Pay someone for their decision?

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

"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.
==
Umm...because the mother does?
==
==

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
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.
==
With whom? Why do you continually refuse to answer my questions?
When is the woman obligated to take responsibility for her actions?
Apparently,
you believe that women are weak incapable creatures who cannot survive
without
men/governments to financially care for them. As a woman, I am offended by
your assertions. The women I know are
strong enough to make their own decisions and accept responsibility for
same. Your weak dependent women
are an embarrassment to their gender. Now, exactly how is it that you
"fight for kids?" Let me guess, you prey on these weak dependent women and
promise that if they give you a sizeable cut, you'll try to find the evil
dad and make him pay? If so, this is not fighting for kids--it is using kids
for financial gain. It is preditory.
==
==

If men and women are equally responsible for the child, why don't we see
more "equal" custody agreements, so both parents can be an equal part of the
child's life? Why don't we see "equal" amounts of child support being
assigned? Why don't we see support orders based on the child's actual
needs, rather than on the amount of the father's paycheck? "Equally
responsible" should mean just that--not "I have the joy of raising the child
on the money you provide." Nothing equal about that!


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

"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.

The sad thing is that the law has not really stopped the irresponsible from
running around fathering children. The law does not even go after those who
have absolutely no means to pay. It's not worth the money spent of catching
them if they can't pay anyway. Many of those who are caught in the system
we now have do not want to abandon their children--they, in fact, want to be
part of their children's lives, but are treated as visitors and walking
wallets. They see their children at the mother's whim. They are told not to
start a new family until they have finished paying for current children.
Now, the mothers are not told to have no subsequent children, because the
men who father those children will be held responsible for them. But a
father paying child support gets no consideration for any child that is not
on the support order. This may sound trivial to you, but would you want to
spend 21 years of your life with no hope of a family, because you are forced
to pay a lifestyle, rather than a needs, support for a child you rarely get
to see? You need to look more deeply into the system rather than just
blowing off the concerns of people who have been caught up in it for years.
They just may have something to say that is worth your while to hear.

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

I do agree with you that people who do not want to risk having children
would be wise to abstain from sex. It is too bad that the sanctity of
marriage has fallen by the wayside. However, the problem being spoken of
here is not just about the women having the right to choose whether to carry
a pregnancy to term. It's about all that follows. The MAN is held to be
primarily financially responsible for the child, while the woman gets the
majority of rights to the child. How often do you see true shared custody?
The child needs both parents to be in his life, a part of his life. Not one
doing the nurturing, and the sother sending money. When a woman decides to
carry a conception to birth, she is chosing 21 years of lifestyle support
from the father. HE has no choice about how much to pay. There is no
requirement that the father and mother sit down and discuss what is best for
the cild. A JUDGE gets to decide that. And if the parents do, by chance,
come up with what they consider an equitable solution, the judge can
overrule them and insist that it be done by the book--as if the parents have
no right to decide what is best for their child! Look a little more closely
at the system. You might be surprised at what you find there.

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

"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.

Oh, good. So you do believe in equal, shared custody, and equal financial
responsibility!

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

"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.

So how can people like you not get behind children who promote the use of
condoms like this young lady?

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centr...ws/7154693.htm

Good story. I like the statement that someone said condoms aren't handed
out in public schools. I thought a lot of public schools DID hand out
condoms? She should be commended for making a stand and helping her class
mates. The schools now a days don't appreciate kids that take stands and
voice opinions. No matter the issue, let it be known. One day suspension is
nothing in the long run for this girl.

T
Bob Whiteside wrote in message
hlink.net...

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

"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.

So how can people like you not get behind children who promote the use of
condoms like this young lady?

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centr...ws/7154693.htm

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
The only "victim" is the child.

Unilateral decision??? It takes 2 to tango, not one.

Sprry clueless......but it only takes ONE (and only one is allowed to) make
the decision to birth a child


If you dont want a child then dont have sex. Its as simple as that.

Then the same MUST apply to women


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.

And after that point, a woman has a sole and unilateral choice to birtha
child or not, Women should be responsible for their sole and unilateral
choices......No amount of tap dancing will get arounf that fact.


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.

Yes.


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.

Women as victims......how quaint


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.

Only with the 'women as victims' crowd

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

"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.

Too bad you conviently forgot the fact that conception DOES NOT equal birth