From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Pie eyed gold diggers
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:17:03 GMT


In article <1992Dec11.142602.1@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz> quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:
>AND SO TO:
>
>jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>
>> Do you expect him to pay for an abortion he doesn't want and may be
>> morally against. Hello I am listening.
>
>   Yes. Why ?
>   Because it's part of the general social contract. When you have sex, you
>share responsibility for the outcome. That the male did *NOT* attempt to
>discuss beforehand the issue of abortion with the female suggests that he was
>at the time willing to accept the social consensus which is that the woman has
>the right to have an abortion.
>   If it had been discussed, and the woman had changed her mind, I'd be all for
>him. But it wasn't. Ok, so her decision goes against his morality. But unless
>previously arranged, when the situation hits, he has to accept whatever is
>generally accepted.
>   As a counter-point, if I was morally opposed to war, I'm still not entitled
>to reduce my taxes in proportion to defence spending. The accepted social
>standard is that the Government makes the spending decisions. We're entitled
>to try and affect these, but if we want to remain members of the community,
>we accept them whether or not we agree with them or not.
>   He's morally opposed to abortion. He is not entitled to prevent the female
>from getting it, should it occur. That is because it is an accepted social
>standard that she should be able to obtain it (despite that many object to it).
>If he was opposed to this standard, he should have made that perfectly clear
>*before* it became a problem. Now that it is, he should accept it.
>   And by depriving her of funds, he's taking away her decision. Despite the
>fact that he shares responsibility for the problem.
>
>Tony Q.
 
ANS SO TO:
In article <1992Dec11.142602.1@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz> quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:

Following your logic I submit to the court that this woman in a premediated
act of delusion has entrapped my client. By indicating she was engaging in
sex for the sheer physical pleasure while at the same time indicating a need
to share in some down home Norman Rockwell touching, sharing, bump and
grinding. My gullible client did not know that he had fallen in to the 
clutches of a gold digger searching for some country bumpkin to support
half of her rent for the next 18 to 21 years.
 
Now as this female Dracula did participate in said relationship based on
dishonesty, meant solely to deprive my client of his turnip truck
allowance I ask the court to invalid any attempt by this black widow
to deprive my client of the funds that currently barely cover his most
minimum basic necessities. 
 
As Vampirella has made the decision, and I might add this decision was not
made after but before she enticed goober with visions off love, affection,
understanding and the basic nurturing that all human beings deserve and crave
I ask the court to allow for damages. This she devil has stripped the innocence
from my client. How can one put a price tag on the willfull destruction
of an individuals trust in his fellow man. This monster has ruined my clients
life. Aye willfully and with premeditated malice this woman has sought to
make my client her "SUGAR DADDY".
 
Who knows how many other children have been sired by innocent hard working
men/women who are the back bone of this great nation. I put forth how many other
children have been hidden away in some dark recess to support this monster's
thirst for the champagne and caviar lifestyle. I ask the court to put an
end to this monster's destruction.
 
How many more innocent lives must be turned usunder. Wreaked, smashed, whipped,
destroyed in an attempt to allow this monster in Shirley Temple clothes
to sleep till noon. Ladies and Gentelmen of the jury is are country to be
destroyed by these litigus "Oh I am so Innocent. I think I'll keep the
baby and you can pay for it. It was just a mistake. Tee Hee" conniving
devils. Someone must take a stand for all the families who rise at Dawn. The
families who separate us from the beasts. There but for the grace of god
go your sons. If your daughters met a man and felt the need to express affectio
n would you want that that man would take 20% of her paycheck for what would ba
sicly amount to her entire productive life. I think not.  
 
This woman has made a decision. She proports to be an adu
and gentelmen of the jury we let her live with her decision like any adult
================================================================================

etc etc.
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women,ba.singles,misc.legal
>>him. But it wasn't. Ok, so her decision goes against his morality. But unless


Newsgroups: soc.singles