Pay someone for their decision?

"malberto" wrote in message
news:geAob.56739$ao4.153892@attbi_s51...

"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.
==
Unless you are a woman? Let's pretend we are talking to a woman he

You to woman: If you don't want a kid, DON'T HAVE SEX.
Woman: I don't want a kid but I like sex
You to Woman: Too bad. If you have the kid, you must be responsible for the
child. (I gave you the benefit of the doubt, here.)
Woman: Not really. The government will make sure the father pays me lots of
money for
at least 18 years and he might even have to pay for the kid's college,
daycare and medical expenses.
Not only that, I can take the money and spend it how I please as long as the
kid isn't starving. If I pick the right man, having babies can be pretty
lucrative. It's all based on income, you know? I can even have several kids
to different fathers and collect more money. It doesn't even matter if the
men don't want kids--they have to pay me anyway. See, all the government
says to the man is, if you don't want kids DON'T HAVE SEX but that doesn't
apply to women. We can have sex, kids, more kids--whatever. Cool, huh?
You to Woman: (You fill in this part, please. Well, what would you tell
her?)
==
==

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
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.

What about taking responsibility for yourself? Even the best "protection"
is not fool proof and thus a child can result even in the best laid out
plans.


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.

Then dont have sex with women and/or get fixed if you arent willing to take
care of the children that happen as the result of your own pleasure seeking
activitiy.

3. It was never established if this was the man's partner, lover, wife,
girlfriend or what. But you can assume all you want.

Should it really matter? If you stick your penis in a woman and a child is
the result then both parents should be willing to deal with the results.
When did abortion become a form of birth control for stupid males who just
want to have sex without condoms?


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.

Is there really a correct answer to this question? It depends on which side
of the block you live on. Is it ok for a judge to decide whether or not to
erradicate a child because the parents were irresponsible, or because one
parent is wanting the child and the other is not? If you arent ready to have
children, dont have sex. Dont engage in the very activity that will produce
such results.


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...

So your opinion is that YOU should have overuling power over whether a
child, that you helped make, should be destroyed? That this woman should
open her legs and get a life sucked out of her becuase you "arent ready to
have a child" or "dont want to have the financial responsibilities of
raising a child". Then why is it that you engage in sex at all?

But don't take my word for it - go ask one for yourself.

So if a woman tells you she is on birth control whose responsibility is it
to protect yourself? Hers or yours? The only person that looks out for you
is yourself. I would suggest that instead of blamming someone else for your
stupidity, you try looking in the mirror and taking some responsibility for
your own actions and the consequences that result from those actions.

If a man is to decide what happens to a womans body, does that mean a woman
can decide what happens to yours?

This all boils down to when a child is really a child, is it at the time of
conception or is it later on in the pregnancy? If its at conception then
the child has its own rights and neither parent can decide what to do, if
its later on then there is a "window" of oppportunity to destroy the cells
that would result in a birth. If the last scenario is true, then how would
anyone decided what to do, especially when one parent wants the cells
destroyed and the other does not?

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
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.

What about taking responsibility for yourself? Even the best "protection"
is not fool proof and thus a child can result even in the best laid out
plans.


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.

Then dont have sex with women and/or get fixed if you arent willing to
take
care of the children that happen as the result of your own pleasure
seeking
activitiy.
==
And the same should apply to women right? Isn't this a result of the woman's
"pleasure seeking activity" as well? Shouldn't we tell *her* not to have
sex if she isn't
willing to support the child?
==
==

"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.



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


Do you agree?

Do you?

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
So if a woman tells you she is on birth control whose responsibility is it
to protect yourself?
==
If the woman claims falsely that she is on birth control, the responsibility
of the birth is hers.
(More Below)
==
Hers or yours? The only person that looks out for you
is yourself. I would suggest that instead of blamming someone else for
your
stupidity, you try looking in the mirror and taking some responsibility
for
your own actions and the consequences that result from those actions.
==
You just can't fathom the idea of demanding responsibility/accountability
from the woman, can you? (More Below)
==

If a man is to decide what happens to a womans body, does that mean a
woman
can decide what happens to yours?
==
OK, let's try this one LAST time. The issue is *not* what the woman choses
to do. The issue is
whether the man should be held responsible for *her* decision. You keep
tossing out
"responsibilty" but only in reference to men. Why is the woman immune from
your concept of responsibility? (More Below)
==

This all boils down to when a child is really a child, is it at the time
of
conception or is it later on in the pregnancy? If its at conception then
the child has its own rights and neither parent can decide what to do, if
its later on then there is a "window" of oppportunity to destroy the cells
that would result in a birth. If the last scenario is true, then how
would
anyone decided what to do, especially when one parent wants the cells
destroyed and the other does not?
==
This is not so difficult. The one who *wants* the child *pays* for the
child.
Novel idea, isn't it? BTW, I am a woman and I bear the responsibility for
unilateral decisions I make.
==
==

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
So if a woman tells you she is on birth control whose responsibility is it
to protect yourself? Hers or yours? The only person that looks out for
you
is yourself. I would suggest that instead of blamming someone else for
your
stupidity, you try looking in the mirror and taking some responsibility
for
your own actions and the consequences that result from those actions.

Hear that swooshing sound? That is the point going way over your head.

ONLY the woman has a sole and unilateral post conception choice. Women
should be responsibly for their sole and unilateral choices.....but that
doesn't jive with your "women as victims" mentality


If a man is to decide what happens to a womans body, does that mean a
woman
can decide what happens to yours?

Hey clueless.....no one said anything about a man deciding about a woman's
body..........only that a woman should be responsibly for her sole and
unilateral choices.


This all boils down to when a child is really a child, is it at the time
of
conception or is it later on in the pregnancy? If its at conception then
the child has its own rights and neither parent can decide what to do, if
its later on then there is a "window" of oppportunity to destroy the cells
that would result in a birth. If the last scenario is true, then how
would
anyone decided what to do, especially when one parent wants the cells
destroyed and the other does not?

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with a woman taking responsiblity for her
sole and unilateral choices.

"malberto" wrote in message
news:A6zob.56490$ao4.153947@attbi_s51...

"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?

Simple, a woman takes sole responsiblity fo her choice to birth ir not,
since it is her sole and unilateral choice.



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.

Than your previous statement is not valid



Do you agree?

Do you?

That depends.

Swoosh

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."

malberto wrote:

"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?

Again, the answer to this is so OBVIOUS, that it hardly needs to be
pointed out. But I'll point it out anyway.

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.

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.