Ah, but never fear, socialized health care in the USA will be as successful as in Canada! Right?

The FATHER was there. He STEPPED UP, while everyone else was sloping off.

One day, he has a 50% chance, he may well say to tell his son, "I was there. I delivered you. I brought you safely into the world. I pulled you out with my bare hands when no-one else was ready and willing to help you. And now your mother has called the cops to pull me out of your life and no one is ready and willing to help me or you".

Quote from Percy

The FATHER was there. He STEPPED UP, while everyone else was sloping off.

One day, he has a 50% chance, he may well say to tell his son, "I was there. I delivered you. I brought you safely into the world. I pulled you out with my bare hands when no-one else was ready and willing to help you. And now your mother has called the cops to pull me out of your life and no one is ready and willing to help me or you".

was there any doubt? as the headline says,"wifes baby".

Quote from fcb98292

Ah, but never fear, socialized health care in the USA will be as successful as in Canada! Right?

Every time I think of the government trying to run health care, I think of how screwed up the DMV is. Minimum wage minions who have some small degree of power over you, so they're oh, so helpful! Think about how long you have to stand in line to get a driver's license?

Every country that's undertaken socialized medicine has failed miserably and their wealthy come to the US to have complex procedures performed.

Sorry, I know most liberals hate those pesky "facts."

Quote from Percy

The FATHER was there. He STEPPED UP, while everyone else was sloping off.

One day, he has a 50% chance, he may well say to tell his son, "I was there. I delivered you. I brought you safely into the world. I pulled you out with my bare hands when no-one else was ready and willing to help you. And now your mother has called the cops to pull me out of your life and no one is ready and willing to help me or you".

Sad to say, but you're probably right.

Actually, the MRM needs to document cases like these and actively advertise them. "Look at what a father brings to the table! Calm in a crisis." I'm sure those stories, once we get the media morons out of the equation, may outnumber cases of abuse. (Once we define abuse as true assault, battery, and rape vice VAWA.)

If the feminists want to play a "statistics" game, I say we play it to win. Their "statistics" of "1 in 4" and such are hardly meet academic standards. Document our studies vigorously, have the empirical data to back it up.

Quote from cutiger1903

If the feminists want to play a "statistics" game, I say we play it to win.

Feminists and homosexuals lie to win, whatever it takes. The truth and the statistics will lose against them, if considered at face value. You must either expose their lies or disprove their statistics, which takes alot more time than just presenting the truth. And always remember, they rely on emotion to bridge the gap between their data and their conclusions.

Hm reminds me of MY (now the score is even) baby when my wife delivered there almost was no nurse there (unexpected twins that evening/ heck I never thaught she would come that early). Besides the safety issues this can also lead to more problems on the mother´s side. Usually midwifes (as far as I understood) hold the baby back for a while to minimize tearing of the vagina. Besides that blatant sexism as usual for the "sperm donors"....this society....was that England?

Quote from cutiger1903

Every time I think of the government trying to run health care, I think of how screwed up the DMV is. Minimum wage minions who have some small degree of power over you, so they're oh, so helpful! Think about how long you have to stand in line to get a driver's license?

Every country that's undertaken socialized medicine has failed miserably and their wealthy come to the US to have complex procedures performed.

Sorry, I know most liberals hate those pesky "facts."

This is not so, Tiger, with respect.

I have lived in many countries with 'socialised' medicine and private and mixed. By far and away the best in the world is Taiwan which is wholly government. It consumes some 6% of GDP. America's consumes 16%.

Britains NHS is not too bad for the first one to be 'National'. It has its problems but medicine isn't one of them. It is the bureaucracy; overdone and petty management. The 'cutting edge' stuff is on par with America's best. If you, an American, were on holiday in Britain and were in need of urgent treatment, you would get it, free. You would not be chucked out the door because you didn't have the 'right' insurance.

As is Australia's, which is mixed. The Private clinics and hospitals here are first class and most of the National, State-run ones are very good. Again the problems lie in bureaucracy and management, but if you need treatment it is free at source.

America has a first class 'top end' but the main bulk of its health care is atrocious. Vast numbers of ordinary people have no health cover at all, the old are bereft of medication support - except at huge cost - at a time when they need it most and businesses are loaded with a system that has them pay for employees health. That is like me expecting you to pay for me and charging your old dad 10 times the cost for his angina pills.

Americans have a very odd view of their health provision insisting on private providers. You would not do that with defence of the country and I put it to you that when push comes to shove and your child has need of urgent medical treatment, your kiddy's health comes first, before such non-urgent and largely personally irrelevant issues as war in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Still, it's your system and defend it if you will. But don't get all hubristic by claiming that such a shoddy and partial system is better than everyone elses. It isn't.

Quote from Percy

This is not so, Tiger, with respect.

I have lived in many countries with 'socialised' medicine and private and mixed. By far and away the best in the world is Taiwan which is wholly government. It consumes some 6% of GDP. America's consumes 16%.

Britains NHS is not too bad for the first one to be 'National'. It has its problems but medicine isn't one of them. It is the bureaucracy; overdone and petty management. The 'cutting edge' stuff is on par with America's best. If you, an American, were on holiday in Britain and were in need of urgent treatment, you would get it, free. You would not be chucked out the door because you didn't have the 'right' insurance.

As is Australia's, which is mixed. The Private clinics and hospitals here are first class and most of the National, State-run ones are very good. Again the problems lie in bureaucracy and management, but if you need treatment it is free at source.

America has a first class 'top end' but the main bulk of its health care is atrocious. Vast numbers of ordinary people have no health cover at all, the old are bereft of medication support - except at huge cost - at a time when they need it most and businesses are loaded with a system that has them pay for employees health. That is like me expecting you to pay for me and charging your old dad 10 times the cost for his angina pills.

Americans have a very odd view of their health provision insisting on private providers. You would not do that with defence of the country and I put it to you that when push comes to shove and your child has need of urgent medical treatment, your kiddy's health comes first, before such non-urgent and largely personally irrelevant issues as war in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Still, it's your system and defend it if you will. But don't get all hubristic by claiming that such a shoddy and partial system is better than everyone elses. It isn't.

Touche, Percy.

I'm for a mixed national service, with private providers still permitted. I've just seen our welfare system and social services systems abused or as the abusers. My concern is a totally socialized health care system would cause significant problems. When it comes to my health, I want the best Doc available. After seeing how our VA Healthcare is mismanaged, I don't have the most faith in Washington to take that and do it on a nationwide scale.

Quote from cutiger1903

Touche, Percy.

I'm for a mixed national service, with private providers still permitted. I've just seen our welfare system and social services systems abused or as the abusers. My concern is a totally socialized health care system would cause significant problems. When it comes to my health, I want the best Doc available. After seeing how our VA Healthcare is mismanaged, I don't have the most faith in Washington to take that and do it on a nationwide scale.

Ne too. I am for a mixed system - where each acts as a competitor and standards raiser for the other. There are problems with any monopolised system, to be sure, and the medical establishment is the major Mafia even before lax and idle or intefering government. No system is going to be perfect but we are beset in most places by corruption and 'cost saving -which isn't'. Wanting the 'best Doc anywhere' is unachievable. The best is one person and he might just be in Cairo or Manchester, depending on the problem. We can't all have him at the same time even if we could travel across a continent or an ocean to get to him. The realistic desire is to have lots of next-to best and perfectly good enough.

I've heard this discussed countless times before.

An argument can be made that since the women carry the child to full term and endure the hours of labour to deliver the child, then the child is 'hers'.

But this is where feminits want their cake and eat it too. They argue that 'it takes two' to create a child, and the father is EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE for the care of the child.

So which is it ladies? Is the child soley yours because of the work your body exerted to produce this child, with men as only sperm donors? I can see why this argument is popular with women.

Bu t you can't claim that and at the same time claim that the father be EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE for raising such child. You can't have it both ways.

Either the child is the womens' alone, or an equal offspring of both parents.

Learn to think logically, you feminist idiots.

I suppose she inject sperm into her snatch so the baby is her by default.

I hear Canada is crawling with seal clubbing peace mongers!

If you ask me I'd say feminism in Canada is worse than it is down here in America (Neo Rome).

Quote from RookRoost

I've heard this discussed countless times before.

An argument can be made that since the women carry the child to full term and endure the hours of labour to deliver the child, then the child is 'hers'.

But this is where feminits want their cake and eat it too. They argue that 'it takes two' to create a child, and the father is EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE for the care of the child.

So which is it ladies? Is the child soley yours because of the work your body exerted to produce this child, with men as only sperm donors? I can see why this argument is popular with women.

Bu t you can't claim that and at the same time claim that the father be EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE for raising such child. You can't have it both ways.

Either the child is the womens' alone, or an equal offspring of both parents.

Learn to think logically, you feminist idiots.

No, they want the best of both sides and they got it. If they do not want the child and abort, this is not murder it is "keeping bodily integrity". If they have the child the man is at least financial responsible. If he can not pay he is a deadbeat dad and should be ashamed. If he wants to take part in his childs life and be equally responsible she can keep him out of the childs life if she wants to. Absolute power....

not only her baby is hers even his cojones and the Family court will endorse my allegation