Fathers' Rights and the Marriage Movement, Part 3

1 posted on 10/29/2003 3:40:59 AM PST by RogerFGay

To: JimKalb; Free the USA; EdReform; realwoman; Orangedog; Lorianne; Outlaw76; balrog666; DNA Rules; ...

2 posted on 10/29/2003 3:44:49 AM PST by RogerFGay

To: farmfriend; Delphinium

3 posted on 10/29/2003 5:39:01 AM PST by RogerFGay

To: RogerFGay; Z in Oregon

Thanks for the ping Roger.

4 posted on 10/29/2003 7:43:05 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)

5 posted on 10/29/2003 9:03:19 AM PST by jimt

7 posted on 10/29/2003 2:27:07 PM PST by Orangedog (Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)

I think you also forgot to insinuate that he may have kidnapped the Lindburgh baby and smoked in the "no smoking" section on the Hindenburg. And you forgot to ask him when he stopped beating his wife. Maybe he thinks some accusations shouldn't be dignified with a reply. But it kinda sounds like you have your mind made up already. Anyone who sees something wrong with the system must be the sterotypical "deadbeat." Some of those things are a matter of public record. If you have a link to it, then post it.

9 posted on 10/29/2003 4:24:27 PM PST by Orangedog (Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)

No, as shocking as it may seem, I do have a life (if you can call it that) outside of FR.

11 posted on 10/29/2003 5:01:34 PM PST by Orangedog (Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)

I'll put you on my regular ping list if you want.

12 posted on 10/30/2003 1:24:03 AM PST by RogerFGay

Sure, put me on list. Is z in oregon on list. If not you might want to ask him.

13 posted on 10/30/2003 8:05:07 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)

OK. You're on my list now. I was surprised to find that Z in Oregon was not on my list.

14 posted on 10/31/2003 1:29:53 AM PST by RogerFGay

RE: Past discussions. You didn't miss anything. I'm sure you've seen people attack the messenger before; especially those who are unable to defend their preferences.

15 posted on 10/31/2003 1:32:16 AM PST by RogerFGay

Bump for father's rights from the masculinist amungst you.

16 posted on 10/31/2003 8:17:45 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)

Fathers are told to cough up as much money as possible and - if they are good little boys - they might be able to see their children.

If this were truly a "fair" society, and we keep abortions for women, we would have abortions for men. Me should be able to abort their babies by, while the baby is still in the womb, or on it's way out, sign a document station that he has had an abortion. He then would have no responsibilities for the child what so ever. The same as a woman's abortion. Of course, this is not PC so will never happen.

17 posted on 10/31/2003 8:23:05 AM PST by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird

Women don't have a legal right to end a pregnancy because a baby will cost them money. It's because they are pregnant, and being pregnant can have a deleterious affect on your health. It doesn't matter whether you think this is morally right or not, it is the basis of abortion law.

Men don't face any risks of injury or illness from the physical condition of pregnancy. They can't bear children. Men in these threads don't seem to understand that women have a deeper biological tie to their children than men. They diminish woman's natural role while trying to avoid their own.

Society has decided men's role in procreation is to support the woman and child, if the mother bears the burden of childbirth. His drive is to experience the pleasures of sex and to produce as many children as possible. This tendency has to be kept under regulation to protect women, children and society.

I don't know why any man thinks he is entitled to get a woman pregnant and walk away if he is sick of the woman or wants to move on.

18 posted on 10/31/2003 8:35:12 AM PST by SarahW

It's hard to argue with untrue statements. But, even though you state falsehoods I'll give it a shot. "Being pregnant can have a deleterious affect on your health" is false. Most abortions are becasue the baby will be an inconvienience to the woman. The inconvienience to the man is not considered.

Men don't face any risks of injury or illness from the physical condition of pregnancy.

False statement. Men can have plenty of stress related illnesses due to a woman being pregnant with his child. To say that they "don't face any risks" is false.

This tendency has to be kept under regulation to protect women, children and society. Not that you don't have naything related to protecting the man, only the woman and children.

I don't know why any man thinks he is entitled to get a woman pregnant and walk away if he is sick of the woman or wants to move on.

Well, there are many reasons. One, for the same reason a woman thinks she can get pregnant and kill the baby because he/she will be an inconvienience. It's funny how you phrase things: "any man thinks he is entitled to get a woman pregnant..." As if the woman had no part in this. Are all women who get abortions raped or something? All the woman has do do is whisper "no" and she won't get pregnant. Just like all the man has to do is not have sex with her and she doesn't get pregnant. It's the responsibility of both. Only the woman has the option to stop the baby from being an inconvienience. All I'm saying is that equal rights should apply to men. HOW OUTRAGEOUS, Huh?!?!

19 posted on 10/31/2003 11:02:32 AM PST by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)

He was outed for all that on the now-defunct Pathfinder board, a few years ago, by a user with the screen name SherrieG.

20 posted on 10/31/2003 11:04:09 AM PST by nina0113

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794