A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pay someone for their decision?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 1st 03, 03:26 AM
Kenneth S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 1st 03, 03:40 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 1st 03, 03:56 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 1st 03, 04:30 AM
Fighting for kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 1st 03, 04:43 AM
Fighting for kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 1st 03, 04:51 AM
Fighting for kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 1st 03, 04:56 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 1st 03, 05:01 AM
Fighting for kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 1st 03, 05:04 AM
Fighting for kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 1st 03, 05:09 AM
Fighting for kids
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.