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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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?) == == |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
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? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"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? == == |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"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? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"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. == == |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
"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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
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." |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Pay someone for their decision?
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. |
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 09:59 AM |
Poll Results:Boston Globe--->Recent SC. Decision to Allow Parents to Spank Children | nospam | Spanking | 9 | February 8th 04 01:16 AM |
Couple angry over DCF "inconvenience" decision | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 1 | January 31st 04 04:24 PM |
Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture | Kane | Spanking | 34 | December 29th 03 04:54 AM |
update: preschool decision made | GandSBrock | Twins & Triplets | 0 | July 25th 03 09:28 PM |