|
|
|
|
|
| | are women playing GOD when they become pregnantPage 31 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) | One should ALWAYS abide by the law! You just have to choose which law. Remember child support lasts 18 years, manslaughter and your out in 6 or 7!! | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/17/2009 10:33:01 PM | Seriously, I can understand to a certain extent where some of the gentlemen here are comng from...but then there are some who are being WAAY over simplistic.
Too many women are going off on tangents, and trying to escape the human rights issue here, to suit their biased agenda.
Still wish I had some of those lamb castration bands....
Are you suggesting males deserve to have their genitals and reproductive systems mutilated because they want equal rights?
If that's not completely misandrist, and hatred, I don't know what is.
That's stooping to an all new low.
Congratulations.
first things first...let me be the first ot offer my condolences on the demise of your sense of humor.
Only those devoid of a sense of humor fail to see sarcasm when they see it. Precisely. My comments were largely inspired by one poster, who doesn't even HAVE a uterus, telling us that an abortion is as easy, routine and painless as having a tooth pulled. How the HELL would he know? He certainly did not mention being a gynecologist or a RN working in the OB/GYN field.
I have no hatred of anyone by gender, race or age.The only thing I hate is stupidity and/ or mindless selfcenteredness.
The issue is stop blaming men, and start giving better blowjobs.
then I suggest that men should be getting out their wallets and paying women who actually PREFER giving bjs...the PROS. Most average, everyday healthy women see sex as an exercise of mutual gratification and pleasure, ideally as a way to express love within the framework of a loving or at least AFFECTIONATE relationship. Bjs are something she does out of a desire to give special pleasure to a special man, not just any guy that's been on 2 dates with her and thinks he's entitled to get his rocks off because he bought her a drink or a meal.
then don't f*ck fertile women.
It ain't rocket science.
Why don't they just swallow instead of letting them to bust inside their vaginas?
It ain't rocket science.
I like option 1 better ~ that way you can have both Win, win
But this would be a terrible travesty...it's supposed to be "lose-lose" for these evil conniving women who are lurking waiting to trap some poor guy into a "lifetime obligation"...Hello? Even in failed marriages, child support generally is only required until the child reaches age 18. I can't think WHY a non spousal male parent would be subjected to a longer term of responsibility.
heard about women who trick guys into having sex with them, get pregnant, then file a lawsuit in court to get child support from the guy. Then the women use the money to use jewerly, tv, dvd, clothes, etc. The guy has to pay for it the woman's lifestyle the rest of his wife even if you gets another man or gets a husband. So she gets two or more men to pay for kid, bills and everything. Men do get the shaft most the time. I am never having kids. Then are you prepared to either have a sterilization procedure, or to confine your sexual activities to Mrs Palm and her girls...or trying to locate women who are willing to do blowjobs and forego her own desire for sexual pleasure? Good luck with that.
Child Support is money used/spent for the support of the child, not the woman/mother.
In the context of a pregnancy that occurs in a nonmarital situation, think of it as being of the same nature as taking financial responsibility for a traffic accident that you were 50% at fault in. (That's not a perfect analogy but it's the best I can do on short notice.)
If it was really child support, it would follow the child when it was put up for adoption, or put in foster care, but that doesn't happen. And there are also many situations where, with a woman who is financially able to care for a child without having to request assistance from some social service entity, that NOTHING is asked of the man. And women DO chose to have a child by AI, or even the FUN way...without asking for child support.
Wrong. Verityone was correct when he said child support is about money and correct in saying that the money in question is for the woman.
The money goes toward the woman, is collected by the woman, is demanded by the woman, and the woman decides how it is spent.
True enough, the money is supposed to be used by the woman to spend on the child. And usually that is the case. But the fact remains the money goes to the woman, not the child.
So, gentlemen, become activists for legislation dictating that child support funds be handled by a 3rd party. Or maybe any single parent who finds it necessary to request financial assistance in raising a child should have that child taken away and put under care of the state...so that the parent "forced" to pay child support can rest assured that the child's other parent isn't lounging in luxury on their hard earned dime?
Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.
This would be absolutely ideal...unless you can prove adequate education and sufficiently gainful employment...YOU DON'T GET TO F*CK. If an unlicensed person or persons participate in the conception of a child, the child goes into state care and the parents go to jail. Boy howdy I bet sex would quit being a "need", real fast. I don't think abortions should be forced on the undereducated and poor, I think the undereducated and poor should be denied the privilege of having sex, period.
Well, is this any more off the wall than some of the other posts to this benighted thread?
Do you feel that men who stay at home to take care of the kids deserve alimony payment when the wife initiates a divorce?
Yes, of course they should. I for one am not going to sit here and say that there are not injustices in the whole "best interests of the child(ren)" scenario. Probably the employed mom could afford better legal services than the stay at home dad. I spent a few years as a social work tech back in the mid 70s, don't EVEN try to tell me that working fathers didn't pull the exact same shit on their kids' stay at home mothers...empty the bank account, so she had to come begging a social service agency for GROCERIES, fer gawds sake...while she was put in touch with the welfare office and Legal Aid. Some judges will make every effort in divorce/child custody cases to make sure that the best interest of the state budget is served, child custody/support issues will be decided on the basis of the least potential for expense to the State. In the case of the stay at home Mr Mom, the wife got custody beause she had a J.O.B..had the court awarded custody to the unemployed Dad, the state would have to be cutting a welfare check. And I won't argue that there might have been some bias,as well. Lawyers, judges and social workers are human and exposed to social conditioning and cultural "norms".
Mature responsible persons, of either gender, do not bring a child into the world, imposing great responsibility upon themselves, merely to collect a check. ABSOFREAKINLUTELY. But you have to BE a mature responsible person to grasp that.
Remember child support lasts 18 years, manslaughter and your out in 6 or 7!!
I'm going to look at this as being primarily an attempt at humor...except I'm not so sure it's funny. There have been some very tragic high profile cases where men who did not want to be fathers' murdered their unborn child AND the child's mother. You remember the Lacey Peterson comedy? I don't think Scot Peterson is gonna get out in 6 or 7,do you?
Right state, right prosecutor, your idea of evading child support could get you the(richly deserved) needle, pal.
Here in MI, a guy who thought he was gonna beat a rape charge by throwing the witness into a lake, chained to a couple of cinder blocks,got the DEATH PENALTY. Even though MI doesn't execute people, the lake he threw her in was on FEDERAL forest property...yeah...UH OH.
Cindy O | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/17/2009 11:16:13 PM | | crumble....did your daddy abandon you, and blame your mommy for making it impossible for him to stay around? It sounds like it. Laws being changed won't work. People don't obey the laws we now have. Kids do not deserve loving families, or anything else. All anyone DESERVES is death. All else is an undeserved blessing, or curse, bestowed at whim by someone else. In most cases, kids are better off not being dead, so as long as they are alive they have it better than they could have if they weren't alive. If mommy can't get along with daddy, there can be no family, and a kid is better off growing up with one parent who loves it than he/she is growing up with two parents who hate each other, and who also come to hate the kid who ruined their lives. The parent who is raising the kid should have most of the responsibility for it, but must-under current law-share the kid, and the responsibility/cost even with the non-custodial parent. The only way one parent gets sole custody is if the other parent proves a threat to the kid, and/or the other parent,or in some other way is proven to be unfit. If daddy chooses to be unfit, that is his fault...not mommy's. If parents have joint custody, but daddy just doesn't bother coming around, and visiting, that is daddy's fault; not mommy's. If Mommy says daddy can't come around, and daddy is not under court order to stay away, daddy can go to the courts/cops to force mommy to let him come around. If your daddy didn't bother using the legal recourses open to him, that is his fault. If a man makes a baby with a woman he should be as responsible for seeing to the child's needs as is the mother, whether he is in the household or not. He helped bring the kid into the world, and should help the kid reach adulthood. If he doesn't want to pay child support for 19 years, he should choose to not make a child to support. That is logic, and fairness, and the law. There is no reason to change it. Changing the current laws would only hurt mothers, and children, to benefit dead-beat dads. How would that be fair, or moral? It wouldn't. Think with your brain, rather than with your balls. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/17/2009 11:33:37 PM | @acuddler
Are you seriously trying to debate me with ad hominems? come on, get a little back bone to your arguments, if you're going to make one, attack the ideas not the person delivering them, else you're just trying to propetuate ignorance. Not that this needs to be said, but you totally missed the mark on me.
there's no logic and fairness in the current laws. they HAD logic and fairness, they're old laws.
An unfit parent is someone who would risk their childs well-being for their own gain, plain and simple, if the mother is having a baby for religious views, its for her own gain, if shes having it because she wants a child, regardless of the fathers possition, its her own gain. selfish parents are unfit parents. you can't denie that fact, which should in the eyes of the law, give the choice of the childs fate to the parent who hasn't disregaurded a childs life and the life of one of their peers for their own. ultimatly women and men should make the choice togeather, but when it comes to women who feels they should be god and choose the fate of a child and a man, law enforcement should be there to protect both of them. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 12:21:20 AM |
there's no logic and fairness in the current laws. they HAD logic and fairness, they're old laws.
When you are dealing with human beings, unfortunately sometimes there is just no way to MAKE things be completely logical and fair.
Bottom line, if men are afraid that sex is gonna saddle them with a financial responsibility for a child, then they can either do without sex, submit themselves to a sterilization procedure, or have sex in some way that there is no risk of pregnancy....nope, blowjobs are out, didn't you see the post about the guy who had some woman save his sperm from a bj, had herself impregnated, and then nailed him for child support? Hmmm...could be you guys are pretty much-well...screwed, as it were.
You wanna talk about gain? Why in the world do men stick their penises in women's vaginas anyway? Well, could it be to GAIN pleasure? Gee, ya THINK!?
You want law enforcement to protect men and children from the children's mothers? WTF?
Bottom line remains, if you are so damn terrified of being victimized by a scheming woman, there are several courses of action open to you. Abstinence. Sterilization. Find a woman you can trust to give you a bj and and NOT save your sperm for future impregnation-here's a hint, get out your wallet and hope to GAWD she's not an undercover female law enforcement officer. Or switch teams. ( Hell, any time a woman voices a complaint about men, there are always several voices suggesting she turn gay...or do women not have the same privilege to be rancorous and snide? )
they HAD logic and fairness, they're old laws.
Oh, you mean the ones where a man could have sex with a woman and shrug his shoulders and walk away from any responsibility if a pregnancy occurred? The ones where women couldn't vote or own property, the ones where a woman could be raped and beaten by her husband, with NO legal protection?
Oh yeah I BET you thought those were FINE laws.
Gawd, the damage, the anger, the resentment and even hatred of women that keeps cropping up in so many of these forums. I'm sure glad I had the opportunity to experience many years of being loved and respected myself, to see the long and stable marriages of my siblings, otherwise I think I'd just completely ditch the idea of finding another partner for however much time I have left to go. As it is, I've come to realize that it might not happen...if I have to choose living solo OR being with a resentful, damaged, headf*cked male with a long history of failed relationships, I gotta tell you, living solo REALLY starts looking mighty appealing.
Yeah, I get pissed off sometimes in these forums, but it's not because I feel personally disappointed or shortchanged. I just can't believe how incredibly screwed up people can be sometimes. I GET that many feel themselves hard done by, and I'm certain that in quite a few cases they really were. But at some point...and this is not just directed at men, it's directed at PEOPLE who can't seem to pull up their socks and get the hell OVER themselves.
Cindy O | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 2:14:04 AM | | crumble...and a man who wants to abort a fetus, just so he doesn't have to pay child support is...unselfishly seeing to the good of the unborn child for no gain of his own? Not by any logic I know. I wasn't attacking you. I was trying to understand where you are coming from, and why this all matters to you so much. I took a wild guess, and was either right, or wrong. Since you didn't, really, deny it I will assume I was right. Women and men should-and do-make decisions together about the fate of a child...WHEN both the man, and woman, equally support the child. A dead-beat dad who gives no support to the child should have no say in the child's fate. Do you agree with that, or not? A man who does not support his child should not be able to say: whether the child is born, or aborted; where the child goes to school; where the child lives; whether the child is given up for adoption; or anything else. If you feel otherwise, say what you feel, and why. Be specific, rather than generally vague. I still don't know, for sure, what you are for, or against, because you don't say. You parrot vaguely simplistic platitudes without any defining statement. Are you upset that some woman gave your kid up for adoption without your approval? Are you bugged because some dame dared to have your baby when you wanted her to abort it? Are you angry because your ex is sending your kid to private school, rather than public school, and sticking you with half the bill? I don't know, because you don't say. As such, I have to guess. If I guess wrong, that is your fault for being so vague. Grow some balls, and say what you mean and why you mean it. You sound like one of those paranoids who just don't like women having any say in anything...or like one of the dead-beat dads who wanted a fetus aborted, and are upset that because it wasn't aborted, they are stuck paying child support fo r 18 years, or so. If that is NOT what you are about say what you ARE about. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 2:25:13 AM | | durandal26 Almost no one-male,or female-gets alimony these days. Women recieve Child Support money which is supposed to go to the care of the child. If you can prove mommy is spending the child support money you send for the child on her own hair-dos, movie rentals, etc, rather than on food, clothes, medical care, etc for the kid, you can take the neglectful B to court, and get her thrown in prison for fraud, and theft. Single dads who stay at home to care for kids they have custody of should recieve child support-not alimony-from absent moms. If they had decent lawyers they would get such. Whose fault is it if you are a cheapskate who hires a lousy attorney? I'd say yours. If you save a couple of hundred on attorney's fees, and it costs you tens of thousands in lost support you don't recieve, that is your own fault. The courts protect them who protect themselves. If you make no effort in court to stand up for yourself, the court won't stand up for you either. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 4:51:45 AM | Get up to speed here acrumble, many men pay and have no say in where they are schooled, what they eat, or how they are raised. It's obvious that you have never been in any scenario that fits this thread. Very easy to throw opinions in but much different for a younger gent who now faces these current scenario's.
You're old what riskd are you facing? none. Many of the posters here have been wronged by the system or risk being wronged.
Women aren't women anymore, thay want to be like men. We are slowly losing touch with our base instincts yet women seem to use them as a fallback position when things get tough.
I believe the other poster is correct in that many of these laws do not protect children at all, we do not live in a society that can guarantee education and and a shot at a decent life anymore. That woman may be on to something with her statement of not bringing a life into this world that one cannot provide for or nurture.
So the current laws for the rights of children are being superceded by the rights of women at the expense of men and children.
The sixties may have brought about free love but hasn't prepared any of us for it. Our edecation system uses abstinence as a platform, our government doesn't wish to fund prevention and the coffers are running dry.
It's no wonder they have their eye on the boomers, they are trying to milk them for all they can for the days of splendor they enjoyed are no longer with us. The only thing that has survived is the sense of entitlement and it seems men are the only ones that realize they are gone. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:21:21 AM |
It's obvious that you have never been in any scenario that fits this thread
Funny how, if someone who has been in the scenario or is intimately familiar with the scenario have their opinions and experience also blithely dismissed if it doesn't happen to fit your agenda.
Many of the posters here have been wronged by the system or risk being wronged
Yup, bitterness makes for great objectivity.
We are slowly losing touch with our base instincts
Men are still in touch with their basic instinct of "it's all about me, and I'm a victim!". In other threads, for instance, paternity fraud is a big topic - why should a man have to pay for a kid he didn't father, when the biatch of a woman screwed around on him? Why shouldn't the bio father be made to pay? - valid question, but then you come to this thread and the "bio father" is saying "I shouldn't have to pay!". Go to the single parents forum and the NCP fathers are saying "I shouldn't have to pay because she's spending the money on herself, she's got a new boyfriend/husband and he's paying; I don't get enough input/visitation." Men who've raised kids for years, loved them and nurtured them, once the relationship with the woman ends, seem to have no trouble suddenly discovering they no longer want the responsibility of fatherhood. As far as I can tell, men's rights start and stop with "Don't make me responsible for my own sperm".
The only thing that has survived is the sense of entitlement and it seems men are the only ones that realize they are gone.
Yup, men no longer are entitled to beat women, force sex, deny birth control or get away without paying for the kids they father. I don't blame you for missing all that. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:37:35 AM | The only thing that has survived is the sense of entitlement and it seems men are the only ones that realize they are gone.
Oh you mean the days when some men had the entitlement attitude that they didnt have to support the children they had a part in creating? The sense of entitlement to just walk away when most women didnt even have access to a safe alternative, because society (read men) didnt want women to have access to abortion because it went against their moral sensibilites, BUT apparently their moral sensibilities had no problem with men abandoning their children.
I find it highly ironic that these men are complaining about laws that were essentially created because entirely too many men were doing this so the lawmakers, who were mainly male, decided they didnt want to fork out their hardearned tax dollars to support the ****tards children. Its has always been and is still about the money, nothing about fact that the children were suffering from run away Dad's.
I also find it highly disapointing that very few men have come into this thread and advocated that men should be at the very least excercising some control over their sexual activity, just the usual suspects with their bull shit arguments about how apparently men are too stupid to be in control of their reproductive rights so women have to handle it for them, and then having the complete gall to whine that someone else didnt handle that responsibility to their satisfaction. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:55:17 AM | I figured it out. Gay sex. Women aren't involved so we don't have to deal with you all - you sleep with each other, have all the sex you want and no one gets pregnant and you don't have to be fixed!
You better stay in shape though, most of you won't get laid if you haven't been working out - gay men are way worse than women when it comes to being into looks.
Seriously, this thread is a lot of the reason why I never wanted children - it proves there are a lot of messed up people out there who shouldn't be parents anyway. Some scary personalities, and some really horrifying ideas. I think just reading it has sterilized me (which in my case is a plus).
Maybe this thread will scare all women who reading it into never wanting children if men like this are even out there. It might keep some women from leaving the house to buy groceries, lol. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:04:59 AM | I figured it out. Gay sex. Women aren't involved so we don't have to deal with you all - you sleep with each other, have all the sex you want and no one gets pregnant and you don't have to be fixed!
That's really not an option for most of us. Even though some of us may find some members of the same gender attractive, we would never actually want to have sex with them. My reasons are the fact that it's so easy to catch an STD engaging in homosexual activity and that I find the idea of anal sex rather disgusting. I would more likely become asexual and stay celibate the rest of my life. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:11:45 AM | ^^^I guess then you all should buy fleshlights in bulk, maybe you'll get a discount. Use those and have a good imagination. Beyond that, I'm all out of ideas.
The bottom line is that life is what it is. If you want it to change, organize an interest group and go talk to some politicians.
The options you have are what they are. Maybe they suck but acknowledging it won't do much good. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:31:03 AM |
Bottom line, if men are afraid that sex is gonna saddle them with a financial responsibility for a child, then they can either do without sex, submit themselves to a sterilization procedure, or have sex in some way that there is no risk of pregnancy....
...and right here is where the root of the problem lies. This clearly illustrates a commonly held notion that men are lesser beings in this area. Instead of asking women to carry the full burden of responsibility of the decisions that THEY ultimately make with THEIR bodies, it's tell the men to keep it in their pants.
As hard as it might be to have some woman decide to abort a fetus I helped create and would honestly raise on my own after birth...I accept that it IS her body and her choice to deliver or not. So...why is it so hard for you women to accept the responsibility that comes with that kind of decision??? Your body, your choice...your responsibility. Period. That's logic...that's reason in the very literal sense of the word...but here we are still debating the issue... | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:50:06 AM |
Instead of asking women to carry the full burden of responsibility of the decisions that THEY ultimately make with THEIR bodies, it's tell the men to keep it in their pants.
Instead of asking men to carry part of the responsiblity of the decisions that they ultimately made with they're bodies, it's to tell women to get an abortion.
Your body, your choice...your responsibility. Period. That's logic Your penis, your choice to have sex, your sperm created a baby. Your responsibility. That's logic.
This'll be my last post. Someone has suggested (in private) that maybe I'm less than smart to continue here and I think he's right.
I'll say this in closing: when two people are faced with an unwanted pregnancy, it's very difficult for both of them. Whoever makes the decision and whatever that decision is, someone pays. I have sympathy for the man who fears having his income attached for 20 years, the woman who feels abortion is the option she must choose even though it breaks her heart, and for the woman who feels she can do nothing else but raise her child regardless of support from the father; I have sympathy for the man who would have liked to be a father, but either abortion or adoption was the decision made. Nobody wins when pregnancy unintentionally occurs. I don't see that there is an answer that is really fair to everyone involved.
BP, I especially want to thank you - even though we disagreed, I felt we ultimately had a discussion that was honest and "real". Acuddler, thanks for not being a "sheeple".
Carry on, folks. :) | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:57:07 AM | ...and right here is where the root of the problem lies. This clearly illustrates a commonly held notion that men are lesser beings in this area. Instead of asking women to carry the full burden of responsibility of the decisions that THEY ultimately make with THEIR bodies, it's tell the men to keep it in their pants.
Aside from male and female (again) this is realistically the way to avoid what you don't want. Fair or not, this will work in achieving your goal. Someday it may be a different story but if you CAN avoid being a father and don't want to be, why wouldn't you?
The bottom line is you cannot control what all women do (just like women can't control what all men do) but you can PERSONALLY see to it that something you wan't doesn't happen if you're proactive based on the options that are available to you. What the options are may suck, but until you can change the laws your best bet is to protect yourself.
Women who don't want to be mothers ALSO have options to avoid pregnancy should they PERSONALLY be against it.
So assume to trust no women who tell you otherwise and protect yourself so that it's not possible there are any accidents that involve your DNA.
It's like saying you want to take nude pictures but it's not fair when they fall into the wrong hands. If you don't want pics in the wrong hands, don't take any...it guarantees it can't happen. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:59:37 AM |
Instead of asking men to carry part of the responsiblity of the decisions that they ultimately made with they're bodies, it's to tell women to get an abortion.
That's not true. Women as we know have all the power here and nobody is saying get an abortion or else, Miss Limbaugh. You're twisting words. It's about telling women that having the choice to deliver a baby or abort it is a big deal...but it IS their deal. Regardless of who they had sex with...if they can (and again...they CAN) decide over him whether or not he MUST be a parent in the emotional or financial sense is just as bad as him forcing her to abort...so why should this continue???
Your penis, your choice to have sex, your sperm created a baby. Your responsibility. That's logic.
Not if I can't get pregnant or choose to be a parent it isn't... | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 9:00:53 AM |
Your body, your choice...your responsibility. Period. That's logic...that's reason in the very literal sense of the word...
I agree - it's only logical - we are ALL responsible for the choices we make, REGARDLESS of when we make those choices.
To say that I am shocked (and disappointed) by some of the things I've read on this thread would be an understatement ...I never realised there were so many people - fully grown ADULTS - who were not willing or able to take/accept responsibility for their own lives. But what's truly shocking is to see those who are advocating it as the way it should be...I still can't wrap my head around that one.
| |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 9:00:54 AM |
...and right here is where the root of the problem lies. This clearly illustrates a commonly held notion that men are lesser beings in this area. Instead of asking women to carry the full burden of responsibility of the decisions that THEY ultimately make with THEIR bodies, it's tell the men to keep it in their pants.
Really, that is what you are getting from this? How is asking a man that is adamant about not having children take basic precautions treating him as a lesser human being? I would consider that empowering someone to take control over something that could have far reaching effects on their life. Treating men like a lesser being would be denying men any form of control over their reproductive rights, it would mean that men would have no options to control their potential offspring, which is the complete opposite of reality.
Can one of the men on this thread please explain to me why the idea of using birth control is so abhorrent to them? Why is this not an option? Seriously, I would like that question answered honestly and truthfully. I am really struggling with the idea that birth control on your end seems to be a complete non option. Especially if this is something you feel so passionate about and has the abitlity to affect your life on so many levels. Please explain this to me and the other posters that do see birth control as an option for men. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 9:01:41 AM |
Instead of asking women to carry the full burden of responsibility of the decisions that THEY ultimately make with THEIR bodies, it's tell the men to keep it in their pants.
Which is stangely reminiscent of what unmarried women who turned up pregnant fifty years ago were told, namely that she should have kept her legs together.
It was neanderthal thinking then, and still is today.
Bottom line, if men are afraid that sex is gonna saddle them with a financial responsibility for a child, then they can either do without sex, submit themselves to a sterilization procedure, or have sex in some way that there is no risk of pregnancy...
Bottom line, all sex for men -- even first date sex, or drunken-bar-pick-up-sex -- should be regarded as if it were reproductive (or procreational) sex.
Only women are privileged to freely partake of recreational sex.
Back in the dark ages when all this was the other way around, women rightly complained mightily. Why should men not now react the same way? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 9:04:45 AM | | Question: if a woman is able to claim child support from a man for getting her pregnant, should she also be able to sue him if she gets an STD? Afterall, it was his responsibility for giving her the STD, just as it was his responsibility for getting her pregnant, right? There was nothing she could have done to prevent the STD, right? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 9:09:51 AM |
Which is stangely reminiscent of what unmarried women who turned up pregnant fifty years ago were told, namely that she should have kept her legs together.
Back then as a woman there was no other way to avoid pregnancy - so it was an honest practical way to accomplish it. The ones who were told this before getting pregnant and didn't want children I am sure heeded it if they didn't want children. I'm sure it worked, too. She may have hated it, but she didn't hate it enough to risk ending up an unwed mother if she REALLY didn't want it. How she felt about it didn't change it being what it was at that time.
Only women are privileged to freely partake of recreational sex.
Anyone who's fixed, uses birth control, is same sex or prefers toys over people has recreational sex, male or female.
Question: if a woman is able to claim child support from a man for getting her pregnant, should she also be able to sue him if she gets an STD? Afterall, it was his responsibility for giving her the STD, just as it was his responsibility for getting her pregnant, right? There was nothing she could have done to prevent the STD, right?
Depends. Will the STD cost money to maintain? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 9:10:57 AM |
This'll be my last post.
It's really not wise to say this. I said it too, and I found myself drawn back to this thread. We'll assume you'll be back. If not, fare thee well, and thanks for the debate. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 9:11:20 AM | | wondering....guys who behave irresponsibly, and then hire lousy attorneys-or no attorneys-to represent them, deserve what they do/don't get from the system. In court-for anything-I don't fart without having the best attorney I can afford. If young unmarried/divorced dads prefer to spend their money on: drugs, booze, cars, parties, new girlfriends, comic books, or whatever-instead of legal representation-that is THEIR fault...not mine, not some woman's, and not the systems. The law never achieves total equality/fairness/etc. The best it can do is to achieve some sort of 'happy compromise' which does something for everyone...but will totally please no one. For 6,000 yeasr of recorded history, the law has been biased in favor of dead-beat dads. For the last 40 years that has changed somewhat and the law is now more biased towards unmarried/divorced/abandoned women and their children. Boo -F-in' Hoo. Men who consider current laws unfair have choices...do not have sex, or have sex only with infertile women, or use birth control, or marry the wench and stay with her, etc. Men who make wrong choices at every turn must pay the consequences of those choices. I have plenty of sex. I have never made an unwanted child, or refused to support those I should. It is not my age that has anything to do with it. It is my character. I control my d**k, rather than letting it control me. I do not make babies with women I can't stand. If I have to go to court about anything I spend money on good attorneys. I think with my brain, not my balls. Strangely, I never have the sort of problems the whining boys here always have. Do you think there may be a connection...between my lack of problems, and my behavior...the choices I make? I suspect there is. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 9:13:29 AM | "If they had decent lawyers they would get such. Whose fault is it if you are a cheapskate who hires a lousy attorney."
Obviously written by a person not familiar with the system. First off it's not "save a couple of hundred on attorney's fees", it's usually 5 to 10,000 for the best attorney's. Next while you may have a Clarence Darrow for a lawyer, it doesn't mean a thing in child support since most states use standardized guidelines based on a percentage of your income. Moving right along the judge has a great deal of power to steer the trial in the direction he wants. Many judges coming up on reelection will side with women to gain votes.
Further if the judge is biased towards women, which many are, then they can use their bench powers to limit your arguments.
Finally in many trials, including my own divorce, at the end, the judge orders the man to pay part or all of the woman's legal fees.
So many things have changed in the legal system, but in divorce law, little has happened to make an ex-husband have any kind of rights equal to a woman's. The states have huge departments to track a man down and garnish his wages, revoke his license and many other things that brings to bear pressure on the husband, despite any verbal agreement with his ex about payments.
These departments can persue you at THEIR descretion, not either party involved.
Alimony is real and still happens. Men rarely get custody. Oh yes, they get it more now than say 10 years ago. But would women be satisfied with getting 10 or 15% more jobs equal with men now than 10 years ago? I think not, but that is the amount of men getting custody. It is still the burden of the man to prove she should not get custody, as opposed to going into court on an equal footing. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
31
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 
