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:

"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."

"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.

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.

"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.

"Deserves"?


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?

YES !