO AND HITLER? ERM, THEN MEN OVERALL IN HISTORY ARE THE MOST HEINOUS CREATURES KNOWN TO HUMANS AND WOMAN CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO CATCH UP. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE MORE ABORTIONS SO MEN DON'T FEEL SO BAD.
Not really. No one has an abortion to defend their country, and women as a group are MORE hawkish than men, for they don’t have to pay the actual price, but they do get the fruits of that labor.
If men didn’t do what you are lamenting about, then you would not be in a free country. You would not be in a place where we could discuss these points at all.
And the fact that women are hypergamous means that you set the program that the men need more to have or meet better women. how does a man acquire more, if all the women want him to have more in order for him to be worthy in her eyes. Women have tied success to fertility choices, if this was decoupled then men would not need to conquest in order to appease the women. study your history and you will find that Hitler was VOTED into office by women who just got the ability to vote. It was women that put him in power. the hundred years war was maintained by the matriarchs of the two respective houses. Even if you go back as far as Rome, you would have met Agrippina. Don’t know her? She RAN Rome from behind the scenes, and controlled the emperors. Tiberius feared her as did Agustus her granddad. She was a very dangerous woman (and her son was a nut job). Then there was mary tudor, she sent more men to war than men did before her. So when you tally war, you better figure on the WOMEN that sent the men to do the work, there are a lot of them.
And where would women be without the protection of men? prior to police (which is a very modern invention!), there was NO protection other than the men in your life, and they would die to protect you (something that in these posts is clear you wouldn’t do for them – ding! Another inequal point!). and ladies needed protecting because at some point we got big brains and had to deliver the child before its head was so large that MORE women would die in childbirth.
Note that everything is linked… you cant stand and cogently argue that men are warriors who want nothing but blood, then look around and note that we don’t live in a warrior culture and that most cultures are not warrior cultures. Those that were, didn’t last all that long, eventually others team up and get rid of it, and so it doesn’t really take hold except for some plays for property and land and things, of which the men got to keep it, and their wives, and the children of those women got to have better lives.
Don’t curse with on hand and accept with the other. you cant curse war, battle and such, which was for a purpose greater than the personal games and such. And then compare that to a abortion that occurred because it would be more difficult to attend school.
The only reason I make the comparison is that both were willful murders, and while Hitler didn’t actually kill people himself, HIS FOLLOWERS DID… and while feminists don’t actually go into the room and do the abortion, THEIR FOLLOWERS DO.
The makers of ideology and promotion of it are the ones to blame for the carnage that occurs. If your ideology is one of death for convenience (and that’s what it is, when there are MANY other alternatives), then its not much different for stalin, hitler, mao, were just killing out of convenience toward their goals.
She would never be able to get enough protein to have a healthy child on her own…----IN THE *CAVEMAN* TIME TO WHICH YOU REFER, UNWANTED CHILDREN WERE LEFT TO THE WOLVES.
Not really… that’s not true (though there was more than one culture that threw the infirm to the wolves). Archeological records show that statement to be false. Primitive societies of humans value their children much more than our industrialized country does. Immigrant women from countries more family oriented do not abort. And they are willing to struggle with a lot less than the majority of the women in the states that do get abortions!!!
There are no archeological records of childrens bones with teeth marks of animals in any number. There are graves where they are buried and honored. And you also have to note that unlike today a child was an adult at 14, and died by 25.
The other thing was that mothers were the ones that often kill their children for many reasons. Infanticide is by far a ladies practice. Some even today have several children and kill them and then have more. Its sad, they are sick, and that’s that.
Men are not running around spouting their seed everywhere like fountains,--BWAHAHA! uMMM, ACTUALLY YES. THERE IS ONE MAN BEHIND EVERY SINGLE PREGNANCY, WANTED OR NOT, IN THE WORLD.
Yeah, media girl made a silly point.
Here is an amazing thing. close your legs---MEN, USE A CONDOM OR KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS. YOU FIRST AS WE ARE SUCH IGNORANT SLUTS AND NEED GUIDANCE IN OUR MORAL LIVES.
i DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE FRIGHTENED BY LESBIANS AND YET DEMAND WOMEN CLOSE THEIR LEGS AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR UNPLANNED PREGNANCIES. LESBIANS DON'T GET UNINTENTIONALLY PREGNANT, SO WHEN THEY DO, THEY ARE PRETTY COMMITTED. LET 'EM BE!
again, you switch the burden off the one that can most easily facilitate the solution to someone that has only one solution at their disposal vs your twenty.
I never called you ignorant sluts, nor is that what I am thinking (and you shouldn’t either, that’s nasty). What I am stating is the obvious truth that your forladies knew. That the more time without sex that you have with someone the more you know their sincerity. That’s just practical. However, men are no longer tricking women in to bed, the women are running their on their own, picking men up, etc.
However, the women also are not intending to marry these men that they are having sex, and if they wished to continue, they should have to take precautions or stop.
No one is telling her to actually not have sex, what I am saying is that if you cant take complete and total responsibility before the fact, then you leave others less culpable. If all women used birth control responsibly then it would be much easier to get men or lesbian mates to pay up. However, irresponsibility undermines credibility. And undermines your cause.
Its about what the feminists want out of this. I am not picking a side, I am saying that what you are doing or promoting goes against what your say the ideology is and its ability to reach its goals unhindered.
BY THE WAY, I CAN EJACULATE WHICH WAY MORE INTERESTING TO ME THAN MALE EJACULATE. SUPER-LOVELY, IN FACT. AND CLEARLY MEN *ARE* MORE IRRESPONSIBLE THAN WOMEN. BUT YOU HAVE NOT YET ADDRESSED THIS FACT. YOU JUST KEEP ASSUMING THAT MEN HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO ASK FOR AND EXPECT SEX WHILE IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF WOMEN TO BE CELIBATE (A VERY WORTHWHILE CHOICE), USE THE RIGHT AMOUNTS OF BIRTH CONTROL AND CARRY A BABY TO TERM WHERE SHE CAN THEN DROP THE CHILD OFF AT THE POLICE STATION. AND DID YOU BY ANY CHANCE MENTION THE OPTION OF THAT THE FATHER COULD TAKE THE CHILD AND RAISE IT? I MIGHT HAVE MISSED THAT PART.
Men aren’t more irresponsible, people are all fuckups. Be honest. 20 forms of birth control and few have the common sense to apply two, and are willing to accept the turmoil (whatever it is), over that use of another birth control source. And you are claiming it all his irresponsibility because he didn’t use the ONE form he has (which diminishes his pleasure in many cases. Which is the same reason why women don’t use the female condom! The ladies make the same claim, and yet the men are bad, the ladies are good).
The whole culture you are in and all that is around you is because of mens responsible actions. The computer your are on is a product of that. The democratic republic was a creation of men for ALL. a pretty responsible act.
Perhaps I would agree that the men are irresponsible if they had the same number of options (equality), but they don’t, and just like women need extra when they don’t have the options, equality dictates that the men get extra consideration when they don’t have options.
And to address your comment on the men raising the children. The women don’t let them. The woman that drops the kid off at the police (or kills it and throws it in the garbage, which happens a lot here in the city – a recent one been found to have thrown several over the years in a air shaft), is attempting to avoid the child support. The drop off law does not require her to name a father, so the system allows her to skirt HER responsibility. Whats more is that if she was responsible, then those laws would not be needed, she could turn the kid over and such. So while there are tons of men that would love to raise their children (my brother being one of them, and who is depressed in that all he ever wanted was a good family and such), they are not allowed to do so. (fathers 4 justice shows and all those mens orgs show that they do want their kids, and whats more, men didn’t care much for the favoritism that women were garnering till the ladies started taking their kids. It was the taking of the children that kicked off the mens rights movement! So I guess they did care).
Not having sex till your in a committed relationship--SO NO MARRIED WOMEN EVER HAVE ABORTIONS? ERM, NO, NOT TRUE AT ALL. NOR CAN EVERY COMMITTED PARTNERSHIP AFFORD A CHILD EMOTIONALLY OR FINANCIALLY OR PHYSICALLY EVERY TIME A PREGNANCY OCCURS.
I am sorry. I was not clear. If you insure that there is a REAL relationship, then it is less likely that abortion would be necessary, and people would not be fighting to get rid of abortion!!! (well, lots that have joined the fray recently would shut up and go home).
Why does a married woman have an abortion? Because she didn’t use birth control when they were together (or she was one of those nut jobs from one of those pregnancy sites that trade how to get pregnant when the husband or boyfriend don’t want one! and yes there are forums like this. totally amazing).
What I am saying is that there are other options that would reduce the need to terminate a pregnancy. And by not using, and exhausting all those other options first, the ladies are being irresponsible (I knew one woman that had 7 abortions! And that’s wrong!).
The other point is that if you notice my reticence on abortion is conditional. Its not an ideological choice, but a practical one. I am only stating the way that things are, and the way they should be IF abortion as an option is to be preserved. I am not saying out of hand that all abortions are to be stopped, but it cant go on so willy nilly with women defending whatever a womans behavior is as correct no matter how much damage those actions have and no matter how much ability and options she had to prevent the situations.
Think of it this way, be more responsible and the right cant say shit. Demanding responsibility from others than yourself does not work. Men to women, or women to men, such demands are not just ignored, but often reversed to make spite and prove a point. and then demanding connections and such to people you don’t want to have in your life as a ‘solution’ is piling bad on top of bad.
What do you ladies want out of this? if you want abortion to exist, then you cant yell at the men when you have lots of methods of taking control of your own life, which was the whole damn point of feminism!! Fighting so that she doesn’t have to accept uncomfortable consequences of her own decision is not freedom, its imprisonment to a life of bad decisions and hobbled patchwork fixes.
As far as finances go, most women that are having these abortions are not having them for financial reasons.. in the first post I detailed the tree major reasons given… and money is not one of them. You can raise a kid in this country with little money. They may not have lots of clothes, cell phones, computers, cable and such. But real good people came from homes without these things and only two good parents. Both parents are needed, their styles are complimentary, and teach the children things that single mother OR single father homes cant do.
Here goes a fun fact – when there is no biological father in the house, the age of onset in puberty lowers in females lowers. Having another male does not do it. the daughters biology picks up on his mhc compatibility markers and holds off puberty because she is in a protected environment. And contrary to your cave point above, when she doesn’t smell these markers, her puberty starts right about the time that she can live on her own (about 9 to 11 years old). There are lots of strange things like this. (I work in a medical library).
If you don’t take it the night of, you have extra meds for the morning after---EXTRA MEDS AND IUDS ARE ABORTIFICANTS, JUST IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW.
So? they work, don’t they.. they don’t require her to go through mental anguish. They don’t require her to potentially hurt another family with her choice, and then hurt for guilt in making that choice.
I am not against abortion like a religious nut or a rad… I am against that final thing with a viable person when the causes and such are frivolous over better reasons. Rape is a very good reason, desease, danger, etc. but having school inconvenienced because you forgot to take a pill and didn’t have a second form is not a good reason.
Then you can always peg another man that has more money than the father by paternity fraud.---WE USED TO LOVE DOING THAT, BUT THE STUPID DNA THING CAME UP AND RUINED IT FOR US ALL. DRAT.
HA! Thanks for the laugh.. it means that we might just have an interesting conversation (now I can only hope that later you don’t slip into the banshee personal attack mode. You haven’t yet and its admirable, and this was just so much fun).. thanks for understanding that I was being tongue in cheek with a real situation that is not good.
Now to address it seriously. DNA did not ruin it. DNA does not absolve men from paying support for other mens children! If she cheats in a marriage (and only about 35-40% of women do, compared to 40-50% of men. given that men would exaggerate up, and women would exaggerate down, we probably cheat near the same numbers, which would make sense), and has a kid, and doenst tell the dad. He gets to pay support for a kid that wasn’t his, BECAUSE of whats left out of your statement that would make it true. And that’s paternity test at birth (but that would show how many women are having children that the men don’t know is theirs! That’s about 33%!!! Confirmed over and over and over, from military records to birth records to those wonderful studies the dutch can do but others cant).
Personally I don’t think that women love doing this. I think its wishful thinking. She sleeps with more than one, this makes conception ambiguous at best. (of course she is one person having sex with many people and its all those other peoples fault by your logic, not the one persons fault!). when she gets the results and she needs the dad to step up, she naturally picks the one she wishes it to be. Whatever the real reason and play is, it amounts to shopping. And it could have all been avoided if she turned off her fertility till SHE was ready, and not rely on the many, or the one form that he has that really isn’t that good (condoms break, slip off, leak.. the ladies form of control does not do this).
In essence you are arguing that its his fault for not using a more faulty birth control than is available to her (often for free).
The man has two options…
Don’t have sex with you
Have sex and let the wacky train ride go wherever it takes you.
WHOO-HOO FOR WACKY TRAIN RIDES!! NEXT STOP? PATERNITY PAYMENTS!! AWWW, POOR GUYS. ALWAYS GETTING THE SHAFT. :-(
OR............
THEY COULD USE BIRTH CONTROL THEMSELVES. OH, RIGHT, YOU DON'T WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. BUT WHOSE GOING TO KEEP US ON THE RIGHT PATH?
The reason I said the wacky train ride is that his form of control is medieval and about as effective as medieval medicine. Not to mention that there are a lot of women that don’t want the men to use condoms either and tell them they are protected (this is how my brother got snagged). My friend carol wont have sex with the guy if he wears one (I tell her that she is being stupid, and that she should double up, but just like you she will let the sky fall rather than do that – I think this is a variation of the death wish in psychology. it’s a birth wish)
THEY COULD JUST JERK OFF TO PORN TOO. IS THAT ALLOWED? 'CAUSE THAT'S SPEWING LIKE A FOUNTAIN AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE COOL WITH THAT OR NOT.
OR NOT ASK FOR IT.
Ha! I love it!!! but we were talking her options, not his. And this is included in not having sex with her. But as you can see, not having sex to protect yourself, leads the men to some other way to relieve themselves (just as your fighting for the ladies to be able to relieve themselves). Unlike the ladies though only a small set of men can get sex when they want (we are not considering prostitution to be a healthy alternative). Personally.. her taking two forms of birth control, everyone having fun with real people, not fantasy screen dips, would be better. the feminists don’t think so.
OR ONLY ENGAGING IN MUTUAL ORAL PLEASURE.
OR GET A VASECTOMY AND KEEP THEIR SPERM FROZEN SOMEWHERE FOR A FUTURE CHILD.
OR WEAR REALLY TIGHT PANTS AND LOWER THE TEMP IN THEIR SCROTUM SO THAT THEY ARE LESS FERTILE. I'VE ALSO HEARD THAT SMOKING LOWERS SPERM COUNT.
Oral pleasure I agree I left out… but, again we were talking womens options and you would have fucked me over the coals if I suggested one of the ladies options was to blow him. But like I mentioned above, if its too long it’s a rant, if its too short you throw it all around.
And a vasectomy is sterilization. Which becomes a problem if this sex is a prelude to a relationship that will go forward and then want children. By saying men should take this option you then increase the lady lottery that the man she will choose will be one that she cant have a baby she wants with him. (a woman not wanting a baby though, has no problem here). I don’t think that making a majority of men sterile will make women who want them happy. Which is why men don’t do it!
Ask my brother… (I am his sister)… his ex set him up to look like her murdered her… falsefyed testimony.. and he was forced to walk away as she took him to another state. later she ended up taking his son with her when she robbed a bank and served 1.5 years. At no time did my brother, who held steady work, apartments, and a spare room never used, had any say in anything.
And you ladies want more! ---HERE IS THE REAL SOURCE OF YOUR ANGER. i AM SORRY THAT THAT HAPPENED TO YOUR NEPHEW, BUT YOUR BROTHER MADE A STUPID CHOICE BY GETTING THAT NUTJOB PREGNANT. AND HOW EXACTLY DID SHE FALSIFY TESTIMONY TO SET HIM UP TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE HE MURDERED HER? DAMN, THAT'S SOME GOOD SHIT. I'M IMPRESSED. A WOMAN THAT CRAFTY PROLLY IS THE BEST PARENT FOR THE CHILD.
I also know about a dozen more guys, and I damn well know women too that behind the closed doors admit to all this shit. So this is common, not uncommon, though my brothers situation IS more extreme.
My brother didn’t have much choice. He was 20, met her, and she played games. She later admitted to dropping her pill in the garbage rather than take it. with a rubber he cant maintain an erection, so when he uses a condom its more dangerous, AND if he cant perform he loses his relationship. So he went with her to the doctor, and they together (seemingly) got birth control and both were making the effort. However, she had alterior motives, and he was not a control freak to stand over her and watch her take her pills.
The murder thing? oh that was easy. Wreck the apartment, go to a hotel, and sit and wait. The family then comes to search for her, and picks her up. The rest is automatic by the system against the men! she had to do nothing else! Her friend at the time worked for the state and explained all the benefits if she can bankrupt him and do this shit. To make it even better, the baby they had was visiting family and was returning the day of the incident.
No matter what my brother did, he was guilty. The fact that he waited to make a report made him guilty, but knowing that you cant make one for 24 hours made him wait. The idea was that the police would question him at work, and at night and such. The police are not what people think they are, and my brother now knows it. of course his career that was on the fast track was destroyed.
He really thought something happened to her. So he didn’t go to court and seek permanent custody for her abandoning the child with him. He didn’t want her to be found and then come home and find he betrayed her. He wanted his son to have his mother. So the child went to his parents. Because he didn’t get that custody, and grandparents have no rights, she after 6 months appeared. Walked up to their door with police and says “give me my baby�.
Well it went to court in another state out of the legal venue that was the law (you have to fight such things in the court in which the child was born or is resident – this keeps both parents from shopping for a better deal). The neighbor of the family was a retired state supreme court judge, and decided to help and go to court pro-bono. My brother was having a hell of a time in another state trying to earn enough money to pay for her lawyer (they made him pay). They went in, and the lawyer claimed that he hit her, which was not true at all. my brother is a big guy, and does not fight. He is very clever (and so am i), and I am sad to say not devious enough to have protected himself. He was done in by the fact that he comes from a real good family, and a system that says all men are responsible for all outcomes and they are guilty till they can prove otherwise. The case folded then for in child court allegations and hearsay from the mother have a different burden of truth and are admissible. His hearsay is not.
The story get worse. The lawyer he has in the state in which he is in informs him that he will never get to see his kid again, and that the only chance he has of being any kind of dad, was to get back together with her! It wasn’t long till she hated what she was running from in the first place and I guess felt a bit guilty, or didn’t have enough from him. So she offered to come back and try again. It was good for him, for he was cow toed, but he was able to be with his son every day. He spent his savings and rented the bottom of a house. There was two bedrooms a living room, computer room, large dining room with a view, the child has his own room, and a large yard. He was a great dad. Its all he ever wanted to be (ok, that and a scientist – he never got that either).
Well the other friend showed up again and the poison pill started. he was paying for her college so she could get good work once the child was a bit older (he doesn’t like day care… he knows what goes on in them, and trust family more. I guess he is right, today in the paper is a woman busted for making a drug deliever while caring for a child, and the parents did extensive background checks!! And over 40 interviews!). t
Turns out that this was all the plan. Tear him down, get back and then tear the rest down. He gave her money to pay the rent and such. Trying to make the family a team effort (that’s how our family is, we all pitch in. it’s a community thing). this allowed her to take the money and send it to her family. The landlord was being put off by her, and was a real nice guy wanting to help the young couple with the baby (I guess the landlord is evil too cause he is a man).
Well.. one day she said that she was leaving. She took the child and went to the poison pills house. The child slept in the closet. My brother gave all the toys and such. And then found out that he had nothing. That he was so in debt and didn’t know it. they came to work, and they yelled that he was a deadbeat and that they didn’t have enough money. He couldn’t give them anything. Had to find a new home.. he struggled and struggled.
One of the hardest days was the day after she left. The son wanted to see his dad, and so they went out to a movie. He carries the photo that they took together from the cheap photo booth, for that’s all he is allowed to have.
He lucked out and met another woman that became a friend. She was in a similar boat in that the courts put her man in jail and was fucking him over and not letting her have a say. By that time, it was so bad that a large part of it is now automatic, and cant be reigned in by the parties (that’s the feminists who set it up that way, using some of the same logic as here. if she is with the system then she is awake and aware, if she is not then she must be programmed and so cant make decisions for herself, and so no matter what, the only outcome is the bad one for the guy!).
That woman helped my brother a lot, and he helped her a lot. Her kids had some medical problems and the doctor treating them asked this woman to get him to him. You see, my brother was suicidal by this time, he had no hope (and he was right). Well, he took care of her kids and was able to tell the doctor things that the mother didn’t realize, for he is a real smart guy (170 IQ, social skills down a bit, denied education because he was a male, and women with lesser creds got to go first. So his brilliance is wastes – he creates great artwork, and he is a haute couture photographer, software engineer and more. But he studied at home with textbooks he bought for cheap by going to the college bookstore and paid a bit more to the students than they would get back from the store, and so got them cheap – he is a true renaissance man).
This lady knew all the tricks (the lawyers the give the ladies inform them of all that they can do and get away with, and so the ladies choose to win. So a lot of it isn’t the individual ladies fault, but the fault of the feminists that made the laws not consider men at all, and not focus on womens bad as much, and so slants the court. Further protections on the ladies side makes the judgements and such a secret court, so the public cant really know the extent of things –which is why I know the fathers groups reason for being – it reached critical mass till strangers were to compare notes when they randomly met! That’s how bad it is, and that’s what the feminists don’t realize, AND they don’t get that ultimately it will undermine them, which is why I am posting the dynamics! It allows you all to make a choice as to what you want the outcome to be before that outcome is thrust upon you without desire).
The lady went with him to pick up the kid. He never was allowed to walk to the house. All contact had to be through this lady. He learned before that ANY time you are alone (which is most of the time for most people), you have no alibi and you have no means to protect yourself from a false allegation. So he couldn’t enjoy his new apartment. He had to make sure that he was in public or with people and collecting receipts all the time. or else she would claim that he hit her or intimidated her. This is why the lady went to her! She knew that this would be the card that she would play. And she did!! but it didn’t work thanks to this lady.
[please relize that as long as this is, I am cutting it down a LOT)
There was abuse by the poison pill. At one point the child had a 105 fever and they took him around the county on errands and mc dees. Eventually the child was passing out and they called my brother. He got there, and realized what happened, grabbed the kid and ran for the hospital up the road, dialing on the cell phone ahead to get things right. When the child was young he went to every pediatricians visit, that was till she went up one day and cried and lied and the physician called child protection (as he HAS to by laws again put forth by feminists – check out how each of these laws went into place, and you would know. Its not a blanket blame, its just open eyes).
That doctor wanted the son to go home with his father, the father disbarred the poison pill from the hospital. It was awful. Like the fems here they all ganged up on my brother that the reason he took the boy to the hospital was so that he could look like a hero. Yeah, my bro has a lot of experience (and so do I now), on this broken logic that is even evident here, and the automatic ad hominem attacks out of hand, just like here too).
Eventually she couldn’t take the rad fem poison pill (who believed that all men were rapists and beaters and such, and if they weren’t it was only a matter of time. she was abused by her family, and suffered bouts of schizophrenic episodes, and was in charge of watching the child all the time as the mother finally had to work. The mother started to get antsy and realize that this nut job feminist had her own agenda, and so was real dangerous). She wanted to visit her dad and such claiming (for the umpteenth time that he was about to die), and that she would be back. my brother protested knowing her, and she disappeared.
Through more shit, he was denied his parental rights (for only women have parental rights, and of course women stand for equality and fairness, right? I think not). they signed contracts and such and he was supposed to have the child half of the time, and split holidays and such. This never happened. You see its criminal if he misses a payment, but there is no penalty for her for breach of contract (in fact women can breach marriage contracts and sometimes prenups too! Something that men cant do. Contract law has some special outs – which means that its unreliable to have a contract with a woman – you see how this all undermines good women too?)
He was lucky that our parents live in her state (that’s how he met her, on a family visit, and that’s how she thought he was from a wealthy family, which we aren’t at all. OPM again. It all breaks down to the money, and no