Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Men's Issues Online] Re: Teach Arizona Women's Biology

Expand Messages
  • Dean G
    Attached ... ... Attached ... On 9/9/2012 11:44 AM, copperdragonite wrote: Actually, Laurence, the decision to have (or not have) should be up to BOTH the
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 9, 2012
    Attached ...

    On 9/9/2012 11:44 AM, copperdragonite wrote:
     

    Actually, Laurence, the decision to have (or not have) should be up to BOTH the father and mother - not just the mother alone.

    THis is one of the basic tenets of many Mens Rights groups.
    The woman wants the baby, the man doesn't (or didn't know or agree or was trapped) and the courts charge him with child support but no visition.

    No MAN should be forced to have a child HE does not want, thereby creating a burden on himself.

    Michael

    --- In MensIssuesOnline@yahoogroups.com, laurence almand <laurencealmand@...> wrote:
    >
    >  
    > The decision to have (or not have) a baby is up to the individual female. 
    >  
    > No woman should be forced to have a child she does not want, thereby creating a burden to society, as well as an unhappy, bitter life for the child.    (Although in this day and age, with so many methods of contraceptioin available, there is no reason to become pregnant in the first place.)
    >  
    > People who want to dictate to women and prohibit abortion should have to pay the bills.
    >  
    > Laurence
    >  
    >
    >
    > ________________________________
    > From: k_over_hbarc <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
    > To: MensIssuesOnline@yahoogroups.com
    > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:05 AM
    > Subject: [Men's Issues Online] Re: Teach Arizona Women's Biology
    >
    >
    >  
    > --- In mailto:MensIssuesOnline%40yahoogroups.com, Stan Rains <patriotdad2004@> wrote:
    > >
    > > Dear Murderess of precious and innocent human babies,
    > >  
    > > You obviously don't know any biology, at all.   Pregnancy starts at conception.   Ask a biologist when a cow is considered pregnant, or a monkey, or any other sexual form of animal life.
    >
    > Actually she is right is the one point that pregnancy does not start 'two weeks before conception'. However that one truth, irrelevant to the issue, conceals the great deception perpetrated by those people.
    >
    > > You are promoting mass murder as did Hitler and the Nazis.
    >
    > I wouldn't mention Hitler and the Nazis, as that's too likely to draw a negative reaction. You're not going to change their minds even by such comparisons.
    >
    > Andrew Usher
    >
    > > I'm no biologist, but I AM a woman. I do know that, according to my own biology, until the moment an egg gets fertilized I am categorically NOT pregnant. Living in Arizona doesn't change this basic biology. But now, were I an Arizona citizen, and got pregnant two weeks from now, I could already call myself an expectant mother.
    > >
    > > Tell Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to learn her own anatomy and repeal the law which makes legal pregnancy start two weeks before conception »
    > >
    > > Does this not seem too crazy for even the most ardent anti-abortionist to support?
    > >
    > > Arizona's new law does all sorts of other stuff to take health care decisions out of women's hands and put them squarely in the statehouse. Things like 24-hour post-ultrasound waiting periods and limiting the legal window to terminate a pregnancy so women are forced to carry a baby to term even if it will die in her arms are enough to make this law worthy of repeal. Re-writing the laws of biology are just icing on the cake.
    > >
    > > Arizona's anti-abortionists need to rejoin the rest of us in the real world. Demand Arizona overturn its ridiculous new anti-choice law »
    > >
    > >
    > > Thanks for taking action!
    > >
    > > Emily V.
    > > Care2 and ThePetitionSite Team
    > >
    > > Remind Arizona that Pregnancy Can't Start Before Conception
    > >   
    > > Take action link: http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AG.Pc/zMst/Q3nv
    > >
    > >
    > > To stop receiving this newsletter, visit:
    > > http://www.care2.com/newsletters/unsub/3/0/8881834/0322f620
    > >
    > > or send a blank email message to:
    > > ng-u-3-8881834-8637397-13211942-e9e96371@
    > >
    > > Care2.com, Inc.
    > > 275 Shoreline Drive, Suite 300
    > > Redwood City, CA 94065
    > > http://www.care2.com
    > >
    >


  • k_over_hbarc
    ... The video he included (which I can t quote) is about a case that includes the elements discussed here, plus paternity fraud. That element raises the
    Message 2 of 10 , Sep 9, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In MensIssuesOnline@yahoogroups.com, Dean G <dean@...> wrote:
      >
      > Attached ...

      The video he included (which I can't quote) is about a case that includes the elements discussed here, plus paternity fraud. That element raises the question: if none of the men know, or have any relationship with the child, why is determining child support based on DNA and more just than doing it based on the mother's word?

      Andrew Usher
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.