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