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.

"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.

"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.
==
==

"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?

"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.
==
==

"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?

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.
==
==
--