On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:53:29 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2018-05-27 7:09 AM, wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:16:19 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>
>>>> Cry me a river! If the situation was reversed are you seriously
>>>> trying to tell me men would have allowed women to decide whether they
>>>> were going to continue their pregnancy or not? You are being
>>>> exceptionally silly, men have had the most important say for
>>>> centuries, so if you don't like the results, point your finger at
>>>> yourself and other men!
>>>>
>>>
>>> By the same token..... what if a guy thinks the woman is on a reliable
>>> form of birth control and ends up pregnant? Should he be able to insist
>>> that she abort?
>>
>> If he didn't want her to become pregnant, he could have worn a condom
>> or better yet, not had sex with her. He had choices and made them.
>>
>
>Ah. I see. He should have known better than to have believed her.

the man should be aware that the pill is not 100% effective.
Especially if something happens to upset the woman's system like the
flu or something similar. You want to be safe, you wear a jacket!
Then neither can blame the other for unwanted pregnancy and you are
both safe from STD.
It's your equipment, take responsibility for the operation.
Janet US

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 8:29:48 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
> > Those idiots.
> > Back in my Vietnam draft days, young women were safe from being
> > drafted. What parent would fight for the right for their daughter
> > to also be drafted?
>
> What parent would fight for the right for their son to be drafted?
> Do parents love their sons less than their daughters?

Young men throughout history were drafted, like it or not.
Feminists had to argue to get women in combat. Idiots all.

wrote:
>
> I also know one where the mother would like sole custody but can't
> have it. What does he do when he has the kids? Drops them off at his
> mothers.

His mother (their gramma) might just be good for the kids. Ever
consider that?

On Sun, 27 May 2018 07:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 7:15:00 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:10:06 -0300, wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 27 May 2018 12:35:26 +1000, Bruce >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:14:11 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On 2018-05-26 7:32 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> >>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 20:19:44 -0300, wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Yes, men are 2nd rate citizens when it comes to these things. When it
>> >>>> comes to custody, for instance. Time for Men's Lib! Women have ruled
>> >>>> long enough and look at the world!
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Yeah. There is some truth to that. I used to car pool with a co-worker.
>> >>>His wife was screwing around on him and they divorced. She had a
>> >>>daughter by a former deadbeat husband. My co-worker applied for custody
>> >>>of the step daughter. He thought the ex was unfit to be a mother. He was
>> >>>told that since he was not the biological father he had no claim.
>> >>>However..... since he was the only father she ever knew, he had to pay
>> >>>support.
>> >>
>> >>Even if he had been the biological father, he would have lost, unless
>> >>the mother was a total alcoholic, living under a bridge.
>> >>
>> >>It's time men stood up and claimed their rights!
>> >
>> >You are way behind the times!
>>
>> No, I'm ahead of you. You're still stuck in Women's Lib. I've moved on
>> to Men's Lib.
>
>From what do men need to be liberated?
>
>Cindy Hamilton

Spousal support for one. And when the man gets custody the courts
don't make the woman pay child support.... courts like to say
"deadbeat dad" but not deadbeat bitch.

On 5/27/2018 10:53 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2018-05-27 7:09 AM, wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:16:19 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>
>>>> Cry me a river!Â* If the situation was reversed are you seriously
>>>> trying to tell me men would have allowed women to decide whether they
>>>> were going to continue their pregnancy or not?
>>>>
>>>
>>> By the same token..... what if a guy thinks the woman is on a reliable
>>> form of birth control and ends up pregnant? Should he be able to insist
>>> that she abort?
>>
OF COURSE NOT. A man has no control over a woman's reproductive system.
Oh, they've tried over the centuries but never really succeeded.

>> If he didn't want her to become pregnant, he could have worn a condom
>> or better yet, not had sex with her.Â* He had choices and made them.
>>
>
> Ah. I see. He should have known better than to have believed her.

Unless his partner is someone he really knows and trusts, hell yes, he
should have known better than believe her. Take precautions. Why the
hell not?! What, it won't feel as good with a condom? That's a weak
excuse.

Protected sex is *equally* his responsibility. Pregnancy aside, I'm
sure you've heard of STD's, HIV and AIDS?

Jill

On 2018-05-27 6:07 AM, wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2018 21:05:59 +1000, Bruce >
> wrote:
>>>> Shouldn't men have some rights too?
>>>
>>> You're out of touch with how settlements go now, at least how they go
>>> here. I am often at events at my younger daughters house where her ex
>>> husband is present and also her current, that way they both get to
>>> share their sons for Xmas Day etc. The first time it felt a bit
>>> strange but we managed, now its a given. In fact he swings past to
>>> pick me up and give me a drive out to her place. It's called Joint
>>> Custody.
>>
>> Yes, I've heard of that But your daughter's in charge. What if she
>> moves to Newfoundland? Or to Australia?
>
> She can't under the terms of joint custody, not that it really applies
> any more as both boys are heading 30. When it started, she moved out,
> and rented a place nearby. They both had to provide their tax
> receipts to the court and the money was divided so that both
> households were equal. At that point Paul had to pay her some extra.
>
> The boys were to do two weeks with her, two weeks with him but since
> both of them had to travel occasionally in their jobs, they remained
> flexible about it. Then when she bought a house and was earning
> more, she had to pay him to keep the homes equal.
>
> The boys would leave their bikes at Joanna's in the a.m. and take the
> school bus from there, returning to her home (and her 'fridge and
> emptying it) before they biked home to Pauls!
>
> Basically it worked well because the boys could not do that favoured
> thing of saying '..but Dad lets us do that' because they knew if they
> did she would simply pick up the phone and ask him or vice versa
>
> These days he is talking of moving to Honduras and retiring there and
> both sons get a bit exasperated with him as being impractical The
> joint custody is now over because both boys are over the age of
> majority.
>
That's all very well but your anecdote applies only to co-operating
couples. If one or both are vindictive, all bets are off!!

On Sun, 27 May 2018 11:10:16 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 5/27/2018 10:15 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 5/27/2018 9:00 AM, wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:30:53 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>> By the same token..... what if a guy thinks the woman is on a reliable
>>>>>> form of birth control and ends up pregnant? Should he be able to
>>>>>> insist
>>>>>> that she abort?
>>>>>
>>>>> If he didn't want her to become pregnant, he could have worn a condom
>>>>> or better yet, not had sex with her.* He had choices and made them.
>>>>
>>>> Yep...it's all the man's fault.* ;-)
>>>
>>> Nope, you don't read properly - he had a choice and made the wrong one
>>> for him.** It's not a question of fault, more responsibility and
>>> acknowledgement of the possible consequences.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe.* If the woman indicates she is "safe" then he is not to blame.
>> There have been deceptive women that figure getting pregnant is a way to
>> catch a husband, others just don't know or care.
>>
> From what I understand, back in the old days <chuckle> if a man got a
>woman pregnant he was expected to do the honorable thing (aka marry
>her). These days, not so much.
>
>I knew a woman who had already caught (what a silly term!) a husband.
>He was much older and made it perfectly clear he did not want to have
>children. She got pregnant anyway thinking he'd change his mind. He
>didn't. I have no idea why she was surprised he didn't magically turn
>into a loving, doting father.
>
>Scheming rarely works out the way one intends.
>
>> There are women with four kids and four fathers and there are men with
>> four kids and four mothers.
>
>Gotta love Judge Judy. She tells litigants [men and women equally] all
>the time to stop making babies with all these different people. That
>ship, sadly, has sailed.
>
>Jill

Not all that long ago there was no DNA testing. A lot of men paid
child support for another's child. A lot of men unknowingly raised
another's child. Used to be when a school girl became pregnant she
was sent away to a home for unwed mothers. Nowadays my wife tells me
that at any given time there are a dozen high school girls in school
wearing maternity clothes. Can't really compare life today to how it
was a few short years ago, and more major changes are coming.

On 5/27/2018 12:00 PM, Gary wrote:
> wrote:
>>
>> I also know one where the mother would like sole custody but can't
>> have it. What does he do when he has the kids? Drops them off at his
>> mothers.
>
> His mother (their gramma) might just be good for the kids. Ever
> consider that?
>
My SO (whose parents and grandmothers have long since passed) has many
fond memories of grandma's house after school. His parents were
divorced. His mother was busy working as an office manager at an
insurance company. Oh, and dating. Trying (maybe) as Ed calls it, to
catch another husband. I know she had some aspirations to be famous,
make it in movies. I've seen some photos. I think they're called head
shots. She was pretty but not Hollywood pretty. Besides, who gets
discovered in Rochester?

Meanwhile, she felt like she was stuck with a child. So he went to
grandma's house after school and on weekends.

John was a lot closer to both his grandmother's than he was to his
mother, whom he called by her first name. She really wasn't much
interested in raising a child. Sad, really.

Of course, he's the one who wound up taking care of her at the end of
her life. He was her only child.

Jill

On 5/27/2018 12:12 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2018 07:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 7:15:00 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:10:06 -0300, wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 12:35:26 +1000, Bruce >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:14:11 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2018-05-26 7:32 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 20:19:44 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, men are 2nd rate citizens when it comes to these things. When it
>>>>>>> comes to custody, for instance. Time for Men's Lib! Women have ruled
>>>>>>> long enough and look at the world!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah. There is some truth to that. I used to car pool with a co-worker.
>>>>>> His wife was screwing around on him and they divorced. She had a
>>>>>> daughter by a former deadbeat husband. My co-worker applied for custody
>>>>>> of the step daughter. He thought the ex was unfit to be a mother. He was
>>>>>> told that since he was not the biological father he had no claim.
>>>>>> However..... since he was the only father she ever knew, he had to pay
>>>>>> support.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if he had been the biological father, he would have lost, unless
>>>>> the mother was a total alcoholic, living under a bridge.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's time men stood up and claimed their rights!
>>>>
>>>> You are way behind the times!
>>>
>>> No, I'm ahead of you. You're still stuck in Women's Lib. I've moved on
>>> to Men's Lib.
>>
>>From what do men need to be liberated?
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
> Spousal support for one. And when the man gets custody the courts
> don't make the woman pay child support.... courts like to say
> "deadbeat dad" but not deadbeat bitch.
>
So sorry one of your ex-wives was a deadbeat. I'm sure she married you
for your charm. LOL

Jill

On 2018-05-27 11:57 AM, Gary wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 8:29:48 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>>> Those idiots.
>>> Back in my Vietnam draft days, young women were safe from being
>>> drafted. What parent would fight for the right for their daughter
>>> to also be drafted?
>>
>> What parent would fight for the right for their son to be drafted?
>> Do parents love their sons less than their daughters?
>
> Young men throughout history were drafted, like it or not.
> Feminists had to argue to get women in combat. Idiots all.
>

Chuckling over the stories about the heroic deeds of Jessica Lang when
she was captured in Iraq. The story that came out was that their convoy
had been ambushed and that she had bravely held off the enemy until she
ran out of ammunition and was then captured and tortured and raped. Then
a US army unit conducted a raid to rescue her from her captors. Her
book told a different story. The unit was lost and bumbled into an
Iraqi force. She was thrown out of the dog and was out cold. The Iraqis
took her to a nearby hospital. They didn't really have the facilities to
take care of her so they sent someone to tell the Americans where she
was and could they please come and get her. The US troops then staged
and filmed their "rescue" and Jessica Lynch became a national hero.

On Sun, 27 May 2018 12:29:02 -0300, wrote:

>On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:15:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>>On 5/27/2018 9:00 AM, wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:30:53 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>> By the same token..... what if a guy thinks the woman is on a reliable
>>>>>> form of birth control and ends up pregnant? Should he be able to insist
>>>>>> that she abort?
>>>>>
>>>>> If he didn't want her to become pregnant, he could have worn a condom
>>>>> or better yet, not had sex with her. He had choices and made them.
>>>>
>>>> Yep...it's all the man's fault. ;-)
>>>
>>> Nope, you don't read properly - he had a choice and made the wrong one
>>> for him. It's not a question of fault, more responsibility and
>>> acknowledgement of the possible consequences.
>>>
>>
>>Maybe. If the woman indicates she is "safe" then he is not to blame.
>>There have been deceptive women that figure getting pregnant is a way to
>>catch a husband, others just don't know or care.
>
>If he does not want a baby then as I said, HE made the wrong choice.
>Something so important, don't trust the other person. I am sure if
>they had come up with a pill for men to take it would have suffered a
>great lack of success, I don't know many women who would have trusted
>he had taken his pills etc!!

Both made the wrong choice, no one has ever become pregnant from oral
sex... and most women derive more pleasure and more easily from oral.
Save abstinence oral sex is the surest form of birth control that
provides the most pleasure and intimacy. And there are no side
effects from pills, and it's also totally free, don't even need a Rx.
What do yoose think most teens are doing... only the imbeciles get
knocked up. Just remember, this is about pregnancy, not STDs... can
just as easily contract an STD from kissing as from oral sex.

On 2018-05-27 1:43 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2018 12:29:02 -0300, wrote:
>
>> If he does not want a baby then as I said, HE made the wrong choice.
>> Something so important, don't trust the other person. I am sure if
>> they had come up with a pill for men to take it would have suffered a
>> great lack of success, I don't know many women who would have trusted
>> he had taken his pills etc!!
>
> Both made the wrong choice, no one has ever become pregnant from oral
> sex... and most women derive more pleasure and more easily from oral.
> Save abstinence oral sex is the surest form of birth control that
> provides the most pleasure and intimacy. And there are no side
> effects from pills, and it's also totally free, don't even need a Rx.
> What do yoose think most teens are doing... only the imbeciles get
> knocked up. Just remember, this is about pregnancy, not STDs... can
> just as easily contract an STD from kissing as from oral sex.
>
There is also the issue of who is ultimately responsible for birth
control. I figure that it is the owner of the equipment that bears the
brunt of the responsibility for birth control because they are the ones
who will end up carrying the child and having to look after it for the
next 20 years or more. That is not saying that the man has no
responsibility at all.


I could lend my car to a friend, but I would be responsible if he
crashed. I could assume that he has a license, but if it turns out that
he is unlicensed or suspended, I could end up being in even more
trouble. If I was desperate to have sex but needed BC, I could lie about
having had a vasectomy. Sure, I might be held liable for child support,
but I suppose they would have to find me first. I could go ahead and
have unprotected sex and she might never see me again. She cannot walk
away from it.

Never the less, that goes back to the issue of the father's rights when
it comes to abortion. If the man can be held financially liable for the
child, then it stands to reason that he should also be able to block a
woman from having an abortion.

On Sun, 27 May 2018 12:52:23 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 5/27/2018 12:12 PM, wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 07:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 7:15:00 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:10:06 -0300, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 12:35:26 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:14:11 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2018-05-26 7:32 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 20:19:44 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, men are 2nd rate citizens when it comes to these things. When it
>>>>>>>> comes to custody, for instance. Time for Men's Lib! Women have ruled
>>>>>>>> long enough and look at the world!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah. There is some truth to that. I used to car pool with a co-worker.
>>>>>>> His wife was screwing around on him and they divorced. She had a
>>>>>>> daughter by a former deadbeat husband. My co-worker applied for custody
>>>>>>> of the step daughter. He thought the ex was unfit to be a mother. He was
>>>>>>> told that since he was not the biological father he had no claim.
>>>>>>> However..... since he was the only father she ever knew, he had to pay
>>>>>>> support.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if he had been the biological father, he would have lost, unless
>>>>>> the mother was a total alcoholic, living under a bridge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's time men stood up and claimed their rights!
>>>>>
>>>>> You are way behind the times!
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm ahead of you. You're still stuck in Women's Lib. I've moved on
>>>> to Men's Lib.
>>>
>>>From what do men need to be liberated?
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> Spousal support for one. And when the man gets custody the courts
>> don't make the woman pay child support.... courts like to say
>> "deadbeat dad" but not deadbeat bitch.
>>
>So sorry one of your ex-wives was a deadbeat. I'm sure she married you
>for your charm. LOL
>
>Jill

Since they already had children from their first marriage they all had
a tubal litigation. Tubal litigation is easily reversable but what
sane person over 40 years old would want to?

On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:50:26 +1000, Bruce wrote:

> the atheists are the most verbally aggressive. Makes you think...

Does yous Bible "make you think" I'm verbally aggressive?

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 8:01:35 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>
> I could lend my car to a friend, but I would be responsible if he
> crashed. I could assume that he has a license, but if it turns out that
> he is unlicensed or suspended, I could end up being in even more
> trouble. If I was desperate to have sex but needed BC, I could lie about
> having had a vasectomy. Sure, I might be held liable for child support,
> but I suppose they would have to find me first. I could go ahead and
> have unprotected sex and she might never see me again. She cannot walk
> away from it.
>
> Never the less, that goes back to the issue of the father's rights when
> it comes to abortion. If the man can be held financially liable for the
> child, then it stands to reason that he should also be able to block a
> woman from having an abortion.

Sounds like you have that backwards. If the man can be held financially liable for the child, then it stands to reason that he should be able to force a woman to have an abortion.

On Sun, 27 May 2018 14:03:38 -0400, wrote:

> Tubal litigation

Gosh, I didn't know tubal ligation could be legally imposed on someone. But
that would certainly solve a lot of problems in the long run.

On Sun, 27 May 2018 14:03:46 -0400, Mike_Duffy >
wrote:

>On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:50:26 +1000, Bruce wrote:
>
>> the atheists are the most verbally aggressive. Makes you think...
>
>Does yous Bible "make you think" I'm verbally aggressive?

I have no Bible.

On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:28:19 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 2018-05-27 6:07 AM, wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 21:05:59 +1000, Bruce >
>> wrote:

>>> Yes, I've heard of that But your daughter's in charge. What if she
>>> moves to Newfoundland? Or to Australia?
>>
>> She can't under the terms of joint custody, not that it really applies
>> any more as both boys are heading 30. When it started, she moved out,
>> and rented a place nearby. They both had to provide their tax
>> receipts to the court and the money was divided so that both
>> households were equal. At that point Paul had to pay her some extra.
>>
>> The boys were to do two weeks with her, two weeks with him but since
>> both of them had to travel occasionally in their jobs, they remained
>> flexible about it. Then when she bought a house and was earning
>> more, she had to pay him to keep the homes equal.
>>
>> The boys would leave their bikes at Joanna's in the a.m. and take the
>> school bus from there, returning to her home (and her 'fridge and
>> emptying it) before they biked home to Pauls!
>>
>> Basically it worked well because the boys could not do that favoured
>> thing of saying '..but Dad lets us do that' because they knew if they
>> did she would simply pick up the phone and ask him or vice versa
>>
>> These days he is talking of moving to Honduras and retiring there and
>> both sons get a bit exasperated with him as being impractical The
>> joint custody is now over because both boys are over the age of
>> majority.
>>
>That's all very well but your anecdote applies only to co-operating
>couples. If one or both are vindictive, all bets are off!!

Yes, that's the problem.

On Sun, 27 May 2018 11:01:33 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2018-05-27 7:00 AM, wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:08:18 +1000, Bruce >
>> wrote:
>
>>> But if my wife and I have a child and we then divorce, I also lose the
>>> child. And because the ever important child has to live in a good
>>> house, I also lose the house. So I'd lose wife, house, and child. So
>>> even before we divorce, my wife can blackmail me. Do as I say or you
>>> lose everything.
>>>
>>> Shouldn't men have some rights too?
>>
>> You're out of touch with how settlements go now, at least how they go
>> here. I am often at events at my younger daughters house where her ex
>> husband is present and also her current, that way they both get to
>> share their sons for Xmas Day etc. The first time it felt a bit
>> strange but we managed, now its a given. In fact he swings past to
>> pick me up and give me a drive out to her place. It's called Joint
>> Custody.
>>
>
>
>
>
>He's not the one who is out of touch with how settlements go. You are.
>Your exception does not make the rule. According to Statistics Canada,
>court ordered settlements award custody to the mother in 79.3% of cases,
>to men in 6.6% and joint custody in 12.8%. To put it another way, women
>get custody more than 12 times as often as me, and there is joint
>custody almost twice as often as men get sole custody.

What he says.

On Sun, 27 May 2018 09:09:10 -0300, wrote:

>On Sun, 27 May 2018 21:14:54 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:10:06 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 May 2018 12:35:26 +1000, Bruce >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:14:11 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Even if he had been the biological father, he would have lost, unless
>>>>the mother was a total alcoholic, living under a bridge.
>>>>
>>>>It's time men stood up and claimed their rights!
>>>
>>>You are way behind the times!
>>
>>No, I'm ahead of you. You're still stuck in Women's Lib. I've moved on
>>to Men's Lib.
>
>Well then, before you start shouting from the hills really LEARN what
>happens today, not what someone tells you, probably usually a man.

I'm all for Women's Lib. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that a
woman gets paid less for the same job than a man, for instance. I'm
just saying it's time for Men's Lib now

On Sun, 27 May 2018 11:35:15 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 5/27/2018 10:15 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 7:15:00 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>> No, I'm ahead of you. You're still stuck in Women's Lib. I've moved on
>>> to Men's Lib.
>>
>> From what do men need to be liberated?
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>The tyranny of women, of course! Men have been the underclass for *so
>long*. It's time for them to break the glass ceiling.

I never thought Jill and I would agree about something, but there you
go!

On 5/27/2018 2:03 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2018 12:52:23 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/27/2018 12:12 PM, wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 07:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 7:15:00 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:10:06 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 12:35:26 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:14:11 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2018-05-26 7:32 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 20:19:44 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, men are 2nd rate citizens when it comes to these things. When it
>>>>>>>>> comes to custody, for instance. Time for Men's Lib! Women have ruled
>>>>>>>>> long enough and look at the world!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah. There is some truth to that. I used to car pool with a co-worker.
>>>>>>>> His wife was screwing around on him and they divorced. She had a
>>>>>>>> daughter by a former deadbeat husband. My co-worker applied for custody
>>>>>>>> of the step daughter. He thought the ex was unfit to be a mother. He was
>>>>>>>> told that since he was not the biological father he had no claim.
>>>>>>>> However..... since he was the only father she ever knew, he had to pay
>>>>>>>> support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if he had been the biological father, he would have lost, unless
>>>>>>> the mother was a total alcoholic, living under a bridge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's time men stood up and claimed their rights!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are way behind the times!
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I'm ahead of you. You're still stuck in Women's Lib. I've moved on
>>>>> to Men's Lib.
>>>>
>>> >From what do men need to be liberated?
>>>>
>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>>> Spousal support for one. And when the man gets custody the courts
>>> don't make the woman pay child support.... courts like to say
>>> "deadbeat dad" but not deadbeat bitch.
>>>
>> So sorry one of your ex-wives was a deadbeat. I'm sure she married you
>> for your charm. LOL
>>
>> Jill
>
> Since they already had children from their first marriage they all had
> a tubal litigation. Tubal litigation is easily reversable but what
> sane person over 40 years old would want to?
>
Wow, where did the reversal of tubal ligations come from?

Jill

wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2018 11:10:16 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/27/2018 10:15 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2018 9:00 AM, wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:30:53 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> By the same token..... what if a guy thinks the woman is on a reliable
>>>>>>> form of birth control and ends up pregnant? Should he be able to
>>>>>>> insist
>>>>>>> that she abort?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If he didn't want her to become pregnant, he could have worn a condom
>>>>>> or better yet, not had sex with her. He had choices and made them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep...it's all the man's fault. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you don't read properly - he had a choice and made the wrong one
>>>> for him. It's not a question of fault, more responsibility and
>>>> acknowledgement of the possible consequences.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe. If the woman indicates she is "safe" then he is not to blame.
>>> There have been deceptive women that figure getting pregnant is a way to
>>> catch a husband, others just don't know or care.
>>>
>> From what I understand, back in the old days <chuckle> if a man got a
>> woman pregnant he was expected to do the honorable thing (aka marry
>> her). These days, not so much.
>>
>> I knew a woman who had already caught (what a silly term!) a husband.
>> He was much older and made it perfectly clear he did not want to have
>> children. She got pregnant anyway thinking he'd change his mind. He
>> didn't. I have no idea why she was surprised he didn't magically turn
>> into a loving, doting father.
>>
>> Scheming rarely works out the way one intends.
>>
>>> There are women with four kids and four fathers and there are men with
>>> four kids and four mothers.
>>
>> Gotta love Judge Judy. She tells litigants [men and women equally] all
>> the time to stop making babies with all these different people. That
>> ship, sadly, has sailed.
>>
>> Jill
>
> Not all that long ago there was no DNA testing. A lot of men paid
> child support for another's child. A lot of men unknowingly raised
> another's child.
>


Popeye, I bet yoose was daddy fer all dem chillun, huh?

wrote:

> On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:53:29 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> >On 2018-05-27 7:09 AM, wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:16:19 -0400, Dave Smith
> >> > wrote:
> >
> >>>> Cry me a river! If the situation was reversed are you seriously
> >>>> trying to tell me men would have allowed women to decide whether they
> >>>> were going to continue their pregnancy or not? You are being
> >>>> exceptionally silly, men have had the most important say for
> >>>> centuries, so if you don't like the results, point your finger at
> >>>> yourself and other men!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> By the same token..... what if a guy thinks the woman is on a reliable
> >>> form of birth control and ends up pregnant? Should he be able to insist
> >>> that she abort?
> >>
> >> If he didn't want her to become pregnant, he could have worn a condom
> >> or better yet, not had sex with her. He had choices and made them.
> >>
> >
> >Ah. I see. He should have known better than to have believed her.
>
> If the outcome was that important to him, yes, take action himself,
> wear a condom.


Condoms interfere with the man's sexual pleasure...plenty of wimmin - based contraceptive methods available, so it is the female's responsibility to "take care"...

--
Best
Greg

On Sun, 27 May 2018 12:00:07 -0400, Gary > wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> I also know one where the mother would like sole custody but can't
>> have it. What does he do when he has the kids? Drops them off at his
>> mothers.
>
>His mother (their gramma) might just be good for the kids. Ever
>consider that?
Yes, but he is saying he makes a good father and all he wants to do is
deprive the mother through being spiteful. Kids pay the price.

On Sun, 27 May 2018 14:01:31 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
snip
>
>Never the less, that goes back to the issue of the father's rights when
>it comes to abortion. If the man can be held financially liable for the
>child, then it stands to reason that he should also be able to block a
>woman from having an abortion.
>
then he needs to take the child at birth. The right to lifers deny
women access to birth control and abortion even if rape and incest is
involved yet they take no responsibility for raising the child -- even
reduce or cut funding for low income children. Once they're born
right to life is no longer important.

On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:28:19 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 2018-05-27 6:07 AM, wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 21:05:59 +1000, Bruce >
>> wrote:
>>>>> Shouldn't men have some rights too?
>>>>
>>>> You're out of touch with how settlements go now, at least how they go
>>>> here. I am often at events at my younger daughters house where her ex
>>>> husband is present and also her current, that way they both get to
>>>> share their sons for Xmas Day etc. The first time it felt a bit
>>>> strange but we managed, now its a given. In fact he swings past to
>>>> pick me up and give me a drive out to her place. It's called Joint
>>>> Custody.
>>>
>>> Yes, I've heard of that But your daughter's in charge. What if she
>>> moves to Newfoundland? Or to Australia?
>>
>> She can't under the terms of joint custody, not that it really applies
>> any more as both boys are heading 30. When it started, she moved out,
>> and rented a place nearby. They both had to provide their tax
>> receipts to the court and the money was divided so that both
>> households were equal. At that point Paul had to pay her some extra.
>>
>> The boys were to do two weeks with her, two weeks with him but since
>> both of them had to travel occasionally in their jobs, they remained
>> flexible about it. Then when she bought a house and was earning
>> more, she had to pay him to keep the homes equal.
>>
>> The boys would leave their bikes at Joanna's in the a.m. and take the
>> school bus from there, returning to her home (and her 'fridge and
>> emptying it) before they biked home to Pauls!
>>
>> Basically it worked well because the boys could not do that favoured
>> thing of saying '..but Dad lets us do that' because they knew if they
>> did she would simply pick up the phone and ask him or vice versa
>>
>> These days he is talking of moving to Honduras and retiring there and
>> both sons get a bit exasperated with him as being impractical The
>> joint custody is now over because both boys are over the age of
>> majority.
>>
>That's all very well but your anecdote applies only to co-operating
>couples. If one or both are vindictive, all bets are off!!

True enough and although accusations fly about womens lib, I
constantly reminded my daughter, 'put the boys first, not their fault
you are getting a divorce' - because of that I also felt empowered to
speak to Paul when he moved a girlfriend in who was beastly with the
younger boy. She often called him 'little *******' so I reminded him
that he was a legal baby whereas her baby was actually the ******* and
if she said it again to him, I was going to enlighten her myself.
Worked

On Sun, 27 May 2018 13:43:06 -0400, wrote:

>On Sun, 27 May 2018 12:29:02 -0300, wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:15:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>>On 5/27/2018 9:00 AM, wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:30:53 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> By the same token..... what if a guy thinks the woman is on a reliable
>>>>>>> form of birth control and ends up pregnant? Should he be able to insist
>>>>>>> that she abort?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If he didn't want her to become pregnant, he could have worn a condom
>>>>>> or better yet, not had sex with her. He had choices and made them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep...it's all the man's fault. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you don't read properly - he had a choice and made the wrong one
>>>> for him. It's not a question of fault, more responsibility and
>>>> acknowledgement of the possible consequences.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe. If the woman indicates she is "safe" then he is not to blame.
>>>There have been deceptive women that figure getting pregnant is a way to
>>>catch a husband, others just don't know or care.
>>
>>If he does not want a baby then as I said, HE made the wrong choice.
>>Something so important, don't trust the other person. I am sure if
>>they had come up with a pill for men to take it would have suffered a
>>great lack of success, I don't know many women who would have trusted
>>he had taken his pills etc!!
>
>Both made the wrong choice, no one has ever become pregnant from oral
>sex... and most women derive more pleasure and more easily from oral.
>Save abstinence oral sex is the surest form of birth control that
>provides the most pleasure and intimacy. And there are no side
>effects from pills, and it's also totally free, don't even need a Rx.
>What do yoose think most teens are doing... only the imbeciles get
>knocked up. Just remember, this is about pregnancy, not STDs... can
>just as easily contract an STD from kissing as from oral sex.

You are pathetic!

On Sun, 27 May 2018 14:01:31 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:


>There is also the issue of who is ultimately responsible for birth
>control. I figure that it is the owner of the equipment that bears the
>brunt of the responsibility for birth control because they are the ones
>who will end up carrying the child and having to look after it for the
>next 20 years or more. That is not saying that the man has no
>responsibility at all.

Why does that not surprise me?
>
>
>I could lend my car to a friend, but I would be responsible if he
>crashed. I could assume that he has a license, but if it turns out that
>he is unlicensed or suspended, I could end up being in even more
>trouble. If I was desperate to have sex but needed BC, I could lie about
>having had a vasectomy. Sure, I might be held liable for child support,
>but I suppose they would have to find me first. I could go ahead and
>have unprotected sex and she might never see me again. She cannot walk
>away from it.
>
>Never the less, that goes back to the issue of the father's rights when
>it comes to abortion. If the man can be held financially liable for the
>child, then it stands to reason that he should also be able to block a
>woman from having an abortion.
>
No, that is not logical, that is the woman doing what she feels is
best. She has no guarantee he will help, 9 out of 10 the male
doesn't, so the decision is hers.

On Sun, 27 May 2018 14:48:14 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 5/27/2018 2:03 PM, wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 12:52:23 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/27/2018 12:12 PM, wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 07:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 7:15:00 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:10:06 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 12:35:26 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:14:11 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2018-05-26 7:32 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 20:19:44 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, men are 2nd rate citizens when it comes to these things. When it
>>>>>>>>>> comes to custody, for instance. Time for Men's Lib! Women have ruled
>>>>>>>>>> long enough and look at the world!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah. There is some truth to that. I used to car pool with a co-worker.
>>>>>>>>> His wife was screwing around on him and they divorced. She had a
>>>>>>>>> daughter by a former deadbeat husband. My co-worker applied for custody
>>>>>>>>> of the step daughter. He thought the ex was unfit to be a mother. He was
>>>>>>>>> told that since he was not the biological father he had no claim.
>>>>>>>>> However..... since he was the only father she ever knew, he had to pay
>>>>>>>>> support.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if he had been the biological father, he would have lost, unless
>>>>>>>> the mother was a total alcoholic, living under a bridge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's time men stood up and claimed their rights!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are way behind the times!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I'm ahead of you. You're still stuck in Women's Lib. I've moved on
>>>>>> to Men's Lib.
>>>>>
>>>> >From what do men need to be liberated?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>
>>>> Spousal support for one. And when the man gets custody the courts
>>>> don't make the woman pay child support.... courts like to say
>>>> "deadbeat dad" but not deadbeat bitch.
>>>>
>>> So sorry one of your ex-wives was a deadbeat. I'm sure she married you
>>> for your charm. LOL
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> Since they already had children from their first marriage they all had
>> a tubal litigation. Tubal litigation is easily reversable but what
>> sane person over 40 years old would want to?
>>
>Wow, where did the reversal of tubal ligations come from?
>
>Jill

It is not easily reversed, it's the one thing they make sure you
understand completely when it is done.

On Sun, 27 May 2018 13:27:43 -0700 (PDT), "Steve 'Rubber Goods' Wertz"
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:53:29 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On 2018-05-27 7:09 AM, wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:16:19 -0400, Dave Smith
>> >> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>>> Cry me a river! If the situation was reversed are you seriously
>> >>>> trying to tell me men would have allowed women to decide whether they
>> >>>> were going to continue their pregnancy or not? You are being
>> >>>> exceptionally silly, men have had the most important say for
>> >>>> centuries, so if you don't like the results, point your finger at
>> >>>> yourself and other men!
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> By the same token..... what if a guy thinks the woman is on a reliable
>> >>> form of birth control and ends up pregnant? Should he be able to insist
>> >>> that she abort?
>> >>
>> >> If he didn't want her to become pregnant, he could have worn a condom
>> >> or better yet, not had sex with her. He had choices and made them.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Ah. I see. He should have known better than to have believed her.
>>
>> If the outcome was that important to him, yes, take action himself,
>> wear a condom.
>
>
>Condoms interfere with the man's sexual pleasure...plenty of wimmin - based contraceptive methods available, so it is the female's responsibility to "take care"...

That's too bad if it interferes, best not go for sexual pleasure then
if you are so concerned the woman will become pregnant.

U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2018 14:01:31 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
> snip
>>
>> Never the less, that goes back to the issue of the father's rights when
>> it comes to abortion. If the man can be held financially liable for the
>> child, then it stands to reason that he should also be able to block a
>> woman from having an abortion.
>>
> then he needs to take the child at birth. The right to lifers deny
> women access to birth control and abortion even if rape and incest is
> involved yet they take no responsibility for raising the child -- even
> reduce or cut funding for low income children. Once they're born
> right to life is no longer important.
>

Exactly. They just chalk it up as a win, and they're done ... EXIT
stage right.

They do not care about the women, nor the fetuses involved. They are not
willing to back up their zeal with a single dollar.

Most of them are fundamentalist christians; they are simply earning
merit badges to get them into heaven, believing that the Lord is as
nutty as themselves.

wrote:

> On Sun, 27 May 2018 13:27:43 -0700 (PDT), "Steve 'Rubber Goods' Wertz"
> > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:53:29 -0400, Dave Smith
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 2018-05-27 7:09 AM, wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:16:19 -0400, Dave Smith
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>> Cry me a river! If the situation was reversed are you seriously
> >> >>>> trying to tell me men would have allowed women to decide whether they
> >> >>>> were going to continue their pregnancy or not? You are being
> >> >>>> exceptionally silly, men have had the most important say for
> >> >>>> centuries, so if you don't like the results, point your finger at
> >> >>>> yourself and other men!
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> By the same token..... what if a guy thinks the woman is on a reliable
> >> >>> form of birth control and ends up pregnant? Should he be able to insist
> >> >>> that she abort?
> >> >>
> >> >> If he didn't want her to become pregnant, he could have worn a condom
> >> >> or better yet, not had sex with her. He had choices and made them.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Ah. I see. He should have known better than to have believed her.
> >>
> >> If the outcome was that important to him, yes, take action himself,
> >> wear a condom.
> >
> >
> >Condoms interfere with the man's sexual pleasure...plenty of wimmin - based contraceptive methods available, so it is the female's responsibility to "take care"...
>
> That's too bad if it interferes, best not go for sexual pleasure then
> if you are so concerned the woman will become pregnant.


Well, dearie, *I've* personally never been concerned about getting a gal preggers...

;-D

--
Best
Greg

On 2018-05-27 5:56 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2018 14:01:31 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
> snip
>>
>> Never the less, that goes back to the issue of the father's rights when
>> it comes to abortion. If the man can be held financially liable for the
>> child, then it stands to reason that he should also be able to block a
>> woman from having an abortion.
>>
> then he needs to take the child at birth. The right to lifers deny
> women access to birth control and abortion even if rape and incest is
> involved yet they take no responsibility for raising the child -- even
> reduce or cut funding for low income children. Once they're born
> right to life is no longer important.
>


I agree. There are some strange contradictions there. The will fight
against abortion because they claim to believe in the sanctity of life,
but they support capital punishment. They are opposed to abortion, but
they also oppose teaching sex education and birth control. Go figger.

On 5/27/2018 6:10 PM, wrote:

>>> If the outcome was that important to him, yes, take action himself,
>>> wear a condom.
>>
>>
>> Condoms interfere with the man's sexual pleasure...plenty of wimmin - based contraceptive methods available, so it is the female's responsibility to "take care"...
>
> That's too bad if it interferes, best not go for sexual pleasure then
> if you are so concerned the woman will become pregnant.
>

Anyone that is "dating" these days and sexually active would be crazy to
NOT use a condom. STDs are rather plentiful and can kill you.

On 5/27/2018 12:43 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2018 11:10:16 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Gotta love Judge Judy. She tells litigants [men and women equally] all
>> the time to stop making babies with all these different people. That
>> ship, sadly, has sailed.
>>
>> Jill
>
> Not all that long ago there was no DNA testing. A lot of men paid
> child support for another's child. A lot of men unknowingly raised
> another's child. Used to be when a school girl became pregnant she
> was sent away to a home for unwed mothers. Nowadays my wife tells me
> that at any given time there are a dozen high school girls in school
> wearing maternity clothes. Can't really compare life today to how it
> was a few short years ago, and more major changes are coming.
>
>
As recently as the 1970's getting pregnant while still in high school
was shameful. At least two girls I was acquainted with "went to live
with their aunt" (uh huh). I only knew one girl who got pregnant who
stayed in school. She was noticeably pregnant at graduation. The
low-life dropout she was madly in love with didn't stick by her but
another of our classmates did. I ran into them a few years later;
they'd gotten married and he was willingly raising the other guy's child.

Jill

On 5/27/2018 1:43 PM, wrote:
> Both made the wrong choice, no one has ever become pregnant from oral
> sex... and most women derive more pleasure and more easily from oral.
> Save abstinence oral sex is the surest form of birth control that
> provides the most pleasure and intimacy. And there are no side
> effects from pills, and it's also totally free, don't even need a Rx.
> What do yoose think most teens are doing... only the imbeciles get
> knocked up. Just remember, this is about pregnancy, not STDs... can
> just as easily contract an STD from kissing as from oral sex.
>
>
How didja get the cock taste out of yer mouth, Popeye?

On 5/27/2018 4:27 PM, Steve 'Rubber Goods' Wertz wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:53:29 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-05-27 7:09 AM, wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:16:19 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Cry me a river! If the situation was reversed are you seriously
>>>>>> trying to tell me men would have allowed women to decide whether they
>>>>>> were going to continue their pregnancy or not? You are being
>>>>>> exceptionally silly, men have had the most important say for
>>>>>> centuries, so if you don't like the results, point your finger at
>>>>>> yourself and other men!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By the same token..... what if a guy thinks the woman is on a reliable
>>>>> form of birth control and ends up pregnant? Should he be able to insist
>>>>> that she abort?
>>>>
>>>> If he didn't want her to become pregnant, he could have worn a condom
>>>> or better yet, not had sex with her. He had choices and made them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah. I see. He should have known better than to have believed her.
>>
>> If the outcome was that important to him, yes, take action himself,
>> wear a condom.
>
>
> Condoms interfere with the man's sexual pleasure...plenty of wimmin - based contraceptive methods available, so it is the female's responsibility to "take care"...
>
>
No one wants to **** a wart hog like you anyway.

On 5/27/2018 6:32 PM, Gregory Morrow socked up as Steve 'Rubber Goods'
Wertz wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 13:27:43 -0700 (PDT), "Steve 'Rubber Goods' Wertz"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:53:29 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2018-05-27 7:09 AM, wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:16:19 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cry me a river! If the situation was reversed are you seriously
>>>>>>>> trying to tell me men would have allowed women to decide whether they
>>>>>>>> were going to continue their pregnancy or not? You are being
>>>>>>>> exceptionally silly, men have had the most important say for
>>>>>>>> centuries, so if you don't like the results, point your finger at
>>>>>>>> yourself and other men!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the same token..... what if a guy thinks the woman is on a reliable
>>>>>>> form of birth control and ends up pregnant? Should he be able to insist
>>>>>>> that she abort?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If he didn't want her to become pregnant, he could have worn a condom
>>>>>> or better yet, not had sex with her. He had choices and made them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah. I see. He should have known better than to have believed her.
>>>>
>>>> If the outcome was that important to him, yes, take action himself,
>>>> wear a condom.
>>>
>>>
>>> Condoms interfere with the man's sexual pleasure...plenty of wimmin - based contraceptive methods available, so it is the female's responsibility to "take care"...
>>
>> That's too bad if it interferes, best not go for sexual pleasure then
>> if you are so concerned the woman will become pregnant.
>
>
> Well, dearie, *I've* personally never been concerned about getting a gal preggers...
>
> ;-D
>
No one wants to **** a wart hog log you anyway, lardass.

https://imgur.com/a/BbBLI <---- ROFL!