Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!sophie
From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: opportunits, women
Message-ID: <1390@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 16:34:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.1390
Posted: Thu Jul 18 16:34:53 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 19:10:30 EDT
References: <117@tommif.UUCP> <554@hou2g.UUCP>
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 20

> Why don't people (couples) who can't support children
> stop having so many of them.  Granted, in a large number
> of "woman head of household" cases the woman may have expected
> the husband to "provide" and then he may have run off without
> paying child support, but I hardly think this is the rule.
> 
> Nobody has the right to expect ME to pay for their children
> (via welfare, etc.) except for the case above.  If their religion
> doesn't allow or believe in birth control, that's just tough shit.
> Make BIRTH CONTROL free--it's a lot cheaper than welfare support
> payments.
> 
> 				Scott

Ok, but then you don't have the right to expect THEIR CHILDREN to pay for 
supporting you when you retire.  We can also make LIFE CONTROL free, it
will be much cheaper than paying for old-age pensions.
-- 
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie