If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
Since the law states that a woman and the woman ALONE makes the SOLE
decision whether or not to bring a child into the world, how is it that the same law forces a man to pay her money for such decision? That would be like someone donating $15,000 to me because it makes them feel good, and I make the SOLE decision to use such proceeds to purchase a new vehicle. Then the donor is forced to pay me money for the next two decades. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"Chris" wrote in message
news:RFpob.85231$vj2.58150@fed1read06... Since the law states that a woman and the woman ALONE makes the SOLE decision whether or not to bring a child into the world, how is it that the same law forces a man to pay her money for such decision? That would be like someone donating $15,000 to me because it makes them feel good, and I make the SOLE decision to use such proceeds to purchase a new vehicle. Then the donor is forced to pay me money for the next two decades. Because its her body. That would be like me telling you to cut your nuts off because you made someone pregnant in the past or might in the future. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:RFpob.85231$vj2.58150@fed1read06... Since the law states that a woman and the woman ALONE makes the SOLE decision whether or not to bring a child into the world, how is it that the same law forces a man to pay her money for such decision? .................................................. .. Because its her body. == That wasn't the question. == That would be like me telling you to cut your nuts off because you made someone pregnant in the past or might in the future. == Incorrect analogy. It would be like him having his nuts cut off and requiring her to pay for it via wage attachment for 18 +/- years. == == |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"gini52" wrote in message
... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:RFpob.85231$vj2.58150@fed1read06... Since the law states that a woman and the woman ALONE makes the SOLE decision whether or not to bring a child into the world, how is it that the same law forces a man to pay her money for such decision? .................................................. . Because its her body. == That wasn't the question. == That would be like me telling you to cut your nuts off because you made someone pregnant in the past or might in the future. == Incorrect analogy. It would be like him having his nuts cut off and requiring her to pay for it via wage attachment for 18 +/- years. == == All are bad analogies because cutting off someone's nuts does not create a new person. That new person deserves support. Unfortunately there is no flawless way to ensure that the new person gets the financial support he or she requires. The system forces one biological parent to send money to the other, but there is no guarantee the parent receiving the money will use it on the child. But what is the system supposed to do, absolutely nothing? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"malberto" wrote in message newsJwob.52525$mZ5.317179@attbi_s54... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:RFpob.85231$vj2.58150@fed1read06... Since the law states that a woman and the woman ALONE makes the SOLE decision whether or not to bring a child into the world, how is it that the same law forces a man to pay her money for such decision? .................................................. . Because its her body. == That wasn't the question. == That would be like me telling you to cut your nuts off because you made someone pregnant in the past or might in the future. == Incorrect analogy. It would be like him having his nuts cut off and requiring her to pay for it via wage attachment for 18 +/- years. == == All are bad analogies because cutting off someone's nuts does not create a new person. That new person deserves support. == True...and Chris is notorious for being a person of few words. But, I think he was asking why the father should have to pay support if the decision to have the child was the mother's and the father is not able to "opt out" like the mother is. == == |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"gini52" wrote in message
... "malberto" wrote in message newsJwob.52525$mZ5.317179@attbi_s54... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:RFpob.85231$vj2.58150@fed1read06... Since the law states that a woman and the woman ALONE makes the SOLE decision whether or not to bring a child into the world, how is it that the same law forces a man to pay her money for such decision? .................................................. . Because its her body. == That wasn't the question. == That would be like me telling you to cut your nuts off because you made someone pregnant in the past or might in the future. == Incorrect analogy. It would be like him having his nuts cut off and requiring her to pay for it via wage attachment for 18 +/- years. == == All are bad analogies because cutting off someone's nuts does not create a new person. That new person deserves support. == True...and Chris is notorious for being a person of few words. But, I think he was asking why the father should have to pay support if the decision to have the child was the mother's and the father is not able to "opt out" like the mother is. == == But can't the father "opt out" by deciding not to have sex? If you put a loaded gun to you head and decide to pull the trigger, aren't you responsible for blowing your brains out regardless if someone else told you the gun is defective? The same is true for guys. If a guy decides to have sex with his female partner he is as responsible as his partner for the pregnancy, even if she told him she is using protection. If you do not want to have the risk of being a parent, DO NOT HAVE SEX. Do you agree? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"malberto" wrote in message news:Lhyob.54553$275.137142@attbi_s53... [snip] True...and Chris is notorious for being a person of few words. But, I think he was asking why the father should have to pay support if the decision to have the child was the mother's and the father is not able to "opt out" like the mother is. == == But can't the father "opt out" by deciding not to have sex? If you put a loaded gun to you head and decide to pull the trigger, aren't you responsible for blowing your brains out regardless if someone else told you the gun is defective? The same is true for guys. If a guy decides to have sex with his female partner he is as responsible as his partner for the pregnancy, even if she told him she is using protection. If you do not want to have the risk of being a parent, DO NOT HAVE SEX. Do you agree? Hell no! Allow me to point out just a few of the flaws in this hypothetical situation... 1. The state doesn't care if the women claimed she was on the pill or some other "protection" while the couple had sex, the state hands the women all the cards in any paternity case. In other words - the state hands the women the loaded gun and together they hold it to your head and tell you to pull the trigger. Because if you don't, they surely will. 2. In the strictest legal sense, the women, by virtue of having told you she was on some form of contraceptive protection, is guilty of fraud and a whole host of other criminal charges for her deception and consequent pregnancy. In other words - she screwed you, is guilty as all hell and the state will most likely do nothing at all to punish her for her obvious crimes. But, YOU get to bend over the table and have it tucked up your ass over and over again for as many times as the state and the women want to have fun with you. 3. It was never established if this was the man's partner, lover, wife, girlfriend or what. But you can assume all you want. 4. The original point that was attempted to be established was, I believe, this: That it's a women's -right- to be the sole decision maker as to weather or not a child comes into the world. And the question was.. "how is it that the same law forces a man to pay her money for such decision?" "Fighting for kids" answered: "Because its her body." This answer is incorrect. The correct answer is: Because men don't have rights, they have responsibilities. Women have rights and no responsibilities. Don't believe me? Mention the original post to a feminist and note the answer you get... but I strongly urge you to seek a bomb shelter immediately after speaking to one... feminists tend to explode into a tirade of emotional, ill-logical, inane, nonsensible clap-trap based on data and ill-logic that has been proven beyond time and again to be lies and bull **** whenever an honest question is put to them... But don't take my word for it - go ask one for yourself. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"Paul Fritz" wrote in message ... "malberto" wrote in message news:Lhyob.54553$275.137142@attbi_s53... "gini52" wrote in message ... "malberto" wrote in message newsJwob.52525$mZ5.317179@attbi_s54... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:RFpob.85231$vj2.58150@fed1read06... Since the law states that a woman and the woman ALONE makes the SOLE decision whether or not to bring a child into the world, how is it that the same law forces a man to pay her money for such decision? .................................................. . Because its her body. == That wasn't the question. == That would be like me telling you to cut your nuts off because you made someone pregnant in the past or might in the future. == Incorrect analogy. It would be like him having his nuts cut off and requiring her to pay for it via wage attachment for 18 +/- years. == == All are bad analogies because cutting off someone's nuts does not create a new person. That new person deserves support. == True...and Chris is notorious for being a person of few words. But, I think he was asking why the father should have to pay support if the decision to have the child was the mother's and the father is not able to "opt out" like the mother is. == == But can't the father "opt out" by deciding not to have sex? If you put a loaded gun to you head and decide to pull the trigger, aren't you responsible for blowing your brains out regardless if someone else told you the gun is defective? The same is true for guys. If a guy decides to have sex with his female partner he is as responsible as his partner for the pregnancy, even if she told him she is using protection. Free hint to the clueless.....pregnancy/conception DOES NOT equal child birth. The woman has the sole and unitlateral choice to allow a preganancy to result in a birth. Why do women not take sole responsiblity for their sole and unilateral choices. How do you propose this should be handled? If you do not want to have the risk of being a parent, DO NOT HAVE SEX. Sounds like a great arguement to outlaw abortion I am pro-abortion. Do you agree? Do you? That depends. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "malberto" wrote in message news:Lhyob.54553$275.137142@attbi_s53... [snip] True...and Chris is notorious for being a person of few words. But, I think he was asking why the father should have to pay support if the decision to have the child was the mother's and the father is not able to "opt out" like the mother is. == == But can't the father "opt out" by deciding not to have sex? If you put a loaded gun to you head and decide to pull the trigger, aren't you responsible for blowing your brains out regardless if someone else told you the gun is defective? The same is true for guys. If a guy decides to have sex with his female partner he is as responsible as his partner for the pregnancy, even if she told him she is using protection. If you do not want to have the risk of being a parent, DO NOT HAVE SEX. Do you agree? Hell no! Allow me to point out just a few of the flaws in this hypothetical situation... 1. The state doesn't care if the women claimed she was on the pill or some other "protection" while the couple had sex, the state hands the women all the cards in any paternity case. In other words - the state hands the women the loaded gun and together they hold it to your head and tell you to pull the trigger. Because if you don't, they surely will. 2. In the strictest legal sense, the women, by virtue of having told you she was on some form of contraceptive protection, is guilty of fraud and a whole host of other criminal charges for her deception and consequent pregnancy. In other words - she screwed you, is guilty as all hell and the state will most likely do nothing at all to punish her for her obvious crimes. But, YOU get to bend over the table and have it tucked up your ass over and over again for as many times as the state and the women want to have fun with you. 3. It was never established if this was the man's partner, lover, wife, girlfriend or what. But you can assume all you want. 4. The original point that was attempted to be established was, I believe, this: That it's a women's -right- to be the sole decision maker as to weather or not a child comes into the world. And the question was.. "how is it that the same law forces a man to pay her money for such decision?" "Fighting for kids" answered: "Because its her body." This answer is incorrect. The correct answer is: Because men don't have rights, they have responsibilities. Women have rights and no responsibilities. Don't believe me? Mention the original post to a feminist and note the answer you get... but I strongly urge you to seek a bomb shelter immediately after speaking to one... feminists tend to explode into a tirade of emotional, ill-logical, inane, nonsensible clap-trap based on data and ill-logic that has been proven beyond time and again to be lies and bull **** whenever an honest question is put to them... But don't take my word for it - go ask one for yourself. My analogy attempted to convey a single truth: if you absolutely do not want to RISK blowing your own brains out, don't pull the trigger. Ergo if you absolutely do not want the RISK of parenthood, do not have sex. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"malberto" wrote in message news:Lhyob.54553$275.137142@attbi_s53... "gini52" wrote in message ... "malberto" wrote in message newsJwob.52525$mZ5.317179@attbi_s54... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:RFpob.85231$vj2.58150@fed1read06... Since the law states that a woman and the woman ALONE makes the SOLE decision whether or not to bring a child into the world, how is it that the same law forces a man to pay her money for such decision? .................................................. . Because its her body. == That wasn't the question. == That would be like me telling you to cut your nuts off because you made someone pregnant in the past or might in the future. == Incorrect analogy. It would be like him having his nuts cut off and requiring her to pay for it via wage attachment for 18 +/- years. == == All are bad analogies because cutting off someone's nuts does not create a new person. That new person deserves support. == True...and Chris is notorious for being a person of few words. But, I think he was asking why the father should have to pay support if the decision to have the child was the mother's and the father is not able to "opt out" like the mother is. == == But can't the father "opt out" by deciding not to have sex? == Yes. But, so can the woman. Do you give her the same admonishment? Do you tell her that if she choses to bring the baby into the world against the man's wishes, she should be prepared to support said child on her own. Don't you agree? == If you put a loaded gun to you head and decide to pull the trigger, aren't you responsible for blowing your brains out regardless if someone else told you the gun is defective? == I don't get the point. == The same is true for guys. If a guy decides to have sex with his female partner he is as responsible as his partner for the pregnancy, even if she told him she is using protection. == Ah, but here you are wrong. In the eyes of the court, the guy is "more" responsible for the pregnancy than the girl. She has options. He pays. == If you do not want to have the risk of being a parent, DO NOT HAVE SEX. Do you agree? == I agree and I presume, the same DO NOT HAVE SEX applies to women as well? But, I also agree with Chris. Men should be given the same options as women. In this case, the man has one option--don't have sex. And this is what I teach my boys. The woman, on the other hand, can have as much sex as she wishes, then decides whether to carry the baby full term and keep or adopt. She can also elect abortion. In these cases, the man has no choice except to be mandated to pay for the baby the woman chose to have/keep but that he would have preferred not to have. The ideal would be to have a male birth control pill on the US market. == == -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Prenatal Testing - Overview and Personal Stories | [email protected] | Pregnancy | 0 | February 16th 04 09:59 AM |
Poll Results:Boston Globe--->Recent SC. Decision to Allow Parents to Spank Children | nospam | Spanking | 9 | February 8th 04 01:16 AM |
Couple angry over DCF "inconvenience" decision | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 1 | January 31st 04 04:24 PM |
Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture | Kane | Spanking | 34 | December 29th 03 04:54 AM |
update: preschool decision made | GandSBrock | Twins & Triplets | 0 | July 25th 03 09:28 PM |