It's my body... I'll do what I want

[Rivet]

Article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/05/children.ruling.ap/index.html)

ROCHESTER, New York (AP) -- A Family Court judge who last year stirred debate about parental responsibilities ordered a second drug-addicted woman to have no more children until she proves she can look after the seven she already has.

The 31-year-old mother, identified in court papers only as Judgette W., lost custody of her children, ranging in age from eight months to 12 years, in child-neglect hearings dating back to 2000. Six are in foster care at state expense and one lives with an aunt.

The youngest child and two others tested positive for cocaine at birth and all seven "were removed from her care and custody because she could not and did not take care of them," Judge Marilyn O'Connor said in a December 22 decision made public Tuesday.

....

The New York Civil Liberties Union maintained that the opinion cannot be enforced because it "tramples on a fundamental right -- the right to procreate."

"There is no question the circumstances of this case are deeply troubling," said the group's executive director, Donna Lieberman. "But ordering a woman under threat of jail not to have any more babies ... puts the court squarely in the bedroom. And that's no place for the government."


You can always count on the ACLU to step in to defend the poor crack-addicted whores. :rolleyes:

[JoeR]

You know the ACLU does a lot of good, but DAMN do they go too far sometimes.

[Democritus]

It's their job to defend Civil Liberties. Even when it seems stupid. In this case they're defending the right to procreate. It has nothing to do with the woman really.

[JoeR]

I still think that we should be required to get a license to have kids.

[Ed Sane]

Clearly this women doesnt need more kids, I think the court should have gone the easiest route and forced her to tie her tubes.

[eugene40]

Having seen families like this all my life.. And seeing crack babies up close and personal in the hospital. I can see how the judge would want to order this. But frankly I am shocked that the ACLU the same organization that advocates and supports the womens right to abortion would defende such a lady. (Sarcasm intended) But what I want to see,,, is every freaking pro life person on all of our abortion sites.. you know who you all are. I want to see them come out and say that it is this ladies right to have a child. and She should be set free to have all the kids that she wants.. You guys can't have it both ways. you are either for or against the right to bringing children into this world. NO MATTER WHAT. :)

[Ed Sane]

I happen to be Anti-Abortion. But tieing up this fools tubes does not conflict with my philosophy. Seriously how much does it cost to tie up tubes, anyone know, clearly it would save her more money for crack in the long run.

[cpwill]

Having seen families like this all my life.. And seeing crack babies up close and personal in the hospital. I can see how the judge would want to order this. But frankly I am shocked that the ACLU the same organization that advocates and supports the womens right to abortion would defende such a lady. (Sarcasm intended) But what I want to see,,, is every freaking pro life person on all of our abortion sites.. you know who you all are. I want to see them come out and say that it is this ladies right to have a child. and She should be set free to have all the kids that she wants.. You guys can't have it both ways. you are either for or against the right to bringing children into this world. NO MATTER WHAT. :)

i'm anti abortion; however, you're misrepresenting what we're after. should this lady get pregnant; i would be against her having an aboriton; however, since she is not pregnant; and has proven herself to be an unfit mother, i see no reason why she should get pregnant again. we're not arguing for the right to bring children into the world, we're arguing for the rights of children already created to live.

[historyteach]

"... i see no reason why she should get pregnant again. "
So, people, even seriously ill people, cannot change? We take away their rights to THEIR OWN BODIES? CP, I believe you are a Christian. Therefore, you are familiar with the idea of atonement and forgiveness. A new life being possible as a result of that atonement and forgiveness of mistakes made. Why is this case different?

"Seriously how much does it cost to tie up tubes..."
The cost is far too much. It is the freedom of us all! The freedom to determine our own fate, no matter what mistakes we have made in our past.

The ACLU is protecting the rights of every citizen. The government does NOT belong in our bedrooms.
I know one thing for sure. I cannot see the future. I will not give myself the power to determine another's fate. I believe we have the responsibility to protect the innocent; not to control the sex lives of any person. This IS America, isn't it???
It's about freedom.
Control issues widely seen here, man! WOW!
L'Chaim!
(To Life!)

[HAVOC451]

The cost is far too much. It is the freedom of us all! The freedom to determine our own fate, no matter what mistakes we have made in our past.

Well said. A fine a defence of a womans right to choose.

[spork]

Were all of you pro-birthers protesting when American Indian women were unknowingly sterilized during the sixties and seventies? Where was the bloody outrage then?

[historyteach]

Spork,
I am unsure of your question, here. What is a "pro-birther?"
Or did you mean, 'Where were all you pro-birthers...'
Just trying to clarify here, ok?
During the sixties and seventies, I was a child in school.

However, if you were unaware, there were also forced sterilizations of mentally retarded FEMALES, (only), too. Even very mildly retarded girls/women were deprived of the rights to control their own bodies.
In America. The land of the free....
The ACLU put an end to that atrocity too. Thank G*D!
L'Chaim!
(To Life!)

[spork]

Spork,
I am unsure of your question, here. What is a "pro-birther?"
Or did you mean, 'Where were all you pro-birthers...'
Just trying to clarify here, ok?
During the sixties and seventies, I was a child in school.

However, if you were unaware, there were also forced sterilizations of mentally retarded FEMALES, (only), too. Even very mildly retarded girls/women were deprived of the rights to control their own bodies.
In America. The land of the free....
The ACLU put an end to that atrocity too. Thank G*D!
L'Chaim!
(To Life!)

historyteach - pro-birthers are the anti-choicers - I don't call them pro-life, because they aren't.

The story of forced sterilization is reprehensible - and one that the loudest anti-choicers fail to even acknowledge. After all, it was only women who were victims. :(

[historyteach]

Spork;
I agree -- they are NOT pro-life; they never gave a damn for me...
Also:
"After all, it was only women who were victims. "
Hmmmmm.....Spork????
I think you may be onto something here! :D
L'Chaim!

[patrickt]

The woman was in court for committing a crime. I suspect she is free to reject the judges offer and serve her time if she wants to have more children for you to raise. I love children but the actually process of having them didn't seem like loads of fun but I guess I could be wrong.

[cpwill]

"... i see no reason why she should get pregnant again. "
So, people, even seriously ill people, cannot change? We take away their rights to THEIR OWN BODIES?

i'm sorry; i should have been clearer; i was speaking morally, not legally. as to the legality of this order; i'm currently up in the air, i haven't researched enough into tube-tying cases to be able to see if this qualifies for making the leap.

CP, I believe you are a Christian. Therefore, you are familiar with the idea of atonement and forgiveness. A new life being possible as a result of that atonement and forgiveness of mistakes made. Why is this case different?

it's not; in fact, the woman regaining the legality of having kids is hinged upon her making that new life. to quote from the article: Family Court judge who last year stirred debate about parental responsibilities ordered a second drug-addicted woman to have no more children until she proves she can look after the seven she already has.

The ACLU is protecting the rights of every citizen.

so long as they're not christian;) :lol: sorry, had to get that in.

The government does NOT belong in our bedrooms.

so you are in favor of legalizing incest, polygamy, pedophilia, etc.?

I will not give myself the power to determine another's fate.

oh, well then in that case i hope you didn't vote; i'd hate to think of you trying to use your power to determine the fates of others.;)

I believe we have the responsibility to protect the innocent; not to control the sex lives of any person.

ah, and what if protecting the innocent involves controling the sex life of a person?

This IS America, isn't it???

last i checked.

It's about freedom.

freedom is not absolute; nor should it be.

Control issues widely seen here, man! WOW!
L'Chaim!
(To Life!)

incedentally; i am curious as to where you stand on gun control?

[bucky_2300]

I still think that we should be required to get a license to have kids.
:lol:

That has to be one of the weirdest things I've heard. A license to have children? Undoubtedly this woman was not suitable to raise her children, but jeez! Let the people do what they want, and take the kids away if there are obvious signs of abuse. This is the libertarian in me coming out. Don't restrict stuff like this, it's a trampling of people's rights. Besides, it's ridiculous in its very essence. You would make everyone need a license? Even the people who have never done drugs, do not drink in excess, and are responsible people?

[historyteach]

CP;
I think...and I HOPE...that your line by line nit picking was being facietious. I would HATE to blow each one out of the water...
However, the "legality" of ANY PERSON having children is absolute.
The judge was wrong. Period.
You show me exactly WHERE in the US Constitution is says the government can determine who can have children and who cannot.
Until you do, I will refer to the Bill of Rights; specifically the 4th Amendment and the 9th Amendment.
The judge, in this case and in the cases concerning the American Indians and the mentally retarded women, were dead wrong! Courts proved the latter two; and will prove the former -- eventually.

BTW, I'm not exactly sure where you're getting at with the question about guns, but, for your information -- I am in full agreement with the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Our founders feared the power of government more than any other danger. Today....(even if you DON'T know your history of why they feared that power), it is becoming increasingly clear why they did. We are becomming more totalitarian and less free every day. It's scarrey, if you understand what's happening! This judge is but ONE example.
(and, btw, I am not a gun holding radical crazy in the middle of Montana, LOL! In fact, I don't even OWN a gun. But, I do support a person's right to have one. For the reasons articulated in that Amendment. Just MHO! )
L'Chaim!

[Rivet]

If you read the article carefully, the judge was not forcing the woman to be sterilized or have an abortion if he she became pregnant again.

[cpwill]

CP;
I think...and I HOPE...that your line by line nit picking was being facietious. I would HATE to blow each one out of the water...

:D to quote a great man: bring it on.

However, the "legality" of ANY PERSON having children is absolute.

no such thing as an absolute freedom.

The judge was wrong. Period.

:shrug: perhaps.

You show me exactly WHERE in the US Constitution is says the government can determine who can have children and who cannot.

:lol: show me where in the constitution it says that we have to have complete seperation of church and state? show me where it says murder is legal so long as the infant isn't completely born yet?
if we're going to go back to a strict interpretation (which i wouldn't be completely against); then we've got alot of stuff to do before we get around to this. this at least has some modicum of common sense behind it.

BTW, I'm not exactly sure where you're getting at with the question about guns, but, for your information -- I am in full agreement with the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Our founders feared the power of government more than any other danger.

the problem being that if that's your argument, then you need to be in favor of civilians having assault weapons, tanks, etc.

Today....(even if you DON'T know your history of why they feared that power), it is becoming increasingly clear why they did. We are becomming more totalitarian and less free every day. It's scarrey, if you understand what's happening! This judge is but ONE example.

you don't mean he was legislating from the bench, do you?;):devil:

(and, btw, I am not a gun holding radical crazy in the middle of Montana, LOL! In fact, I don't even OWN a gun. But, I do support a person's right to have one.

good; 'cause you're not taking mine:D

[Simba]

Article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/05/children.ruling.ap/index.html)



You can always count on the ACLU to step in to defend the poor crack-addicted whores. :rolleyes:

"It's my body and I'll do what I want?"

Hell, tell that to my wife. She thinks my body belongs to her. I want to slow down these days. I just ain't into sex any more after mass. I want to smoke some weed, shoot tin cans, jaw with the neighbors, rip up the field with my new John Deere, and play with the kids. When she calls for me to come in, I just yell back late at night saying I am still working hard on this new treehouse for the kids. That treehouse is getting pretty darn grand. If I hook it up with lights and phone, I could rent it out for tenants.

[historyteach]

Well, extreemism is NOT my forte. I refuse to be a part of it. I do NOT have to agree with assault weapons and tanks for citizens to hold to the 2nd Amendment. That type of extremism does NOT serve your arguement one iota!
And, for your information....one cannot "murder" something that is not alive! Just a reality check!
I do NOT believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution. Why? Well, the ONLY founder to speak of the issue was Hamilton. He stated, and I totally agree, that the Constitution must be elastic in order to last - to be what we call today a "living document."
The founders KNEW that they could not see the future. That things would change which they could not forsee. Hense, the elastic clause of the Constitution.
And the "seperation of church and state" was written in a letter by Jefferson. He stated, very clearly, that the 2nd Amendment was PRECISELY that seperation - for the protection of the churches!
See, they KNEW how government perverted churches! It is the FREEDOM OF RELIGION they wanted to ensure.
And it IS - YEA CP, EVEN CHRISTIANS! (Geezz, what a stupid arguement! Another extremism I won't bother getting into - Christians being "abused!" Rediculous! Now, if you want to talk about the radical right wing Christian who wants to impose THEIR position on everyone else - taking AWAY everyone ELSE'S freedom.....that is a horse of a different color! It ISN'T all about Christians. It's about ALL of us!) A bit of reality, please!

Bottom line....you continue to change the subject to argue my position. One has NOTHING to do with the other. Stay on task...or start a new thread! :D
Shalom!

[JoeR]

:lol:

That has to be one of the weirdest things I've heard. A license to have children? Undoubtedly this woman was not suitable to raise her children, but jeez! Let the people do what they want, and take the kids away if there are obvious signs of abuse. This is the libertarian in me coming out. Don't restrict stuff like this, it's a trampling of people's rights. Besides, it's ridiculous in its very essence. You would make everyone need a license? Even the people who have never done drugs, do not drink in excess, and are responsible people?

Sterilize everyone temporarily (if such a technique doesnt exist, well this idea wouldnt happen in real life anyway), and you are un-sterilized when you are granted your license to have children.


I am being a bit facetious, of course (I should have made it clearer with an appropriate emoticon). I couldn't seriously support an idea like this except in some immense and imminent population crisis. China on a global scale and then some. This is more A Modest Proposal territory than anything (though the only reason that that wouldnt be a good idea is because babies aren't very filling :D )

[dittohead not!]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Where does it say, "The right to continue to create unwanted, unloved, uncared for children, who may be hooked on crack, for the rest of us to pay for"?

It seems to me that it would be more than appropriate to sterilize temporarily people who continue to abdicate their parental responsibilities. (Yes, it is medically possible.) Let them have their "right" to reproduce back when they've paid the rest of us back for their irrresponsiblilty.

Estimated cost of a crack baby:
Cost of foster care, birth to age 18: $200,000
Cost of qualifying for special education about grade 3: $1,000.
Cost of 9 years of special education, over and above that of a regular education: $80,000.
Total: $281,000

Multiply that by, say, 6 children: $1,686,000.

That is only an estimate, of course. It doesn't include medical care, for example. The special education may or may not be a need, but the cost of that can pale next to lifetime illness.

[Smurf]

The cost is far too much. It is the freedom of us all! The freedom to determine our own fate, no matter what mistakes we have made in our past.
A nice thought for sure, but at this point it is not "a woman's right to choose" it is a woman who is uncapable of taking care of her kids, and because she is a crack head it is likely her kids may well be born with an addiction of their own.
Is one person's freedom worth the suffering of several more, younger, people? whom will be severly negatively influenced by her?

Tie her tubes.

There's such a thing as too making too many mistakes, at one point we have to say "you've had enough chances" and stop her hurting more people.

[Duo_Maxwell]

You can always count on the ACLU to step in to defend the poor crack-addicted whores. :rolleyes:

Are rights equal if only a select few get them?

I didn't hear republicans talking stink about the ALCU when they defended Rush. We only hear them bashing them for supporting the rights of people they don't like, which makes the bashers, well, you know; hypocrites and double standard holders. I don't like it when the ALCU lets the Neo-Nazis go on parade, but rights in this country are not selective depending on political or economic status, and your stance clearly lends itself towards discrimination as to rights distribution.

[Ed Sane]

Tie her tubes.

There's such a thing as too making too many mistakes, at one point we have to say "you've had enough chances" and stop her hurting more people.


I agree. Yes I realize its a womens right to choose whether to have a baby. Well rights can be taken away. Should unfit mothers be allowed to reproduce? The real problem in this case is how can you legislate it. Doing it by a case by case senario with too much leeway would be a bad idea, especially when each judge interupts law just a little differently.

[historyteach]

First of all, I NEVER made this a case of a woman's right to choose. I stated that the cost of tying anyone's tubes involves a cost to ALL of us....our freedom to determine our OWN futures.
Ohhh, and btw....where are the fathers of all these children???
Where is the hue and cry about sterilizing THEM???
She continued to bear the burden of these children, sick as she was, until the state rightfull took control and provided help for the innocent kids.
I approve of caring and protecting the innocent.
But, the man/men involved in the conception of these babies have not been mentioned ALL ALL!!!
Geeezzzzz.....
I just wonder why that is.....
It's called mysogony and its part of our culture.
Deal with ALL the evils of the world -- not part of them.
Hold the MEN responsible, before you call women "whores." Afterall, some whoremonger is ******** them; creating those babies.
No, it is NOT one sided. Men need to be held accountable too.
Oh, and all you guys out there....ever screw around without protection??? Was it ever possible that YOU impregnated someone? Even if you were unaware, (which tells a whole other story....).
Well, are YOU all ready to be sterilized by the state???
Until you are, judge not lest YOU be judged!
The door swings both ways. :D
Shalom!

[cpwill]

Well, extreemism is NOT my forte. I refuse to be a part of it. I do NOT have to agree with assault weapons and tanks for citizens to hold to the 2nd Amendment.

you do if you base it on the logic that the founding fathers wanted the citizenry to retain the ability to overthrow the government, if needed.

And, for your information....one cannot "murder" something that is not alive! Just a reality check!

:shrug: where did i ever say that you could?

I do NOT believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution. Why? Well, the ONLY founder to speak of the issue was Hamilton. He stated, and I totally agree, that the Constitution must be elastic in order to last - to be what we call today a "living document."

:shrug: he was on one side of the issue. if you want to see who his opponents in that were, it shouldn't be hard to find them; they have names like "Jefferson" and "Madison"

The founders KNEW that they could not see the future. That things would change which they could not forsee. Hense, the elastic clause of the Constitution.

which was built as the way of defeating the inability to do anything that had occured under the Articles of Confederation; not to do what it has done. if the founding fathers were around today; i do believe they'd be starting a revolution.

And the "seperation of church and state" was written in a letter by Jefferson. He stated, very clearly, that the 2nd Amendment was PRECISELY that seperation - for the protection of the churches!

the what amendment;)
and if you honestly want to match quote for quote: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indespensable supports. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.
-George Washington
Our Constitution was made only for a Moral and Religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the Government of any other.
-John Adams
etc. etc. etc....

See, they KNEW how government perverted churches! It is the FREEDOM OF RELIGION they wanted to ensure.

they wanted to avoid a government (read: tax) supported church and religious tests for public officials. this silly idea of driving religion out of the state entirely is a thouroughly modern invention.

Bottom line....you continue to change the subject to argue my position. One has NOTHING to do with the other. Stay on task...or start a new thread! :D

:shrug: i have done nothing but answer your points, point by point. as you are the one posting en masse; it is your arguments which are more likely to be straying from the line of debate.

Shalom!

and peace to you:)

[cpwill]

First of all, I NEVER made this a case of a woman's right to choose. I stated that the cost of tying anyone's tubes involves a cost to ALL of us....our freedom to determine our OWN futures.
Ohhh, and btw....where are the fathers of all these children???
Where is the hue and cry about sterilizing THEM???

:shrug: if you're willing to support a man's ability to force the woman to have an abortion; i'm willing to support sterilization; no problem.

But, the man/men involved in the conception of these babies have not been mentioned ALL ALL!!!
Geeezzzzz.....
I just wonder why that is.....

perhaps because they have no legal means of making a difference?

It's called mysogony and its part of our culture.

:lol: not hardly; check the divorce records; see who ends up with the kids.

Hold the MEN responsible, before you call women "whores."

:rolleyes: hold both.
however, with responsibility comes authority.

[historyteach]

"if you're willing to support a man's ability to force the woman to have an abortion; i'm willing to support sterilization; no problem"
Just ONE of the many ways in which you twist my words to suit YOUR purposes...done over and over as any reading of this thread will show.
Where, exactly where, did I - ME - I state that I am willing to support a man's ability to force ANY woman to have an abortion.
It's called CHOICE!
Get real, CP.
This is getting to be a totally absurd line of UNREASONING! I won't be pulled into your twisting of my words, and try to defend what I NEVER stated!
I can speak very well for myself, thank you!
Shalom!

[cpwill]

"if you're willing to support a man's ability to force the woman to have an abortion; i'm willing to support sterilization; no problem"
Just ONE of the many ways in which you twist my words to suit YOUR purposes...done over and over as any reading of this thread will show.

:rolleyes: you demand equal responsibility without equal authority, something which is neither right nor just. i apologize for pointing out something embarrassing to your argument.

Where, exactly where, did I - ME - I state that I am willing to support a man's ability to force ANY woman to have an abortion.

you didn't; i called for your support in return for my support for male sterilization.

It's called CHOICE!

that is indeed the name people have tried to label it with.

Get real, CP.

:confused: you think i am an artificial construct? ;):lol: :sorry:

This is getting to be a totally absurd line of UNREASONING! I won't be pulled into your twisting of my words, and try to defend what I NEVER stated!

(sighs) i'm going to have to start using more ";)-y" faces with you, aren't i?

I can speak very well for myself, thank you!

evidently.

Shalom!

:lol: now, why do i get the feeling that's not intended how it translates? :)

[historyteach]

"you demand equal responsibility without equal authority, something which is neither right nor just. i apologize for pointing out something embarrassing to your argument."
Never did that...anywhere... You have nothing to apologise for....you did NOT point out anything embarrassing in MY arguement.
Oh, and just for the record....there is NO such thing as complete equality...just in case you didn't know. ;)

"Where, exactly where, did I - ME - I state that I am willing to support a man's ability to force ANY woman to have an abortion. "
you didn't; i called for your support in return for my support for male sterilization."
CP, lets get the record straight. This thread called for the woman's sterilization. If that is demanded, I demand the male's sterilization. *** for tat. Simple.
I have NO clue where you come up with forced abortion for that simple exchange???
Blowing my mind, there, man....unreason....

"you think i am an artificial construct? "
Well, you have artificial reasoning....It is INDEED called "choice" regardless of what label you wish to impose. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. It is a CHOICE -- horrifying to those of you who wish to control another's body -- especially if that other happens to be female!

CP, I'm NOT from Missouri, but, I AM in the "show me state." :)

And, I cannot control your feelings one bit, but, I do assure you, my wishes of Shalom for you are sincere. I'm afraid that I don't see too much peace in your posts. You are more intent on doing that which you cannot do -- control another.
Remember the Serenity Prayer, CP. It will serve you well when you get frustrated at that lack of control.
If you don't know it, just PM me....I'll send it to you. Sincerely.

Shalom!
(said with honesty and all good will towards you!)

[historyteach]

Oh, and BTW....well....you STILL haven't held any men responsible for the children who suffer in the world! You simply wanted to impose another control on women involved - with forced abortion. If men can be there at the beginning....
Shalom!

[Ed Sane]

Women have the right to choose whether to have a baby. Men do not have that choice. So you cant put them on equal footing, because they are not.


Styrelizing a women does not mean we all lose, if it is legislated right. Clearly this women should not have another child. You can make too many mistakes in life, and one point you can no longer repent.

[historyteach]

Ed;
"Men do not have that choice"
Sorry, Ed, but men DO have that choice. Every single time they pull off their pants. Just some more reality. Choose rightly, and you will have no problems.
Oh, and having a baby is not now, nor will it ever be a "legislated right!" LOL!
And just who is it that determines when a person can no longer repent??? You???
No thanks. I'll stick with the only possible way of knowing for sure....that is when the person dies. Only then is it too late.
See, I don't have the power of G*D.
Neither do you.
Shalom!

[historyteach]

You know, I'm not trying to argue here.
But, I am truely amazed at the amount of control issues going on.
It doesn't work, friends...no matter how much we may want to control another...it just doesn't work that way.
Ever see Shawshank Redemption? There is a scene in the film where the character is in solitaire; he survives it, and so much more, by living his OWN life.
Just a thought here...
Of course, conversation, debate and reflection are necessary for the good of society...any society.
But, seriously, one cannot win by trying to control the most intimate acts of another. They will, legisation or not, do as they will.
Look at how well prohibition worked. And the Comstock laws worked.
They both were doomed to fail because they attempted to control what others would not allow controled.
Societal control works to a measure...and that measure is the common good.
Not the "do it MY way."
Just a few thoughts to ponder....or attck! LOL!
Shalom!

[Rivet]

Please read the article carefully!

The judge ordered the woman not to have any more babies until she can take care of the one's that she already has. There was no sterilization order.

[historyteach]

Rivet,
The sterilization issue came up from a member calling for that woman's sterilization.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Meaningless. Just as the judge's orders are meaningless.
The judge made a stupid decision. What will s/he do if the woman gets pregnant again? Put her in jail? Force an abortion? Force someone else to adopt the baby? Nope the judge put forth an order which is impossible to enforce. In doing so, s/he lessens the order of law. Because many lawyers would be willing to jump all over such a case. The judges order is a no brainer looser.
Shalom!

[JoeR]

The only real legal recourse is taking the kids, which has been done if i remember right (i dont feel like rereading it again)

[cpwill]

:sighs: both individuals have the responsibility for engaging in sex; therefore at this point, both are responsible for the resulting pregnancy.

however, once we hit the pregnancy stage; the women have a recourse that the men do not: women can choose at any time to simply remove that responsibility from themselves, whereas men are stuck simply living within the world created by the woman's wishes. at this point, when it gets to birth; the woman is responsible for the decision to bring the child into the world, and the man is not.

therefore unless you are willing to either outlaw abortion or give men the ability to remove that responsibility from themselves; they are not responsible for the fact that there is a child.

[historyteach]

Very poor reasoning, CP. I'm surprised at you!
You state:
"however, once we hit the pregnancy stage; the women have a recourse that the men do not: women can choose at any time to simply remove that responsibility from themselves, whereas men are stuck simply living within the world created by the woman's wishes. at this point, "
#1. Yes, it IS the woman's body. Hers. No one else's.
#2. He does indeed have recourse. He had it right from the very start. There would be NO pregnancy if he kept his pants on. He wouldn't have to worry about anything if he exercised his responsibility. You see, CP, men created their world already, when they dropped their pants. They knew the risk and they took it.
The only problem here, is that they don't like the fact that women have a choice. A choice afterwards because of fact #1. It is HER body. Hers alone.
If you don't want to be responsible for a child -- keep it in your pants. Very simple. Be responsible. Then, you won't have to whine about women taking care of their own bodies. You can take care of your own.
You have the responsibility already. You just don't want to own up to it.
L'Chaim!

[Ed Sane]

historyteach, cpwill is correct. Women have a choice men do not, that means they are not on equal footing, and you cannot expect men to therefore have the same level of responsibility. Women also dropped their pants or skirts too.

As I said earlier this women shouldnt have the right to bear children. Felons dont get handguns, crack whores shouldnt have children. Now it just needs to be legislated.

[diann]

ARE YOU KIDDING!!!!???? You would want to be.... Every person SHOULD and does have the right to bear children, no one has the right to take that away from any person!! Okay it is very evident that this women already has too many children as she cannot care for all of them but absolutely no one has the right to say someone "shouldn't have the right to bear children." You cannot force this women into not having anymore children or to abort a child, that is like me telling you that you do not have the right to have sex anymore!! i know your going to say i didn't say she can't have sex but it is fairly obvious from the fact that she has so many children that she cannot afford contraception along with her addiction and therefore if she shouldn't have the right to bear children and she cannot have sex without doing so then you are (maybe) unwittingly saying she cannot have sex!!!!! So try and see how you would like that forced upon you!!!?? :rolleyes:

You say Ed "Felons dont get handguns, crack whores shouldnt have children" should that not be felons dont get handguns, crack whores shouldn't get crack!!!! :clap:

Quick question: I am unsure of this because it is so uncommon to have a women try and shake her responsibility to a child but if it did happen and the women left the child with the father and the man wanted to raise the child (how unlikely is that) but anyways IF that did happen would the man be able to claim for money off the women!! That is so weird how i am only after seeing how one sided that is now!!!

BUT i will say this, it is a very obvious thing that could happen when a man and women have sex that a child could come of it and so it is BOTH the man and women's responsibilty if that does happen!! They are both aware of what they are doing when having sex and so if the women falls pregnant just because she has a choice to abort a baby doesn't mean she has a higher level of responsibility to it than the man!! You say women have a choice men don't- it is not always a good thing becoming pregnant!! Women don't have a choice if they become pregnant and believe that it is wrong to abort a baby, they have to have the child then and so their life is in mayhem!! You simply just cannot say that women have a choice and men don't they both have a choice at the start to keep their bloody pants on but after that it is a shared responsibilty and everyone should accept that before having sex!!

[historyteach]

Ed;
CP's arguement is NOT correct. It is illogical to assume that men are not responsible for the starting of a pregnancy. They both pulled down their pants; they are both responsible.
Period.
You guys need to stop your whinning. You're making me cry! Geeezzz!!!
Be responsible.
Teach your sons to be responsible.
You won't have anything to whine about if you do so.
But, the bottom line has not changed. You HAD a choice. You threw it away to get laid. Now, live with it. Or be responsible and stop your belly aching!
L'Chaim!

[Democritus]

Ed;
CP's arguement is NOT correct. It is illogical to assume that men are not responsible for the starting of a pregnancy. They both pulled down their pants; they are both responsible.
Period.
You guys need to stop your whinning. You're making me cry! Geeezzz!!!
Be responsible.
Teach your sons to be responsible.
You won't have anything to whine about if you do so.
But, the bottom line has not changed. You HAD a choice. You threw it away to get laid. Now, live with it. Or be responsible and stop your belly aching!
L'Chaim!


You seem to be missing their point. It takes two people to make a baby. If, later, the woman decides she doesn't want a baby she can get an abortion. If, later, the man decides he doesn't want a baby, he still has to provide for that baby. That was the inequity they were trying to illuminate. Of course he should have been responsible to begin with, but so should she.

[historyteach]

Dem;
"
You seem to be missing their point. It takes two people to make a baby. If, later, the woman decides she doesn't want a baby she can get an abortion. If, later, the man decides he doesn't want a baby, he still has to provide for that baby. That was the inequity they were trying to illuminate. Of course he should have been responsible to begin with, but so should she."

No, I am NOT missing the point at all.
I understand it completely. And as I stated earlier, there is NO SUCH THING as COMPLETE equality. That's just a fact. Live with it.
If they had been responsible to begin with, when they had the opportunity, there would be no problem. They cannot, however, change biology. And, they cannot take control over MY body. That too is a fact.
Deal with the facts is my point.
Men have ONE opportunity to be responsible.
Because women carry the zygote, she gets an extra shot.
Nature, not human, provided. Nature. You aren't going to change it.
So deal with that reality. It's the only shot you got.
And stop whinning about it! It's getting really pathetic!
L'Chaim!

[cpwill]

Ed;
CP's arguement is NOT correct. It is illogical to assume that men are not responsible for the starting of a pregnancy. They both pulled down their pants; they are both responsible.
Period.

i'm not arguing at all that they are not responsible for the pregnancy; i am arguing that they are not responsible for the birth.

[jamesrage]

A Family Court judge who last year stirred debate about parental responsibilities ordered a second drug-addicted woman to have no more children until she proves she can look after the seven she already has.

I think this should apply to single welfare mothers as well.If they can not support one child one their own then they have no business having any more children.I think there should be strings attached to reciueving state assistance.Like maybe making these welfare mothers go down to the welfare office and get a birth controll before recieving anymore assistance.

[historyteach]

CP;
"i'm not arguing at all that they are not responsible for the pregnancy; i am arguing that they are not responsible for the birth."
Foolishness. You KNEW the possibility when you engaged in the act.
You are not going to change nature.
You have NO control over another's body.
Be responsible. Period.
You ARE responsible if YOUR actions result in the birth of a child. You knew it when you pulled your pants down; and if you didn't, well, it is about time that you grew up!

James,
"If they can not support one child one their own then they have no business having any more children"
Well, where are the fathers of these children? Why are THEY not supporting their babies? (Rather than the taxpayer, including me! I didn't create that child! HE DID!)
You provide the PERFECT example of the double standard.
"SHE" is on welfare. Hold her responsible.
HE made the baby, and is probably off making 5 more with 5 other women. Yet, you have not once mentioned his onus to the taxpayer. His deciet to the woman. His SHAME to the child he abandons.
Oh, btw, while SHE is raising that child, her career possibilities are, at best, limited to the "mommy track" in the business world. More likely a minimum wage no benefit job consisting of "would you like fries with that."
He has no limits; he is not up with a sick child at night; he is not feeding that child and bringing that child to well baby checkups. Clothing the child. He is living free. Doing as he pleases with no thought for his progeny.
SHE IS BEING RESPONSIBLE!
It is HE that is being irresponsible.
And you want to whine about that too.
Man, that attitude is truely pathetic and sickening.
Like I said in the beginnning. Deal with the realities. Deal with the facts.
And stop whinning, Peter Pan. It's time to grow up!
L'Chaim!

[Rivet]

How is smoking crack while there is a baby growing inside you being responsible?

[cpwill]

CP;
"i'm not arguing at all that they are not responsible for the pregnancy; i am arguing that they are not responsible for the birth."
Foolishness. You KNEW the possibility when you engaged in the act.

i knew the possibility of her becoming pregnant was unavoidable. however, having the kid is completely avoidable. in a society where abortion is an acceptable option; the two are seperate.

You have NO control over another's body.

actually i do:)

Be responsible. Period.

both sides are responsible for that which they can effect.

[cpwill]

You ARE responsible if YOUR actions result in the birth of a child. You knew it when you pulled your pants down; and if you didn't, well, it is about time that you grew up!


i also don't know why you continue to insist on addressing this part in the personel to me; as an individual i'm not sexually active, nor do i have plans to be so in the forseeable future.

[historyteach]

Rivit;
How is the man being responsible, having sex, (perhaps paying for it), with a crack addict; then walking away.
Responsibility goes BOTH ways.
CP:
"in a society where abortion is an acceptable option; the two are seperate."
Ohhh, but, CP, it is NOT your body; therefore it is NOT your choice. Sorry, as I said before, deal with the facts and you won't be let down. You will NOT change nature.

"You have NO control over another's body.
"actually i do"
Uhhh, sorry, my friend, NO you DO NOT. Not in this case. And that is exactly what you dispise; that lack of control. Sorry. Your thought doesn't make it so.

Quote:
"Be responsible. Period.
both sides are responsible for that which they can effect."
EXACTLY!!! Now, you're getting it!
You can only effect that which is YOURS to effect. Another woman's body is NOT yours.
BUT, YOUR body is. Be responsible for it. Be responsible for the effects YOUR body creates. Because, whether you like it or not, you only have ONE shot.
Nature decided that; no one else.
You DON"T carry the zygote. Reality check again! ;)

"i also don't know why you continue to insist on addressing this part in the personel to me; as an individual i'm not sexually active, nor do i have plans to be so in the forseeable future."
I am actually speaking to the "generic" you aka, man.
I apologise if you didn't see that in the many posts I've made on this thread.
NO ONE HERE IS BEING HELD PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE
(unless, of course, you are! ;) )
L'Chaim!

[spork]

How is smoking crack while there is a baby growing inside you being responsible?

How is impregnating a crackhead responsible?

[dittohead not!]

i'm not arguing at all that they are not responsible for the pregnancy; i am arguing that they are not responsible for the birth.

It's a darned good thing, too. If men had to go through the pain of childbirth, the human race would have died out years ago. :D

[Ed Sane]

You guys need to stop your whinning. You're making me cry! Geeezzz!!!
Be responsible.
Teach your sons to be responsible.
You won't have anything to whine about if you do so.




I have yet to "whine". To disagree with historyteach is to whine? I guess thats just another illogical arguement uh?


Clearly if women have the ability to abort the pregnancy, then after all the entire child part of a screwing is her responsiability. I do agree men should be responsible, however they are not on equal footing.



Diann, women have the right to bear children. Rights can be taken away, and I meant what I said about handguns and crack whores. Its just plain common sense. This women is not a victim the children she raised are the real victims. And if she is allowed to countinue to reproduce well, I guess that might say alot about are society then....I have the right to own a gun, but if I killed someone I should pay. If a woman gets knocked up 7 times and cant take care of any children, shouldnt that right be taken away?

[Senor Herberto]

thank you class. here are the correct answers to this test:

someone has to represent this woman. it might as well be the ACLU.

given her status as "NOT A CAPABLE MOMMY" by the state, she should not be allowed to have custody of any children.

if she wants to make more babies the state is constitutionally incapable of stopping her, but they can take her children away from her as soon as her consciousness is in control of them, which comes as soon as her physical body is no longer in control of them.

she can be charged with child abuse if she drinks alcohol or goes on rollercoasters or willingly performs other baby-harming acts while pregnant. they can do this because she is harming the child and it is her responsibility not to allow that to happen.

bad mommy.

[historyteach]

Ed;
"Clearly if women have the ability to abort the pregnancy, then after all the entire child part of a screwing is her responsiability. I do agree men should be responsible, however they are not on equal footing."
OK, Once more, VERY SLOWLY now...
There is NO SUCH THING as equal responsibility.
That is a fact of nature.
Repeating the same thing, already shown to be a fallacy, IS whinning. That's what a two year old does. Repeating it does not change it.
Men have ONE shot...because it is NOT THEIR BODIES, and there is NO THING AS EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY.
As CP stated, you are responsible for what you can effect.
Be responsible. Stop whinning, "I don't have the same chance as you do."
The answer is NO, you DON'T. You DON'T carry the zygote.
Understand the biological part yet.
It is ALL biology.
And you are responsible. That, my friend, is called "life." Deal with it.
L'Chaim!
(To Life!)

[Rivet]

And you are responsible. That, my friend, is called "life." Deal with it.

You're working under the assumption that these are normal, healthy man-woman relationships.
Obviously, they are not. These men are most likely either giving her money or crack in exhange for sex. This woman doesn't care about anything except getting her next fix.

It's all effed up.

[Rivet]

thank you class. here are the correct answers to this test:

....

bad mommy.

Makes sense to me.

[cpwill]

CP:
"in a society where abortion is an acceptable option; the two are seperate."
Ohhh, but, CP, it is NOT your body; therefore it is NOT your choice.

precisely my point, and as i don't have the choice, i am not responsible for the outcome of that choice.

"You have NO control over another's body.
"actually i do"
Uhhh, sorry, my friend, NO you DO NOT.

:sorry: was speaking overall; as a voting citizen, i do.

"Be responsible. Period.
both sides are responsible for that which they can effect."
EXACTLY!!! Now, you're getting it!

in that case i've been getting it all along; and you just haven't realized the results of your own logic.

"i also don't know why you continue to insist on addressing this part in the personel to me; as an individual i'm not sexually active, nor do i have plans to be so in the forseeable future."
I am actually speaking to the "generic" you aka, man.
I apologise if you didn't see that in the many posts I've made on this thread.
NO ONE HERE IS BEING HELD PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE

cool, but be careful pushing that personal responsibility stuff; otherwise you might end up sounding like your on the other end of the debate;)

[jamesrage]

James,
"If they can not support one child one their own then they have no business having any more children"
Well, where are the fathers of these children? Why are THEY not supporting their babies? (Rather than the taxpayer, including me! I didn't create that child! HE DID!)
You provide the PERFECT example of the double standard.
"SHE" is on welfare. Hold her responsible.
HE made the baby, and is probably off making 5 more with 5 other women. Yet, you have not once mentioned his onus to the taxpayer. His deciet to the woman. His SHAME to the child he abandons.
Oh, btw, while SHE is raising that child, her career possibilities are, at best, limited to the "mommy track" in the business world. More likely a minimum wage no benefit job consisting of "would you like fries with that."
He has no limits; he is not up with a sick child at night; he is not feeding that child and bringing that child to well baby checkups. Clothing the child. He is living free. Doing as he pleases with no thought for his progeny.
SHE IS BEING RESPONSIBLE!
It is HE that is being irresponsible.
And you want to whine about that too.
Man, that attitude is truely pathetic and sickening.
Like I said in the beginnning. Deal with the realities. Deal with the facts.
And stop whinning, Peter Pan. It's time to grow up!
L'Chaim!

I beleave that if males want to run around and not help take care of the children they helped created they should be temporary steralized as well.
The military would also be a perfect teaching tool of responsibility.Plus he would would have a steady income,that can docked out of his pay to pay for child support.The way I look at it Responsibility applies to both people engaged in sexual activity.So the female is just as responsible as the male.
So you are the one who needs to grow up and deal with the reality that if a single female on welfare who already has four five kids should have the logic to know that she is very fertile so her half of the responsibility of engaging in sexual activity is to use some means of birth control because of the fact she should know by now that she can not trust her male partners to stick around to help take care of the children he helped created.Responsibility of protection just does not lay completly on the male.The male is indeed responsible for wearing a condum just as the female is responsible for using birth controll pills.


SHE IS BEING RESPONSIBLE!

BULL****!Because if she was responsible she would have used birth controll pills and insisted the guy she was screwing wear a condum,or she would not have put herself in that situation to have sex in the first place,after all she is a mother her kids should come first not her personal life.As her kids coming first she should not be putting herself in a situation that contributes to more finiancial hardship for her family.



It is HE that is being irresponsible.

I never said he wasn't being iirresponsible.He is almost as irresponsible as the female.

On a slightly different subject I have met welfare single welfare mothers whose sole intent is to have as many kids as possible so that the state can take care of them and they will never have to work again.Which is one reason
why I am for welfare mothers being forced to take birth controll shots so that they can not mooch any more tax payer money.THe other reason is that they make poor examples for children,they send the message to their kids that if you are a female all you have to do is have children and the state will take care of you.
I remember this one time I was hanging out over at a friend's house over several years ago and we were sparking up (smoking weed). One of the friends of my friend's mother was pitching a fit because her daughter's school was always asking her when she was going to get a job.She explained to my friend's mother that she felt that the state provided her a means of being able to not have to work and that she should not have to work,I nearly choked as I was inhaling after hearing such a ludacris comment.
I beleave that if people want something they should go out and get a job to earn money,not mooch of the state.If that job does not provide you with the adaquate money you need. Then get a school loan and go to school for something that you know has a huge job market for,not some useless major like philisophy,or astrophyiscs or some other worthless degree that has no real application in the job market other than being a teacher in that field of study.

[bike_lady]

You can make too many mistakes in life, and one point you can no longer repent.

Who decides where that line is drawn? Also, is this statement meant to be of a religious, Christian nature? I ask seriously, bcause I thought that Christianity espoused forgiveness for anyone humble enough to ask for it. Right? Sorry if I misunderstood.

[Ed Sane]

Ed;

Repeating the same thing, already shown to be a fallacy, IS whinning. That's what a two year old does. Repeating it does not change it.



Then why do you keep repeating yourself. You have yet to prove your point. There should be equal responsability.


Now to get back to my other point. Why should women who clearly cannot take care of their own children be ALLOWED to reproduce? If the women is being irresponsable shouldnt we lock her in chains, or at the very least tie her tubes?

The rights of the children and possible children should outweigh the right of the women to get knocked up.

[historyteach]

My point, Ed, is NATURE!!!
Your whinning WILL NOT CHANGE IT!
Reality check!
Again....sigh....:(
Be responsible for the only shot you've got.
If not, I don't want to hear your b*tching anymore.....
It's really, really old now.
Deal with the reality of nature.

[Ed Sane]

historyteach, i can ***** all I want, oh and circumventing curse filters is against the rules. Just thought I would mention that.

You know getting this sort of reaction out of you is rather fun. Please keep posting.

EDIT: How can you hear what I am writting? Do you read my posts allowed? Sweet.

[historyteach]

Go ahead, Ed.
***** all you want. I couldn't care less.
It's totally foolish to care about it. LOL!
smootches!

[Iheartsiobhon]

Ok, so seven childre? We are not talking about a couple of mistakes here. Why should it be this woman's choice to ruin the lives of those who have no say in the matter. Not only are these children probably going to suffer from mental and health issues, but also socialization issues. And then in the end, we end up dealing with a whole buch of crazies. Why would this woman even want that many kids? For the money. Wow! Good for you sensai! Some people are disgusting. I think there comes a point when we have to intervene and take away people's freedom of choice. As long as we monitor it and make sure it doesn't go too far. I don't see how anyone can argue for this particular lady, in general the idea of taking away somebody's right to procreate seems perposterous, but there are exceptions to every rule. I am sure when people came up with declarations of rights, these types of sick people did not exist.

[historyteach]

Yea, Iheartsiobhon;
Some people are disgusting....
And that INCLUDES the men who make babies and walk away....because they CAN.
Why can they....
Exactly because of the attitudes displayed on this board. Yours included!
The kids DIDN'T get there by the woman alone!!
All along, I have stated...it's NATURE.
WHen will you folks start dealing with the FACTS of life?

Oh, and I can assure you; when the declaration of rights came about....these people most certainly DID exist.
Men have ALWAYS walked away from the problem.
Just another distastful fact...
Shalom!

[spork]

Abortion bad but involuntary sterilization good? Bwaaahahahahaha

[Ed Sane]

WHen will you folks start dealing with the FACTS of life?


I deal with the facts of life. Having a child is COMPLETLY up to the woman, and therefore she is responsible for it. When a woman can no longer take care of her children, it makes sense to say that she should no longer be allowed to care for them. 3 of the children were born addicted to crack. Do you know what this means historyteach? 3/7 children are already ****ed up, NO MORE.

[historyteach]

LOL! OMG!!!
Spork...you've just made my day! LOL!
(and they STILL won't get it!)
Shalom!

[bike_lady]

I deal with the facts of life. Having a child is COMPLETLY up to the woman, and therefore she is responsible for it.

Uh huh.....did you by any chance take your Sex Ed class in Texas? :lol:

[bike_lady]

Ok, so seven childre? We are not talking about a couple of mistakes here. Why should it be this woman's choice to ruin the lives of those who have no say in the matter.

Why should it be your choice?

Why would this woman even want that many kids? For the money.

Why is that your business? And how do you know the answer is money. Randomly labelling people as "disgusting" does nothing for them or society (or your credibility, for that matter).

I am sure when people came up with declarations of rights, these types of sick people did not exist.

And I'm sure they did. How old are you, anyway?

The impression I get from this and other similar messages is that some people are so self-righteous that they'll sacrifice their own right to privacy if it means that they can impose their personal will on strangers. This attitude is nearly always accompanied by a complete mistrust of others and a smug confidence that behavior control measures will never be imposed on them. I'm not saying that the woman in this case behaved rightly, but I do maintain that she retains certain rights as a human being.

Protecting those rights for all supercedes one person's bad decisions/circumstances. Why the self-appointed Panty Police can't acknowledge this is beyond me. Beware the false sense of security. :rolleyes:

[Democritus]

Abortion bad but involuntary sterilization good? Bwaaahahahahaha


Lovely point that you've managed to repeat in every post, but flip it around.

"Involuntary sterilization bad but abortion good?"

It's not as simple as black and white.


Abortion is bad, it's not something anyone ever WANTS. It is occasionally a necessary evil. If there were some way to temporarily sterilize this woman, until she can properly care for her children, that would be good.

The crux of the issue: What is more important, her rights, or the safety of her children?

[jamesrage]

Why is that your business? And how do you know the answer is money. Randomly labelling people as "disgusting" does nothing for them or society (or your credibility, for that matter).


Why is it our business?Lets see child protection laws,One has to report child abuse if they see it.
If the lable fits she should wear it.She is a drug addict having children how is that not disgusting?

Why should it be your choice?

Let see if decides to have it then I have to pay money.


Protecting those rights for all supercedes one person's bad decisions/circumstances. Why the self-appointed Panty Police can't acknowledge this is beyond me. Beware the false sense of security.

What about protecting children from the bad descisions of their parentsSo roughly you are saying it is okay for a woman to smoke crack or what ever and give birth to children who will most likely be ****ed up for the rest of their lives?So are you saying it is okay to **** up the lives of little children?

[Ed Sane]

Why should it be your choice?



Because American taxpayers are supporting 6 of her offspring.

[historyteach]

"Originally Posted by Ed Sane
I deal with the facts of life. Having a child is COMPLETLY up to the woman, and therefore she is responsible for it.


Uh huh.....did you by any chance take your Sex Ed class in Texas? "

PRICELESS!!! LOL!

Oh, and if you don't like the tax laws, I suggest you vote Democratic next time! :D

<<MOD EDIT: Personal Attacks are against Forum Rules>>

[spork]

Lovely point that you've managed to repeat in every post, but flip it around.

"Involuntary sterilization bad but abortion good?"

It's not as simple as black and white.


Abortion is bad, it's not something anyone ever WANTS. It is occasionally a necessary evil. If there were some way to temporarily sterilize this woman, until she can properly care for her children, that would be good.

The crux of the issue: What is more important, her rights, or the safety of her children?

Democritus - you have managed to entirely miss my point.

[Ed Sane]

Mod Edit: removing personal attack from quote


Historyteach, I am really annoyed with the majority of your posts, please refrain from making insults. Calling me a "ditto head" does nothing constructive. Your refusal to listen to others arguements makes you in my opinion a poor poster.

As I have stated the point of this thread was about a women who screwed up had 7 of her children taken from her custody. At this point the right for her to procreate should be stripped from her. Are not licenses stripped from drunk drivers?

[Democritus]

Democritus - you have managed to entirely miss my point.


I prefer to say I'm sidestepping your point. I see your point, recognize your point, then make a concious effort to avoid your point. Your point, while not invalid, serves no purpose except to incite pro-life people. I clearly failed in my previous attempt to make that clear. Now let me restate the final question, and see if you have an answer.


"What is more important, her rights, or the safety of her children?"

[Ed Sane]

I would say the rights of the children. Historyteach, has been going on about men being responisble for their actions. Yet this women has been anything but...I am surprised she is not in jail already for negliegence and other charges. Maybe we need to strengthen existing laws...

[cpwill]

"Originally Posted by Ed Sane
I deal with the facts of life. Having a child is COMPLETLY up to the woman, and therefore she is responsible for it.


Uh huh.....did you by any chance take your Sex Ed class in Texas? "

have you, perchance, become aware of a court case known as Roe V Wade?

Oh, and if you don't like the tax laws, I suggest you vote Democratic next time! :D

i think his problem with the tax laws are that they are too high; and too convoluted; in which case voting democrat would be rather self-defeating.

[Ed Sane]

I wasnt sure about the tax remark by Historyteach, if it was in response to my post.


When I was reffuring to taxpayers supporting her offspring. What I meant was that the gov. should have a say if she were to have more children, because it would be inevitable that the government would have to provide for them. With american tax dollars. We should do this, however we should also fix the problem, besides helping the children who need it the most.

[jamesrage]

Bike Lady and Spork....these folks take extremes and use them as examples. False logic again due to false generalizations. But, they don't know their arguements are specious; and they won't listen.

False generalizations?So you think a mother ****ed up on drugs should be a parent or even be allowed to have more children?I known people like that,selfish inconsiderate ****s who only give a **** about themselves.I have met welfare mothers who only goal in life is to mooch off the system and **** the tax payers over.


Thank goodness their opinions don't make a darned bit of difference! Frankly, I think we are simply giving them a sense of importance by answering this nonsense. If someone has a logical arguement, well, that will be a horse of a different color. For now...James and Ed are talking ditto heads and nothing more.

Nonsense?As far as I see Ed is the only sane and intellegent liberal with common sense.Usually liberalism,sanity,intellegence with the common sense to use that intellegence does not go together at all.
As far as opinions go why don't you explain your logic that states it is ok for a crack head mother to bear anymore children.Why don't you also explain your logic how a single mother with several children living on welfare should be entitled to have more children.

Oh, and if you don't like the tax laws, I suggest you vote Democratic next time!

Why so so liberals can fund more programs for lazy ****s and not for people who really need it?

[Ed Sane]

Why so so liberals can fund more programs for lazy ****s and not for people who really need it?



We liberals do fund many great programs. However part of the problem is trying to believe money is the answer or EBT for that matter. We need more education. I wouldnt call these people lazy, we must have some empathy for them. However they should pay equally as the next person for their mistakes.

Personally in the case at hand, I believe child abuse laws should be strengthened as a bit of a compromise between the sides that feel this judges trampled too much on womens rights. In part I blame the DA for not prosecuting this women and social workers not making a case. This women needs a nice long stint in jail. And access to drug prevention programs.


EDIT: I would also like to mention in Newsweek rather recently not sure which issue exactly they had a small story on single mothers excepting welfare, 3 families I believe in all. It was a rather interesting read. I would suggest digging it up, if you have back issues of Newsweek at hand. It was about some study. Darn, I wish I could remember it.

[historyteach]

A dittohead is one who mindlessly repeats something, usually stated by a Rush Limbaugh type character...
And we saw his character! Sending his maid to get his illegal drugs. While he was calling for drug addicts to be imprisoned for life...
Except, of course, for himself!
No responsibility.
The point you have all chosen to ignore is the FACT that all these men have been irresponsible in procreating and walking away.
You can whine all you want, but, nature is nature and you won't change that fact.
THerefore, I do agree that the laws should be tightened. To hold all those men responsible for their actions. Or put THEM in prison!
Afterall, I don't want MY tax dollars supporting THEIR children...
Oh, and CP, if you want to talk taxes, look at Clinton's surplus and Bush's HUGH deficit that he is leaving to our future grandchildren....
Vote Democratic is what I said, if you care about your taxes.
Shalom!

PS, To the mod, I apologise. I didn't think dittohead, a term used by politicians and comedians, was considered a personal attack.
And NO ONE'S opinion, including mine, on this forum, will change anything.

[historyteach]

Ed,
You may be annoyed all you want.
I HAVE listened to your arguements; I have found them totally lacking. You are not one bit balanced in your presentation of the facts. I simply point it out.
You say her right to procreate should be taken away.
I say the man's right to procreate should also...IF we follow YOUR logic. He IS being totally irresponsible, impregnating a crackhead, and walking away.
Yet, you still have refused to acknowledge that FACT!
So, be as annoyed as you like. To quote you, "sweet!"
Shalom!

[Ed Sane]

Men should be made to provide for the children yes. However for this case we have no evidence that the father(s) did not make such an attempt. This women is an unfit parent regardless if their was parental involvement from the father(s).

You keep overlooking the fact that the women too hold some responsability for their actions. Why should a women who is addicted to crack, cannot take care of her 7 children to begin with, be legally allowed to have another child. Which will most assurdly suffer the same fate as the other 7. Especially when you take into consideration three of them are have now become addicted to crack against their will. This women also has that hanging over her head. As that was not caused by any man.


We have "ABORTION" in our society. It is completely up to the women whether to keep the child. The fact that the men engaged in sex doesnt really have a bearing. I personally believe all honorable men will provide. However in this case the women is clearly more at fault then any man. It takes 2 and right now you dont seem to be so zealous against the women.

And personally I think 4/5s of all males should be "snipped". The same with women. I believe in negative population growth.

[jamesrage]

A dittohead is one who mindlessly repeats something, usually stated by a Rush Limbaugh type character...

A ****ing moron is someone who would beleave any crap that comes out of Micheal Moore's mouth or some bull**** coming out of a feminist's mouth.

The point you have all chosen to ignore is the FACT that all these men have been irresponsible in procreating and walking away.

You seemed to ignore the fact that it takes two to tango.This woman has seven children by different men.It should seem that she should have the knowledge to know that she is very fertile and maybe should instill a back up plan to keep herself from getting pregnate again and that the type of men she is attracted to are not a good choice for long term relationships or that maybe she is doing something on her part to drive them away and that some she has for men need to be changed.

[cpwill]

Oh, and CP, if you want to talk taxes, look at Clinton's surplus and Bush's HUGH deficit that he is leaving to our future grandchildren....
Vote Democratic is what I said, if you care about your taxes.
Shalom!

:laughter: alright; i'll give you a crash course :):

1. the surplus was never real, it never existed; it was a projection, a "we hope we get" based upon a fundamentally flawed model that completely failed to take into account the natural business cycle.
2. balancing the budget was done by the newly Republican Congress; the budget clinton submitted was a wee bit different;).
3. according to the OMB (office of management and budget) the current deficite is 50% the result of the 9.11 attacks and the corporate scandals, 25% the result of the War on Terror, and 25% the result of tax cuts which were required to give a jump start to the economy in order to keep a recession from turning into a depression (no tax cuts in the 30's, for example; and they spent the next decade and a half in the Great Depression)

i'll admit, bush spends more than i like; and it's time to start cutting into those stupid socialist wasteful domestic handouts. start means-testing for social security and the like. get rid of agricultural subsidies altogether.

Vote Democratic is what I said, if you care about your taxes.

i want to have fewer taxes; and that is why i cannot currently vote democrat.

[historyteach]

Ya know, CP;
There are lies,
There are "darned" lies
and there are statistics.
I'll ask one simple question....
Are you better off now than you were 5 years ago.
For the majority of Americans, the answer is a resounding "NO!"

But, we digress with the tax topic. Feel free to start another thread if you wish. I'll be happy to give you a crash course in economics! :D
Shalom!

[historyteach]

James,
Your vulgarity is getting quite offensive.
Funny, I circomvented the barriers ONE TIME, and was called on it. I didn't even know that to leave out a certain letter in a word was against the rules. But, the point is, I stopped after being told.
Hmmmm.....Where is the "reminder" to James, Ed???? Seems you really are one sided!

Further, I NEVER said she should not be held responsible for her actions. And she WAS held responsible for her actions -- she lost her children. But, it takes TWO to tango, and NONE of you are looking at the guys lack of responsibility.
Frankly, when you have a crack head, she is most likely a prostitute, looking for money for her fix. So, to hold an addict responsible for acting responsible is an excercise in futility. (Unfortunately, I know more about addiction than I ever cared to know. My son is a struggling heroin addict; recently relapsed after @ 8 months of clean time. :( See http://www.partnershipforrecovery.org/facts.htm
to get the FACTS of addiction, before you speak, please.)
She needs TREATMENT, that this society refuses to accept. Detox centers and rehab centers have all had their fundings cut...while prison populations grow. And yes, treatment DOES work. When it is available.
Now, about the men who frequent those prostitutes....paying for a quicky.... their responsiblity to their offspring is ALWAYS neglected! ALWAYS! These guys don't even know the woman's name. They are using these sick women for their personal plaything. Yes, thing. She has become an object to use. One step better then his hand.
They risk pregnancy, venerial disease, (STD if you prefer), and the spread of said STD to their wives and families.
Ed, you say there is no evidence that these men "tried" to support their children.
The reality of addiction is this. There is no evidence that these men did anything except pay to get off, and walk away.
Addiction is a sickness;
His use of people for his own immediate gratification is a degregation....to himself and to all of humanity.
And he IS responsible.
Shalom!

[Rivet]

His use of people for his own immediate gratification is a degregation....to himself and to all of humanity.
And he IS responsible.

Repeat afer me ... "All men are scum"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Ed Sane]

Regardless if men are responsiable or not. In this case they should be found so the kids can be put in the father(s) custody. However from the basis that all the children come from the women, would it not be easiest to say that she can no longer have anymore children especially when 3 were born addicted to crack. Historyteach you know about drug addiction, she just created 3 new addicts in the world, the men who had sexual relations with her did not cause that. She did, and should pay accordingly.


We need better rehab in prison. You commit a crime you do the time. However in prison we need better rehab programs.



(Well james was being vulgar, all his bad words were blocked by the curse filter. If you say a bad word just type it out and let the filter decide to block it or not. You would be surprised with which some words are allowed. As to the "ditto head" remark. You have to look at insults in the context of the sentence. Not just at the word itself. Where have I said anything that would need to be edited?)

[cpwill]

Ya know, CP;
There are lies,
There are "darned" lies
and there are statistics.
I'll ask one simple question....
Are you better off now than you were 5 years ago.
For the majority of Americans, the answer is a resounding "NO!"

1. :lol:that's a pretty weak argument for simply writing off the OMB.
2. yes, i am much better off than i was 5 years ago; i'm a college student making roughly 18-24 dollars an hour.
3. yes, as stated, the combined events of the late recession from the 90's and the 9.11 attack hurt the economy pretty bad; however, that doesn't mean we're in bad shape. unemployment is back down to about 5% (compared to double digits in europe); the economy is growing pretty well again (remember that amazing 3rd quarter; the best in 20 years?); and certainly we're much better off than we would be had taxes not been cut; or, worse, raised (see the 1930's for the result of that solution to the problem).

if you'd like to get into a debate on it; i'd be happy to:)

[historyteach]

Just as I thought. A young man, with much to learn....
Very much to learn...
Shalom, son!

[Rivet]

Just as I thought. A young man, with much to learn....
Very much to learn...
That's very condescending. :confused:

[cpwill]

Just as I thought. A young man, with much to learn....
Very much to learn...
Shalom, son!

:laughter: just as i thought; an old woman who's fully aware that she's wrong; and is trying to avoid debate in order to keep from having to admit it (or at least, to keep from it becoming blatant);)

[historyteach]

Rivit;
"Repeat afer me ... "All men are scum""
No, dear; I won't.
It's unkind and untrue!

Now, CP;
As to your post, I will state only ONE thing...
With age comes the possibility of wisdom.
With youth, there is DEFINATELY NONE!
Shalom, my young friend! I was once where you are...so sure of myself, that I wouldn't ever listen to those who'd been before me. Think that they actually knew something that my books didn't teach me...
Shalom, my young friend.
You shant be young forever....

As I said, the tax topic is a digression from this thread. But, feel free to start one....

Oh, and ED....what did you say about context of insult???? :D

[jamesrage]

Further, I NEVER said she should not be held responsible for her actions. And she WAS held responsible for her actions -- she lost her children. But, it takes TWO to tango, and NONE of you are looking at the guys lack of responsibility.

From the comments you posted it would seem to appear that you assume that it is all the guy's fault and no one else's fault.All I am saying is that since she apparently has seven children that would indicate some lack of judgment on her part.I met diots like the type of guys she would go out with and idiots like her.The numbe one reason why they do not use a condom is because it does not feel natural or does not feel good to use a condom.The guys that she goes out with are apparently stupid as her.


Your vulgarity is getting quite offensive.

A liberal offended by vulgarity?I am shocked.Mainly I use vulgarity as a lazy adjective.

Frankly, when you have a crack head, she is most likely a prostitute, looking for money for her fix. So, to hold an addict responsible for acting responsible is an excercise in futility.

Bull**** she is responsible for her actions.Would let a drunk driver off the hook
if the ran there car into some innocent pedestrians or another car.The reason why we hold drunk drivers respsible is because they made the choice to drink.

His use of people for his own immediate gratification is a degregation....to himself and to all of humanity

I known people who are liike that with out any drug addiction what so ever.
Some people are like that by nature.They think Uncle Sam should provide every thing they need with out working for it.

[cpwill]

Now, CP;
As to your post, I will state only ONE thing...
With age comes the possibility of wisdom.
With youth, there is DEFINATELY NONE!
Shalom, my young friend! I was once where you are...so sure of myself, that I wouldn't ever listen to those who'd been before me. Think that they actually knew something that my books didn't teach me...
Shalom, my young friend.
You shant be young forever....

so, this means that, no, you don't have the ability to answer any of my points; from the introduction of abortion into the responsibility-roles to the tax-debate? you are claiming that you are right because you are older??? :confused: heck, if that's it, then actually i have the advantage; as the human body begins losing brain cells after age 22; i currently am operating at maximum peak whereas you are a bit more run down, cranially speaking.;)

[historyteach]

It is clear by your questions that you have heard nothing, and will learn nothing.
You refuse to accept nature; you refuse to accept male responsibility; and your refuse to acknowledge that you are attempting to hijack this thread with the tax issue. I made clear all my positions. You just don't hear! ;)
You will, one day.
Until then, for you, the answers are still blowin in the wind....
Shalom! :)

[Rivet]

Rivit;
"Repeat afer me ... "All men are scum""
No, dear; I won't.
It's unkind and untrue!


I was being fecetious. You do seem to be angry at the male gender by your posts though.

[historyteach]

No, Rivit;
I am not angry with the male gender. I LOVE men! :)
I simply am angry with irresponsible men and the fools who make excuses for them. Those would be men or women. See, it is not a gender thing, to me.
It's a responsibility thing.
As I've said all along.
(But, with a statement like you posted, I find it hard to believe that YOU would accuse ME of being angry at men! ;) LOL! )
Shalom!

[cpwill]

It is clear by your questions that you have heard nothing, and will learn nothing.

i've listened to everything you had to say and answered in kind.

You refuse to accept nature; you refuse to accept male responsibility;

no, i clearly and multiple times accepted male responsibility for that which they have some control over. however, i do not accept that they are responsible for that which they have no control over.

and your refuse to acknowledge that you are attempting to hijack this thread with the tax issue.

as i stated, if you wish to talk about it, i will; i'm still waiting on you to respond to my last post on the sexuality issue with anything other than a claim that you are right because you are older.

I made clear all my positions.

and i patiently and repeatedly refuted many of them.

You just don't hear! ;)
You will, one day.
Until then, for you, the answers are still blowin in the wind....
Shalom! :)

:sighs: :rolleyes:

[Iheartsiobhon]

Yea, Iheartsiobhon;
Some people are disgusting....
And that INCLUDES the men who make babies and walk away....because they CAN.
Why can they....
Exactly because of the attitudes displayed on this board. Yours included!
The kids DIDN'T get there by the woman alone!!
All along, I have stated...it's NATURE.
WHen will you folks start dealing with the FACTS of life?

Oh, and I can assure you; when the declaration of rights came about....these people most certainly DID exist.
Men have ALWAYS walked away from the problem.
Just another distastful fact...
Shalom!

EASY! I think you are way to quick to assume what people are thinking. I will have you know that I am a single mother and the fact of the matter is, that when it comes to the father's there is a whole slew of questions to ask. Yes, it is his responsability as well, but she's the one who keeps getting pregnant and smoking crack...perhaps the men dont really know her, they'r eprobably having sex with her for money or drugs and who knows if she even tells them that she's having their children. And anyways, as much as it is both party's responsabilities to take care of their own, the mother is the one that has to grow that baby inside of them, so naturally they have way more responsability right from the begining.

[Iheartsiobhon]

Why should it be your choice?



Why is that your business? And how do you know the answer is money. Randomly labelling people as "disgusting" does nothing for them or society (or your credibility, for that matter).



And I'm sure they did. How old are you, anyway?

The impression I get from this and other similar messages is that some people are so self-righteous that they'll sacrifice their own right to privacy if it means that they can impose their personal will on strangers. This attitude is nearly always accompanied by a complete mistrust of others and a smug confidence that behavior control measures will never be imposed on them. I'm not saying that the woman in this case behaved rightly, but I do maintain that she retains certain rights as a human being.

Protecting those rights for all supercedes one person's bad decisions/circumstances. Why the self-appointed Panty Police can't acknowledge this is beyond me. Beware the false sense of security. :rolleyes:


Well I will answer the question of my age and I am 23, how old are you? Perhaps you don't understand the fact that our world is a different place now than it was in the past. Not just because of the Fathers walking away, but this lady is smoking crack while she is pregnant! Perhaps you dont understand the seriousness of this drug. Why is it her choice to screw another human being's life up before it is even born? Why is it my choice??? It is the responsability of all human beings to look out for those and speak for those who cannot do it for themselves. Its like saying, why should we make contributions to and write letters for those involved with Amnesty International, what business do I have in the life of another human beings? Its the same thing. Its unjust to the children and to the rest of society.

[bike_lady]

Well I will answer the question of my age and I am 23, how old are you?

I'm 30, you silly wabbit.

Perhaps you don't understand the fact that our world is a different place now than it was in the past.

Pullllease. See above. Not only am I quite aware of our brave new world, I've seen a heck of a lot more of it than you have. You actually sound kind of sheltered to me. Travel much? Seen the dark underbelly of the world or do you just moralize about it from afar, like so many of our friends on this board, who spout frustrated strings of $#%%^&%^&%^$#%#% all the time about the transgressions of others? (Yeah, y'all know who I'm $#%$#^%#$%!$#ing about.... :D )


Not just because of the Fathers walking away, but this lady is smoking crack while she is pregnant! Perhaps you dont understand the seriousness of this drug. Why is it her choice to screw another human being's life up before it is even born? Why is it my choice??? It is the responsability of all human beings to look out for those and speak for those who cannot do it for themselves. Its like saying, why should we make contributions to and write letters for those involved with Amnesty International, what business do I have in the life of another human beings? Its the same thing. Its unjust to the children and to the rest of society.

I understand, my child. My point is not about the choices of the mother. Of course no one should be doing any kind of drugs, including caffeine(!), when they're pregnant. and there's a huge difference between advocating for a stranger and trying to infringe upon a stranger's rights based on your own imperfect understanding of the situation. The latter isn't exactly *looking out* for anyone; it is the imposition of a (usually uncharitable, from the sound of these posts) personal will on another person. That, and the punishment involved completely dismisses the responsibility of the men involved. They should be snipped. Or castrated, if we really want to drive the point home. :p Think it's your business to decide that too?

Is this woman negligent? Yes. Should she keep her kids? I think she's demonstrated that she cannot do so competently. Do I think a tubal ligation would vastly improve this woman's life? Yes. Do I think it's a horror that anyone would deliberately harm a child in utero? YES.

But...Should the court decide whether someone be involuntarily sterilized? (That is the $64000000 question, one which the WS moralists refuse to face head on.) I question that, and everyone else should too, if only for a moment. When we decide to forego individual rights because we think the other person had it coming, then we expose ourselves to the same treatment down the line. The court cannot competently hand down this kind of justice. Maybe--just maybe--we should seek other answers besides the systematic infringement of citizens' rights. But would that be too sensible?

Imagine, just for a moment, that the government found a reason to force you to have SURGERY...what an invasion of privacy. Think it won't ever happen to you? Such is the blind optimism of youth...

[Rivet]

I'm 30, you silly wabbit.
And I'm older than you. So my opinion must trump yours. :lol: :lol:

Is this woman negligent? Yes. Should she keep her kids? I think she's demonstrated that she cannot do so competently. Do I think a tubal ligation would vastly improve this woman's life? Yes. Do I think it's a horror that anyone would deliberately harm a child in utero? YES.

But...Should the court decide whether someone be involuntarily sterilized? (That is the $64000000 question, one which the WS moralists refuse to face head on.)
The judge never said that she would be sterilized, he just admonished her not to have any more children until she can take care of the ones she already had. That basically means to get her act in order. It's like saying "don't show up in this court room again."

The real question is if the woman goes against this judge's order and has another crack baby, what does the court do then? Some jail time perhaps?

[Ed Sane]

Bike Lady, this women represents an extreme case, and in this instant forced styrilization is an anwser. She has created atleast 3 new addicts in her life time, for that alone I think she should be hanged. Making it so she is no longer capable of creating children is a lesser punishment then the one she derserves.

[bike_lady]

And I'm older than you. So my opinion must trump yours. :lol: :lol:

Naah. That just means you're out of touch with the modern world. :lol: :lol: :lol: i'm sure you're old enough to take my response in context.


The judge never said that she would be sterilized, he just admonished her not to have any more children until she can take care of the ones she already had. That basically means to get her act in order. It's like saying "don't show up in this court room again."

The real question is if the woman goes against this judge's order and has another crack baby, what does the court do then? Some jail time perhaps?

Maybe the court has no authority to punish someone based on how they handle their pregnancy. I'm NOT saying it is all right to do drugs while pregnant etc etc; I am suggesting that issue has to be the medical privacy principle. The real question is, how far can the government go to control personal choices? This is the same question we ask ourselves when considering the legality of abortion.

[bike_lady]

Bike Lady, this women represents an extreme case, and in this instant forced styrilization is an anwser. She has created atleast 3 new addicts in her life time, for that alone I think she should be hanged. Making it so she is no longer capable of creating children is a lesser punishment then the one she derserves.

I getcha, and I agree that this lady needs to stop bearing children. However, I am more concerned with what happens when we turn this "special case" scenario into a system of justice, which I cannot support.

[Ed Sane]

Thats why as a compromise, I think child abuse laws should be strengthened. Including how a woman treats a fetus. Its ok to have an abortion in our society. But its wrong to role your stomach down a flight of stairs. There is an abuse factor. And smoking crack should earn you a sentence anywere in the US.

[Iheartsiobhon]

Bike Lady,
I can't even handle the condescending responses you give out to everyone. Wow. Kind of makes me think you aren't so convinced of your point and you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't think it is fair of you to assume who I am and the ammount of shelter I've had in my life.
Either way, I still agree with Ed, anyone who puts an unborn child's life at risk knowingly, deserves to be hanged, let alone a slap on the wrist like sterilization. Just my very strong opinion, I have a child and the thought of her or any other child for that matter being harmed is horrible. They don't have a voice and they have no choice as to what you feed them until after infancy...

[gopman]

It never should have come down to this, because the woman should have been in jail long ago for being on crack and being a prostitute. There's a reason why we have these laws, and this is it.

[historyteach]

Bike Lady;
Good points, as always....Thank you.

CP:
Do you happen to know what the word, "hijack" means? I won't discuss taxes with you on this thread, as I have already stated. (Can you read?) You may start another, if you chose.

"... i clearly and multiple times accepted male responsibility for that which they have some control over."
You have responsibility for dropping your drawers and the resultant consequence of that action. Yes, you do. Reality check. And that action IS your responsibility. No getting away from that CHOICE made. :)

Oh, and, for the record,
I NEVER claimed I was right because I'm older. (as you claim!)
I stated, clearly, that youth can have NO WISDOM. (Go back and check if you want!)
The two are not the same statement. (just basic logic)
Once again, (sigh), I will ask you to STOP changing my words and refuting YOUR words that you attribute to me! :D
Shalom, dear!

[cpwill]

Bike Lady;
Good points, as always....Thank you.

CP:
Do you happen to know what the word, "hijack" means? I won't discuss taxes with you on this thread, as I have already stated. (Can you read?) You may start another, if you chose.

hey, you started it, i simply responded. if you didn't want to talk about taxes on this thread then you shouldn't have mentioned them :)

"... i clearly and multiple times accepted male responsibility for that which they have some control over."
You have responsibility for dropping your drawers and the resultant consequence of that action. Yes, you do. Reality check. And that action IS your responsibility. No getting away from that CHOICE made. :)

precisely; which is why males are partially responsible for the pregnancy. what they are not responsible for is the birth; as whether or not to keep or not keep the child is solely (as you have pointed out) the woman's responsibility.

Oh, and, for the record,
I NEVER claimed I was right because I'm older. (as you claim!)

you claimed that i was wrong because i was younger; the implied is that you are correct because you are older.

I stated, clearly, that youth can have NO WISDOM. (Go back and check if you want!)

so you believe that the vast majority of those protesting the war in the 60's were wrong?

The two are not the same statement. (just basic logic)

the one leads to the other.

Once again, (sigh), I will ask you to STOP changing my words and refuting YOUR words that you attribute to me! :D
Shalom, dear!

once again i ask you to address my words at all.:rolleyes:

[JoeR]

The idea that youth can have no wisdom is absolutely rediculous

[Strel]

The idea that youth can have no wisdom is absolutely rediculous


This may be true, but there is no substitute for experience. There is also the considerable difference between "intelligence" and "wisdom" - they are not the same thing at all.

"If I could go back 20 years, knowing what I know now" is a silly phrase. I KNEW "it" then, but was just too unwise to do anything about "it". (Whatever "it" may be).

[Captain America]

I knew straight A students in high school that could not pour piss out of a boot with directions written on the heel.

Intelligence and wisdom are completely two different things.

[Democritus]

"Age does not always bring wisdom. Sometimes age comes alone."
-- Garrison Keillor

[historyteach]

Dem, I think Keller is absolutely correct.
And, as usual, CP has hijacked this thread using someting I said in a CONTEXT, without using the context in his snip. He left out the entire quote. You can go back and read it if you haven't already, Dem.
But, although it was a nice try, CP, LOGICAL discussion doesn't work that way. You are showing your inability to remain on topic and put forth any logical arguement.
Terrible debating skills man. Hope you are not on the debate team. ;)
No, the two statements are NOT connected logically, CP. Please DO take a basic logic class....you have shown ample need for it.
I used the taxes as an EXAMPLE; NOT to hijack the thread.
And the KIDS of the sixties were angry young people who almost lost the gameplan because of their outrageous behaviors that alienated the adults who had the power to change things. Further, without the knowledge of how the system really works, they lacked the ability to change a darned thing. They didn't have the experience. The WISDOM! Yep, that's right.
Wisdom comes with experience. The youth have not enough experience.
(No, it is NOT a logical consequence that older people have wisdom by that statement...a basic logic class would teach you that. )
Just a reality check again, CP. Not only was I there in the 60s, (a very young kid, LOL!), but, I've studied it extensively in my grad program. And, I have LIVED the result of that period. SO, feel free to start another thread, (again, *rolley eyes*) but, try, DO try to stay on topic here.
Men are responsible for the actions they take. Deal with it!
Whether or not you like it, it isn't going to change! LOL!
Frankly, I think this is getting more and more rediculous, with the verbal gymnastics, half truths and distortions of what I said, that you spout trying to evade responsibility for the male behaviors witnessed in THIS case and in so many others.
You help create it, it's your responsiblility - yea, even IF she has one more chance to correct a problem.
That chance does NOT take away the male behavior.
Period.
And just fact.
A logical one. ;)
Oh, and if you really think that I haven't addressed your statement ad nauseum, then I suggest you take a critical reading class. You may read the words, but, you miss the message. ;)
(COme to think of it, with the amount of times you have CHANGED what I say, perhaps you don't read the words either, LOL!)
Whatever.
Shalom!

[Rivet]

You help create it, it's your responsiblility - yea, even IF she has one more chance to correct a problem.
That chance does NOT take away the male behavior.

Yes, the men did help create it (sigh). Good luck finding them. lol

But, dear, answer this simple question ... who's decision is to have the baby or have an abortion? The man has no say either way (sigh). The woman makes the decision. lol.

Kazam

[cpwill]

:lol: this is classic.
And, as usual, CP has hijacked this thread using someting I said in a CONTEXT, without using the context in his snip.

as usual? name me one other thread where you've accused me of this:rolleyes: furthermore, since you brought the subject of taxation up; i'd say you started that side piece, just as you started the side piece on age; just as you're now going into the sixties; anything; apparently, in order to not have to respond directly.

Men are responsible for the actions they take. Deal with it!
Whether or not you like it, it isn't going to change! LOL!
Frankly, I think this is getting more and more rediculous, with the verbal gymnastics, half truths and distortions of what I said, that you spout trying to evade responsibility for the male behaviors witnessed in THIS case and in so many others.
You help create it, it's your responsiblility - yea, even IF she has one more chance to correct a problem.
That chance does NOT take away the male behavior.
Period.
And just fact.
A logical one.
Oh, and if you really think that I haven't addressed your statement ad nauseum, then I suggest you take a critical reading class. You may read the words, but, you miss the message

i have stated at least about a dozen times that i..... you know what; just once, just once, i want you to quote and directly deal with this statement:

males are partially responsible for the pregnancy. what they are not responsible for is the birth; as whether or not to keep or not keep the child is solely (as you have pointed out) the woman's responsibility.

i would like specifically for you to have the intellectual honesty to deal with both seperate factors, rather than just blithely going into the "sorry, men have to accept responsibility" line you've cheerfully tossed off as though it were an answer about a dozen times on this thread. manage this simple feat and show how much more experienced and wise you are than a simple student.

[cpwill]

Yes, the men did help create it (sigh). Good luck finding them. lol

But, dear, answer this simple question ... who's decision is to have the baby or have an abortion? The man has no say either way (sigh). The woman makes the decision. lol.

Kazam

she won't answer you.

[historyteach]

CP and Rivit:
"Originally Posted by cpwill
males are partially responsible for the pregnancy. what they are not responsible for is the birth; as whether or not to keep or not keep the child is solely (as you have pointed out) the woman'