|
|
|
|
|
| | are women playing GOD when they become pregnantPage 16 of 54 (14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54) | Adoption is a valid point as well profiler. It's not "go against your religion" or be "broke". You could very easily give the child up for adoption, and assuming the father will have no emotional attatchment and will suffer no ill consequences from this decision seems a bit odd to me. Hell many people will PAY women to do so.
We don't have the power to insist, we just have the SAME choice the woman does, to be responsible or not. You still have all the cards, if we want to keep it and you don't, you still get to abort. If we don't want it and you do, you can STILL keep the right to do that. You STILL have that choice, the only difference is you no longer get to make a choice for US.
Funny, you ask men to be soley responsible for their choice to have sex, but don't ask women to bear the responsibility of the choice to keep the child against the will of the father.
You can be bitter about history all you want, fact is we want a better now and you are stuck looking for revenge. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 1:19:59 PM |
You're a hypocrite .... You're a misandrist ....
I've decided I'm tired of your name-calling, ta-da.
I and others in the thread have no problem debating the points of the women who use words like "Selfish, deadbeat, irresponsible, uncaring," etc.
I haven't called YOU selfish, deadbeat, irresponsible, uncaring or mysogynistic nor have I directed any such insults to any man on this thread. I HAVE said that men (in general) should take personal responsibility for the kids they father, but too many are only too happy to rid themselves of that responsibility and to place it on the woman.
Just because you choose to debate with people who insult you as part of their "argument", it doesn't mean I should be so stupid as to follow your example.
| |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 1:24:13 PM | "I've decided I'm tired of your name-calling, ta-da."
So you are unable to debate my points? I and others in the thread have no problem debating the points of the women who use words like "Selfish, deadbeat, irresponsible, uncaring," etc.
"Yup, this is the male mentality that I spoke of in my last post which is basically....
HER body, so it's HER problem. Do boys maturing into men develop this attitude as they age or have their parents raised them that way??? It amazes me that women still actually agree to have sex with men without marriage or some form of contract, should an unwanted child become part of the equation."
Her body, her choice. Her choice, her responsibility.
"There was a case in Virginia where a 19 year woman was brutually raped and left for dead. She survived, but became pregnant and because of her religious upbringing could not morally bring herself to have an abortion or give it up for adoption. The rapist did jail time, but was also made to pay child support and had no parental rights.
There was a thread on POF forums not too long ago about a rapist being forced to pay child support..........and did the men on the POF forums complain about that, saying that jail time should have been enough.""
Frankly I would say that rapists deserve death. But if they are not killed, then I see nothing wrong with them paying child support in such a case as in this scenario. Once you commit such an foul act as rape, you give up all normal rights (such as the right to liberty since you get jailed) so I see no reason why they shouldn't be forced to pay child support as well.
| |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 1:33:00 PM | This is a simple scenario with simple and fair solutions.
100 % agree. Let's look at it.
"Should Jack be allowed to change his mind?"
Not solely on his whim. Sperm donors are not allowed to see their children at their whim, likewise Jack.
I'll simply correct durandal26 and say that he is entitled to his "change of heart", BUT, that does not give him the right to see the child.
The child is only half his DNA, and he forfeited all responsibilities, obligations, and therefore, priveleges to the child.
I do not think that he should be able to impose his will, or desire, upon the mother, or the child.
I would defend both the mother's desire, and the child's, without any justification necessary, if either, or both did not want to allow the "father"(sic) to attempt contact.
However, IF Jack and Jill can mutually agree to change the decision, AND Jack is willing to pay all the back child support that he would have paid had he not signed away his parental rights and responsibilities, then he should be allowed to change his mind.
I agree in principle that he SHOULD pay half of all costs burdended on the mother.
That would be fair. And I would hope that he would. I think it would be wrong if he didn't.
However, I would leave that decision up to the sole discretion of the mother.
"Is it reasonable to think that a "father" could walk in (and out) of a child's life whenever he feels like it? "
No, it is not reasonable at all.
"And what about the mother or Jill in this case - if she exerts her sole parental right and refuses the visit, she now has to live with her decision, a decision which by all accounts (and in my opinion) can be as difficult to make than her original decision to keep the child in the first place."
I would hope that it wouldn't be difficult for her. I would hope that she had already reconciled it objectively in her mind.
"I'm really having a problem with the privacy factor ....unlike a closed adoption, the father "giving his child for adoption" still knows the name and whereabouts of the mother - how could we ensure the peace/safety/privacy of mother and child should a father become distraught and start pleading/demanding/ threatening to see his child??"
As far as the law is concerned, it should be made that unless he goes through a legal process where he adopts the child, he has no rights or priveleges to approach the child.
Once you have sex it is taken out of your "hands" and quite frankly in my opinion if you don't want children take precautions or avoid sex altogether.
Really?
If you (as a woman) are having consentual sex with a man and you simply say "no", or "stop", He is REQUIRED to abide by your wish, and respect your right to do so.
If he forces his will upon you, he will be charged with rape, and imprisoned.
All a woman has to do is "change" her mind, even though she had agreed to have sex, and was understood the ramifications of that consent.
Men must obey, and have a woman's will supercede theirs.
Again, it's all about a woman's prerogative to be entitled to change her mind....
| |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 1:34:07 PM | In the case of adoption, new legislation may eventually come that both biological parents have to pay child support, but no parental rights. After all, the adoptive parents are providing a home, their time and hopefully a nurturing environment. I just wanted to point out the numerous grandparents in North America who are raising their grandchildren without the financial support of the biological parents.
As for abortion, there are still many people who think it is murder, but because the procedure is done by a medical doctor....the government says it's o.k. and so there are many who agree with that analogy as well. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 1:39:32 PM |
In the case of adoption, new legislation may eventually come that both biological parents have to pay child support .... I just wanted to point out the numerous grandparents in North America who are raising their grandchildren without the financial support of the biological parents
That seems fair to me; there are far too many women who also dump their kids off and they should most certainly also be held financially responsible for their behavior, even if we can't ensure they'll actually parent the kids. Kids shouldn't be the ones who have to suffer for the stupidity/laziness/selfishness of their parents, mom or dad. The less the government (and responsible adults) have to pay for the behavior of the irresponsible among us, the better off we'll all be, in my opinion. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 2:18:57 PM |
Any other questions?
Why? So I can be given more inane "simple and fair solutions" to what is far from being simple??
No thanks.
You're a misandrist
I do have a comment however... it makes one look ignorant when it's clear one knows not what he speaks of.
Come to think of it, I do have a question after all.
Parental RIGHTS and parental RESPONSIBILITIES go hand in hand. Jack should not be allowed to pick only the rights but not the responsibilities.
Are you saying that the millions (yes millions) of parents (notice how I kept it gender neutral) who do not pay child support should be denied visitation/access to their children and that in turn, those children should be denied the opportunity to know/have a relationship with their parent??
PS: I am ( along with my ex) one of those grand-parents who are raising their grand-child...I admit I have to work extra hard to remain objective but most, if not all, of my opinions about this were formed long before she came into my life..."she" being a living and breathing consequence of what's being discussed right here. And I invite those who think that anything about her/her life is easy OR simple to walk one mile in her shoes...
...............
| |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 2:30:01 PM | Are you saying that the millions (yes millions) of parents (notice how I kept it gender neutral) who do not pay child support should be denied visitation/access to their children and that in turn, those children should be denied the opportunity to know/have a relationship with their parent??
That's two scenarios.
Scenario 1- If a "parent" wants the privelege of a relationship with that child, I suggested that he/she should have to go through an adoption process (which would require back CS) as a formal request to be reinstated as a "parent", based on the acceptance (depending on the age of the child) of the legal parent. After that, I think the discretion of what the relationship would entail would be upon what the parent and child would allow.
Scenario 2- The child should be allowed to exercise it's right to free will, and associate with whomever (depending on the age of the child). | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 2:59:30 PM | Some woman use this
ability{to get pregnant} ,to snag a guy,to get out of work,to get even, the list is endless.)
Spark, last time I checked it takes "a man & a woman" BOTH to have sex & a woman to get pregnant. So you think these women are just trying to "snag" you because your such a wonderful catch? Palease & yes women do have the last say so in whatever they want to do because it is their bodies. If she wont let you see your child, it's in the courts hands & knock it off with the drama, get yourself a good attourney, start picking better quality women, & it's called a condom, start wearing one if you don't want to deal with this. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 3:46:55 PM |
Scenario 2- The child should be allowed to exercise it's right to free will, and associate with whomever (depending on the age of the child).
Perhaps I didn't word my question right (it's the french that takes over when I'm tired)...let me try again...the poster I quoted said that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Meaning that if one wants the right to the child, they should also help support that child.
Yet on many threads on the single parents forum, (mostly) women are bashed relentlessly by (mostly) men for even suggesting that the two = access + child support are even remotely related. The (mostly) men call the (mostly) women everything from cold hearted manipulative evil golddigging biatches and go on to accuse them of things more sinister such as parental alienation syndrome for even DARING to bring up the word support (responsibility) in the same sentence as access (rights).
So my question is...should the millions of parents (forget Jill) who are NOT receiving child support for the children that were planned/wanted by BOTH parents but who for one reason or another are no longer together, DENY access/visitation to the other (non-paying) parent???
As far as the free will of a child...a baby or young child cannot make an informed and rational decision...should all children younger than 12 then be denied access to their other parent if said parent does not/cannot pay child support? Do you (not you specifically) have any idea how many parents do NOT pay child support and how many children (and parents) would be affected if this was enforced?
I've said it before and I'll say it again...I despise hypocrisy ...here we have (some) men screaming bloody murder about "men's rights" and indiscriminately accusing women of misandry and hypocrisy yet at the flip of a switch (and whenever it suits their agenda), they start speaking from both sides of their mouth. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 9:16:51 PM | [Yes. I would have given up my rights to exercise free will. The woman is capable of imposing her will on mine.
How would you feel if man imposed his will on you? And the law supported it]
You DO exercise free will, with knowledge of the consequence, when you remove your pants. I am not negating your feelings. I am, however, defending the position that both parties involved in the making of another human being are equally responsible for that child. For many years, men did impose their will on women, at least those to whom they were wed. Wives were property. Laws can be changed. Seeking to absolve a party to an action, the consequences of which are known prior to engaging in the activity, of their responsibilities is not comparable.
The need to argue in defense of those who are in fact, "wronged", or "duped" is valid. To assume, however, that ALL unplanned pregnancies are the result of some form of "malice aforethought" by those whose gender gives them the "power" to do so, is immature, illogical, and speaks not to the problem at hand. Furthermore, it gives credence to the argument that those with poor judgment bear the consequences.
[That's a strawman.
The strawman being that it is NOT a forgone conclusion that a baby WILL result.
The man doesn't "make" a life. The woman does. If SHE chooses NOT to, there will be NO baby.
The man is NOT given a choice.
Sexist double standard.]
I have no idea why you so in love with the "strawman" term, which assumes questionable activity, and has nothing at all to with the fact that it is not unreasonable to assume that pregnancy can result from sex. Sure, there are women who lie about the use of contraceptives, just as surely as there are men who lie about having had a vasectomy. That is another reason to exercise good judgment when picking a sexual partner. No woman makes a life alone, it takes two; statements to the contrary are ignorant. A women doesn't choose not to make a life a life, she has a choice whether or not to end one, or if one adheres to that notion that "life" doesn't begin until a certain number of weeks, not to give birth. I never said pregnancy was a forgone conclusion, but the risk of such IS, and both parties do indeed have a choice. The importance of the RISK to either party is the deciding factor as to the degree to which either party is responsible tol go in making their CHOICE to prevent having to deal with the consequence. That is logic, not based on emotion. Not a double standard and not sexist either, merely a timing & biological difference.
[You're building that "fool" strawman on a scenario that "nothing" was taken as a precaution.
The "fool" in your strawman could be EITHER the man or the woman.
You would consider them BOTH fools. That's redundant.
The reality is that your strawman is not only presuming, but entirely MOOT.
It doesn't change the fact, that even if BOTH the man and woman were careless, neglectful, the WOMAN has the free will to opt OUT from an unwanted pregnancy from occurring, and a baby being brought into the world and the man does not.]
You are correct in that my statement was intended, and plainly so, to those who exercised poor judgment. If you were "tricked", then you are a fool in your judgment of character, and as such, bear the consequence, regardless of gender. If you and your partner both did not feel you wanted to deal with the responsibility of caring for another person, and tried to prevent it, but it was an accident, then you both bear the consequence. At that point, yes, the final choice is hers, by biology alone. In that case, it is something to be worked out together, but there is a still a responsibility, and a consequence, more so on the woman, either way. Strange that you would assert your right to IMPOSE YOUR WILL on her. You'll never experience giving birth nor aborting a fetus; sexist double standard?
In any case:
[The fool is the one who is stuck in a situation they had no desire to be in, yet did nothing to protect themselves.] is not scenario building, it is a statement, and it is truthful.
[It is "telling" in that it is an overused method of arguing when one is incapable of winning the debate on a point, or topic.
We are talking about A, you talk about B and claim that it proves A is wrong.]
It is telling in that is assumes questionable activity. I have never assumed that either party involved in a sexual relationship is doing do in order to ruin the life of the other party; you have! If that is "A", then I certainly prefer "B", a discussion of what actually occurs in the real world the majority of the time.
[The woman has free will to prevent a baby becoming born as a result.
The man does not have free will to prevent a baby becoming born as a result.]
You continue to argue with me, but you fail to argue the POINT. I have no personal agenda here; I am both "fixed" and postmenopausal! It's not about a baby being born, especially for the man, who, I agree does not the choice to bear children. He does, however, have a choice in creating a baby, and he has a say in that. The point isn't a child being born, it's MAKING a child, The degree of importance to which one gives this point is directly related to their responsibility to either prevent or make it happen.
There are many differences between the genders; this issue is simply one of them. Individuals are each responsible for prioritizing, and in doing so, they are compelled to make choices, the consequences of which they are compelled to live with. One's bitterness toward the perceived "upper hand" given to another by virtue of gender, race, IQ, whatever, doesn't change that fact.
Given that this is an emotional issue for many, I'll ignore your immature comments directed toward me as if this were a contest of sorts, but it really is a pretty simple argument, as far as logic would dictate. When one takes the six year old mentality of "but, it's not fair!" out of the equation, it's pretty clear that everyone has a choice. The choices to be made differ as to timing, depending on your gender, but they remain choices, and like all other choices, when made logically, are done so based on priorities. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 9:20:10 PM | | Oh Jees, OP. It's guys like you that make life so hard for guys like me. You obviously harbor a deep, abiding hatred for women due to some bad experience you've had. This is just a self-pity thread. | |
|
| |
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 12:23:28 AM |
but it really is a pretty simple argument, as far as logic would dictate.
I'm quite pleased about the logic I put forth.
When one takes the When one takes the six year old mentality of "but, it's not fair!"
The overwhelming majority of " six year old mentality" in this thread has been "but, it's not fair! You should keep "it" in your pants!!".
Which is quite ironic, as they all seem to want "it" inside them and are AS willing to take the chance of a pregnancy.
Why aren't they running at the sight of "it"? 
I'll spare you my analysis....
You continue to argue with me, but you fail to argue the POINT.
Your opinions on what I do accomplish, or don't accomplish, are of no interest to me, other than my amusement.
I'm as pleased with my posts as you appear to be with yours. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 12:25:21 AM |
Men who get a woman pregnant and do not wish to be a father are deadbeats. Women who get pregnant and do not wish to be mothers are pro-choice.
The hypocrisy and entitlement is undeniable.
When a woman give s a child up to adoption she 's giving it up toTWO ABLE PARENTS.
When a man leaves a woman to support a child on her own he's leaving his child to a WOMAN ON HER OWN IN THE WORLD.
I assure you there is NO COMPARISON AT ALL.
Men can be heartless and selfish............beyond belief. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 12:28:46 AM | The truth is...
nothing matters to some men
until it matters to them
that is the essence of their selfish reason
and they feel no shame
because all they see is their own reflection on reality
nobody else is in the picture
they cannot fathom anyone else having a valid place there | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 12:32:54 AM | Your right Britt, it's not over yet!!
Most men would like a return of the old ways.....when they could hump every woman within eye and earshot and take no responsibility for unplanned children. There were hundreds of orphanges in the 1930's throughout North America that were funded and run by the state, all full of children that weren't wanted by their fathers. Mothers were lucky to acquire any kind of gainful employment of which they could barely afford to support themselves, let alone a child or 2. Women were expected to work for less than 70% of what men earned. Men, pretty much had no respect for the work a woman did in the home and placed no value on it. The attitude still prevails to this day, because it was unpaid labor within a marriage.
Now in 2009, if a man chooses not to be a father..........you will be expected to have an abortion or give it up for adoption. Not much has changed, men still expect women to take ALL the responsibility.
So the next time a man expects you to take your panties off for him......remember the man's motto.
HER BODY, A PREGNANCY WILL ALSO BE HER PROBLEM. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 1:00:34 AM |
When a woman give s a child up to adoption she 's giving it up toTWO ABLE PARENTS.
It doesn't change the fact that the WOMAN does have the RIGHT to walk away from the consequence of her not "keeping it in her pants".
When a man leaves a woman to support a child on her own he's leaving his child to a WOMAN ON HER OWN IN THE WORLD.
But a MAN should not have the same RIGHT to walk away from the consequence of him not "keeping it in his pants"?
I assure you there is NO COMPARISON AT ALL.
If she doesn't want the baby either, then she can walk away without any threat from being extorted for child support, for a baby that she aided in creating.
Men can be heartless and selfish............beyond belief.
So can women.
Your point is totally moot.
The truth is...
nothing matters to some men
until it matters to them
that is the essence of their selfish reason
and they feel no shame
because all they see is their own reflection on reality
nobody else is in the picture
they cannot fathom anyone else having a valid place there
Is this where we begin exchanging diatribes against the opposite gender? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 1:21:35 AM | | I have a solution. Let's raise everybody's taxes by an equal 25%, and spend all the money raised to provide every woman with free morning after pills, and every man with free condoms. Then everyone can pay equally through the nose, and take equal responsibility for protecting his/her civil right to not become a parent. It would settle the matter once, and for all, and make for fewer unwanted babies, and thus lower welfare costs. Of course, there would be a lowering of the population, meaning fewer future taxpyers, meaning regular tax increases for the few taxpayers there are. Who is willing to take this approach, and support a bill in congress to make it law? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 4:17:09 AM | Strange that you would assert your right to IMPOSE YOUR WILL on her. You'll never experience giving birth nor aborting a fetus
Women claim that getting an abortion is a painful and traumatic procedure and that since it's not their body and men don't have to experience it, they should have no say in whether it should take place. But the alternative to abortion is childbirth. How do you expect us to believe that pushing an object the size of a watermelon out of your body is less painful and traumatic than a minimally invasive surgical procedure?
Early-term surgical abortion is a simple procedure which is safer than childbirth when performed before the 21th week. Women typically experience minor pain during first-trimester abortion procedures. In a 1979 study of 2,299 patients, 97% reported experiencing some degree of pain. Patients rated the pain as being less than earache or toothache, but more than headache or backache.[38] Local and general anesthetics are used during surgical procedures.
Source is Wikipedia | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 4:37:54 AM |
It's a CARTOON, a simplistic representation of a complex and emotional topic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
False. It is a cartoon that presents A VALID LOGICAL POINT. That is what we are arguing, not the cartoon itself.
False. It's a CARTOON that presents an invalid, illogical, slanted point to push or promote a specific agenda.
As it happens, if a woman birthed a child and then walked away, she'd be just as vilifed as the deadbeat father.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a lie, nothing more. Women who birth a child then give them up for adoption do just that.
False again. You are deliberately mixing apples and oranges. A woman who gives birth to a child and who walks away = ABANDONS her child is not only as vilified, she is normally MORE vilified than the millions of men who walk away en masse everyday. That is not a lie, it's a FACT.
The simple fact that a woman does not have custody of her children, for whatever reasons, and regardless if she sees and support them or not, is reason enough for her to be vilified - not just a verifiable FACT, but a double standard that has ALWAYS existed and that is still strong today.
And unless you have personally known at least one woman who placed her child for adoption without giving it a second thought or as easily as one gives a discarded pair of shoes, I am going to ask you to THINK before you speak as it's obvious that you have NO clue of that which you speak of.
No one has yet responded to the point because there is no valid response.
False again. I don't know about others but the reason that *I* didn't respond earlier is because I normally ignore ignorance - to attempt to pass what amounts to hateful propaganda as worthy of (this) discussion IS ignorance.
men should not be held responsible for biological design. Women are the ones who become pregnant, yes. That is not the fault of men and they should not suffer for that.
I agree that no should be held responsible for our biological design/differences. Yet in the very next breath, you go on an off-topic rant about the plight of men at war/ being drafted because of their biological differences.
The comments about history and how in the past women were opppressed, are 100% irrelevant.
And your fallacious (ie: appeal to emotion for one) tangent about how war/drafting "can be physically or emotionally harmful / traumatizing for the men" is relevant to this topic HOW?
The hypocrisy and entitlement is undeniable.
Haha. Good one!
| |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 7:01:15 AM |
A woman who gives birth to a child and who walks away = ABANDONS her child is not only as vilified, she is normally MORE vilified than the millions of men who walk away en masse everyday. That is not a lie, it's a FACT.
What women? Really, I have no idea what you're talking about.
We've heard plenty about "deadbeat dads", but there's no equivalent term for all those supposedly vilified abandoning moms you're claiming exist. What is it?
In many states women who abandon their newborns are not vilified by accomodated. For example, to prevent them, when they have a change of heart about having given birth, from leaving them in a dumpster, they can now drop them off at any fire or police station -- no questions asked.
It's not like their names are collected and their pictures posted on milk cartons and pizza boxes, as is done for non-custodial parents in arrears, in sortofa 10-most-wanted sort of publin manhunt, which is the practice in some states.
So I just don't see the "she is normally MORE vilified" claim playing out in the least, and can't understand why you're portraying women who give up their newborn to adoption are somehow heavily victimized, because I don't think they are.
If anything, I'd say not enough women are choosing to "abandon" their newborns in spite of the fact that it is single motherhood which is highly vilified in some circles. For many men who become accidentally pregnant, the child ending up in someone else's custody other than the mom's would relieve them of child support obligations and might be preferable (seeing as how selfish men are), so it's not like they're going to be part of your hypothetical vilifying community. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 7:29:22 AM |
(pro-filer) Yup, 50 years ago when it was the man's choice whether a woman could even use birth control, when it was his choice as to whether he'd stay around and support the kids he fathered, when there was no consequences to HIM for the kids he made - when all the adverse affects landed on the women and kids - that's when government stepped in and took away all those "choices" from men. Not likely you're going to get that power back any time soon.
I knew it was gonna come down to this sooner or later: "Our grandfathers oppressed our grandmothers, so it's perfectly okay to play eye-for-an-eye!"
Thanks for at least speaking plainly.
Binroe  | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 7:39:02 AM |
(.Razzle.) Most men would like a return of the old ways.....when they could hump every woman within eye and earshot and take no responsibility for unplanned children.
*chuckle* You make it sound as if guys skipping out on women was endemic, and ALWAYS happened, with the same frequency as it does today, and that but for the intervention of "da gov't", all men would just knock up random chicks and skip gaily away.
Tweren't so. I'd sue your history profs for crippling your knowledge, but that's just me...
Binroe | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 7:57:44 AM |
I knew it was gonna come down to this sooner or later: "Our grandfathers oppressed our grandmothers, so it's perfectly okay to play eye-for-an-eye!"
When men are still saying, as they did 50, 100 or 500 years ago - "You're pregnant with my child? I'm not ready to be a father, so that's your problem, not mine" - I see no foul in reminding them that they really haven't changed since the days when they had all choices when it came to sex and parenthood. Maybe when men demonstrate an actual change of thought pattern, women will stop being reminded of the reasons why they sought freedom from men's authority.
Disclaimer: I don't believe all men are selfish/uncaring, or aren't willing to take responsibility for their actions. I don't believe all women are always motivated by altruism, never abandon their children and can't behave as irresponsibily and as uncaringly as any man. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
16
of
54 (14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54)
|
|
Home
login 
