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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
Why does the principle articulated below not apply to women? Why are
women -- and women only -- not told that, if you don't want to risk becoming a parent, don't have sex? Why has so much energy, time, and money been spent on ensuring that women in the U.S. DON'T risk "blowing their brains out?" After they have pulled the trigger, they have abortion, newborn dropoff laws, and (in effect) rights to make unilateral decisions about adoption -- all to ensure that they have the post-conception choices that are denied to men. This seems so obvious that it is truly amazing to me that "malberto" appears unable to recognize the point. malberto wrote: "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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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? That would be like someone donating $15,000 to me because it makes them feel good, and I make the SOLE decision to use such proceeds to purchase a new vehicle. Then the donor is forced to pay me money for the next two decades. Because its her body. That would be like me telling you to cut your nuts off because you made someone pregnant in the past or might in the future. If it's her body and such a precious commodity to guard and protect, why are so many women allowing men to have them sexually without any protection? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"Kenneth S." wrote in message ... malberto wrote: "gini52" wrote in message ... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:RFpob.85231$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? The very obvious answer to the above question is that the person who makes the decision pays for her own decision. She is not able to make someone else pay for her decision. This ancient principle is summarized in the old saying that "the man who pays the piper calls the tune" -- or alternatively, in this context, "the woman who calls the tune pays the piper." In my lifetime I have seen three separate attitudinal changes take place regarding this topic. The first was related to both men and women having a strong desire to prevent unwanted pregnancies, so abstinence was very common. Women who got pregnant were considered loose and they tried to hide pregnancies to cover their shame. The second was the mass use of birth control pills where women found a new sense of sexual freedom and many had sex with just about any man that came along. Women in this phase felt a sense of personal empowerment to make sexual choices for themselves without the protection of marriage. And the third was the take over by the nanny state to financially reward women to have children out of wedlock. Women in this current phase know the state will step in as surrogate husbands. The stigma of having children out of wedlock has been removed. Women are now rewarded for birthing children through state sponsored programs. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
The only "victim" is the child.
Unilateral decision??? It takes 2 to tango, not one. If you dont want a child then dont have sex. Its as simple as that. The only person here that being portrayed as a "victim" is the male, who somehow thinks he doesnt need to be responsible after the sperm hits the egg because its not happening in his body. There is no unilateral decision, its was a bilaterial decision when the two consenting adults (or children as the case may be) have sex. Thats the point of conception and point of bilaterial decision. All of you think its just a cut and dry situation, that if a woman has sex with a man and pregnancy occurs then the woman somehow "post conception" is soley responsible for the child. You have also clumped "women" into this group of people who just have children to trap men. Sorry, but the only one who trapped themselves was the man who stuck his penis into a women and there was a child conceived. Again, if you dont want children be respectful to your self and smart about what you do. Your "post conception unilaterial argument" is stale and quite frankly would mean that no man would be responisble for any child born, because the mother would have made the unilaterial decision to keep the child. Sorry, it just doesnt fly. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net... In my lifetime I have seen three separate attitudinal changes take place regarding this topic. Im my lifetime I have seen three separate attitudinal changes take place regarding this topic. The first was related to both men and women having a strong desire to prevent unwanted pregnancies, so abstinence was very common. Women who got pregnant were considered loose and they tried to hide pregnancies to cover their shame. The first was related to both women and men having a strong desire to prevent unwanted pregnancies, so absitnence was very common. Men who got a women pregnant would leave the women to hide in shame, while he would run away from his repsonibilities, because women where seen as whores while men for the same actions were seen as heros. The second was the mass use of birth control pills where women found a new sense of sexual freedom and many had sex with just about any man that came along. Women in this phase felt a sense of personal empowerment to make sexual choices for themselves without the protection of marriage. The second was the mass use of birth control, such as condoms and birth control pills. Men found a sexual freedom and many had sex with just about any woman that came along. Men in this phase felt that again they could have sex as they please and didnt need the protection of marriage, if the woman gets pregnant they just "disapear". And the third was the take over by the nanny state to financially reward women to have children out of wedlock. Women in this current phase know the state will step in as surrogate husbands. The stigma of having children out of wedlock has been removed. Women are now rewarded for birthing children through state sponsored programs. And the third was the take over by the men who felt it was ok for them to run around and have 3-4 children by different women. It was ok for them to sleep around, have children, and not take any responsibility for them. Not provide support and not be in the childs life. They could go on to live their lives with nothing imposed on them, while their children lived in poverty and received nothing from their fathers. These fathers were seen as nothing more than surrogate fathers. That is until the states and taxpayers got sick and tired of paying for their children, because as much as these "fathers" like to complain about how women dont work, they dont realize how difficult it is to be everything to a child. They neglected their children both physically and financially. The states inacted laws to protect the children from irresponsible fathers and started to make them just as responsible for their actions as the mother have been for years. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Again, the answer to this is so OBVIOUS, that it hardly needs to be pointed out. But I'll point it out anyway. Obvious only to serve your own agenda maybe, but to many your obviously not reading things and going to sex education classes. In the U.S. no one tells women that, if they don't want to become pregnant, they shouldn't have sex. Quite the reverse -- huge changes have been inflicted upon society, through such things as free access to abortion, to give women post-conception reproductive choice, as it is called. In the US great emphasis is placed on women not having sex because if a child results she is the one that will be left to take care of the child, that the father will run out on her, and that he most likely wont pay support. This woman will be left to take care of a child, that two people made, on her own. As far as this "free access to abortion" what planet are you living on. Ive never seen free access to an abortion clinic, most of the time its extremely expensive to get an abortion done. IT boils down to this, women and men when they have sex are not guaranteed that they are not going to conceive a child. If they do, then that child is the responsibility of BOTH parents. Why should a man get to just say, "I dont want a child" then be release of his duties as a parent. If you didnt want a child dont have sex, your decision ends when you conceive a child. Sorry, but men that claim that women have a unilaterial choice in the matter are just crying "victim" Most women in the U.S. would not DREAM of accepting the notion that, if they don't want to be parents, they shouldn't have sex. That's a principle that is applied only to men. Ha.. now thats funny. You all seem to think you should have your cake and eat it too. Your cake is rotten and its time to throw it away. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
Are you a parrot or just an echo in a large room?
Not one original thought in anything you posted. Just the usual feminist "you're one too" crap. Thanks for trying though! "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net... In my lifetime I have seen three separate attitudinal changes take place regarding this topic. Im my lifetime I have seen three separate attitudinal changes take place regarding this topic. The first was related to both men and women having a strong desire to prevent unwanted pregnancies, so abstinence was very common. Women who got pregnant were considered loose and they tried to hide pregnancies to cover their shame. The first was related to both women and men having a strong desire to prevent unwanted pregnancies, so absitnence was very common. Men who got a women pregnant would leave the women to hide in shame, while he would run away from his repsonibilities, because women where seen as whores while men for the same actions were seen as heros. The second was the mass use of birth control pills where women found a new sense of sexual freedom and many had sex with just about any man that came along. Women in this phase felt a sense of personal empowerment to make sexual choices for themselves without the protection of marriage. The second was the mass use of birth control, such as condoms and birth control pills. Men found a sexual freedom and many had sex with just about any woman that came along. Men in this phase felt that again they could have sex as they please and didnt need the protection of marriage, if the woman gets pregnant they just "disapear". And the third was the take over by the nanny state to financially reward women to have children out of wedlock. Women in this current phase know the state will step in as surrogate husbands. The stigma of having children out of wedlock has been removed. Women are now rewarded for birthing children through state sponsored programs. And the third was the take over by the men who felt it was ok for them to run around and have 3-4 children by different women. It was ok for them to sleep around, have children, and not take any responsibility for them. Not provide support and not be in the childs life. They could go on to live their lives with nothing imposed on them, while their children lived in poverty and received nothing from their fathers. These fathers were seen as nothing more than surrogate fathers. That is until the states and taxpayers got sick and tired of paying for their children, because as much as these "fathers" like to complain about how women dont work, they dont realize how difficult it is to be everything to a child. They neglected their children both physically and financially. The states inacted laws to protect the children from irresponsible fathers and started to make them just as responsible for their actions as the mother have been for years. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"Kenneth S." wrote in message
... Why does the principle articulated below not apply to women? Why are women -- and women only -- not told that, if you don't want to risk becoming a parent, don't have sex? lol, because you unilaterial junkies have concentrated on attacking the women, as if its their fault only that a child is conceived and born. When in fact, men have an equal part. Just because the baby doesnt live in your body you think you are somehow entitled to special privleges to not supporting the child if a woman decides to keep the child. I dont know many women that go around using abortion as a form of contreception. Nor do I know many women who trap men like you all propose. I also dont many women who find joy in the fact that having a child is going to ruin their bodies. I also dont many women that enjoy killing a child. I also dont know many women who have sex with themselves. Why has so much energy, time, and money been spent on ensuring that women in the U.S. DON'T risk "blowing their brains out?" After they have pulled the trigger, they have abortion, newborn dropoff laws, and (in effect) rights to make unilateral decisions about adoption -- all to ensure that they have the post-conception choices that are denied to men. What you really want to say is that you men dont want to pay for the child you conceived or take care of the child you conceive. So you blow smoke and use this unilaterial excuse as a way to make yourselves look good. Most women dont just have an abortion its a very hard decsion to make, and most of them do it when they know the man wont take care of the child anyway. Newborn dropoff laws apply to BOTH men and women. Either one can drop a child off, not just mothers. Those laws were not to protect the parents, but to protect children from being left in dumpsters and being killed. This seems so obvious that it is truly amazing to me that "malberto" appears unable to recognize the point. appears unable or appears not to buy into your "men are the victim" views? Just because you think your opinion is the best doesnt mean everyone else does. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net... If it's her body and such a precious commodity to guard and protect, why are so many women allowing men to have them sexually without any protection? Its her body and her right to decide if a medical procedure should be performed. Why are so many men having unprotected sex, then trying to not take care of their responsibility? It takes TWO to make a child, not one. I think women who are stupid and dont protect themselves are just as responsible for their actions as the men who obvously have the same unprotected sex. Two people have sex, a child is conceived, both are resposnible for the support. Period. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
The truth hurts Bob, its ok if you want to cry. Nothing original in your
post either, thats why I posted the way I did. Its all old hat.. whats your next poor man victim story going to be?? "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net... Are you a parrot or just an echo in a large room? Not one original thought in anything you posted. Just the usual feminist "you're one too" crap. Thanks for trying though! |
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 10:59 AM |
Poll Results:Boston Globe--->Recent SC. Decision to Allow Parents to Spank Children | nospam | Spanking | 9 | February 8th 04 02:16 AM |
Couple angry over DCF "inconvenience" decision | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 1 | January 31st 04 05:24 PM |
Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture | Kane | Spanking | 34 | December 29th 03 05:54 AM |
update: preschool decision made | GandSBrock | Twins & Triplets | 0 | July 25th 03 09:28 PM |